Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 19:06 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2017, 18:32 PMelchino7 "And generally I do not like that can not vet. " This is your subjective opinion. Yes it is personal subjective opinion. The reason I do not like it, is that veterancy is key mechanic of the game that I like. From the post where quoted me. "Will simply have to agree to disagree: For you Tiger ACE is fully vetted unit for me it is not, it is simply a different type of Tiger, the same way a OKW Panther is different type of Panther." No idea why we still debating this. In the end of the day if the name and 3 stars over the icon is the issue renamed to TIGER Ausf. E removed the stars and allow it vet. The whole commander was initially designed to have less but vet units and a all or nothing button if things went wrong. Everything has change since then and Tiger ACE does not hold the shock value it once had. It would be better if it changed. Giving normal fuel price and removing the penalty seem changes in right direction. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 17:06 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2017, 17:03 PMJohnSmith It is a Tiger fully vetted. You argue for the sake of arguing. You are the one who is actually arguing of sake of arguing even when the debate is over and we have agreed to disagree. On top of that you actually have zero contribution to the topic of the thread (but that is probably a trend of yours). Let me explain this to once more since you probably have not read what has been already said: Tiger vet 3 does not have the same stat as Tiger ACE so it not a Tiger fully vetted. I have nothing to add so have a nice day and bb now. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 16:32 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2017, 15:43 PMSvalbard SD How is it gone if you get to deploy a veteran, advanced Tiger straight away without having to babysit it for veterancy? You pick the Elite Troops doctrine and get an elite unit, simple as that. Also your comment that I originally replied to said it is a disadvantage of the TA that it "can't vet", which I said does not make sense because it is already veteran when it comes to the field. If you don't like the abilities/improvements that come with its veterancy, you can say "it is a disadvantage of the TA that its veterancy is not as good as vet3 normal Tiger's in my opinion", but saying the TA "can't vet" is a statement that ignores the fact that it's already vetted. No, they are not. Having better stats =/= veteran status. Veteran status is tied to the in-game mechanic of veterancy. Will simply have to agree to disagree. For you Tiger ACE is fully vetted unit for me it is not it is simply a different type of Tiger, the same way a OKW Panther is different type of Panther. And generally I do not like that can not vet. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 15:34 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2017, 14:35 PMSvalbard SD I'm not sure how it is possible to continually miss the point of my reply, unless your objective is to troll here. The TA has better performance than the normal Tiger -- this means it is veteran. If you're looking for additional clues for this veteran status, the unit icon also has three stars above it. If a unit is already veteran, it is obvious it can't vet further. If you don't like the kind of veterancy the TA has, that is not a basis for claiming it is not veteran, only that its veterancy does not suit you. Not sure why you get frustrated. My point is that idea of "elite" behind elite doctrine is gone and the "Tiger ACE" is not a vetted Tiger. I am under the impression that normal Tiger even becomes better offensively since it get +5 more range and less scatter by vet 2. Look at it another way OKW PZIV or PZV are better for what ever reason (according to your theory because they are "veteran") but they can still vet and can achieve vet 5. And this quite an interesting suggestion I read somewhere (sorry I can give credits), to allow the doctrine to achieve higher veterncny levels like 4 or 5. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 14:15 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2017, 14:11 PMSvalbard SD It might have different stats, but its enhanced stats are a result of it having a veteran/Ace status, so you can't say it "can not vet". Their might be some actual truth in that if the Tiger ACE was identical to vet 3 Tiger. It is not They are different units with different stat, cost and CP. If one was to change the name to Wittmman's Tiger (for instance) it would look odd that the unit could not vet. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 14:06 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2017, 13:55 PMSvalbard SD Only the first two points of these can be considered valid, as (3) is simply wrong and (4) does not make sense because the tank comes in with vet 3 -- that is why it is called an Ace. Well this mostly a name thing. Tiger ACE is not the same as vet 3 Tiger. It has different stats. The unit still can not vet. Things would probably be allot better if the unit had a fuel cost and no penalty. I would even considered allowing the unit to vet. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace's resource penalties1 Feb 2017, 13:25 PM Even if the penalties are completely removed the ability will be fine imo. Compared to normal Tiger the Tiger ace has the following disadvantages: 1)Can not be replaced 2)Cp17 vs Cp13 3)Cost 800(720/260) vs 640/240 4)Can not vet increase cost if need but the penalty can go. (EDIT COST after response cost in parenthesis is the value of unit ) In: Lobby
Thread: osttruppen31 Jan 2017, 15:44 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jan 2017, 15:34 PMle_saucisson_masque that's why, imo, when we speak about balance, only top 100 1v1 should be allowed to speak. the other people post should be set invisi by default. You are entitled to your opinion. On the other hand some of the people actually designing the WBP are not top 100 1v1 players. Yet their knowledge of the game is better than most of 100 1v1 players... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: osttruppen31 Jan 2017, 14:28 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jan 2017, 12:49 PMPlaguer The game should be balanced around the top level play. Why? It takes away almost all of the l2p issues, someone might think that Infantry support guns are op just because they don't know how to deal with them. And on the other side, a top level player might say something is op because once you micro something correctly it becomes op, and thanks to that a average/low level player might not realise the problem there and call it bullshit. If the top level play is balanced, the game is balanced. Even we accept that the game should be balanced around Top players, that does necessarily mean that suggestion from top player should hold more weight. For instance if Top player A has based his strategies and success in specific units, it is very probable that he would resist any nerf to this unit and agree with any buffs. Further more his opinion in non meta unit might or might not be correct because he probably never uses them. Finally the game should enjoyable for everyone and thus the game should not only balanced but also diverse allowing more builts to viable. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: osttruppen31 Jan 2017, 11:38 AM Jump back to quoted post31 Jan 2017, 11:23 AMle_saucisson_masque well, having played against GG & Mr.Smith, they are far from being average level player. I have never fight against miragefla but he looks also strong. my idea on 'playercard' is to get rid of low level player and makes, for once, balance thread usefull. else we will always have people asking for ostruppen buff, when there is clearly other and bigger problem on other than osttrupen. Well the problem with actually asking for a playcard (and I am not saying that you are doing that) is that it turns balance (something that should subjective issue) to personal issue. In addition it opens the road to argument of type "I am higher level than you so I am right and you are wrong", and thus turning the forum into a toxic place. we do actually agree that Osttruppen is one not actually a balance issue thou. In: COH2 Balance