Login

russian armor

Petition to revert crushing change

PAGES (9)down
22 May 2016, 21:12 PM
#121
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 20:00 PMRappy

I was talking about this from the perspective of the tank driver not the blobber. Read again if you must. Point is it's less risky to dive in for the crush against infantry handheld At than it is to stay put, or in some circumstances to try and leave the scene.

And I'm saying that is completely wrong.
22 May 2016, 21:48 PM
#122
avatar of LuGer33

Posts: 174

Like forward retreat and repeated nerfs to indirect fire units like the Land Mattress and Calliope, removing crush only further encourages blobbing and the use of A-move control groups that can one shot Allied medium armor, pretty much with impunity now.

With the snare on Volks and no crush, a huge threat to OKW (and the rare OST) AT blobs is gone. Guess that's how Relic wants it.
22 May 2016, 21:52 PM
#123
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

One week away and I see it's no longer CoH2.

Crushing was perfetcly fine. It would be easilt countered by "T".

Removing of crush is nothing else but a nod to players which cant't keep up with pace.

So what's next? Increasing timer on grenades to 5secs? Or maybe incendiary drops won't hurt any units for the forst X seconds?

It was pereft way to counter ultimate blobs and on the other hand, it was great way to bait someone to tr to crush so he just hit a mine in front of a AT gun.

It was nothing else but micro vs micro. Worse loses.

Welcome to the real word of A-Move even in the narrowest roads!
22 May 2016, 22:12 PM
#124
avatar of l4hti

Posts: 476

Like germans couldnt counter crushing with faust + pak/rak/faust/shrek or something FailFish

MakeCrushingGreatAgain

Only clueless idiots complain it being OP, git gud noobs :snfQuinn:
22 May 2016, 22:33 PM
#125
avatar of FichtenMoped
Editor in Chief Badge
Patrion 310

Posts: 4785 | Subs: 3

The argument, that M10 should be viable for AI made me die a little on the inside. It's supposed to be a TD not an Anti-Infantry Bulldozer
22 May 2016, 22:43 PM
#126
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

The argument, that M10 should be viable for AI made me die a little on the inside. It's supposed to be a TD not an Anti-Infantry Bulldozer


Indeed, but with snares now available to all German factions crushing is a real risk. If you run in you are in serious danger of being snared. Worse still if you kill the shooter you get instantly snared (assuming you fall below the damage threshold). I agree that M10 and Cromwell rounding up infantry and then squashing them is stupid, but these tanks may need to be treated differently because of their insanely high speed and rotation.
22 May 2016, 22:45 PM
#127
avatar of Rappy

Posts: 526

The argument, that M10 should be viable for AI made me die a little on the inside. It's supposed to be a TD not an Anti-Infantry Bulldozer

+83
Thank god there is still some sense left in this thread.
22 May 2016, 22:46 PM
#128
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 16:55 PMRappy

Infantry crushing prevents handheld at from firing since the infantry are automatically moved and their weapons aren't able to fire when moving. No risk involved. In fact it is far more risky NOT to dive in for the crush when you see handheld at blobs.


This was the point. It gave clear counterplay to handheld AT. You could target an individual and try to prevent him from firing. In exchange you left your tank very vulnerable to rear shots or snares, and you required high amounts of micro. The other player needed only decide when to retreat. Or, if you were near a building you could jump in and fire then jump out another door.

I fail to see how giving players a tool in which to deepen the game is so broken that it needs to be removed now. The problems that we are dealing with are specific to only a couple of tanks and not to the medium tanks as a whole.
22 May 2016, 22:48 PM
#129
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:45 PMRappy

+83
Thank god there is still some sense left in this thread.

At no point has anyone said that the M10/Cromwell crush was fair and balanced.
22 May 2016, 22:49 PM
#130
avatar of Rappy

Posts: 526

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 21:12 PMTobis

And I'm saying that is completely wrong.

Ok dude. Whatever you say. You have provided no argument at all as to why that is wrong. But I can't be bothered to continue this debate over such a petty point. So yes I bow down to your inferior argument.
22 May 2016, 22:53 PM
#131
avatar of Rappy

Posts: 526



This was the point. It gave clear counterplay to handheld AT. You could target an individual and try to prevent him from firing. In exchange you left your tank very vulnerable to rear shots or snares, and you required high amounts of micro. The other player needed only decide when to retreat. Or, if you were near a building you could jump in and fire then jump out another door.

I fail to see how giving players a tool in which to deepen the game is so broken that it needs to be removed now. The problems that we are dealing with are specific to only a couple of tanks and not to the medium tanks as a whole.


The times when a trap has been set, aside, and for the greater number of times infantry aren't hugging the walls of garrisons, it was far too easy to murder with an over performing efficiency. That is all I'm saying. If you follow the rest of my points, I said crushing should be brought back but normalized across factions and toned down with certain tanks.
22 May 2016, 22:56 PM
#132
avatar of Rappy

Posts: 526


At no point has anyone said that the M10/Cromwell crush was fair and balanced.

I see that, but the conversation seemed to not understand why they removed crush altogether as a shortcut to faction parity.
Removing crush altogether, though draconian, is at least fair. Leaving wolverines as they were was not. So discussion of bringing back crushing should further solutions for the imbalances it had or at the very least acknowledge them.
22 May 2016, 23:03 PM
#133
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 21:04 PMHater

Thanks. Well I lol'd 'cause never saw before that some HEAVY vehicle crush infantry and thought they are so slow for that. I wonder if relic decides that pushing infantry affects balance (gardeding pudding i can't fire mah pzshrek 'cause units just 'dancing' being pushing by m3 pls fix lelic) and will make infantry invisible/transparent (noclip) for moving vehicles.


It's better than removing crush completely since heavies can crush infantry if its either trapped by being too close to the wall or suppressed, there is not much speed or rotation needed for that. Tanks like comet and panther also happen to roadkill from time to time. But you are right that this is just making more shallow and noob friendly...

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:56 PMRappy

I see that, but the conversation seemed to not understand why they removed crush altogether as a shortcut to faction parity.
Removing crush altogether, though draconian, is at least fair. Leaving wolverines as they were was not. So discussion of bringing back crushing should further solutions for the imbalances it had or at the very least acknowledge them.


jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:53 PMRappy


The times when a trap has been set, aside, and for the greater number of times infantry aren't hugging the walls of garrisons, it was far too easy to murder with an over performing efficiency. That is all I'm saying. If you follow the rest of my points, I said crushing should be brought back but normalized across factions and toned down with certain tanks.


jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:49 PMRappy

Ok dude. Whatever you say. You have provided no argument at all as to why that is wrong. But I can't be bothered to continue this debate over such a petty point. So yes I bow down to your inferior argument.


I like how you tripple post in a thread named 'Petition to revert crushing change' Rappy :D after all this posts you are one of the biggest contributors to this petition.
22 May 2016, 23:45 PM
#134
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

I voted yes because the mechanic isn't broken.

But unit bunching almost certainly is.

I almost never see or experience crushing.

However there have been times when i have seen how absolutely BS this aspect of the game can be.
( Usually involved Vonivan )

M10 is most certainly not useless without crush and the game can do without people using it primary for its crush factor.

Alot of people justify its existence because it can be necessary against okw BS but that implies two wrongs making a right.

Fix okw then fix crush. But don't remove it from mediums.
23 May 2016, 01:58 AM
#135
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Now that volks no longer have shrecks, crushing isn't necessary for countering blobs since you can just kite them now.

All axis players have dealt with AT blobs without crush. Allied players need to learn to do the same.
23 May 2016, 02:43 AM
#136
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:49 PMRappy

Ok dude. Whatever you say. You have provided no argument at all as to why that is wrong. But I can't be bothered to continue this debate over such a petty point. So yes I bow down to your inferior argument.


Right here I provided my argument, the post before that you didn't understand.

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 17:32 PMTobis

Don't blob up then and spread your units out. Problem solved. Why should one squad of infantry completely negate vehicle play? If you have multiple AT units spread out and if they try to crush they will lose the tank.


And here:
jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2016, 02:36 AMTobis
The thing that's nice about crushing is that it is an incredibly predictable way to deal with infantry, and has clear counters. You don't want to go buffing tank guns to deal with infantry better because that just adds more rng wipe potential. When a tank goes for a crush you can see how it is going to go, and you can decide whether to retreat or try to stay in and fight the tank. Getting up to point blank range make the tank very vulnerable to snares or AT infantry.

There is clear counterplay here. You can bait the crush into some great ambushes and if your infantry is ever significantly threatened, just instantly retreat. Crushing only punishes blobs and carelessness. It adds an interesting gameplay dynamic to tank usage that will be gone without it. Without crush you will only see tanks kiting and trying to rng wipe with the cannon at max range. Boring. Crushing is the perfect example of interesting gameplay that requires skill to utilize, and only punishes bad players. The game should not be changed to take out strategic depth and lower the skill ceiling.


I've made my point abundantly clear throughout this thread, you just want to ignore it.
23 May 2016, 06:07 AM
#137
avatar of Rappy

Posts: 526

jump backJump back to quoted post23 May 2016, 02:43 AMTobis


Right here I provided my argument, the post before that you didn't understand.



And here:


I've made my point abundantly clear throughout this thread, you just want to ignore it.

That's not the part you weren't explaining. You said it was incorrect that handheld at is prevented from firing when a tank is pushing the infantry squad(s) around. Please explain that. I understand the point you think I didn't follow. This was a different point. If you mean to say that two AT squads split apart prevents one from being crushed and therefore allows one to still fire its schrek, how is that more risky than staying away from the crush and BOTH schreks going off?
23 May 2016, 08:16 AM
#138
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

I bet after nerf crush, Lelic would remove kubel pushing because it's not realistic either.
23 May 2016, 14:00 PM
#139
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post23 May 2016, 06:07 AMRappy

That's not the part you weren't explaining. You said it was incorrect that handheld at is prevented from firing when a tank is pushing the infantry squad(s) around. Please explain that. I understand the point you think I didn't follow. This was a different point. If you mean to say that two AT squads split apart prevents one from being crushed and therefore allows one to still fire its schrek, how is that more risky than staying away from the crush and BOTH schreks going off?

Was clearly refering to the risk factor in pushing infantry, which is what your post is about.

I was talking about this from the perspective of the tank driver not the blobber. Read again if you must. Point is it's less risky to dive in for the crush against infantry handheld At than it is to stay put, or in some circumstances to try and leave the scene.


jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 21:12 PMTobis

And I'm saying that is completely wrong.


Of course that is wrong. You realize tanks can outrange Panzerschrecks, right? If you are kiting and get hit with the Schreck you can just back out. If you get up close to push and crush it will take all of your micro focused on moving one tank while there is a whole map to focus on. There is also being at point blank which all but guarantees the shots will connect, the fact that you could mess up and have the infantry still shoot at you, the chance of running into a mine, snare, or other AT by pushing deeper, and being within the firing range of the AT for longer is obviously more dangerous. Your comparison is ridiculous, that's why I thought you didn't need me to explain to you why it was wrong.
23 May 2016, 14:38 PM
#140
avatar of BlazeBurrito

Posts: 7

Personally I have never had an issue with how crushing works. Seems the obvious solution is for relic to get off their ass and fix the pathing issues so infantry no longer dance around tanks etc. Obviously it won't happen, they have had since 2006 to get their pathing code to an acceptable standard and its still just as shit as it was back in the vcoh days.

Not to mention many other changes in this balance mod, such as mines, could have been fixed simply by fixing the pathing problems. Mines wouldn't wipe nearly as often if the pathing was up to the level it should be.

PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 8
United States 1

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

347 users are online: 347 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48723
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM