Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I just put it into the overall context of this thread and other posts. A price adjustment was part of the further discussion.
Posts: 919
I will ignore the irrelevant non constructive parts of your post.
I quoted and directly responded to Easy ♠. Do you agree that 76mm with HAVP/HE rounds at the current price would be OP yes or no?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I would vote totally for the combination of M4A3HE / 76mm AP so that 76mm is a straight upgrade of M4A3. Having selected the right shell would be a drastical decision in its outcome. Yes, it would need a price adjustment.
Probably better would be a slight adjustment of the standard shell without price adjustment. Lower pen a bit, buff AOE a bit. That way it would be more useful vs infantry and less useful vs tanks in standard shell mode. The shell switch would be more important and more tactical than it is now.
Posts: 772
I would vote totally for the combination of M4A3HE / 76mm AP so that 76mm is a straight upgrade of M4A3. Having selected the right shell would be a drastical decision in its outcome. Yes, it would need a price adjustment.
Posts: 919
So you do agree that Easy ♠'s suggestion to simply to replace AP round with HE round would make the unit OP as I have pointed out it my original post.
Now I can not commend about your suggestion unless you actually specify a price.
I have to point out it that the higher the price the less attractive it would be for 640 HP tank.
Again without specifics I simply can not comment.
There would be very little difference in the importance of switch shell, the unit would simply be stronger in the hand of good players.
Posts: 919
sounds almost like Pershing to me minus round change shenanigans and some other details. And don't forget that SOV should get a copy as well.
Again, round change is not as big of a deal, unless you spam those tanks and spread them across the map to do different tasks. Round change is a "downside" of having 2 types of rounds and should not be considered as a downside overall.
Posts: 772
So let it cost 5 fuel and 40MP more, remove standard shell and give the AOE of standard shell to AP shell. Its no big deal anyways. We'll see.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The need for a price adjustment does mean that it would be op without. Pretty obvious if you ask me.
I'm not sure about the exact numbers. But I would have faith in the delevoper team if they would implement it. I do think a higher priced but more capable 76mm wouldn't be anyhow more attractive in 1vs1. Obviously it would come out later. But I do think it would be a plus for teamgames where timing and price is of less importance and sheer late game power comes in handy. Having good dps at AI and AT would somehow compensate for low armor and health.
I am not sure why you want to argue semantic here, things are pretty simple if 76mm had both HAVP and HE shell it would be simply be OP and it would be able to perform as one of the best AI/AT medium tanks in both roles.
Op is defined by performance in comparison to cost. If a unit is too cost efficient it is op. Having HE and AP shell simply has to be taken into account if you calculate cost. So as I said two times already in this thread a cost adjustment has to be made in that case.
Posts: 919
I respect your right to your opinion but your opinion needs some consistency, unfortunately I have to point that you are contradicting your previews post.
According to your own posts, a 76mm with HE/HAVP at current price the 76mm would be too cost efficient and thus OP.
I have point out my point of view on this matter and now it is time to move on.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I do say in both posts that 76mm would be op without a price adjustment. So why I'am contradicting myself? I'm literally saying the same thing in both posts...
 |
|
|
13 | ||
 |
|
|
244 | ||
 |
|
|
40 | ||
 |
|
|
26 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
