Login

russian armor

When will relic address the 210MP/15Fuel Tank destroyer

27 Apr 2016, 14:16 PM
#41
avatar of WhySooSerious

Posts: 1248

Yes the 222 should be 20 fuel.
27 Apr 2016, 14:29 PM
#42
avatar of ItchyGonorrhea

Posts: 107

I find the idea to re-implement the gun upgrade again good. Otherwise the 222 is fine.




This could easily make the 222 worthless again, as you need more than one for them to be effective.
If you have to sink another 110 mun into them, nobody will build them.

What could work however is bringing back the upgrade, but buffing the standard MGs AI and turn the 2cm into pure light AT, allowing for more flexibility.

Or let it cap while unupgraded, or offer another upgrade similar to vCoH's PE scoutcar that turns it into a mobile cache.
27 Apr 2016, 14:47 PM
#43
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Bear in mind that the 222 is affected by two crippling features/bugs:

- The turret-mounted MG has issues tracking infantry.

Miragefla has fixed this in his mod. If you've tried it, you will see what I mean, and you will also see why Miragefla went for a FU cost increase with the unit.

If your infantry uses a 2-story building and, somehow, the models end up using the top-story windows, the 222 will have trouble firing back.

- There is no attack ground option for 222.

This means jack if you are playing SU. However, USF/UKF can exploit the bug by using the smoke ability on their M20/AEC and using attack ground to fire back (in the case of M20 you will use the bazookas under smoke cover). If the 222 uses smoke, run to the smoke patch and use it against them. The 222 will not be able to fire back.

That's all the wisdom I had to contribute regarding the 666-pocalpyse.
27 Apr 2016, 14:49 PM
#44
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

I mean If I was to suggest anything increasing the fuel to 30 or even maybe 40 wouldnt be bad, you have to be careful as the 222 is the crutch for OST anti early armor. The buff it got last few patches has made it pretty good vs all early armor. Also since t3 and t4 prices for ost is going down it would make sense to increase the price.
27 Apr 2016, 15:59 PM
#45
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384

It has been steadily overbuffed, honestly.
27 Apr 2016, 16:25 PM
#46
avatar of Finndeed
Strategist Badge

Posts: 612 | Subs: 1

That half-assed, non-english sentence does not prove anything either.



SAY NO TO LANGUAGE BULLYING!
27 Apr 2016, 16:27 PM
#47
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

Only i am don't think it's OP?
27 Apr 2016, 16:32 PM
#48
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 16:27 PMNEVEC
Only i am don't think it's OP?


yes, either because you are a wheraboo or you suck hard at microing them.

I could post several replays where my 222's just do some HEAVY lifting to my economy, on some of them I even use them into the late game.

Also, 222s are unbeatable when they arrive on the field, 2 of them can easily swarm anything the allies have, and with the new health pool you can even survive shermans and cromwells.

Problem is, how the hell do I post replays?
27 Apr 2016, 16:32 PM
#49
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 16:27 PMNEVEC
Only i am don't think it's OP?

At this point?
Probably mycalliope and zyllen think so too, but their fanboyism knows no bounds, so I'm not sure if you need this kind of support.
27 Apr 2016, 16:40 PM
#50
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2016, 16:32 PMzerocoh


yes, either because you are a wheraboo or you suck hard at microing them.



I almost don't play suckstheer.

Only thing that is strong about ost is snipers, elephant and bullpudding spotting scopes. 222 with spotting scope is mobile legal maphack. Thats should be adressed a long time ago.
aaa
27 Apr 2016, 16:46 PM
#51
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

One of 222 problems is that you can get it no matter how bad you play. Even if player control 0 fuel points 2x222 always arrive at the same time. And thats ofc way before any light of your own.

As oposite oh player can always delay t70 or even deny it totaly with active play. 222 is undeniable.
27 Apr 2016, 16:47 PM
#52
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2

The 222 still has it's weaknesses. It's not like it's invincible at the time it's deployed. It still takes damage from small arms, and just about any AT weapon would easily drive it away. The HP buff was necessary, but an increase in cost would make it undesirable again due to it delaying further tech. It's price right now is as perfect as it can get, and it's really difficult to change it without making extremely OP or extremely UP.
27 Apr 2016, 16:48 PM
#53
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

222s due to the health increase mean they require a lot of sink damage. If allies had units with High ROF to help vs that than yea you would have stuff to counter them. Currently heaving double 222s for 40 fuel is way better than 70fuel t70 and stew.

Not to mention the tech cost is cheaper once you include the unit price.
Giving it a slight fuel increase (dont touch MP as ost dont rly float much) would help manage how fast 222s hit the field.

Effectively the 222 soaks up to much damage and would fit better with a price increase rather than a performance decrease
27 Apr 2016, 16:55 PM
#54
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

It's not like it's invincible at the time it's deployed. It still takes damage from small arms,

Yes, but its hp poll ensures it won't go down to any small arms unless you mess up and get AT naded, we've covered that already in this thread.

and just about any AT weapon would easily drive it away.

I'd be concerned if it wasn't this way, but you need hard AT to actually counter it, small arms won't do since hp buff.

The HP buff was necessary, but an increase in cost would make it undesirable again due to it delaying further tech.

And why wouldn't it dely your tech?
Less durable vehicles who can't operate independently cost more.
There is not a single balance reason why it wouldn't get cost increase.
Hell, in the original balance mod(the one relic takes from for the new one) it got increased cost, because it deserves it.

Unless you believe 15 fuel units should be able to chase off over twice as expensive lights.
That is like allowing a pair of greyhounds to hardcounter P4 while lowering their fuel cost.

Its not the question "if" it gets cost increase, but "when" it will get it.
One would really need to have blinders tight on his eyes not to see there is something tremendously wrong with cost effectiveness of this unit.

And that is coming from me, the person who supported 222 buff for well over a year now and even made threads on it in the past and we know how often -I- create balance threads.

It's price right now is as perfect as it can get, and it's really difficult to change it without making extremely OP or extremely UP.

Not a single top player will tell you its price is fine, regardless of preferred side played, maybe excluding paula, because he is insane anyway.
27 Apr 2016, 17:16 PM
#55
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Raise price in terms of fuel, but make its coaxial MG actually work so it can effectively ward off infantry and chase snipers.
27 Apr 2016, 17:17 PM
#56
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Raise price in terms of fuel, but make its coaxial MG actually work so it can effectively ward off infantry and chase snipers.

Exactly.
27 Apr 2016, 17:27 PM
#57
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Things need to be fixed with 222:

- Increase the 222 cost, at least to its previous cost of 230mp 20fuel before ninja change.
- Vet 2 sight bonus must not stacked with spotting scope.


+ 2 , 222 just needs its cost brought in line with performance (though a slight penetration nerf on the Autocannon barring bringing back the Muni upgrade might not hurt either). Its kind of silly that 2 222's can pretty easily take down a T70, AEC, or Stuart for the cost.
27 Apr 2016, 17:27 PM
#58
avatar of mortiferum

Posts: 571

20 fuel per to 25 fuel each seems reasonable.

They are scout cars, they punch above their class, but cannot take anything back.

Accidentally driving into bofor and it is gone. Accidentally drive into an AT gun and it is gone. Accidentally getting AT naded, it is gone. Get on the wrong side of the flak track? DEAD.

It is a bit powerful for 15 fuel, but anything over 25 would sent it back into the abyss where no one touches it especially since the meta of light tank rush means any more delay in getting a Pz4, Stug or whatever becomes unacceptable.

Dont get me started on Stuart + Shell shock. AND god help you if the enemy has a DsHK.
27 Apr 2016, 18:40 PM
#59
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

This kind of thread is an example of how a good point can be derailed by poor explanation.

Things need to be fixed with 222:
- Increase the 222 cost, at least to its previous cost of 230mp 20fuel before ninja change.


I guess it took only 30 posts till someone remember that when they buffed their HP, they ninja buff the cost of the vehicle. The HP buff guaranteed an increased cost, not the opposite.


- The turret-mounted MG has issues tracking infantry.

- There is no attack ground option for 222.

Fix/Buff this aspects and just start raising the cost to 230mp 25f. It would still be a net of more HP, better MG, better gun, for just 5f.
27 Apr 2016, 18:45 PM
#60
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

Fix/Buff this aspects and just start raising the cost to 230mp 25f. It would still be a net of more HP, better MG, better gun, for just 5f.

I LIKE IT!
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

837 users are online: 837 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49120
Welcome our newest member, truvioll94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM