Denied HQ=armored vehicule change

This suggestion has been denied and will not receive development.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marko S

Marko S

Civil Gamers Expert
Sep 1, 2021
40
0
91
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Make the hq's not count to JAC/ 1STAL vehicule limit, but intead has its own limit

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
makes so you dont need to sacrifice tanks for hq's

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
hq is used more

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
makes JAC and 1STAL not have to worry about hqs
 
Upvote 0
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
Tadeusz Castle [Tad]

Tadeusz Castle [Tad]

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club
Dec 28, 2021
47
4
91
17
Poland
-Support
Making HQ's not count to Armored Vehicles limit defeats the point of that limit.
It's there to prevent from 1stAL/JAC spamming vehicles to cause even more lag spikes.
1stAL/JAC have a limit of max 4 armored vehicles out at the same time, if we want to take away HQ's from that limit then HQ's wouldn't be counted as armored vehicles thus making people driving it, for example able to be kidnapped, and HQ's dying even faster.

The limit is there simply to reduce lag and in my opinion should stay the same.
 
Delta Molfar

Delta Molfar

Well-known Member
May 23, 2022
37
10
41
- Support
Kokosaneczek (Tad) said:
-Support
Making HQ's not count to Armored Vehicles limit defeats the point of that limit.
It's there to prevent from 1stAL/JAC spamming vehicles to cause even more lag spikes.
1stAL/JAC have a limit of max 4 armored vehicles out at the same time, if we want to take away HQ's from that limit then HQ's wouldn't be counted as armored vehicles thus making people driving it, for example able to be kidnapped, and HQ's dying even faster.

The limit is there simply to reduce lag and in my opinion should stay the same.
Click to expand...
Great point ^
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom