Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916
#7
1) I support #298, because of these both, it's the new survivor system that I will use more. Being able to exactly define the survivors and also having the chance to make this either random or static sounds better than playing around with jumpjets.

2) I support #916, because I'd give this a try to make positioning bread and butter in tank wars, which will lead to more micromanagement. Don't look at this feature and think: Front & Sides: 0% damage, Back: 999% damage. I have a 60-80% armor in front, 80-90% in the sides and 100% in the back in mind. Something not that spectacular but simply enough to make the first tank war not only dependent on outnumbering. While (random) initial Health sound good, I clearly support directional armour.


Messages In This Thread
DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 22.07.2010, 20:24:42
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Beowulf - 23.07.2010, 01:05:42
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by mt. - 23.07.2010, 02:37:59
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by MRMIdAS - 23.07.2010, 23:02:07
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Darkstorm - 24.07.2010, 23:08:52
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Striker - 26.07.2010, 00:51:52
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 28.07.2010, 23:22:54
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 06.08.2010, 04:18:11
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by AlexB - 06.08.2010, 18:40:03
RE: DFD: 931 vs. 298, 769 vs. 916 - by Renegade - 07.08.2010, 06:58:01



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)