Jump to content


balance is balance


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Enderman21 #1 Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:01 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26607 battles
  • 274
  • [-BSF-] -BSF-
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

WG said MM is fixed. If you don't like it, it is only your problem. Deal with it.

 

Posted Image



Hammerhead20 #2 Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25252 battles
  • 1,626
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
Only WG imagine that Matchmaking is finally fixed...

Edited by Hammerhead20, 24 June 2017 - 06:10 PM.


Jigabachi #3 Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17746 battles
  • 17,617
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Did they really say that MM is fixed?

Enderman21 #4 Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:40 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26607 battles
  • 274
  • [-BSF-] -BSF-
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

View PostJigabachi, on 24 June 2017 - 05:31 PM, said:

Did they really say that MM is fixed?

 

Or at least ''improved''.

1ncompetenc3 #5 Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36772 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
See, this is why BC is losing the 105mm. Those poor heavy tanks never stood a chance. :harp:

OreH75 #6 Posted 24 June 2017 - 07:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 46058 battles
  • 1,731
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    05-29-2013
Redshire and you complain for having more BC's   I could understand if it was Himmelsdorf or Ensk but this map.

Edited by OreH75, 24 June 2017 - 07:42 PM.


Jigabachi #7 Posted 24 June 2017 - 07:30 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17746 battles
  • 17,617
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostEnderman21, on 24 June 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

Or at least ''improved''.

Which would be true and pretty much make the entire point of this thread non-existent... :P



Enderman21 #8 Posted 24 June 2017 - 08:24 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26607 battles
  • 274
  • [-BSF-] -BSF-
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

View PostJigabachi, on 24 June 2017 - 06:30 PM, said:

Which would be true and pretty much make the entire point of this thread non-existent... :P

 

It isn't fixed nor improved. It's even worsened. 

Jigabachi #9 Posted 24 June 2017 - 08:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17746 battles
  • 17,617
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostEnderman21, on 24 June 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

It isn't fixed nor improved. It's even worsened. 

Not really. It got improved a lot.



ilmavarvas #10 Posted 24 June 2017 - 08:28 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14550 battles
  • 402
  • [GURKO] GURKO
  • Member since:
    01-08-2014
Stupid belarussian, oh sorry, soviet union wg doing it's best. As always.

Hedgehog1963 #11 Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50122 battles
  • 6,904
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

Redshire having too many HTs is a loss.

 



Enderman21 #12 Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:35 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26607 battles
  • 274
  • [-BSF-] -BSF-
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

View PostHedgehog1963, on 24 June 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

Redshire having too many HTs is a loss.

 

They had 2 Type 5s on one flank and 2 on the other and meds camping behind them. No one from our team dared to push anywhere so everyone from our team was pretty much hiding in one quadrant at one point. You can guess the outcome. 



Stevie_Ray_Vaughan #13 Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 18235 battles
  • 730
  • [W__F] W__F
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

Just had ranked on Redshire, we have as heavy force 1 whole is7.

 

Enemy team had 3 Maus, 4 times Type 5.

 

GG was close.



Hedgehog1963 #14 Posted 25 June 2017 - 08:14 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50122 battles
  • 6,904
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostEnderman21, on 24 June 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

They had 2 Type 5s on one flank and 2 on the other and meds camping behind them. No one from our team dared to push anywhere so everyone from our team was pretty much hiding in one quadrant at one point. You can guess the outcome. 

 

Why didn't your BC 155 just smash them up?

 

Oh I remember now.  They changed SPGs...



Laiskamato #15 Posted 25 June 2017 - 08:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 42947 battles
  • 314
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    07-05-2014

I get matched against heavy tank all the time in my tier 10 medium.

MM is even more broken than what it was before.



Hammerhead20 #16 Posted 25 June 2017 - 09:13 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 25252 battles
  • 1,626
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostJigabachi, on 24 June 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

Not really. It got improved a lot.

 

Yeah, improved A LOT in wrong direction as usual...



Jigabachi #17 Posted 25 June 2017 - 09:18 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17746 battles
  • 17,617
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostHammerhead20, on 25 June 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

Yeah, improved A LOT in wrong direction as usual...

Feel free to explain that a bit.

Hint: tVIII MM was already broken before the update. 



exori #18 Posted 25 June 2017 - 09:21 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 39159 battles
  • 245
  • [I100] I100
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
stop buying stuff and maybe then WG will listen.

Kalashnikova_blyat #19 Posted 25 June 2017 - 09:24 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 42164 battles
  • 254
  • [-WBZ-] -WBZ-
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012
The last thing what they do with type 4-5 is like.......

Lentomies1 #20 Posted 25 June 2017 - 06:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 28387 battles
  • 316
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012
"​READS THE TITLE"
 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users