Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Private

About Evaris

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/08/1992
  1. Personally, I'm a fan of the MSBS-B. Though, admittedly, most of that is that it's a bullpup, and I've got a thing for bullpups in terms of visual appeal, but I've generally found success with it anyway.
  2. The main problem with a lot of the customization options right now is they, and the vehicles themselves, are honestly too expensive to call in most games at the moment, IMO.
  3. Please don't up BP cost even more, I can't afford to call in anything more than a barebone tank or marginally upgraded APC most games as is with how things are now. (I'm usually mid-to-upper score on my teams too, for the record.)
  4. This is good news, however I find myself jumping in to request that we also have longer game timers than at present, 40 minutes would be great here, IMO.
  5. Yeah, the old system at least had a point. I'm rather sad how little body armor does now - I'm hoping it gets revamped, but.... yeaaah. Cue linking my suggestion;
  6. A question of curiosity: If your intent was to test just how powerful tanks were, would it not make more sense to, instead of increasing the BP cost of tanks, lowering it to see there being more? Or is this more a test to purely see their power vs infantry without a high probability of encountering enemy armor on the field?
  7. Honestly, from the beginning I was arguing they should be more common, as things are now, vehicles aren't really worth the call in cost. (see: ) But yeah, MBTs especially suffer from their cost. What was previously a 4000-4500BP vehicle that one could expect to be able to call in once every game if you played just decently, is now 6000 BP, and combined with the shorter match time, the only way you're seeing that is if you grab one of the default vehicles at the start of the match and are facing an incompetent enemy team, or on the other hand, you're shredding things all game on foot and in the last 5 minutes or so decide to call one in "just because"
  8. 1. Yes, and has been acknowledged. 2. I find it incredibly easy - so long as you're not trying to kill a tank head-on. - A single tandem RPG (or two regular RPGs) to the rear armor of any tank will destroy it. A single anti-tank mine will also destroy it. A player with a TOR can shoot the driver out in one shot if they can hit the driver's hatch. Two guys with TORs and AP ammo can also destroy a tank in seconds if they can avoid the main armor plates, or again, shoot it in the rear. And any soldier can blind a tank and disable it's defenses like APS and ERA with regular gunfire. Tanks die in seconds to teams which know what they're doing, but I will admit they do tend to roll over players who aren't making use of their weaknesses.
  9. Yeah, my match ended way too fast, and no, battlepoint income wasn't doubled. I just went through a fifteen minute game, with my team having a slight edge but both teams went back and forth. I was second to top of my team, called in a 4k cost AFV at the earliest opportunity (about ten minutes into the match), five minutes later the game was over.
  10. I have yet to hop in a game, but yeah, 30 minutes is too short for a match, IMO.
  11. I thought there were server issues and that 64 player maps weren't available yet? Or has that changed since I last paid attention?
  12. If you wanted to get more tank-on-tank action, the whole tank spawning system would need to be revised to have a constant presence of tanks on the field. (ex; Otherwise, in most cases, you'll fight one tank, after which the survivor has a bunch of anti-tank ammo and nothing to use it on until another third of the way through the match. Not exactly a great thing to do. At least with HE ammo, you can both fight vehicles and infantry decently, so it's probably the best primary ammo for the freebie match start tanks.
  13. I'd not, that would mean stock tanks would only have 10 rounds of anti-infantry/multi-purpose. Though they should have APFSDS available.
  14. For 1, no, it's not real life, but World War 3 was marketed as having a realistic armor system and is one of the primary reasons I came to this game, and 2. Except, no it wouldn't. It just means you aim for the gut or the face.... kinda like how it is right now. With the talk of buffs for SMGs, they'll be melting people at close range, same with shottys, so that armor would be more effective isn't really an issue. What it would do is reward people for using higher recoil / harder to use weapons. Perhaps, if they implement 3A full-torso vest armor there might be some issue, but then you would assume it would be balanced by high weight and low durability. It would also be useless against any players using assault rifles or especially higher power weapons. So as a whole, it all remains a part of people choosing different loadouts that have different pros or cons. And this would actually give people a reason to load AP rounds. (hint: including those with SMGs or handguns for that whole 3A issue) Shotguns might be nerfed a bit by this... assuming you're not aiming for the head, which would still be deadly with the pellet count and low durability helmets already have. And assuming they're not looking at you, since if you aim for the head and they're looking at you, that buckshot is going into the face. (where there's no armor)
  15. Most of the time this happens to me, upon review, people are just missing my tank, being fired low and hitting around my tracks. I think the APS only triggers if the trajectory of an RPG would actually impact the tank.
  • Create New...