Surely you realize that discourse happens because people simply don’t agree on what would be the right direction for the game to head in… So many concepts exist that a compromise can’t be made and people will always have strong opinions on certain things. It isn’t indecent to disagree and voice said disagreements.
It’s ironic how you claim to wish for people working together for a solution but then proceed to insult those who have differing opinions on how to solve said “problems” in the same paragraph… doesn’t exactly create an imagine of someone who wishes to collaborate…
I think people like you will always turn a debate to shit and take personal insult out of every sentence, no offence. You seem to take delight in bombing every thread with negativity and a no can do attitude.
I’m simply someone who is more than happy to share his POV on matters, as I have been invested in this game for a very long time and wish to see it grow into something better. My view simply differs from yours.
Just because I disagree and voice said disagreement doesn’t mean I “take delight in bombing every thread with negativity”, it is your own choice to interpret what I say as such.
I don’t think I ever saw you present any kind of fix for anything, just say no to everybody else’s attempts to make the game better. You just blindly accept all the games faults and defend them.
Have you considered that I perhaps don’t think a rework or “fix” is required? That I don’t think there is a problem?
I think I’ve made that abundantly clear by now.
Yeah sure some BR changes could happen, but that’s a different matter.
Too much is being assumed here in the idea that so many people view this BR system as it is as a problem, that’s how I view what you say.
More irony I guess, to complain about bombing with negativity while it isn’t even me who is criticising how the game is structured.
You have all the right to of course, I have my fair share of complaints too, but I find it quite funny.
Anyhow, I’ve had enough of this squabble for now and will be going to bed.
I think problems are pretty obvious and I see them not just affecting me but many others. I don’t judge everything by myself, but I do know if one person has an issue then hundreds if not more will too.
I do wonder who prefers mixed up eras to even a vague attempt to sort it out. Do you expect to see an AK47 in a cowboy movie? Maybe you do. Maybe you genuinely wouldn’t notice but it won’t make me a fool for calling it out.
Pray tell, what howitzers does it face that are from the '60s or '80s?
Currently it faces IS-2 1943s, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, M41s, and… Well, everything has moved up to 6.7, so not even Tiger IIs, no Ferdinands, no IS-2 1944, no Pershing, and… Why yes, it does face KV-1s, ISU-152s, and so on.
It’s almost as if it fights against enemies from the timeframe of 1-2 years of it!
No, not by any means. The M109 is by no means a tank/tank fighter, and all 155mm howitzers are deliberately put at lower BRs because of their laughable effectiveness against vehicles.
Then again, you’d probably want all M109s to go to 9.0 where they “belong”.
Long ago we didn’t. Sure, we had “realistic” matchmaking, but that was simply country / country. Seeing as your account was created within the last 2 years (and seeing as console-based IDs can’t be used twice for the same account, I don’t see the possibility of alts), you haven’t even been around long enough to experience historical matchmaking.
Back in time to when? You do understand that, prior to 6 months ago, the T-54 was facing Tiger IIs for about 9 years? Even after beta closed, WW2 aircraft commonly fought late 40s jet aircraft.
Do some digging and answer that yourself ,clue is the M109 for a start
Sounds sensible if we are doing sensible. You want a M16s in a cowboy film? Muskets in a Viking movie?
I know what we had and as I said the ship has sailed
The history of the game is there for anybody to see I don’t need a lecture. It was WW2 and two sides. Its no secret. Like I said a million times, those days are gone and now we live in the land of the stupid and have to endure it sadly.
You’re the one bringing up the query, so go ahead… What howitzers?
Ah, the M109. Again, this does not have any sophisticated FCS like that of the Vidar, nor does it have an autoloader like the Type-75 of AuF1.
Tell me, how does a howitzer with a worse reload than a 1.0 field gun and an equivalent shell place among enemies?
Not well.
Seeing your points, it seems as if you want F-16Cs fighting T-72Bs, and F-16 / F-15s against Leopard 1s, WZ305/ZSU-57-2s, and T-62s.
The experiences in history are for those who actually experienced it. There was no “we” long ago, you weren’t there.
Though seeing as you haven’t experienced it, and even now you’re barely experiencing the game… What ground do you have to talk about previous situations, let alone current?
I’m done with your false equivalencies. You’re no more stupid than the people who pledge for tanks vs naval.
Did gaijin state they were a historically accurate game? I know they say realistic
Yup. They got rid of it to help queue. There were plenty of times where like 70% of the player base was trying to play the same nation and it kept breaking mm.
Same thing, you either do something properly or dont do it. Why bother to recreate a WW2 vehicle to its real life specifications only to throw it up against a gun from 1980? Just explain the logic to me there. The idea of any tank in an era is that its relevant to its era. The fact is Gaijin struggle to make the game work, maybe they always have ,but to me when I see that they have to put a 1980s SPAA into the game to bring down WW2 prop planes because WW2 SPAA wont cut it then we know we are bowing to an issue not making exciting realistic gameplay
.I can accept that we are forced to accept the era mix but I don’t accept it is a good thing by any means and I see that many agree. No piont people like Artic foxxo telling us all how great the era mess is when it’s just an era mess. It’s like he is trying to sell vomit door to door, telling us it’s a good thing.
The issue we have and the reason why i suggesti historical MM is, we got modern tanks ie cold war in matchies with WW2 tanks and the reason for this is the BR of tanks. WW2 tanks with raised BR’s and cold war tanks with lower a BR’s
Also there are tanks like the Jagdpanther, maus etc that are op, these need to be limited numbers in matchies. I think its nice to see such tanks in game and it requires a team effort to take them down and a team effort to protect them. Saying this modern light tanks have to low a BR and are put in battles with ww2 tanks, the reason they have a low BR is because they are weaker than say a modern medium tank, but there not fighting vehicles as such but perform lighter duties such as scouting and need to be put in the era they belong.
Gaijin have tried to balance the game with BR’s which would of been fine till they started adiding modern tanks with modern weapons, the game in its current format is broken and will get worse. Also they have tried to reduce que times but matchies are getting shorter and odl is causing un balanced teams
The word historical or historically is a suggestion and an idea to put tanks in there proper place as in the same era they belong, some are taking it literally and saying tank A never fought against tank B its a stupid idea, no its not it just needs a combined effort to work out the kinks. Why cant we have modern light tank being used in battles with modern medium tanks when there duties is to scout etc, maybe its due to map sizes i dont know. Have a think and dont be negative, think how fix and make it work.
That is what the br is for, also limit the numbers of very op tanks and encourage team work, make the very op tank apart of the mission to protect or destroy. For example, would you love to be the centrr of zttention in your op maus, your team protecting you and the enemy trying to destroy you its a bit like role play
