1 
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
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.
Posts: 174
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 476
10 
Posts: 4785 | Subs: 3
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
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
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 372
+83
Thank god there is still some sense left in this thread.
Posts: 526
And I'm saying that is completely wrong.
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.
Posts: 526
At no point has anyone said that the M10/Cromwell crush was fair and balanced.
1 
Posts: 2885
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.
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.
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.
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.
after all this posts you are one of the biggest contributors to this petition.
Posts: 611
Posts: 1072
1 Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 526
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.
Posts: 1063
1 Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
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?
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.
Posts: 7
 |
|
|
144 | ||
 |
|
|
291 | ||
 |
|
|
36 | ||
|
|
|
|
32 | ||
|
|
|
|
20 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
