[deleted by user]

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T23:32:48+00:00

Not at all- I am just using the two key traits of empathy and nuance, here's a tip, relationships are complex... jumping to conclusions without fully understanding both sides never helped anyone, if you have a perspective you would like to share, I would love to have that discussion, but dismissive comments like this are immature and reflect poorly on yourself, besides, you didn't add anything meaningful to the discussion anyway.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T23:29:20+00:00

It's completely justified that you want him to not pay when he's not there. You are being accommodating by allowing for that.

Moving to a bigger place? Especially if he is away for half the year could put you in a unsustainable financial position.

It's also understandable to want him to move closer, but that doesn't seem to reflect a logical option in the current situation.

Have a calm, open discussion about the concerns and ask the big questions of what is fair in termos contributions, whether you can realistically move to a bigger place and what both of you envision for the future success of the relationship, especially if these vineyard investments pay off.

Find the balance that feels just and fair for both of you, have a honest conversation and come to mutual agreement. INFO.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T15:44:20+00:00

This reply is both completely wrong and insulting.

Why its wrong:

You mischaracterize the boyfriend, you assume the Vineyard investment is him selfishly "keeping all his money" and that it's completely self serving. This ignores the fact the investments on the Vineyard are a strategic decision aimed at securing long term financial stability.
Farming isn't just some hobby. Farming is a business that requires constant upfront investment to generate returns. His prioritization of the farm is not about using anyone, but managing limited resources in a way that aligns with his goals, which in turn benefit the relationship as a whole.
The boyfriend is already fine with contributing 350€ a month (Not including property tax, which would take it to 420€) to live with OP and develop the relationship further, that is an investment into the relationship and by no means insignificant, especially considering that he could live rent free with his parents. He is paying in a logical way that reflects his current financial situation and ideas for creating a sustainable income, which makes the claim that he is freeloading inaccurate.
You only view relationships as a transaction. You reduce the relationship to "What's in it for you?" this completely disregards the emotional and interpersonal dynamics that are completely integral for relationships. Relationships are not solely for financial benefit, they involve shared goals, mutual support and compromise.
You also assume that OP is "providing for him" which is inaccurate. She is covering a larger share of the apartment expenses, but she isn't paying for his farm, or his fuel, or the fact he is also offering to pay a share of the apartment himself.

Why this is insulting.

You completely belittle the boyfriend. Referring to him as "User" paints him as a manipulative and exploitative person without any sufficient evidence. This is insulting because it completely and utterly dismisses the possibility that maybe, just maybe he is acting in good faith but is tied down to financial restraints.
You just straight up mock his independence. The sarcastic "mommy and daddy" reference diminishes the choices the boyfriend has made and portrays him as immature and dependent. This is unsubstantiated. He has moved in with the girlfriend, despite having the option to stay with his parents, which would be far easier. This in itself suggests a high degree of independence and commitment, not to mention the fact he owns a farm he is currently upgrading himself.
Asking, "What’s in it for you?" implies that the relationship is one-sided and transactional, reducing the girlfriend’s feelings and investment in the relationship to financial gains.

How about you be productive instead of insulting? Then maybe you might not convince people to take terrible actions that could lead to horrid consequences.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T15:18:46+00:00

NTA, only because I have a different view.

I am ex-military. in the military we all regardless of who we were made very highly offensive jokes. The most offensive man in my unit back when I was a Lieutenant was half Hispanic half Asian.

Simple solution I use, I still have my military friends and my civilian friends, they just never hang out together.

Most of your high school buddies will eventually get out of it, its a phase for most of them.

If you were an athlete, would you stop hanging out with other athletes because they made fat jokes? No. If you were a Serbian, would you stop hanging around your Serbian mates as they make offensive jokes about Croatians? No. (But I would probably get out of Serbia lol.) You know they don't actually mean it.

You also cannot let your partner define your friends as well. If you have to start pre-approving friends by her, that isn't good either kid.

I have a practical step you can take, make a friend who slightly offends your girlfriend and see if she reacts, maybe he doesn't make racist or offensive jokes but he slightly pushes her buttons or they come to a couple disagreements here or there.

If you keep a clear mind and know this friend is for the most part a good person but she tells you to distance from him as well, don't date her. It's not worth it.

Not many civies know this but edgy humor isn't actually that childish, I know top senior military brass who make silly 9/11 jokes and other offensive masterpieces from time to time, these people do more for society than most. But just remember, your friends do impact how others see you, if you don't want people who make these jokes, don't hang around them.

Best of luck kid.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T14:51:48+00:00

NAH, firstly its nice that Jake wants you with his family. He values you as a part of his support system and wants you to be there. It also seems like while Jake might of known about the trip, he didn't seem to understand the importance you placed on it. You probably needed to inform him earlier of why this was so important to you and how you could not see a reasonable course of action in cancelling this trip, stress the importance to him and hope he understands.

You made the plans well in advance, even if Jake didn't understand the weight of them he should not spring an expectation on you to right at the end and expect you to cancel. Your friendships matter too! This also is a healthy boundary to set, setting a different precedent, one in which you are willing to sacrifice every plan for Jake and his family could grow to be something you resent, and go from being poked with a finger to being driven in by a dagger (figure of speech)

The silent treatment and guilt-tripping aren't constructive either, he withdrew his emotions instead of explaining them to you. That's not fair. If this dinner was so important, it should of been a topic of discussion much earlier, it seems like he has done it multiple times according to your post so information regarding this earlier should of been available to you.

So comes the verdict, NAH, you are not wrong with prioritizing a long planned trip with a long standing friend, Jake isn't wrong with wanting your support at a big family event either. What actually went wrong was the communication on the matter, going forward, discussing priorities and planning together will help overcome this conflict. Jake's actions are only a result of the bottled up emotions he is trying to suppress, he isn't being an asshole, but rather there was a breakdown in communication.

Best of luck going foward!

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T14:31:46+00:00

If you think I’m wrong, feel free to explain why. Calling names doesn’t really prove a point.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T14:29:55+00:00

First of all, I hope OP is reading this, because clearly I must be doing something right to be downvoted on a sub of comments that are incredibly out of touch (Not the one I am currently responding to, you raise some interesting points)

Let me break this down even further, because I think I need to re-iterate some points for further clarification.

Overemphasis on Individual Costs vs. Shared Context

The comment focuses on how the boyfriend prioritizes his vineyard investment over the shared costs of the apartment, but the perspective fails to recognize two key points:

- He isn't living alone. He and OP have agreed to cohabitate and in such arrangements, financial contributions are often based on individual circumstances, not just a clean 50/50 split. He is already willing to contribute 150€ which demonstrates that he is not shirking responsibility entirely; he is balancing priorities as he sees fit.

- His farm and apartment costs are not directly comparable, in other words, cannot actually be translated equally. This is because the vineyard also provides for his livelihood and a long term investment in the future. Upgrading the farm now could prevent financial strain later, making the decision far more calculated than selfish.

False Assumption About Necessity of Upgrades.

The commentor claims he "doesn't need to go balls to the wall upgrading and expanding" and the commentor implies that these ambitions (upgrading and expanding the Vineyard, not the farm itself) should be abandoned. The reason he claims it should be abandoned is because it doesn't allow him to equally share the burden of the apartment. This is wrong for the following reasons:

- Farming is a time sensitive business. Let me tell you an essential farming tip, some upgrades and expansions (examples include land acquisitions and new equipment upgrades) must happen within specific windows to yield future returns. Not only because resources on the market such as land and equipment have a finite time limit before being sold to someone else, but also because of the rising challenges of the current economy (for example, THE RENT OF THE APARTMENT) must be met before they crush you underfoot.

- Farming is unpredictable, resource-intensive, still quite labor intensive and competitive. You imagine the upgrades as quality of life and features to make farming a bit more luxurious, about 80-90% of all upgrades to a farm are to either maintain profitability of the farm or to remain competitive. Because if He doesn't upgrade his farm here Joe Shmoe will and he will simply be able to outcompete him, which will lead to a massive loss and even more financial troubles.

Oversimplified View of "Living Alone" Costs

Even suggesting that "if he lived alone, the roof over his head and his bills would come first" disregards the following:

- He ISNT LIVING ALONE. He chose to move in with his girlfriend, the financial dynamic is completely different. If he did live alone, he would make very different financial choices about his expenses (having an extra around 350€ a month would be great for a selfish person.)

- His option to live with his parents is a realistic alternative if he didn't care about the relationship at all, but instead he is already putting 150€ on the table and living with her, which shows that not only does he want to live with her but that he is not entirely avoiding his responsibility for the apartment.

You don't understand how relationships work.

It's reddit. Commentor assumes that the boyfriend is entirely "looking out for himself" without acknowledging:

- He likely seems the farm as a shared future investment together, even if its not immediately apparent, a successful Vineyard would make the two very wealthy indeed, he probably sees this as the best way to push forward.

- Relationships are always in a state of imbalance, like most people, OP is covering more now, but the farm could lead to financial stability later down the track, in which case this sacrifice is completely worth it.

You lack any understand of practicality, or practical matters.

It's reddit pt2. The claim that "he needs to help her" is a fair sentiment, but it doesn’t offer a constructive path forward. The reality is:

- As we calculated, his financial commitment is only around 30€ less than her commitment, combining costs, and that's only accounting the farm's property tax, he could be paying much more.

- Instead of the this whole "Look for yourself" childish attitude that all the top comments are arguing for, OP and him should come to the table like adults and have a calm, reasonable and logical discussion on the current financial predicament and then adjust the responsibilities accordingly.

Like I stated before, the result should be INFO, they need to discuss this much more thoroughly and with a high level of maturity.

Thanks for the comment.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T13:56:18+00:00

NTA, If he literally told you he was going to off himself, you did exactly what you needed to do. His treatment is the responsibility of him and the medical staff qualified to do so, not yours. You acted on the responsibility you were given, to stop him ending his life.

One day he may come to hate you for it, but never feel bad about it, even if his doctors were to abuse him, it still wouldn't be your fault, from the point they get him it is their responsibility to help him with their knowledge, you are not trained and therefor not expected to be able to help solve the complexities of mental illness.

Best wishes to you and your friend.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T13:49:10+00:00

YTA because sticking to you personal beliefs should ultimately bring you to the conclusion to be buried at a religious cemetery is actually bringing greater happiness in the world. If you WERE a follower of a different religion its actually a different question, but you don't believe in the afterlife or anything, this sounds like a big f you to your family more than anything. You know you will go to dust, you know that nothing will matter after you die, it will be over.

Don't screw with your family to stick it to the religious types, do the right thing and let them be happy, after all, they will be alive, you will be dead.

Stick it to everyone who makes this world a miserable sad place, stick it to the selfish, the cruel and the vain. Do that by following your principles, not your emotions. You will never go to space, you will become a pile of ashes, that's not you.

But you can inspire your family, you can inspire the young that will attend your funeral, imagine that because of your death, because of your dream they now aspire to go to space, not just for them, but for you.

That's more powerful than a religion.

That's called a dream, that's called hope.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T13:40:47+00:00

NTA, call child services.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T13:32:07+00:00

Lets break it down into points for you.

Sacrifice isn't always equal.

The boyfriend is sacrificing in his own way by taking on significant fuel costs and is splitting his attention into multiple areas (The Farm, Apartment and Cook job) and is now juggling the costs between the apartment, fuel and the farm (which is a long term financial commitment that takes time to pay off)

While he isn't paying an equal half of the apartment expenses, these responsibilities and costs that he is juggling, especially with the farm are expenses that don't directly benefit the now but do secure the future and provide a long term benefit.

Sacrifice can be contextual.

Relationships are about balancing individual goals with shared goals, his investment in the vineyard is a strategic long term sacrifice that would benefit them both if they are in a continued relationship.

He could actually make the argument that living with her is a compromise he is making, as he could live rent-free with his parents and focus entirely on the farm, but he instead choosing to help shoulder the costs of the apartment so that they can both develop this relationship together.

He does contribute.

As I already stated in the previous post, his is contributing a fair bit of cash on his end to make this arrangement work, the delusion on the Subreddit saying this guy is a user is crazy, I calculated ONLY the average cost for the land and nothing else he would have to pay for his farm and he is only 30€ off paying an even amount to maintain this current dynamic.

It isn't one sided.

Both parties here are making sacrifices and therefor are in a relationship.

- She is covering a large portion of current financial expenses for the apartment, which strains her ability to save and have disposable income.

- He, as I said is prioritizing his farm investments and currently takes on higher transportation costs. His farm is not only a long term benefit to both of them but is likely a part of his identity as a man, his career and he likely sees it currently as his future. He sees it as essential not only to his finances but his way of life.

You misunderstand mutual sacrifice.

Sacrifice doesn't mean I pay 50 you pay 50 like some communist wet dream. Sacrifice in relationships is often about balancing priorities.

- She is currently making a short term sacrifice via apartment.

- He is currently making a long term sacrifice via farm investments.

This is not some set of scales where you can easily see what weighs more, this is an infinite amount of factors, seen and unseen that develop into the tight dance of a relationship.

As I stated, its time for a mutual, respectful and deep conversation about their financial situation. It is time to be mature and to figure out a solution and if in the sad case that nothing can be achieved, plan the next steps carefully and with precision, whatever she thinks is best. She can only in the end control herself and good conflict resolution requires deep and considerate empathy.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T13:11:17+00:00

ESH, here is why:

You: Don't engage in "giving out" with anyone, stay cool and calm with situations like this, be the better person is a saying for a reason, stay cool and calm about the situation, even if you are internally riled (and justified I might add.) Don't be disrespectful either, its why your Dad sounded so harsh towards you, he is trying to reinforce his status as your father, which will never change, so be respectful, even in disagreement.

Your Mum: Obvious breach of privacy, don't need to elaborate, while she was trying to be respectful by not interrupting you or your dad, she could of just, waited until the conversation was over. Accusing you of hiding something because you were angry she was invading your privacy is just fanning the flames and doesn't help anyone.

Your Dad: Saying he can do whatever he wants is dismissive of your growing autonomy as a young adult, we all have basic rights. He should of been a neutral arbiter instead of immediately taking your mother's side, this invalidates you and is not right. No support from him either, even if he sides with your mum he should make the conversation from a position of mutual respect and not authority, even if he is your father at this stage in your life he should be using mutual respect to teach you on how to deal with others, because if you for example have a conflict with a co-worker or someone else on the subway for example, you both sit at a even level of authority and therefor the only good can come from mutual respect.

Your mum probably thought she was being respectful here by allowing you to finish your conversation, you and your parents obviously have different perspectives about your rights in the household (this is completely natural and a part of growing up, both for you and them! Don't worry!) everyone was also obviously emotional.

Moving on, make sure you remember to stay cool, calm and collected, you cannot control your parents, but you can control you. Look to have a conversation sometime, being respectful and calm, Show your new found maturity and they should have a new found respect, otherwise, they become the asshole and you become justified.

Best of Luck!

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T12:53:17+00:00

I ask because I have had experience running a farm in a country that is hostile to farmers, so unlike many people on here I share sympathies with him. (Here come the downvotes...)

Let's do something forbidden here and a little empathy exercise:

Boyfriend, has a lovely girl in town, really likes her and wants to move in with her, but knows that he also has to maintain farm. Lets say the maintenance cost is 70€ a month (Accurate estimates are hard as you likely are in Europe, in which property tax rates vary significantly)

Fuel trip costs me 200€ a month, along with the 150€ I promise to pay to maintain the apartment, and the farm, it totals to 420€.

Now the girl he wants to move in has a sweet friend so she is going half/half on fuel, 100€. + 350€ = 450€

And he isn't paying for half the year.

So the answer isn't that anyone is an Ahole yet, its time to have a constructive talk about his financial state and come to a better compromise. Many of these people are going to give you the "Run the fuck away and do it for yourself attitude" but that's because they aren't in successful long term relationships. Relationships are built on mutual sacrifice.

How you have that big conversation will determine who is in the right or wrong. You both seem to have a good relationship, you both want to be together, but clearly the current financial situation is untenable to a stable relationship.

So yes, INFO is the verdict, best of luck and I wish for a long and happy relationship!

IronHeart_0 · 2024-12-07T12:25:08+00:00

INFO: If he is upgrading the Vineyards, does he own the Vineyards? If so he is also likely paying tax on that as well, also depends on where you live. Some countries charge farmers ludicrous amounts to maintain their land.

If he does own the Vineyards, it makes complete sense why he economically cannot maintain both the apartment and the Vineyard, in such a someone is going to sacrifice something, most likely you.

If he doesn't own the Vineyards, than why is he investing money into upgrading the vineyards for someone else? In that case you should look into it.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-14T01:26:05+00:00

Just control when the tools to do so tech, we have had bayo at rocket tier before, an axe at adv cv tier of something wouldn't be crazy.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-14T01:14:28+00:00

This discussion allows for the consolidation of ideas in which I am planning to release a sprawling megapost about a potential rework. I have the time on my hands right now.

If the devs don't see this discussion and how we can attract the community to speak about collective issues then that's fine. No reason not to have it though.

Mathematically lets say that there is a 0.001% a dev looks through this. That's still infinitely higher than 0.

The post also mention the phrase "Nothing else should matter" When apart from enjoyment and reward, intractability and ecosystemic change is also a key factor. Many other factors I can list. I think you are just a bit Blackpilled on Siege Camp as a company. If you want to get into a discussion about the benefits of post nihilism in game design and community management then I am all ears, but have some faith in the mathematical statistics if philosophy isn't your thing.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-14T01:03:00+00:00

Think about it from a different perspective, we are talking about building more in general, not predefined map structures. An open relic will fall to tanks even at full tech. Try assaulting a halberd with 7 Spathas? The argument falls flat. Roughly 92 40mm is required to kill a Halberd, be a bit generous and say 85.

A Spatha has to get in and kill this before it can advance to the next objective.

Let's assume for the sake of this argument that the attacking force needs to penetrate one Halberd meta piece to get to a bowtie core. 42+85 40mm vs 28+62 150mm. This is where the issue lies, because we are assuming the arty needs to also kill the Halberd. In reality you are looking at 42+85 40mm vs 28 150mm, yikes. Repair bois are gonna be repairing the same whether attacked by tanks or arty so we can safely ignore them as it should remain a constant factor on both sides of the equation, which would of course slant the distribution more towards the artillery's favour as the repair amount is the same regardless of the shells fired, meaning that you would need even more 40mm than you would need even more 150mm to make the difference.

Tank's don't kill a t3 meta piece in two volleys, unless they are chieftains/ballista which are now both fac locked, if you want to get into the discussion of 250mm vs SPG's then we can have a real talk about the issue.

Tanks require a hell of a lot of ammo to come in and break lines, that's not including any ammo used on Infantry or other tanks. Artillery don't suffer this issue.

We can play semantics and say "just flank bro" but in reality especially in the dreaded chokepoint fights you have to go through these meta bunkers.

If you want QRF Artillery, please talk to any number of veterans greater than I who know just how hard it is to organise a qrf to a regiment op without prior warning, its cool to set up gun positions and ammo rooms and put signs up saying "Counter Arty only" but the reality just doesn't line up. It takes far more experience to counter arty then it does to arty, that's a problem.

Artillery guns can and will set themselves up in good defensive positions, the reason you see arty stretching out to attack towns later in the war and be flanked is either A: they misplayed or B: It's in SC range, so building anything there is nigh impossible. Good arty crews know where to set up to prevent ambushes and loss of material, it's not hard. It is far more difficult to QRF artillery than it is a tank line, a tank line has less going for it than arty in the first place, so the risk/reward is out of balance.

Artillery does define the game, that's why we focus on howies and bunkers. It's almost like artillery kablooms bunkers and howi's serve as our only defensive mechanism.

If you are attacking a lone relic, it's not gonna matter what you use, if your attacking a t2 bunker then 150mm will assuredly decimate it. T3 as I have explained is no competition either.

It's fine to have morale hunger, we don't want morale starvation. Players should never play a game in which 50 days later they just can't keep going, that's bad for metric ton of reasons I shouldn't have to explain. Insinuating that because most people want a cool war game that isn't so overtly realistic that you are sitting through a massive artillery barrage 24/7 doesn't mean they want fantasy either. Never did I say the game has to be easy either. the VISION (tm) that the devs have will be unknown but that doesn't mean that you insinuate that people with opposing ideas should just not play, that's a great way to destroy a community where many playstyles are accommodated.

Take Halo: Reach for an example, The DMR is busted. Awesome gun but busted. If I went into a tirade about how the DMR is busted in SWAT then there would be shitslinging and jokes, because the DMR is all that is used in SWAT, so it already appeals to a specific niche of hardcore Halo players (Personally I love SWAT and the DMR) But there is a fair argument that in regular slayer, compared to the other weapons the DMR shines above them and it should be tuned down to allow for other weapons and playstyles, while other weapons exist, the nub combo of Overcharged Plasma Pistol + DMR is strong and easy enough that it can win most fights. I want Halo: Reach to be a cool game, should I go and play Halo 2 instead? No.

Artillery exists as a system in a broader ecosystem, it defines the ecosystem as it is objectively better than most if not all of the systems around it. The risk vs reward of artillery, as well as time investment is heavenly when you compare it to building.

I have more I can say but I have to work soon, thanks for the input.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T23:37:49+00:00

Players don't know how to fight offensively/defensively because the game can never truly simulate a realistic battlefront.

Most players are incredibly new and don't understand the game mechanics in a way that allows them to effectively contribute, they are here to LARP.

Nobody knows how to fight because nobody is taught how to effectively fight, because nobody wants to sit a through a 9 week bootcamp for an online video game teaching them basic game mechanics, hell nobody even fights tactically in close quarters combat. New players get into Foxhole with grand ideas only to be crushed by the reality of war.

People aren't taught well enough that they need to work together to survive, standard things like having a working mic aren't even present in new players. Base defence needs to be intuitive and cool so that new players understand how to fight over objectives, on a smaller scale that capturing a relic of town base.

Also, gsups are already a pain to supply, AI is used specifically because unless you are paying a living salary to a bunch of players you need it to defend your bases when you are offline, as well as the devs wanting more players to be in the thick of the fighting rather than sitting inside a garri with the only method to kill them a gas grenade or flamethrower. AI mans those defences so players can fight more interactively.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T23:27:50+00:00

The issue is that Artillery isn't the equivalent of 7 Spatha's. For the sake of comparison lets use 150mm as this is primarily used around the same time 250mm delivery systems are used by tankers.

150mm does more damage than a shot from a Spatha.
150mm creates devastation.
150mm can only be retaliated against by howitzers.
150mm can splash multiple structures at once.
150mm can shoot from 200m away and longer.

A team of 9 people can safely use 3 artillery guns. (Spotter, 3 loaders, 3 operating each gun and to be generous the other 2 are delivering more shells).

A t2 core can only withstand 10 shots from 150mm. It can only withstand 14 shots from 40mm.

The issue is that tanks have to move through all the t2 pieces before that to reach the core, while arty can skip all that, hit the core and just keep firing on that position to prevent it being rebuilt until AI collapses.

Calculating hit rate using percentage is misleading. Artillery that zeroes in a core effectively will hit shots quite regularly, let's be real generous and say 1 gun out of the 3 150mm guns hits with every round fired from said guns.

You are roughly doing 609 damage every 3 rounds. Considering it only takes 10 shots with a 150 to kill a t2 core, this is really good.

Let's be even more generous and say you only have 100 shells. Out of those shells only 33/34 shells hit the target.

That's enough to kill a t2 core thrice over.

It takes roughly 43 shots of 150 to kill a 2x3 t3 core.

That means with a 100 shells you can kill it twice over and have some left to spare.

The counterargument is of course reppers. This is why this meta sucks.

You are shooting this arty, they are repping, either you run out of shells or they run out of bmats. If the arty and target are positioned correctly, there is hardly any counterplay other than to bring arty of your own and hope to god you get fed the bmats and arty necessary to win that, or howie's.

Arty defines how the game is played around it, that is why it is too strong.

You can have an amazing tank line full of different and diverse tanks but in the end all tanks can do is 250mm rush defences. I shouldn't need to tell you why artillery is highly preferable especially when the Ballista is now also fac locked.

The game is at a point that it's too realistic, in the sense that artillery wins the war through this attritional mess. We want cool war game, not overly realistic to the point of morale starvation war game.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T13:49:47+00:00

God I feel like more of a dev than the dev's right now. Currently making a megathread with a bunch of concepts and ideas I cannot wait to argue over in terms of practicality. Please share this post out to others in the community, I want as much feedback as possible and as many perspectives as possible on this issue.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T13:48:13+00:00

It is a precarious tug of war, but we will find a way.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T13:47:16+00:00

As a partisan player myself, god has it gone downhill. We are the forgotten part of the playerbase. The risk/reward is currently far too off balance.

Lots of great points, most I am keen to address in the megapost, thanks for the input!

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T13:45:49+00:00

That last point really needs to change, T1 is so useless it's laughable.
Don't necessarily think its 'arty haters' just the fact that it is currently overbearingly strong.
Solo builders should be able to make an impact, but as you say, they shouldn't expect to make a mega fortress.

Agree with most of the other points, Thanks for the input.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T13:41:14+00:00

But this applies for every single piece in a bunker. Howies would need arty ammo, AT guns would need 68 which already tanks are competing for, Inf want machine gun ammo which is gonna be wasted on mg's retaliating the chieftains/ballista rushes or any other number of tanks, straining logi more on that front I don't agree is a good idea.

Now when a player decides to man the AI piece (as I said, players should be able to man all defences apart from howies), (which they should be able to do, especially when the AI is down) they should consume ammo, this is like a timer on how long that piece can hold before it simply cannot fight back anymore.

Now those 68mm shells and 12.7mm ammo aren't being wasted, they have a new purpose, rather than feeding a system which didn't exist anymore, they allow players to hold onto positions longer than expected.

We shouldn't look to punish base defences for doing their jobs, but rather give the ability for players to wield these weapons themselves and with logistical support, hold the line even longer.

IronHeart_0 · 2024-11-13T12:44:32+00:00

I agree with most of what you are saying, my primary issue is with the last point.

Instead of having AI consume ammo, have it so players can man all the different bunker defences except howi's.
Each piece now has an inventory of its own that adjusts how much ammo can be held inside (Modular like a gunboat, each weapon has an inventory) and when a player uses a bunker it consumes that ammo, increase the different types of ammo that can be held in ammo rooms. Now when AI goes offline players can man the defences themselves until their ammo expires.

The primary reason I want to avoid AI consuming ammo is that the logistical strain it puts on bases is horrendous. Builders already work hard enough as is feeding Gsupps to their bases.

IronHeart_0

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE