Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Design: grenades28 Sep 2021, 11:50 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Sep 2021, 11:26 AMle12ro What parts of the breach mechanic did you not like? It one sided and the out comes predetermined. That mean that in urban environment faction with breach will have a clear advantage. But this is not just about garrison but also heavy cover. In many cases it better to stay in heavy and take the damage than risk to dodge and take more damage in the process. Specialized grenades imo would add utility to infatry and add to game play. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: grenades28 Sep 2021, 10:21 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Sep 2021, 10:04 AMle12ro Have you played the recent SP and have you had a look at what is already in the game in terms of garrison denial and grenades? I have breach which I can not say I liked. Imo it would be more interesting if possible to have troops fight in CQC for houses. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: grenades28 Sep 2021, 09:12 AM In WW II two types of explosive grenades where used. "Defensive" grenades (fragmentation) and "offensive" grenades (concussion). Defensive grenade where design to open ground while offensive better suited for closed environment (trenches houses). Imo one could better implement it in also in the game. Defensive grenades could stay as they are. Offensive grenades could have lower damage but do extra damage against units in cover or garrison while they could have a large area where they could prevent enemy infatry from moving so that they could not jump in and out of houses. Incendiary grenades DOT could also do more secondary explosion doing more damage to units in garrison (damage all in hold) so that where worked better denying garrison. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Small arm fire 28 Sep 2021, 09:02 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Sep 2021, 06:51 AMHannibal That's not an argument at all. SMGs are CoH2's close range specialist weapons. From a game logic this should mean that your advantage should grow the closer you get to your opponent. Yet it does not below 10 meters, not even against most long range specialists. If your argument is that it were "simple game knowledge" to not do that, you can justify about anything. You could justify implementing that handheld AT ripped infantry apart, a grenade doing more damage to tanks than to infantry etc etc. Just crunch the numbers, it is simple game knowledge. Does not mean it made sense at all. Information that is not directly communicated to the player should be intuitive by itself. Yet, in this case, it is not. exactly my point In: COH3 Central
Thread: Can the stug E be made more like the Scot at t428 Sep 2021, 08:07 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Sep 2021, 03:23 AMVaz It's not a false claim, it's true. One of the most effective tactics okw does is to attack move raketens behind their infantry. okw blobs cannot be challenged by anything short of a vehicle or rocket barrage. vehicles are dropped in 2 volleys against the usf. There's no rng of fail to penetrate and misses are extremely rare. You can shoot through any smoke. Ost does the same thing with paks, when they have 3 lmg grens that are vet3. Up until the scott changes, every weapon used for dealing with ost weapon teams was vulnerable to pwerfer barrages. If the quote was one like, usf are very limited in dealing with mg teams. Well that would be false. Smoke doesn't solve problem with all teams, just mg. We are simply talking about different thing. You are talking about dealing with blob which is a different thing with dealing with support weapons. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can the stug E be made more like the Scot at t427 Sep 2021, 19:30 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 18:26 PMKlement Pikhtura are you arguing for the sake of arguing? I am correcting false claims like the one that: "USF are very limited in terms of dealing with AT guns and team weapons in general." In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can the stug E be made more like the Scot at t427 Sep 2021, 17:22 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 17:13 PMvgfgff A things you said need a lot of popcap and manpower bleed. The cost efficiency is simply irrelevant to number of the option available. And their cost efficiency is even debatable. Major for instance does not take that much pop nor does he bleed that much. Actually the unit is dirty cheap. Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 17:13 PMvgfgff A cheapest mortar is the worst mortar too. The mortar is fine regardless if in your opinion it the "worst". The performance is inline with other mortars. Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 17:13 PMvgfgff Major off map are suck. It need 3-4 sec before artiliy dropping in and it also expensive with need additional 3 popcap for major. The off map is dirty cheap and the Major is actually OP for cost/pop. Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 17:13 PMvgfgff USF also have limited call in abilities and have no rocket truck. There off abilities are fine for dealing with support weapons: off map smaoke 240mm howitzer Tot M83 cluster mines WP barrage IR/WC51 off map MHT can all help vs enemy support weapons. Basically only AB does not provide an extra tool vs support weapons... USF might not have a "rocket truck" but they have a rocket tank in 2 commanders... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: move okw mg to tie1 or give a sniper27 Sep 2021, 16:49 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 16:07 PMPip Very strange that they have a 38% winrate in 3v3 but an apparently 58% in 4v4. It probably too early and data are not enough. Probably a premade team allies played many games and influenced that stats. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can the stug E be made more like the Scot at t427 Sep 2021, 16:47 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 15:38 PMKlement Pikhtura Scott has to be decent, because USF are very limited in terms of dealing with AT guns and team weapons in general. While OST already has a lot of tools and, as I said, it is also good at turtling. If you make Stug-E like Scott, this just telegraphs disaster, or requires a redesign. IMO it could use a buff, but it should not be like Scott USF are not very limited in dealing with support weapons, they have cheapest mortar, pak howitzer, scott, Major off map. On top of that the get smoke round in both infatry and vehicles. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Design: Small arm fire 27 Sep 2021, 14:38 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Sep 2021, 14:11 PMdonofsandiego Eh honestly "unified simple system" lends itself better to simulator games and less to asymmetric balance. Like I said, you could easily make it a "unified simple system" by having a base weapon profile with increased/ decreased accuracy, reload, c/d based on the recieving unit's "proficiency" value. Things like firing on the move can be a perk that is attributed to every top tier elite squad. But then you have issues with balance. It's fine when every army has similar squad sizes and such like in MoW, but with a game like CoH you have imbalances in things like that that make fine tuning necessary. You get to a point where you simplify the CoH out of CoH. I'm all for making these individual stats easier to read but too much astroturfing and removal of all scary RNG factors is going to make a game that is less enjoyable in general. Allow to explain again. The current system in Coh2 is simply a mess: Ostruppen get a penalty in all slot weapons (probably the only infatry with such penatly) Obers get different versions of lmg34 than any other infatry (probably the only infatry with such penalty) Commandos get a only a better version of the bren Paras/Ragner get only a better version of bazooka Penal/Guards get different versions of PTRS AGB get a different version of DP that they can fire on the move The point here is that instead of applying different solution for individual squad a single system should be implemented applying bonus and penalties according to squad's category. That has simply nothing to do with RNG. In: COH3 Central