Storms from decrewed emplacements

Do you have a bug to report? Do this right here.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Oct 2016, 17:36

I am not the one crying here, it's you.. you created this topic.

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

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby JimQwilleran » 09 Oct 2016, 17:38

And everyone agreed with me :P. You are the one upset about that xD.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 09 Oct 2016, 17:42

Guys, I have to ask you to stop this. Now we are aware this thing exists, I will let you know what Wolf decided when I get a word from him. There is no need to further continue in this insult ping-pong...
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Oct 2016, 17:45

Now we are aware this thing exists

"Now"? Only now?!
You never knew it always existed? o.O

It's been like this since the very beginning.. nothing new to discover. So, it is intended!

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 09 Oct 2016, 17:51

Yes, I had no idea this thing was possible.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Oct 2016, 18:00

Shit! O_O
This is a disgrace actually... Just shame, really. This is so disappointing to hear :/ Come on MarKr!

It's always been there, i used it against Wolf himself in a 1vs1 some time ago, and he was like "Okay!" He played inf doc... If he really believes it wasn't intended just like CQBs and etc.. then why do u think he never said anything?

Please don't try to convince Wolf otherwise.. he has been always fine with it. I am afraid you are simply unaware about many other things too, if this is ever restricted without touching CQBs as well... Then i must say it's completely biased.

kwok
Posts: 1072
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby kwok » 09 Oct 2016, 19:12

Thousands of games and I only first saw it last month once.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2520
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Warhawks97 » 09 Oct 2016, 19:27

Devilfish wrote:Wurf, it's because cqb and storms and different type of units and they fill different roles. CQB is a weak hit and run unit, used for surprise attacks and flanking defensive positions (mostly early game). Storms are an elite, end game assault force. They can hop out of the building in a sense of calling reinforcement directly to the front; You are fighting with other units and losing, or need more power to press on, so you call in a Storm squad directly from the house nearby to support your forces.
CQB represents some kind of sabotage, sneaky, behind-enemy-lines squad, with purpose I typed above.

+1

The CQB cant do much more than that. As normal combat unit they are rather bad compared to other range units. I would more likely compare them to SE sabotage squads. Those have basically the same firepower with their stgs and mp40. They can shred most allied units in a surprise attack..

And about storms thats the way ive been used to use them. Their equipment isnt also not suited for close range surprise attack with just one stg. I wonder if tiger is going to ask now to give them 5 stgs and a shotgun as default equipment. And as assault force (I mean its litterally what the name says) they are 100 times better than CQB. But maybe we turn the CQB into a just as deadly assault force because storms are good in that........ :roll:


Devilfish wrote:I didn't even know about this bug. I don't even care, balance wise. But it's so fucking nonsense, logic wise, that it must be fixed (if possible). CQB are justified. You can read my post above, but again, they infiltrated behind enemy lines and hide in urban environment, waiting to sabotage. But storms/emps? What is that? There is an mg emp, 3 men sitting in a snug sandbag paradise with their mg, suddenly incendiary round sets them ablaze, dying in agony, just for storms stepping out of an nearby ammo crate? or mg barrel? Or were they dug underneath? Seriously?


MarKr wrote:But what is the logic behind the emplacement thing? CW sappers dug a hole in the ground build sandbags around, place an AT gun in it and Storms are hiding there among the ammo crates pretending to be shells or something?


Oh dudes. I had to laugh about these answers :D Love them.





And yes.... never knew about that bug. Never saw someone using it. So i cant see the "nerf" when fixing it.

And BK lacks dealing with defenses..... hmm.... i never even needed maultiers to be honest. Either nice coordination (hidden leader squad, off map mortar to clean emplacment and then rush remaining assault force that can clear them completely or simple continues hit and run assaults using good nade range a schrecks to break defenses sooner or later. With vet 4-5 they run over defenses anyway like nothing.

And Maultier "only burns them down"..... Ahhhh to bad that it doesnt hit like a Hummel. I have to launch an assault after maultier has burned and cleaned an area for a certain duration. Dude.... Blitzkrieg means exactly that. Bypass strong defenses, or sneak to them and blow them up or use arty as cover and support. It doesnt mean ww1 scenario with 150-200 mm arty nonstop bombing defenses. But maybe we can add the "Gustav" railway Artillery in BK doc soon. Thats just round BK doc up. The Gustav was sooo Blitzkrieg. Its probably the prime example of how Blitzkrieg works :roll:

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Oct 2016, 22:07

So, like i have stated from my side, and also like MarKr has pointed out... We have both sent a private message to Pzblitz and Wolf.. it's being discussed currently; i think they are going to require some more time to finally bring a decision.

And just to rest my case... I am against restricting this feature of the Storms in any possible way. However, I have also proposed a suggestion to them through PMs, of which i would like to represent for you up here guys.

I have suggested an idea or a solution that would probably satisfy all parties.. which is; IF they ever decide to restrict this feature for the Storms, then this would exclude the Demo Storm squad. As it would be the ONLY Storm squad that could be still spawned into emplacements... I think that's the best option IF they decide to restrict it at all.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 09 Oct 2016, 23:21

Fresh news: Wolf said that this was certainly not intended and should be fixed. So that is the final decision - None of the Storm squads will be able to spawn from empty emplacements.
Image

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

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby JimQwilleran » 09 Oct 2016, 23:58

Smells like... teen victory in the morning!

Paso95
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 09:19

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Paso95 » 10 Oct 2016, 17:24

Hi all, I must say that i knew this ability even if I don't have a lot of games as all of you have, and I think that it's not unfair.
CQB for example can spawn near a spg unit (like Wespe, grille, hummel) or any other light vehicle only to destroy it and retreat, and also near any emplacements and decrew it with their multiple nades ability; they can also spawn in fog of war.
Is this so different from the ability of storms squads (who can't spawn in fog of war)? If you really have to remove it I think it should be fair to fix also the CQB, or at least to leave that ability to the demolitions squad (cause they are there to demolish things).

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 10 Oct 2016, 17:34

Hi Paso95...let me guess. Tiger had a chat with you on Steam, saying how BS it is to remove the ability and because I told him in PM that nobody actually said to keep the bug, he asked you to come here and support his case.

How far am I from truth? :D
Image

Paso95
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 09:19

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Paso95 » 10 Oct 2016, 17:44

MarKr wrote:Hi Paso95...let me guess. Tiger had a chat with you on Steam, saying how BS it is to remove the ability and because I told him in PM that nobody actually said to keep the bug, he asked you to come here and support his case.

How far am I from truth? :D

Hi Markr
Very far...and I prefer if you answer to my question and not to say these unfounded insinuations. I frequently read this forum and I just wanted to point out what I think

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 10 Oct 2016, 18:00

Well..."very far" is not "It was not like that at all". I am sorry but it was simply too similar to what Tiger kept telling us in PMs...
Things like "other people knew about it too" and you write
I must say that i knew this ability even if I don't have a lot of games as all of you have
or "this feature is OK"
I think that it's not unfair
or
CQB for example can spawn near a spg unit (like Wespe, grille, hummel) or any other light vehicle only to destroy it and retreat, and also near any emplacements and decrew it with their multiple nades ability; they can also spawn in fog of war.
pretty much what he said here many times overor as he said "fix everything or touch nothing"
If you really have to remove it I think it should be fair to fix also the CQB
and finally this
or at least to leave that ability to the demolitions squad
which is exactely what he proposed as his "middle solution".
So yes, if I am "very far" from truth, then I am sorry but you have to admit that with all these similarities it is no wonder I thought it was like I said...
Anyway
I prefer if you answer to my question and not to say these unfounded insinuations
OK...Your only question was
Is this so different from the ability of storms squads (who can't spawn in fog of war)?
Yes, it is. Because of this:
Devilfish wrote:Wurf, it's because cqb and storms and different type of units and they fill different roles. CQB is a weak hit and run unit, used for surprise attacks and flanking defensive positions (mostly early game). Storms are an elite, end game assault force. They can hop out of the building in a sense of calling reinforcement directly to the front; You are fighting with other units and losing, or need more power to press on, so you call in a Storm squad directly from the house nearby to support your forces.
CQB represents some kind of sabotage, sneaky, behind-enemy-lines squad, with purpose I typed above.
Image

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

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby JimQwilleran » 10 Oct 2016, 18:20

Also, CBQ can spawn "near sp arty" only if you put it near a building. If you are smart enough you would have some unit guarding your spg or simply occupying the building... Now how can you guard your emplacement from demo squad hiding in ammo boxes :D? That's what's unfair about this glitch.

Paso95
Posts: 26
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 09:19

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Paso95 » 10 Oct 2016, 18:41

MarKr wrote:Well..."very far" is not "It was not like that at all". I am sorry but it was simply too similar to what Tiger kept telling us in PMs...
Things like "other people knew about it too" and you write
I must say that i knew this ability even if I don't have a lot of games as all of you have
or "this feature is OK"
I think that it's not unfair
or
CQB for example can spawn near a spg unit (like Wespe, grille, hummel) or any other light vehicle only to destroy it and retreat, and also near any emplacements and decrew it with their multiple nades ability; they can also spawn in fog of war.
pretty much what he said here many times overor as he said "fix everything or touch nothing"
If you really have to remove it I think it should be fair to fix also the CQB
and finally this
or at least to leave that ability to the demolitions squad
which is exactely what he proposed as his "middle solution".
So yes, if I am "very far" from truth, then I am sorry but you have to admit that with all these similarities it is no wonder I thought it was like I said...
Anyway
I prefer if you answer to my question and not to say these unfounded insinuations
OK...Your only question was
Is this so different from the ability of storms squads (who can't spawn in fog of war)?
Yes, it is. Because of this:
Devilfish wrote:Wurf, it's because cqb and storms and different type of units and they fill different roles. CQB is a weak hit and run unit, used for surprise attacks and flanking defensive positions (mostly early game). Storms are an elite, end game assault force. They can hop out of the building in a sense of calling reinforcement directly to the front; You are fighting with other units and losing, or need more power to press on, so you call in a Storm squad directly from the house nearby to support your forces.
CQB represents some kind of sabotage, sneaky, behind-enemy-lines squad, with purpose I typed above.


First of all I wrote "very far" to say no and I am surprised that you have "misunderstood" in this way. This seems a very childish answer. I'm happy to see that the opinion of some users is less respected by those who should be impartial within this forum. And it is interesting that if someone agrees with you then he is regardless right but if he thinks otherwise then it is planned by Tiger who writes PM to get support in the forum.
Maybe if more people are going to propose the same thing means that this is not so foolish.
Finally you say "CQB Represents some kind of sabotage, sneaky, behind-enemy-lines squad". So what does the demolitions squad represent? And also I do not think that the demolitions squad is "an elite, endgame assault force".
Greetings

JimQwilleran wrote:If you are smart enough you would have some unit guarding your spg

If you are smart enough you would have some unit guarding your emplacements which I think they are at the front (mg nests for example) and not in the rear. It is more difficult to guard a spg in the rear than patrol the front.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 10 Oct 2016, 19:04

Wespe and Hummel cant die with a single bazooka shot, whats the problem with CQB there? Ok, they pop out of the house, hit SPG, it escapes with 10-15% HP left, CQB dies.....great 450 MP investment. I mean, some people pushed hard an argument that "CQB jump out of somewhere and kill my arty" but thats simply not true, because SPG's can sustain a shot from handled AT ( besides Panzerfaust, it always one shots Priests ).

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 10 Oct 2016, 19:19

First of all I wrote "very far" to say no and I am surprised that you have "misunderstood" in this way. This seems a very childish answer.
I woudn't say "childish"...I preffer the word "sarcastic" - yes, I was being sarcastic, becasue I suspected Tiger had at least something tiny to do with this. Sorry, my bad.
I'm happy to see that the opinion of some users is less respected by those who should be impartial within this forum.
Another sarcastic user, welcome to the club! :) Anyway you cannot really be "impartial" as a dev because you always have some opinion on things that are being discussed and naturally people tend to support suggestions that are same or similar to what they consider OK. I believe I am "open-minded" enough to change my opinion, in case that compelling arguments are used. So far the arguments of people who are for removing this bug are more compelling than what people who are against removig the bug have presented, thus my opinion remains unchanged.

And it is interesting that if someone agrees with you then he is regardless right but if he thinks otherwise then it is planned by Tiger who writes PM to get support in the forum.
I wouldn't say it is interesting...but, you see, in this topic the only person who actually kinda supported Tiger was Wurf and Wurf told me himself that Tiger asked him to come here and comment on it...so when you consider how much your post corresponded with what Tiger was telling me and combine it with the fact tha it would not be the first time Tiger asked someone to come here and comment on something to support his case, can you blame me that I thought he told you something similar to what he told to Wurf?

Anyway, you say it was not the case. Fine, again - I am sorry, my bad.

So what does the demolitions squad represent?
I think it represents a squad that can lay mines and destroy structures with its abilities of demolitions or bundle grenade. However what this bug provides is essentially a suicide bomber squad...or what else would you call a squad whose use would be: Show up at empty emplacement -> run inside -> yell "AAAAAAYYYYYYAAAAAAA!!!! FÜR DAS REICH!!!!!" -> booom

If you are smart enough you would have some unit guarding your emplacements which I think they are at the front (mg nests for example) and not in the rear.
The whole bug revolves around decrewed emplacements usually when there is such emplacement, it was decrewed by artyllery (either "normal" or some flaming shots or airburst, you name it)...when you play a game and notice that such a strike is hitting your emplacement position, do you keep your "protection units" there to die to the arty, or do you move them elsewhere?
Image

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 10 Oct 2016, 19:23

MarKr wrote:
I think it represents a squad that can lay mines and destroy structures with its abilities of demolitions or bundle grenade. However what this bug provides is essentially a suicide bomber squad...or what else would you call a squad whose use would be: Show up at empty emplacement -> run inside -> yell "AAAAAAYYYYYYAAAAAAA!!!! FÜR DAS REICH!!!!!" -> booom


I like this description:D

Maybe the feature can stay, but change their model to this pls.

Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Oct 2016, 20:05

MarKr, yes.. i have had a talk with Wurf at the very beginning of this thread... As i have also directly asked him to participate more often on the forum (since he is an expert player) and to also write his opinion regarding this matter; since he apparently agreed with me. I didn't force him to support me in any way...

HOWEVER, this time.. I was actually away the whole time and now i come to see that you have actually accused me of whispering Paso on Steam to come and say his opinion... Which is not the case this time. You fail big time now!

My intentions were even not to stretch this topic any further.. that's why i have sent you a PM. Where we (me, you, Wolf and Pzblitz) have had such a hot discussion only through PMs.. as I have never wanted to make it public... I didn't want this topic to move ANY further.

IF I WANTED TO, i could have not sent you a PM at all, but instead.. i could have done that since the start! I mean, i could have whispered everyone I knew about the issue and asked them to just publicly support me in that case. I could have done that... Right after when you announced the decision. BUT NO, i actually didn't... As i only sent you a PM.

But I can understand how you felt suspicion about it.. as it really seemed like if I have actually whispered him... Pretty much it definitely seems to be the case. But no, surprisingly; i didn't. It's just a coincidence this time... But do u really think i am THAT stupid or something? If i wanted some people to support me, i could have done it in a much more smarter way. And not too much obvious like this. As I am not that silly...

I don't know how exactly I could prove to you the fact that i actually didn't talk with him... But it's the absolute truth, you have the right to believe or disbelieve it. I REALLY didn't speak with him at all. Our last conversation was like a week ago...

Nevertheless, on the other hand, why do u only suspect ME of whispering others, but not suspecting others of also doing the same???!!! You say that it's because Paso repeated exactly what i said. Well, but if you take a closer look... Then actually; Devilfish, Sukin and Jim are also repeating the same thing over and over all the time!

Currently, I don't even have enough time to tell anyone about anything.. as i am preparing my luggage since i have a flight tomorrow...

Last but not least, it's all like i have already told you through the PMs. So, I guess there is nothing more to add... Nor i do have to repeat for you in public here what i have already told you in the PM. Because i don't want it public. And after all, I don't give a FK anymore about what is going to happen btw.

Please, next time.. not everyone who agrees with me, is only because of a plot that i have weaved on the horizon.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby MarKr » 10 Oct 2016, 20:19

Nevertheless, on the other hand, why do u only suspect ME of whispering others, but not suspecting others of also doing the same???!!!
Pretty much because of this:
MarKr, yes.. i have had a talk with Wurf at the very beginning of this thread... As i have also directly asked him to participate more often on the forum (since he is an expert player) and to also write his opinion regarding this matter; since he apparently agreed with me.
It is understandable that when Wurf told me, I suspected something similar might have happened with others too. Also I didn't suspect the others because, yes, they agreed with each other, but they differed in their presentations of oppinions while what Paso wrote was incredibly similar to what you were saying the whole time. In the end you said it yourself
But I can understand how you felt suspicion about it.. as it really seemed like if I have actually whispered him...
But I believe him that it was just coincidence...I appologized twice already.
So one more time - I was wrong and I am sorry for thinking that you told Paso to come here and support your case.

Maybe the feature can stay, but change their model to this pls.
I like this! But I think some players might consider it slightly not historically accurate...I don't want to risk that :D
Image

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

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby JimQwilleran » 10 Oct 2016, 20:34

Paso95 wrote:If you are smart enough you would have some unit guarding your emplacements which I think they are at the front (mg nests for example) and not in the rear. It is more difficult to guard a spg in the rear than patrol the front.


How can I guard emplacement that first get decrewed and then in matter of 5 seconds taken over by the enemy? Any mg or team would take their time aiming...

And no, it's obviously easier to put MG42 in your rear or in a some building (omg that's really easy), than how u call it "patrol the front", what does that mean lol?

User avatar
seha
Posts: 116
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby seha » 10 Oct 2016, 21:21

hi mark i think you still remember me. i didn't want to give my opinion earlier because i can see the discussion is very subjective and not objective enough.
MarKr wrote:but they differed in their presentations of oppinions while what Paso wrote was incredibly similar to what you were saying the whole time.

well, can you take a look at this please?
Devilfish wrote:That's clearly a bullshit. Jumping out of decrewed emplacement, are you kidding me? What does it have to do with CQB in ANY way?!

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:I agree, jumping out of emplacements is pure BS, there is nothing to do with CQB or sabotage squads.


seems incredibly similar too, don't you think?

so if i say now .... " i agree, jumping out of emplacements is a feature and not a bug. is balanced, and not unfair " does this mean tiger whispered me to say so?

i can agree there is much bias.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Storms from decrewed emplacements

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Oct 2016, 21:40

@Seha;
Hoho... Nailed it, nice one! Maybe Sukin and Devil have whispered each other too.. #MarKr's plot logic!


Return to “Bugs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests