Gliders.

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Gliders.

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Apr 2017, 20:50

I actually had this in my mind for quite a long time now... And i think nobody denies the fact that Gliders are a huge pain, they are often abused just to kill mortar and MG teams or paks. Even the HQ gliders are usually used the same way!

So, i believe gliders should work differently. Therefore I would like to suggest the following:-

- ALL Gliders should be restricted to be dropped only in friendly and neutral territories, and no longer possible to deploy in enemy territory.
- However, gliders should no longer require view or sight range at all. I mean; they should be possible to use throughout fog of war, but not on enemy territory of course.
- Lieutenant and Captain should be able to call-in HQ gliders anywhere as long as it's not in hostile territory, and not prior to a certain range anymore.

I know that gliders have been working like this since ages, but after the latest changes.. i believe that specifically the RE doc gliders are very annoying, as they are used to quickly clear key defensive locations and then to advance with Churchills accordingly. Keeping in mind that that there is almost noway possible to counter Churchills when they arrive early enough in such situations, due to the handheld AT aim time which was added recently!

- It would be also cool to see the 6pdr available in the 2nd CW truck btw.. and not exclusively in the HQ gliders.

Any different opinions are indeed welcome...

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 217
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Gliders.

Postby Redgaarden » 10 Apr 2017, 20:58

Keeping in mind that that there is almost noway possible to counter Churchills when they arrive early enough in such situations, due to the handheld AT aim time which was added recently!


Keep in mind these early churchills are 57mm variant and has no HE and I think you should have some counters to them as wh when the 75mm churchill comes.

- It would be also cool to see the 6pdr available in the 2nd CW truck btw.. and not exclusively in the HQ gliders.


I agree I find the lack of good earlygame anti tank quite lacking as brits.

- ALL Gliders should be restricted to be dropped only in friendly and neutral territories, and no longer possible to deploy in enemy territory.


Could we make them cheaper then? otherwise I see no reason not to just buy them from truck.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Gliders.

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Apr 2017, 21:15

Keep in mind these early churchills are 57mm variant and has no HE and I think you should have some counters to them as wh when the 75mm churchill comes.

They both require same amount of command points i think.. just the 75mm Churchill requires the command Cromwell first if I am not mistaken, but even 75mm AT guns can't really penetrate Churchills... Or just barely I mean!
Anyway, this whole thing isn't about Churchills in the first place.

I agree I find the lack of good earlygame anti tank quite lacking as brits.

I don't find it lacking, AT rifle boys are quite good.. actually! They can embark the Kangaroo, they can cap points and able to shoot 360 degrees. But yes, I can honestly still see no point why the 6pdr shouldn't be available in the 2nd CW truck...

Could we make them cheaper then? otherwise I see no reason not to just buy them from truck.

Sounds reasonable, but just slightly I would say.

KornBlatt
Posts: 15
Joined: 16 Mar 2017, 23:34

Re: Gliders.

Postby KornBlatt » 10 Apr 2017, 23:20

Tiger1996 wrote:Keeping in mind that that there is almost noway possible to counter Churchills when they arrive early enough

When will players learn there are other AT units than AT infantry? There are armored cars with powerful cannons, the Churchill moves at the speed of a typical glacier. Easy kill from rear shot. Have a strategy that isn't rush to Tiger, "Tiger1996".

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Gliders.

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Apr 2017, 23:55

KornBlatt wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:Keeping in mind that that there is almost noway possible to counter Churchills when they arrive early enough

When will players learn there are other AT units than AT infantry? There are armored cars with powerful cannons, the Churchill moves at the speed of a typical glacier. Easy kill from rear shot. Have a strategy that isn't rush to Tiger, "Tiger1996".

When will noobs learn that they are too inexperienced to speak like that? Have your mouth pulled together, "KornBlatt".
Or whatever your real nickname actually is...

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1205
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Gliders.

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 11 Apr 2017, 00:29

Why suddenly gliders are a problem? Gliders aren't a problem and are meant to crash land on enemy territories, if they " bumped" into units, its unfortunate ;) but this glider will have a very short life indeed, shame... a glider hidden far from units can supply, reinforce troops and be way much usefull.
Gliders will stay as they are.
Image

kwok
Posts: 958
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Gliders.

Postby kwok » 11 Apr 2017, 01:22

Tiger1996 wrote:
KornBlatt wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:Keeping in mind that that there is almost noway possible to counter Churchills when they arrive early enough

When will players learn there are other AT units than AT infantry? There are armored cars with powerful cannons, the Churchill moves at the speed of a typical glacier. Easy kill from rear shot. Have a strategy that isn't rush to Tiger, "Tiger1996".

When will noobs learn that they are too inexperienced to speak like that? Have your mouth pulled together, "KornBlatt".
Or whatever your real nickname actually is...


When will the ad hominem fallacy not be used against a fair point that a responder won't have an answer for. Many games into the latest patches and I still have no issues with church hills.

I'll say this now because I know it'll come up: this doesn't mean I never lost against a church hill but in those situations i credit the success in the other person's strategy and failure on mine, not the unit itself.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: Gliders.

Postby JimQwilleran » 11 Apr 2017, 01:26

kwok wrote:When will the ad hominem fallacy not be used against a fair point that a responder won't have an answer for.

He won't understand this sentence.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Gliders.

Postby Tiger1996 » 11 Apr 2017, 01:45

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Why suddenly gliders are a problem?

Not suddenly. I actually think people always hated how so silly gliders are... But they just rarely tend to talk about it.. however; I believe that some people will finally speak out when they get to see this topic, considering the fact that I started this topic after some certain users has actually requested me to do so. But I won't tell their names though, until they probably post something themselves anytime soon.
So just wait and don't give a decision too early!

kwok wrote:When will the ad hominem fallacy not be used against a fair point that a responder won't have an answer for.

And you don't consider his last statement a fallacy? o.O
I just responded him in his own way... Not sure why it hurts you now.

A fair point.. let's see... "Armored cars with powerful cannons" Oh ya! Are you talking about the 75mm ones?
They all die with one shot, and all can be easily countered with 57mm AT gun half-tracks from a safe distance.. or even by 95mm Churchills.

kwok wrote:Many games into the latest patches and I still have no issues with church hills.

I'll say this now because I know it'll come up: this doesn't mean I never lost against a church hill but in those situations i credit the success in the other person's strategy and failure on mine, not the unit itself.

I am not here to speak about Churchills though... But actually about gliders and the 6pdr to be available in the 2nd CW truck.
Churchills were only mentioned just as a secondary point!

JimQwilleran wrote:
kwok wrote:When will the ad hominem fallacy not be used against a fair point that a responder won't have an answer for.

He won't understand this sentence.

Very constructive post i see! Off-topic.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 110
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Gliders.

Postby seha » 11 Apr 2017, 03:17

glider is most stupid tactic in the game. along side bunkers.

KornBlatt wrote:Have a strategy that isn't rush to Tiger

what about you have another strategy that isn't to rush for churchill in the first 10 minutes of the game.

i bet you lose against any average brit player as soon as recce comes.

kwok
Posts: 958
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Gliders.

Postby kwok » 11 Apr 2017, 04:07

To save KornBlatt's breath, I'll speak for him so he doesn't have to deal with the complainers and assholes of this community.

Okay seha. His point is there are plenty of options to countering church hills and that can be discussed in another topic where it is relevant. Meanwhile, feel free to keep calling him a noob for knowing his options and being unafraid of the alleged OP church hill. I'm sure with that sound logic you'll make the devs give in eventually with persistent bitching. That way we can block all noobs from coming into the community and we can all jerk each other off in the most balanced game with a community of 3 people.
AKA pick on someone your own size.

EDIT: Cuz I haven't had enough.

Tiger1996 wrote:
KornBlatt wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:Keeping in mind that that there is almost noway possible to counter Churchills when they arrive early enough

When will players learn there are other AT units than AT infantry? There are armored cars with powerful cannons, the Churchill moves at the speed of a typical glacier. Easy kill from rear shot. Have a strategy that isn't rush to Tiger, "Tiger1996".

When will noobs learn that they are too inexperienced to speak like that? Have your mouth pulled together, "KornBlatt".
Or whatever your real nickname actually is...



Tiger1996 wrote:
kwok wrote:When will the ad hominem fallacy not be used against a fair point that a responder won't have an answer for.

And you don't consider his last statement a fallacy? o.O
I just responded him in his own way... Not sure why it hurts you now.

A fair point.. let's see... "Armored cars with powerful cannons" Oh ya! Are you talking about the 75mm ones?
They all die with one shot, and all can be easily countered with 57mm AT gun half-tracks from a safe distance.. or even by 95mm Churchills.


No it wasn't a fallacy, he insulted you and made a point. He's got to answer for that himself and it's up to the moderators how to deal with his insult. What you did WAS a fallacy and I honestly don't think you know what ad hominem means. It means to respond back to a valid point with insult to distract from the point.
The reason why it hurts now is because you clearly deduced SOME point he made. But, for some reason you made no response to it at all except to just call him a noob. You didn't need to answer the point to ME, I wasn't the one to make the claim. Yet it took me calling you out for you to come back with any sort of argument. Is he any less of a person to be answered because he has less than the pathetic 5000 games I have?

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Gliders.

Postby Tiger1996 » 11 Apr 2017, 04:40

To save KornBlatt's breath, I'll speak for him so he doesn't have to deal with the complainers and assholes of this community.

Nobody really knows if this is truly a new player or just somebody who has been around for too long but just wearing a mask of some sort. Unless he tells his Steam nickname perhaps... So we get to know who he really is. Regardless however, nobody here said that Churchills are OP! Again; I am here to speak about gliders and 6pdr being available in the 2nd CW truck.

But indirectly calling me an asshole?
When he obviously came provoking... As he didn't even point at the primary point of this topic.. but just a secondary one! So I responded him the same way, and now I am an asshole? Such great double standards you have!

No it wasn't a fallacy, he insulted you and made a point. He's got to answer for that himself and it's up to the moderators how to deal with his insult. What you did WAS a fallacy and I honestly don't think you know what ad hominem means. It means to respond back to a valid point with insult to distract from the point.
The reason why it hurts now is because you clearly deduced SOME point he made. But, for some reason you made no response to it at all except to just call him a noob. You didn't need to answer the point to ME, I wasn't the one to make the claim. Yet it took me calling you out for you to come back with any sort of argument. Is he any less of a person to be answered because he has less than the pathetic 5000 games I have?

1."When will players learn?" + "Have another tactic that isn't to rush for a Tiger" = not fallacy. (secondary point anyway)
2."When will noobs learn not to speak like that?" + "Have your mouth pulled together" = fallacy!!!

Great logic kwok, great one.

No, I don't even have to respond his secondary point.. because it's not why i created this topic. Moreover, I surely wouldn't call him a "noob" if he had been just more polite... I meet and introduce a lot of new players myself to this community, and I never disregarded anyone. Except those who try to disregard me, of course!

kwok
Posts: 958
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Gliders.

Postby kwok » 11 Apr 2017, 05:19

Simply because you could've called him out on being irrelevant (which is a different fallacy I think you completely over look because you're so ready be so high and mighty about yourself) but instead you straight up shoot him down with some condescending remark nothing about the game. You don't know what a fallacy is, and that's okay. But don't pretend you do and pretend that you're the victim here.

I'm not indirectly calling you an asshole. I'm straight up calling you an asshole and you can report me for that.

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 381
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50

Re: Gliders.

Postby sgtToni95 » 11 Apr 2017, 09:07

I think gliders are fine as they are now and I'll give you my reasons:
1. NORMAL GLIDERS: crashing a LT/Captain glider on enemy territory is already impossible as you showed on your second-last video, and your officer needs to be in range, so you might lose him and 250 Mp to take down an mg/mortar and to have a glider which will probably die providing exp to your opponent without reinforcing or building any unit.
2. ABUSABLE FACTION UNITS: This topic brings me back to when I asked a more experienced player about which "abusable" units did a non doctrinal CW player have to compensate for the worse AT inf (was before changes), mortars (both halftracks and squads) and snipers which are the most "abused" units against brits, and the only thing we found out was Recce. You actually showed me a second one i didn't really consider, but exactly how Axis can abuse brits with something they don't have, i like brits being able to do the same with gliders.
3. DOCTRINAL GLIDERS: RE and RAF gliders can be really lethal if used on the right spot, but i think letting them glide on enemy territory (they still need direct sight on it), expecially for RAF, is crucial to allow them to lead some sneaky sabotage manouvers behind enemy lines, which is the funniest part in playing air doctrines on both sides. Theese moves still have risks, like glider crashing dead before even deploying your squad or killing anything, and your squad finding a puma or any other unit which will force them to retreat meeting all your frontline units on its path and dying so quickly. I know SAS are there for this kind of manouvers, but, to be honest, i never really see SAS before the game is already won. Moreover you can't keep doing this all game long, since after 1-2 uses you need it as a retreat point for your Commandos and to actually produce other units (snipers, lee enfield Commandos, Captain.....) instead of just crashing it.
About combat engies i think glider dropping right on enemy squads, expecially when theese are fully equipped, it's the only way to make them really deadly. After the flamethrower upgrade they really serve their combat purpose when dropped right in the middle of the fight, but after you retreated and reinforced them it's really hard to move them in a close enough combat range to any squad before they get wiped out, they usually become snacks for enemies (and fortunately for triages centers).
4. 6pdr AVAILABILITY: This is already one of the less used CW units, as officers' gliders are: It already can't reliably penetrate the "decent" PZ.IVs, even with AP rounds, so it's pretty mich a counter to the same units penetrated by Boys rifles, just with higher oneshot chances. I think moving it to the infantry truck would make officer glider almost completely useless, except for the "ramming" capabilities, not only remobing a little variety offered by the game, but probably increasing the use of theese gliders only to crash mgs and mortars, so i personally don't like this solution.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: Gliders.

Postby JimQwilleran » 11 Apr 2017, 11:05

Sorry, but this is yet another trash topic about something that seems to be a problem only for Tiger. The more you try to convince him, the longer the topic gets.. and soon enough the topic "gliders" will be about SP, early churchills, mg42 or how reliable is axis armor.

kwok wrote:Simply because you could've called him out on being irrelevant (which is a different fallacy I think you completely over look because you're so ready be so high and mighty about yourself) but instead you straight up shoot him down with some condescending remark nothing about the game. You don't know what a fallacy is, and that's okay. But don't pretend you do and pretend that you're the victim here.

I'm not indirectly calling you an asshole. I'm straight up calling you an asshole and you can report me for that.


I agree. It's the old Tiger - full of himself, annoying asshole that thinks he is better than anyone. Isn't it why has already been banned here?
Last edited by JimQwilleran on 11 Apr 2017, 11:08, edited 2 times in total.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 58
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: Gliders.

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 11 Apr 2017, 11:07

kwok wrote:Simply because you could've called him out on being irrelevant (which is a different fallacy I think you completely over look because you're so ready be so high and mighty about yourself) but instead you straight up shoot him down with some condescending remark nothing about the game. You don't know what a fallacy is, and that's okay. But don't pretend you do and pretend that you're the victim here.

I'm not indirectly calling you an asshole. I'm straight up calling you an asshole and you can report me for that.

Simply because you are here started shitting here with off-topic posts doesn't give you rights to call anyone asshole.
But you doesn't care, you simply want put a shit on a fan.
Go improve your personal life, sweetie, someone is really full of unused semen.

p.s: nothing personal, but you really gone too far with burning the witchies
Last edited by Mr. FeministDonut on 11 Apr 2017, 11:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 269
Joined: 26 Mar 2015, 18:51

Re: Gliders.

Postby Devilfish » 11 Apr 2017, 11:23

Tiger, be careful, Kwok is a fallacy expert and nobody will escape his claws of justice. But in this case I suggest you to read this to clear things up for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. I'm also very disappointed you weren't able to unmask this villain (you made a short work in my case) who thinks he can have an opinion without submitting his ID and steam record to confirm his authorization.

I think gliders are ok, just another small variable one must consider into his equation, especially when doing the favorite early mg/at/sniper lock down. Might annoy a little bit, but by no means OP, in my opinion. Can be at least half-countered by having puma or other 20mm parked around.

6pdr in field truck was heavily discussed in this topic, http://forum.bkmod.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1007. Long story short, "Not everything is meant to be the same", "Wolf has spoken", "It is fine and will stay as it is". Feel free to reopen the topic with another 2 pages which will lead to the same result.
"Only by admitting what we are can we get what we want"

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1205
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Gliders.

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 11 Apr 2017, 11:41

Again, another topic going south... just to make things clear, we make changes in bk because in intern we had a long discussion about it (quite very long sometimes) we accept some of the community needs, requests, and if its justified we validate it for the next bk update.

Restricting the Gliders isn't really a fine idea, BUT preventing them to kill infantry might be a solution, like that if you want to throw your precious glider into the enemy spider web, the result will be ugly, Some people use Gliders (Tiger you are in that case too) to crush infantry, why? because they just can, so if we remove that Glider crushing ability on infantry it will solve this problem.
Image

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 381
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50

Re: Gliders.

Postby sgtToni95 » 11 Apr 2017, 11:46

One other point that I forgot: speaking about realism, mortars, but expecially mgs, with defensive purpose, were hardly ever placed on an open field with their tripod and no cover. They were likely placed next to bushes/trees, inside trenches or buildings, and if you did this with your mgs in the game they would be a lot safer from glider collisions, so this game mechanic is counterable without much effort (Pumas are a real pain in the ass for brits in any case, so making a couple of those would not be bad at all). Remaining on realism i think if a glider landed on a mortar/mg on an open field the effect would be very similar to the game one.

I didn't actually mean to double post, but I did to ask you please, PLEEEEEEEEASE,PLEEEASE, stop with the posts about other users and focus on the topic.
PLEASE

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Gliders.

Postby MarKr » 11 Apr 2017, 12:09

I log into the forum after a drinking night, my head hurts like hell and the first thing I see is 4 "post reports" all for this topic...what a great day!

Everything started here:
KornBlatt wrote:When will players learn there are other AT units than AT infantry? There are armored cars with powerful cannons, the Churchill moves at the speed of a typical glacier. Easy kill from rear shot. Have a strategy that isn't rush to Tiger, "Tiger1996".
KornBlatt reacts to one point in Tiger's original post. Last sentence petty much says "There are other strategies to deal with Churchills than rushing for Tiger, man." as much as this was not exactly polite it wasn't really rude either. The response from Tiger could have been "I know that there are other strategies!" or "I don't rush for Tigers!" instead Tiger went for this:
Tiger1996 wrote:When will noobs learn that they are too inexperienced to speak like that? Have your mouth pulled together, "KornBlatt".
Or whatever your real nickname actually is...
Which completely ignores everything KornBlatt said and only reacts to his last sentence - however it reacts by direct insult.
JimQwilleran wrote:He won't understand this sentence.
Hint of an insult.
kwok wrote:To save KornBlatt's breath, I'll speak for him so he doesn't have to deal with the complainers and assholes of this community.
Indirect insult.
kwok wrote:Okay seha. His point is there are plenty of options to countering church hills and that can be discussed in another topic where it is relevant. Meanwhile, feel free to keep calling him a noob for knowing his options and being unafraid of the alleged OP church hill. I'm sure with that sound logic you'll make the devs give in eventually with persistent bitching. That way we can block all noobs from coming into the community and we can all jerk each other off in the most balanced game with a community of 3 people.
AKA pick on someone your own size.
Indirect insults again.
Tiger1996 wrote:When he obviously came provoking... As he didn't even point at the primary point of this topic.. but just a secondary one! So I responded him the same way, and now I am an asshole? Such great double standards you have!
Just because someone doesn't react to your main point it is provoking? And no, you did not respond him the same way. He basically said "There are ways to deal with it, try them." and you responded "Shut up noob and fuck off." - not really the same attitude he had.
kwok wrote:Simply because you could've called him out on being irrelevant (which is a different fallacy I think you completely over look because you're so ready be so high and mighty about yourself) but instead you straight up shoot him down with some condescending remark nothing about the game. You don't know what a fallacy is, and that's okay. But don't pretend you do and pretend that you're the victim here.

I'm not indirectly calling you an asshole. I'm straight up calling you an asshole and you can report me for that.
Direct insults.
JimQwilleran wrote:I agree. It's the old Tiger - full of himself, annoying asshole that thinks he is better than anyone. Isn't it why has already been banned here?
Direct insults.
Mr. FeministDonut wrote:I'm not indirectly calling you an asshole. I'm straight up calling you an asshole and you can report me for that.

Simply because you are here started shitting here with off-topic posts doesn't give you rights to call anyone asshole.
Exchanging one insult for another, Tiger had morally right to do so. But you doesn't care, you simply want put a shit on a fan.
Go improve your personal life, sweetie, someone is really full of unused semen.

p.s: nothing personal, but you really gone too far with burning the witchies[/quote]Direct insults (writing "nothing personal" doesn't make it less insulting)

WTF guys? Is this really necessary? I'm done with this. Warnings issued.

Gliders stay.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2980
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Gliders.

Postby Tiger1996 » 11 Apr 2017, 14:22

What a mess!
This world is absolutely rotten... And honestly not excluding myself from this whole world though, I am nearly rotten too.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Restricting the Gliders isn't really a fine idea, BUT preventing them to kill infantry might be a solution, like that if you want to throw your precious glider into the enemy spider web, the result will be ugly, Some people use Gliders (Tiger you are in that case too) to crush infantry, why? because they just can, so if we remove that Glider crushing ability on infantry it will solve this problem.

Meh; I don't really care anymore... But ya, perhaps gliders should be just no longer able to crush MG and mortar teams.. at least if possible.
Friendly tanks also sometimes accidentally step over and kill your OWN mortar and MG teams! Such moments are actually so painful.

User avatar
Panzer-Lehr-Division
Posts: 323
Joined: 12 Dec 2014, 14:03

Re: Gliders.

Postby Panzer-Lehr-Division » 11 Apr 2017, 15:50

Ah well glider's are annoying as fuck with this crush exploiting true, but i better not write what i Would love to write about you kwok but guy's life in peace got problem's? go 1v1. that's how a real pro/gamer Would end These Kind of discussion's.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1205
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Gliders.

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 11 Apr 2017, 16:09

Tiger you really need to have the last word right? the last statement, always, so childish when you just need to closed it, you are reacting like a spoiled brat, Panzer lehr... was it necessary to put more oil on the fire? is it really worth it? warning issued, you guys are imbeciles, im locking this topic.

I will personally ban the next dude who's having fun here on the forum bashing/insulting/provoking people here, if you can't behave kindly with each others, you don't belong here, don't tell me you have not been warned.
Image


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests