Jump to content

JintoLin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    121

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by JintoLin

  4. Posted

    If they are worried about potential loss of earnings, why don't they have every thing in the store all the time.

    13 hours ago, Crossfader said:

    thats assuming that everyone that would have received those rewards would have spend that amount in the first place.

    That is the big issues with digital goods. When people find codes or sail the high seas and acquire digital goods without paying for them. This does not result in actual dollar for dollar loss in sales. In this case there might be a higher correlation due to the finite number of codes, but normally the quantity of the digital good in near infinite. Sense these codes were hidden/forgotten that again complicates the correlation. I would wager to near zero, but corporate bean counters don't see it that way.  

  6. Posted

    15 minutes ago, RedSox04 said:

    Either way, I've suported and invested in this game but no more. I'll do the anniversary stuff but that's it for me. They should have given at least 28 days warning but they didn't. I didn't like the support response to my complaint, and tbh they have messed the game up big time. Not worth anyones time or money now. No way back for them. It would be nice if any AW staff on this forum feeds back but that won't happen. I don't think anybody really cares. Game is finished.

    Don't stop playing the game, just don't spend any money on it. That will hurt them the most. Run up their costs, but give them nothing to offset that cost.

  8. Posted

    15 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

    This is starting to become a bit of a bear.

    I really really wish that the developers would include patch notes that included EVERYTHING they touched.

    I really hope you mean with the game:kek:

    If the devs did do that the "magic" would be gone withe the game. Maybe that is why the devs should tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    As Capt. Sheridan said: " Actually you can kill the truth, but it always come back to haunt you later."

  9. Posted

    1 hour ago, Lt_Don_Shaljian said:

    That's what it looked like to me.  As I see it, the AFVs have been nerfed in a very real sense.  On top of nerfed AP rounds it seems AFVs have to deal with nerfed view range.  This is absolute lunacy.

    In the past, I have given this game real world money.  That will certainly come to a stop!

    Not to mention that they seem to have nerfed the credit payouts for missions also. Think they are hoping you will spend real money on in game credits.

  14. Posted

    23 hours ago, Lt_Don_Shaljian said:

    Why is it necessary to make all these changes at once?  What's wrong with an incremental approach?  No doubt, the long term goal of the developers is to increase the player base.  I, for one, have a difficult time perceiving that outcome in all these changes.

    All this will do is turn people away. Every time a developer does a big balance change to an existing game they loose a lot of players. Only time will tell if they come back after a while or not.

  16. Posted · Edited by JintoLin (see edit history)

    At  T9 and T10  an M2 would not affect the effective dpm that much. There are only a couple of T9 or T10 vehicles that would be threatened by the M2 and they are missile boats anyway. This would just make then keep their heads down more, as they should. A glorified pickup truck with a couple of ATGM's should not waltz on the battlefield out in the open and survive. 

  18. Posted

    2 hours ago, TekNicTerror said:

    I'd say just get rid of the PVP modes, all of them; randoms, glops, and ranked. From what I have been told, AW at the start didn't have any PVP mode, so go back to that. I came to AW for the PVE as did a majority of the player base it seems. Most (if not all) of the toxic players are PVPers, so while we would lose some of the player base, we'd also be losing most of our toxic garbage. Also getting rid of PVP would make the tanks easier to balance.

    If you get rid of the PVP then the toxic would migrate to the PVE side and make things shit there to. Better to keep them where they are, out of the way.

    I have seen many toxic PVE players, either the ones that continually run the seal clubbing tanks and or pushing other off cliffs/into bot fire.

  19. Posted

    I vote PVE. The only reason I play AW is for PVE. I tried PVP and got stomped, got a few kills but lost all matches not even close. One of the biggest improvement you could make to the game that would aid both game modes would be improved match making. Also please pass on that it would be helpful if AW would nerf the aim bot of the bots. I don't like their inhuman accuracy with cannons and especially missiles, SK APS still seems to have no effect on bot ATGM's. Also, please remove the T15 and swingfire from the AI vehicle pool.

    4 minutes ago, Haswell said:

    From a gamer perspective, I'd gladly sacrifice all things PvP if it means I get a good PvE experience in return. From a coder/developer perspective, PvP is far easier to pump out content.

    Nothing worth while is easy.

    • Upvote 1

  21. Posted

    I play PVE almost exclusively.

    I like the Leclerc, can't go wrong with 60 rounds for the main gun that reloads faster than most T9 MBT's. The progression for that tank has a lot of trade off.  If you want the best Ap or HE shell you have to trade of something else, one of those things is soft kill APS. It has great reverse, really good at peak boom. With the right commander you can have vision north of 500m. Watch out for the LFP and turret ring weak points.

    If you get the Challenger 2, get the armor upgrade sharpish. Without it you have only 400mm of LFP armor. The Challenger 2 is not as armored for it's tier as the Challenger 1 is, watch out for T15 AI tanks. Challenger 2 does not feel as slow as Challenger 1. The gun is underwhelming, HESH is almost worthless at T9. You will need to choose your shots very carefully. I am enjoying the grind with it though.

    The Leo2A6 is fun with a good, but  slow main gun. If you like the gun, it is also on the K2 and Altay. With the armor upgrade it has better frontal protection than the M1A2C. The turret cheeks are very, very good. Find yourself and ridge and play sniper, keep the turret wagging a little to prevent the gun from taking hits, and you are golden for an entire PVE match. The Leo2A6 is about a quick as the A5, stock armor is the same as the A5.

    The M1A2C is the weakest of the T9 MBT's listed. The LFP makes you feel like a light tank, the under gun weak spot is annoying. The turret cheeks are not as good as it would seem. The gun is ok. I am grinding though it to get to the T10 Abrams, which I am told, is really fun. 

    The T90MS, plays just like any of the other soviet MBT's. The HEAT round is the same as the T14 and preforms really well in PVE. You can choose either hard or softkill APS, for PVE hardkill is the way to go. The T90 is quick on it's feet. Keep those sides, both hull and turret, out of sight of the enemy. I have ground through all of the soviet tanks, so I free XP'ed through the last 1/2 of the T90MS to get to the T14.

    My rankings are:

    1 Leclerc

    2 Leo2A6

    3 T90

    4 Challenger 2

    5 M1A2C

  24. Posted

    Looks like all then need to do would to move T8 and T9 so they overlap like the lower tiers. No need to nerf T10, may even need to buff T10 to get the right overlap as seen in T1 thru T7. They just need to adjust their match making for both PVE and PVP. Also remove the buffs for the Lieutenant and officer bots. They should, to help reduce chaffing in PVE, remove shared vision for the bots. They also need to reduce the load times for most of the 120mm pig loaded tanks. 

×
×
  • Create New...