Petition to revert crushing change
Posts: 1702
It is a *massive* nerf to the t-34/76. It also completely kills the m-10 and the cromwell probably as well. The t-34/76 , despite the buffs to the coaxial and main gun, will overall become MUCH, much worse due to the crushing nerf.
Relic, you seem to not understand the importance of crush for these vehicles.
If crush is op, nerf M10 speed + cromwell speed.
M10 is viable in the current meta not because of its good anti tank (its not actually very good) but because of its good anti infantry potential.
I believe with volks fausts crushing won't be an issue anymore.
Revert this change please.
It's also removing a core gameplay feature from medium tanks that has been in the game from coh 1.
M10 crush was fine in coh 1, why remove it?
Posts: 154
Posts: 794
Cromwell is a mobile, medium TD/MasterFlanker.
M10 is the USF version of Puma, but much better.
Neither of those vehicles need mobility nerf, they are just alright. Crushing wasn't a "viable" strategy and only few players (usually the cheap abusers anyway) could pull if off.
Good riddance I'd say.
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
+1
Posts: 4928
Posts: 44
Posts: 1248
Posts: 2885
I would keep the cromwell size nerf though.
Posts: 328
Posts: 446 | Subs: 2
--I belive removing it couses huge ballance issues.
Balancing around inferior design is bad.
The argument in question is whether crushing was a good design or not.
I believe it was a bad design: it ties effectiveness against all targets and ability to escape to one important variable--can't impact one matchup without impacting another or destroying what some need to compete in one area. Now, hull / coaxial / etc. MGs can be buffed as needed for more precise balancing against each class of unit, target tables included.
Good riddance.
Posts: 1930
If crush is op, nerf M10 speed + cromwell speed.
it's not top speed and acceleration that make them infantry mower, it's the rotation rate.
similar case with the t34/76.
I would keep the cromwell size nerf though.
the crushing needs a nerf, but the small size needs to stay. the small size keep the cromwell relevant into the late game as it grant cromwell survivability against the axis anti-tank weapon.
nerf the cromwell's offensive capability, but not its defensive capability.
Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15
Posts: 1930
Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15
Posts: 34
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
Posts: 960
So I'm the only one who found inf crush to be an poorly implemented 'gimmick' that should in no way be treated as a core mechanic? Really?
Every alternative to simply removing crush nerfs the unit in question. Slower rotation means less maneuverability, which means a harder time escaping 'close call' situations. It also means (in theory) worse pathing, since poor pathing decisions requiring lots of turning would take longer.
Honestly, removing inf crush was one of the best decisions in the balance mod. It was poorly implemented, insanely inconsistent (sometimes the tank goes into a blob, spins, does nothing. Other times it wipes 3 squads), and frustrating to both use and play against. It negated cover use (crush cover AND the squads using it), messed with infantry pathing and control (squads between cover and a tank are uncontrollable), and in general made no sense at all (not a realistic use of a tank).
If tanks are now suddenly under performing, then guess what? BUFF THEM.
Also this means that the Opel Blitz won't accidentally crush friendly troops. Which made no sense.
Posts: 935
Posts: 432
Axis mediums weren't ever very good at crushing, only really Allied tanks were. This puts both sides on the same ground.
Posts: 824
Livestreams
32 | |||||
6 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.943410.697+9
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.655.929+6
- 8.307114.729+3
- 9.269143.653+2
- 10.10629.785+7
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
10 posts in the last week
29 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Jueli261
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM