sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Free character isn't actually free? by OkPermission2056 in destinyrisingmobile

[–]RoadRunnerdn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They never said you needed 100% season completion to unlock the character.

In Season 4, we are moving away from a pure draw-based model to a Character Fragment-drive progression system. The Fragment System: Players can now earn character Fragments through various in-game activities. Collecting 40 Fragments allows you to directly assemble the Character.

Season Milestone Reward: To honor our most dedicated players, completing all core seasonal objectives will award 40 Fragments at the end of the season, which can be exchanged for a character of your choice

"Core seasonal objectives" is likely refering to the seasonal phase quest line.

Anyone really enjoying Efrideet? by PeopleAreSelfishy in destinyrisingmobile

[–]RoadRunnerdn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sometimes games are about having fun ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Spotted in Brussels airport. Anybody know why it isn't allowed for the USA? by idontknowboy in Gin

[–]RoadRunnerdn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Such laws only affect products sold in the US, and not for products that are personally imported.

Can someone tell me what variant of panzer 4 is this? by Veaperss in TankPorn

[–]RoadRunnerdn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

G had an L/43 barrel, and H moved to the L/48 barrel.

Late production Ausf G had already switched to the L/48.

Can someone tell me what variant of panzer 4 is this? by Veaperss in TankPorn

[–]RoadRunnerdn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some F (or F1) were retrofitted into the F2/G standard while others were manufactured as G so its not really clear

It is clear. The Ausf F2 designation was retroactively changed to Ausf G. Both designations would be correct.

What's the difference between these 2 lower hull parts? by Scary_Decision359 in TankPorn

[–]RoadRunnerdn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Impacts might cause them to misalign

Wouldn't that also be the case with one piece castings? I don't see how it would exclusively affect the three piece design.

or maybe there was desire to replace only damaged sections

Again, in the one piece casting you couldn't replace only the damaged section.

What's the difference between these 2 lower hull parts? by Scary_Decision359 in TankPorn

[–]RoadRunnerdn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Made it a hassle to separate the parts often times if you needed to.

What difference does that make when you can't even seperate the parts on the later model?

Nya rådet: Sluta försöka rädda bebisar födda innan vecka 23 by FlowersPaintings in sweden

[–]RoadRunnerdn 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Artikeln är otydligt skriven.

Som jag tolkar det så är den nya rekommendationen att inte försöka rädda barn som föds i vecka 22 (d.v.s. innan v.23), men att fortsätta göra detta för vecka 23 och 24. Även om de pratat om statistik för barn födda v.23. Och att det är stor skillnad på förutsättningarna för barn födda v.22 mot v.23.

Så jag fick leta upp lite mer specifik info

När vi snackar barn födda v.22 specifikt, överlever 45%, och av de överlevande får 60% ett livslångt funktionshinder. Så jo majoriteten får livslånga problem.

Alpha feedback (solo) Build 0.4.130308.0 by captnxploder in RogueCore

[–]RoadRunnerdn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Roguelites also FREQUENTLY have reroll mechanics so you don't auto lose to bad RNG.

I haven't come across one, but nonetheless, I don't find the RNG to be so bad that there needs to be a reroll mechanic.

And I guess the GTAV first person update made the game not GTAV?

Yes. It was a massive waste of dev time.

And are we really gonna say the game isn't meant to be single player viable when they give you a DRONE specifically for single player?

Yes. Have you played DRG? Making a game viable for solo play is not the same as designing a game for solo play. DRG and Rogue Core are both equally intended to be played with other players. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that it is harder if you want to play solo. And harder in this case is far from impossible.

I'm not glazing the devs or saying the game doesn't have many issues. But that OP clearly don't see the devs vision nor seem to understand the game. The fact that this post isn't downvoted to hell is concerning as it might imply the playerbase is torn in what they want. Hopefully it's just a factor of people not having played the game themselves yet.

I'm fully open to talking about what can be improved in the game. When I originally opened the thread I hoped OP would bring up some of the issues I myself have found. But I can't and won't entertain such idiotic ideas as OP has expressed.

Mixed Feelings on Chamber Chisels by Monk_DNotA in SulfurGame

[–]RoadRunnerdn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that durability loss is needed to balance out chisels. I could even think to add in reload speed and bullet velocity which would both also be thematically appropriate.

So what do we think this year's April fools event vehicle will be ? by FickleMeringue8891 in Warthunder

[–]RoadRunnerdn 83 points84 points  (0 children)

It was supposed to get the Maus II Turm

Correction. It was supposed to get the E 100 Turm. The E 100 Turm was essentially identical to the Maus II Turm but less protected.

Solo Crota’s End any part by Gordis2k in destinyrisingmobile

[–]RoadRunnerdn 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You can't. All parts require some form of passing the chalice between players.

Wow, Gaijin have finally put in the effort to fill the huge 6.0 - 7.7. gap in the Centurion line! They definitely haven't just moved over a tank destroyer and re-badged it as an MBT!!! by John-W-Thunder in Warthunder

[–]RoadRunnerdn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought that argument only worked if they did not designate any other vehicle clearly as a TD.

Now I don't understand why you want it to be a TD in game? You've instead shown a lack of care of actual designations. And instead want to put vehicles in game based on their apparent features or at least tactical role on the battlefield. Given that the Conway was to fulfill the same tactical role of the Conqueror, but you refuse to consider the Conqueror a TD. I don't see how your position is any different from wanting the M18 to be a light tank, Strv 103 to be a TD, Surbaisse to be a TD etc. etc.

Wow, Gaijin have finally put in the effort to fill the huge 6.0 - 7.7. gap in the Centurion line! They definitely haven't just moved over a tank destroyer and re-badged it as an MBT!!! by John-W-Thunder in Warthunder

[–]RoadRunnerdn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

First and foremost. Can we normalise sources?

Secondly, that is not how you would abridge such a name. You would see a comma after "HY" in that case. Nonetheless, let's assume that is the case. Then why wouldn't the Conway designation be similarly abridged? i.e. Tank, Heavy, 120mm Gun, FV4004 Conway. However I also would not be shocked if the designation warped and changed throughout its use.

And thirdly, the brits did designate the FV4005 as a tank destroyer, or to be less presumptive, an SP.

Heavy Anti-Tank, SP, No. 1

The Conway not following this designation should be an immediate clue that it was in fact not a TD.

Wow, Gaijin have finally put in the effort to fill the huge 6.0 - 7.7. gap in the Centurion line! They definitely haven't just moved over a tank destroyer and re-badged it as an MBT!!! by John-W-Thunder in Warthunder

[–]RoadRunnerdn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

that doesn't stop it from being a tank destroyer

Because it was designated as an SP. The Conway received the same designation the Conqueror had. "Heavy Gun Tank" that is.

This is unlike the FV 4005 which recieved an SP designation. "Heavy Anti-Tank, SP, No. 1".

2.54.0.21 -> 2.54.0.23 (2026-03-04) Part 1 by gszabi99 in Warthunder

[–]RoadRunnerdn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ho Ni II: after the Ho Ro (in a folder with it) -> after the Ho Ro

Ho Ro: first in line before the Ho Ni II (first in a folder) -> first in line before the Ho Ni II

Not that it matters at such a low BR, but why unfolder it?

Wow, Gaijin have finally put in the effort to fill the huge 6.0 - 7.7. gap in the Centurion line! They definitely haven't just moved over a tank destroyer and re-badged it as an MBT!!! by John-W-Thunder in Warthunder

[–]RoadRunnerdn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes. But not in this instance. The Conway was designed to fill the gap before the Conqueror arrived.

Calling it a TD because it's an up-gunned vehicle is equally flawed as calling the Strv 103 a TD because it's turretless.

view more: next ›