Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Su-7613 Feb 2018, 09:12 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Feb 2018, 21:33 PMelchino7 No? Because, again, you are paying a reinforce cost based on the weapon crew performance and not on the weapon support performance. Then your end goal should be, is OH paying too much on support weapon reinforce compared to other factions or not ? Ex: why would the USF AT gun (270mp) be paying more/equal on reinforce than the OH/UK paks (320mp). It seems we are having some trouble communicating. I am using examples to make a point and you are focusing on the examples and not the points. So let me try another approach. It is my opinion that "rules" that apply to most unit with few acceptation (only if need) of the same type improve the game. Do you agree? Imo balancing units compared to benchmark instead of individually improves the game. Do you agree? Response on support weapon arguments. On benchmark on magnitude of changes. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Bulletins that need updating and suggestions12 Feb 2018, 16:06 PM Similar post https://www.coh2.org/topic/67740/bulletins-that-need-adjustment In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Su-7612 Feb 2018, 10:34 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Feb 2018, 19:14 PMelchino7 Isn't MG34/42/0.50/Vickers reinforce cost practically equal? The difference been that the support weapon itself having a different cost. Having a 280 hmg reinforce at same price with a 250 is with same logic a "bug". Let me return to my original point. Helping player take good decision without having to know that exact stat of every unit in the game is helpful and is something Relic attempted to achieved with a number of rules. Moving away from this approach and individually balancing units without even taking into account a benchmark unit as latest patches seem to be doing is a WRONG direction. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Comet12 Feb 2018, 10:23 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Feb 2018, 17:35 PMFiresparks you're losing sight of my original point. I am asking for a cost decrease. the comet is weaker than the panther at anti-tank. That's to be expected since historical the comet was weaker than the panter in a straight fight. This is fact everyone agree on. The comet trade in anti- tank capability for anti-infantry capability. It is not superior to the panther and thus should not be more expensive. the comet should get at least a price decrease to match the panther. Main battle tanks (MBT) in this game are more expensive than specialized tanks even if worse in the specific role. PzIV is worse than Stug in AT yet its more expensive the same way Panther in better in AT than the Comet. You also do not take into account the Tech cost of Ostheer tier 4 that provides very little compared to Hammer which in my opinion pay for it self even if one does not built a single Comet. Finally you do not take into account that although Panther is better as AT on paper it is not cost efficient, due to the effectiveness of allied TDs. Jump back to quoted post11 Feb 2018, 17:35 PMFiresparks Don't just pretend the comet was not the most nerfed unit in the recent patches. Even if I agree the nerfs were justified, it also mean the price of the comet needs to be re-evaluated. and secondly, both panther get blitz to match the comet's warspeed eventually. This further reinforce the point that comet scale badly compare to most unit. If the axis want to retain their tank superiority, they should at least expect to pay extra for them. Panther is also hit with a number of nerfs. The fact that it "scale" worse does not mean much if it starts better. If I have 10 dollars and you have 1 I will still remain richer than you in I earn 10% of my estate and you earn 100%. (Commandos are prime example of being overbuffed in their vet bonuses compared to PG for about the same price, since they are way better at vet 0) Comet get "warspeed" and 45 vision from vet 0 which OKW needs to get vet 1 and vet 5 (while being inferior since it requires to be stationary) so although it get less bonuses for vetting it does necessarily mean its in worse spot when fully vetted. In addition it has the same XP value as ostheer Panther while being more expensive and it fighting units generally more expensive units thus it vets faster. As I also have explain Vetting needs an overhaul. Jump back to quoted post11 Feb 2018, 22:46 PMFiresparks compare to the panther it's definitely got weaker anti-tank. the comet cost 500 mp 185 to the panther's 490mp 175fuel, so comparison is absolutely fair. Comparing an TD with a MBT is misleading. And that is why T-34/76 is too cost efficient with low Pop compared to Ostwind for a similar price. Closing, as I explained before, one first has to give a role/balance the Panther and then use it as benchmark to balance allied Premiums. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: M-42 AT Gun Bulletins12 Feb 2018, 09:44 AM check here to see what unit it affects: TAB targets In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Comet11 Feb 2018, 17:26 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Feb 2018, 15:12 PMFantomasas This is abnormal. Everything else gets better bonuses: • Cromwell gets supercharged cannon at Vet 3. • Firefly gets reload speed and damage. Churchill and Centaur aren't great at veterancy, but at the very least they still get reload bonuses. AVRE gets good bonuses. Croc might be the only other unit which doesn't get reload speed, although vet 1 makes it shoot longer. Comet is the only tank which doesn't get reload bonuses from the veterancy. It is inconsistent to both UFK and the overall design of Coh2. The more plausible explanation is that people found Comets base performance good enough, so they either forgot or skipped the base-line veterancy improvements. However, Comet was nerfed, so perhaps it should be buffed at Vet 3 with 20% reload speed. And again as I pointed out Comets have a number of bonuses and abilities available from vet 0. In addition when it comes to veterancy an overhaul is long overdue. Ostheer basically get the same veterancies and abilities regardless of unit role while unit like 250 get no veterancy and OKW veterancy have been over-nerfed (for instance vet 3 conscript have better bonuses than vet 3 VG and vet Penal better bonuses than PF). Finally the XP value of of some units and their veting speed are all over the place. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Su-7611 Feb 2018, 14:46 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 17:00 PMelchino7 CoH is by far one of the games which is hardest to learn, ez to master. There is so much hidden knowledge and concepts which can't be learn unless you play extensively, visit the forums for guides, check pros and/or knowledge wizards. Think we are simply using the term differently. Relic had made an effort to make things simple by introduction a set of "rules" so that one did actually need to know all the stat to play the game. This rules included: Build time linearly linked to cost value Reinforcement cost linearly linked to cost value Reinforcement linearly linked to cost value Starting weapon following weapon profiles Relative positioning Similar cover penalties and so on. There where a few exception but the tried to keep these "rules". The latest patch do not seem to even make an effort to follow any rules and are based in "balancing" units individually and in comparison with a benchmark unit. For instance (apart from all the examples I have already given) there is little reason for the Centaur to completely ignore yellow cover and have low penalties vs heavy and for the luch to have the highest penalties vs heavy cover but benefit from the point blank mechanism. Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 17:00 PMelchino7 Nerf =/= Fix. All original support crews in game have increase RA and lesser damage for a reduced cost. OKW basically had Volks. 120mm has been a 1 man crew weapon by design for 5 years. It's been shit for cost and rof for too long and now some people complain about it again. By design of most indirect fire losing AA range, it should be brought equally to the ISG but the other aspects of it are still bad compared to vanilla 240mp mortars. Saying that the Case 120mm is design and the case of OKW is bug that need to be fixed is completely arbitrary. I could make the exact opposite claim. If the 120mm ability to survive with 1 crew member is design decision it is actually a very bad one since it has the longest auto attack range and if it comes under fire the player is doing something wrong. If patch was trying to fix "bugs" in the performance of team weapons it should be fixing other issues also like the reinforcement cost of HMG since the cost of HMG34/HMG42 is too high compared to the 0.50/vickers, the reinforcement cost of the Dshk is too low compared to maxim, the Dshk and 0.50 should not have access the sprint ability and the AP round of the 0.50 should work like Dshk and not like the HMG34/HMG42 while being a vet 0 ability. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Comet11 Feb 2018, 14:25 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 20:27 PMFiresparks the Comet's anti-tank capability is good, but it can't win in a straight fight against the heavier axis beyond panzer4. If you mean Panther, Tiger and King Tiger it should not be able to (although it might if it circle strafe the 2 super heavies) for a number of reasons: 1) It is not the role of main battle tank to win vs a TD like Panther or far more expensive Supper heavies. That is firefly is there. 2) Comet's cost efficiency needs to be close to Churchill so that hammer anvil is actually a choice. 3) It will win vs Brumbar which is heavier than PzIV as it should. Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 20:27 PMFiresparks and allies "super heavy" does not exist. the IS-2 and pershing are tiger level at best and merely a even match against panther. Panther usually die to concentrated tank destroyer fire. Allied "Super heavies" exist. It a term used by Relic to describe the unit that currently limited to 1. IS-2 has King Tiger level armor which is more than Tiger. IS-2 has a very good chance to win vs Panther so I would call it an even match. Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 20:27 PMFiresparks lasty, hammer provide two ability and the comet unlock. The tank is the main draw for hammer. Actually 3 abilities not 2 and no. At 200/50 the unlock is cheap enough to be worth it for the abilities alone alone even if one does not built Churchill/Comets. Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 20:27 PMFiresparks Yellow cover doesn't "negate" smallarm, it merely mitigable it. Anyone that play this game should know that yellow cover does not make your infantry immune to small. coaxial matter even if they are diminished by cover and veterancy. Remember when t-34 got the buff to its mgs? If the issue is the Hmg simply remove them from the Panther but make the unit worth it in the AT role since currently Stug is much more cost efficient. In addition the HMG firing vs unit in cover while moving are not that efficient. Finally Allied AT infantry have become extremely potent (see AT conscripts) with deadly snare (AT grenade assault, AT satchel, heavy gammon ) so staying in range of AT infantry to fight them with HMG is not a good option. Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2018, 20:27 PMFiresparks this also means the comet is on the lower end of dps in terms of anti-infantry. both t34/76 and 85 use the same mgs. sherman get the super HE, panzer4 also get effective mgs. Comet only get the gun. The panzer4 would be a lot less effective against infantry if they were still using the old ost gun. and subsequently, both wehr pz4 and panther are now using the OKW mg. Even if the dps of mg is mitigable they are still better than the nonexistence mg on the jackson, etc. T-34/76 (and T-34/85 which was buffer by accident)is simply OP since it cost about the price of Ostwind can fight infantry adequately and can also fight vehicles. If one takes into account the the cost of allied infantry the scale easily tips in favor of allies. Jump back to quoted post11 Feb 2018, 12:35 PMFantomasas The main problem of Comet is lacking veterancy. That is a design decision. Most UKF unit start very strong and have weaker veterancy bonuses. On the other hand as pointed out in previous post Comet gets a number of vet 0 goodies like War-speed, tank-commander, smoke, hammer tracking, grenades. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Su-7610 Feb 2018, 11:31 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Feb 2018, 20:38 PMelchino7 I don't like it, but it's how things are done. If people had voted for Su76, it would had been added on the last patch. Only thing do not actually work like that. I doubt enough people actually voted to nerf OKW crews yet they where nerfed. On the other hand the 120mm mortar can still survive with 1 crew member although allot of people have actually point it out. In addition not even voting means that much when one's options on voting are both bad option likes Penal to have Flamer or PTRS. That also lead to even more bad option like buffing AT conscripts to OP levels just to make them more attractive the Penals. Latest Patch really look as if Relic is destroying the concept of simple rules "easy to learn hard to master" and faction design. Gradually build time, reinforcement cost and time rules go out the window different solution for the problem are adopted (osttruppen penalty on weapon picked up weapons-conscripts slot to 1) or unique solution (KV-1 damage reductions) are adopted. Scope should be there to limit the number of issues the patch is focusing on not the number of solutions. For instance increasing Su-76 XP value is a nobrainer that should be implement with or without scope. Its high time Relic reconsiders what it is doing and why. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Su-769 Feb 2018, 17:49 PM I am not sure why people insist on comparing the SU-76 to Stug to prove it is fine. Stug is an OP unit and SU-76 is cheaper unit fighting more expensive tanks adequately and have AI utility. If its performance is anywhere near Stug it is simply OP. In: COH2 Balance