Login

russian armor

Brit Sniper shouldn't be able to Crit 222's engine

28 Oct 2015, 08:26 AM
#101
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Oct 2015, 17:44 PMBurts


Oh, and by the way the british sniper is supposed to be a counter to light vehicles too. Dont you know that he has an anti tank rifle?


But that is the problem, as I said it in the past. He should not be that way, he should be a sniper as Ostheer has. And my example was not nonsensical, because it clearly ilustrate my point. To counter its verry counter it's bad design in my opinion and not just because of that, but because of lack of counterplay. Okay, as ostheer let's say I can counter with my ostheer sniper, because the 222 which is designed for sniper countering, cannot do that in british' sniper's case. In OKWs case, what one could do before a tommy wall backed by a sniper? Build a Puma and wait for that aimshot? As a concept, would you agree to build an IS2 just to counter a Panzer 2? Would that be fair? It's logical to oblige a fuel starved faction to take a development tree starting with the Puma building (tier) just to counter one unit?

See? That is why I think you are being highly unreasonable about this matter. I love assymetrical design but when you change one unit type's basic features and purpose, is wrong.
28 Oct 2015, 09:12 AM
#102
avatar of Carlos Danger

Posts: 362

First post here. I'm not a real fan of the critical effect just because it makes getting your own sniper the most viable counter to a British sniper, and I don't think that's good for gameplay.

Anyways, I'd like to see the 222 get buffed before any other changes are made (even if that means making it more expensive). It's illogically useless against infantry right now.
28 Oct 2015, 14:48 PM
#103
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

First post here. I'm not a real fan of the critical effect just because it makes getting your own sniper the most viable counter to a British sniper, and I don't think that's good for gameplay.

Anyways, I'd like to see the 222 get buffed before any other changes are made (even if that means making it more expensive). It's illogically useless against infantry right now.


222 is amazing against infantry on retreat and cheap price. If you really need an early light vehicle vs infantry, why not build flame HT?
29 Oct 2015, 00:35 AM
#104
avatar of siuking666

Posts: 707



222 is amazing against infantry on retreat and cheap price. If you really need an early light vehicle vs infantry, why not build flame HT?


because it's an expensive piece of junk.

You pay 120 munition in addition to 30 fuel, Can't chase down retreat squad, die in 2 shots, flamers can't damage other light vehicle, can't reinforce after upgrade, cost 30 fuel but still has 222's paper thin armor.
29 Oct 2015, 01:02 AM
#105
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
Can confirm, FHT and 222 are still wet tissue paper pieces of shit.
29 Oct 2015, 02:04 AM
#106
avatar of Aladdin

Posts: 959



because it's an expensive piece of junk.

You pay 120 munition in addition to 30 fuel, Can't chase down retreat squad, die in 2 shots, flamers can't damage other light vehicle, can't reinforce after upgrade, cost 30 fuel but still has 222's paper thin armor.


Comparing it with the UC for 15F/90 ammo vs FHT for 30F/120 ammo, I would pick the FHT any day. specially since the UKF's core infantry across the map DO NOT HAVE SNARE, where as the Ost's core inf have the most reliable snare in the game.

also you mentioned it dies in two shots, would you really expect that to survive more than two pak shots?!!! the Soviet M5 quad for 30F/120 ammo also dies in two shots, that's totally fair the should die in two pak shots
29 Oct 2015, 02:05 AM
#107
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



because it's an expensive piece of junk.

You pay 120 munition in addition to 30 fuel, Can't chase down retreat squad, die in 2 shots, flamers can't damage other light vehicle, can't reinforce after upgrade, cost 30 fuel but still has 222's paper thin armor.


the fht should cost 90 munition.

the wasp should cost 60 munition.
29 Oct 2015, 03:29 AM
#108
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891

Make 222 have m5 armor, increase AOE to 1.5, damage to 25. Cost to 40 fuel. ffs please.


Delaying the 222 timing would be a huge boost to USF M20 play, it would greatly extend its window of pain and force a MP starved OST player into a Pak to counter it.

29 Oct 2015, 03:57 AM
#109
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned


Delaying the 222 timing would be a huge boost to USF M20 play, it would greatly extend its window of pain and force a MP starved OST player into a Pak to counter it.

Not only does the 222 not become utter shit anymore, but the window of effectiveness for m3s and m20s becomes a little longer.
29 Oct 2015, 05:29 AM
#110
avatar of l4hti

Posts: 476

Why people keep answering to this obvious trollthread made by well known wehraboo?
29 Oct 2015, 14:36 PM
#112
avatar of Von Kluge
Patrion 14

Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2

one siuking666 flame post invissed. Keep it classy
29 Oct 2015, 15:28 PM
#113
avatar of siuking666

Posts: 707

one siuking666 flame post invissed. Keep it classy


and his post is not a flame post? great job.
29 Oct 2015, 15:33 PM
#114
avatar of Von Kluge
Patrion 14

Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2



and his post is not a flame post? great job.



Back on topic
29 Oct 2015, 15:41 PM
#115
avatar of siuking666

Posts: 707




Back on topic


He's on topic? ya, right.

Fucough. -_-
29 Oct 2015, 16:47 PM
#116
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned


222 is amazing against infantry on retreat and cheap price. If you really need an early light vehicle vs infantry, why not build flame HT?
Ever see that video where 222 follows a retreating squad all the way across half the map and couldn't kill one model before having to turn away from base mgs? Its shit, accept it dude.
30 Oct 2015, 04:28 AM
#117
avatar of WeißAlchimist

Posts: 112

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Oct 2015, 18:53 PMKatitof
Great idea!

Can we make T34 immune to pfausts as well while we're at it, because it sucks when it can't move fast?


The sad part is, he isn't joking.
Or even using sarcasm.
Katitof would support this.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

602 users are online: 602 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49153
Welcome our newest member, Wilmor89
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM