Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Revamping the revamped Firestorm doctrine 3 Mar 2019, 09:47 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Mar 2019, 09:03 AMAntemurale AT mode for leIG 18 would make it far too powerful. 270MP, already effective against buildings, now able to fight off light vehicles. Why on earth would you ever build a Raketenwerfer? Miragefla implemented a Hollow Charge single-shot ability for the leIG 18 previously. It wasn't too well received; not enough damage by itself, yet giving it any form of stun would make it OP. In my opinion, simply make the flame barrage more effective (increase performance). I would increase shots fired per incendiary barrage and/or increase AoE and DoT. I am not so sure, the M-42 is cheaper and has 2 fire modes. LeIG and 7.5 cm StuK 37 L/24 (PzIV D, Stug E) could easily have 2 fire modes (actually LeIG used to have 2 fire modes) direct and indirect fire. Direct fire mode would be ballistic and could have lower range and some penetration or deflection damage. Indirect fire mode would be explosion and work similar to now. One could even take further and swap Leig with the Ostheer mortar since it fits more thematically and probably as factions. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why has the USF regular sherman become so bad...2 Mar 2019, 19:10 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Mar 2019, 15:45 PMEsxile ... When you put in comparison Tech design, not really. Sherman is cheaper by 10 fuel but for that price you still miss half of your teching progress if you want your sherman hitting the field before a panther... Sherman can easily arrive earlier than Panther unless your opponent is ahead on fuel and has not produced a single vehicle. Jump back to quoted post2 Mar 2019, 15:45 PMEsxile I'm not expressing mystic stuff or rocket science, check by yourself on casts or replays and compare how many time you see a Sherman and how many time you see Pz4s. Sherman are ignored by players the majority of the time because you need Jackson to fight Pz4.... Not really, the reason do not see Sherman that much, has to do with fact that USF can deal with infatry without them, while ostheer need the PzIV to deal with allied infatry. And no one does not need a Jackson to fight a PzIV, USF have a number of AT option and even a supported Sherman can fight a PzIV just fine. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Why has the USF regular sherman become so bad...2 Mar 2019, 18:56 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Mar 2019, 11:41 AMKatitof You forgot to not ignore the fact that axis tanks armor is definitely not in line with all the 160 armor mediums again. Not saying sherman isn't fine, it is, but stop acting like penetration can be compared without taking into account armor of opponent. I see that you continue your little crusade of proving me wrong but once more it does not actually work for you. I have very clearly write penetration and not chance to penetrate. The penetration of the Sherman is not "poor", it is in similar levels with the other mediums. The close one is actually x112% higher than that of the PzIV. As for chance to penetrate check "Jae For Jett" where he clearly demonstrate the level of the differences. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Why has the USF regular sherman become so bad...2 Mar 2019, 09:31 AM Jump back to quoted post2 Mar 2019, 09:15 AMblancat low armor and poor penetration but thats ok he jsut 110 fuel unit Sherman does not have "poor" penetration it is inline with the other medium tanks. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Statistical Oddities1 Mar 2019, 23:25 PM OKW PzIV having lower rear armor than Ostheer. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: UKF command vehicle bug1 Mar 2019, 23:23 PM I guess one try to could make command vehicles immune to abandon critical. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: Ostheer MG/Early1 Mar 2019, 16:54 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 16:06 PMSkysTheLimit No it really isn't. Here's a list of Ostheer units that won't be affected: Literally all of them except the mg42 "Oh but it will effect timing and it delays other units" Very VERY slightly yes. If you think this will be a critically debilitating change than you have an unhealthy bias towards Ostheer. Then of course there's the fact I've already said I want to increase the cost of all MGs. And the performance of most of them too You are forgetting the time frame factor. The nerf you are suggesting is in the first ostheer unit and even small nerf can have a huge impact, this has been clearly demonstrated by the changes in Reckon commander and the huge impact changes in timing turned an average commander into an OP commander. Ostheer have the best HMG (and they already have lost their superiority in their other support weapons) by design and there is hardly any reason to nerf it unless one want to change that design. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Discuss for the votes1 Mar 2019, 15:32 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 15:09 PMJibberJabberJobber I don't agree: Assgrens cost 40 more mp upfront, but the officer costs 2 more pop and 4 more mp to reinforce. The officer comes at a time when it has no shock impact, unlike assgrens. Assgrens have better RA with vet and an extra mp40, letting them outperform the officer + diversion. You have every right to your opinion. From my experience I find the officer much better for offensive play and I have used "diversion" extensively. The officer actually vet quite fast dew to shared veterancy Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 15:09 PMJibberJabberJobber The strength of the arty officer doesn't come from its combat performance, it's why the squad gets shared veterancy to keep up. Not really, the officer is quite strong with diversion, the aura is also strong but only when blob. His strength comes from diversion, smoke and vet 1 arty. The aura is only worth it when you have another 3+ squads. Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 15:09 PMJibberJabberJobber I prefer sprint over diversion, but I'd support a second vet ability for assgrens that merges sprint with lowered RA for 10 seconds (similar to UKF's battlecry). And this bring us to my point, less bleed is imo a better solution than increasing mid DPS. In: Lobby
Thread: Discuss for the votes1 Mar 2019, 14:56 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 14:47 PMJibberJabberJobber Tbh, assgren sprint is more useful than diversion. The diversion bonus is rather small (considering their low combat performance at 2 CP), the muni cost is fairly high and the awkward pistol animation slows down the squad. I suggest you test the 2 units in game. I actually have used the Artillery officer with diversion allot and it is in much better place the A.Gren, it has smaller target and also cheaper and thus more cost efficient. In: Lobby
Thread: Discuss for the votes1 Mar 2019, 13:55 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 22:43 PMJae For Jett ... It may not be what you were implying, but if the argument is "vipper was right all along, but isnt listened to (hence why he has to repeat himself)" then these two examples dont really have to do with that. ... First of all, imo, a very large portion of people posting here (some post here for other reasons) and the balance team all have the same goal. To improve the game. The fact that we disagree on how, is not really an issue. I am under no illusion that I am always right and the fact that the majority of my post start with "in my opinion" reflect that. The reason that repeat some things has to do more with the fact what imo are mistakes are being repeated. Increasing the DPS of unit to make the more attractive has been used as a solution again and again and the results where mediocre. Osttuppen got LMg and they still are not much better in late game, Stormtroopers got a major DPS buff and they still are not that great either just to name a few. On the other hand Ostheer artillery officer with diversion ability is in much better place than assault grenadiers although his comes with only 4 Mp40s. Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 22:43 PMJae For Jett The other examples I certainly cant disagree with though. Sector assault and jli made it through long (though by no means dense) stretches of testing. That said, its not like you werent heard. There are a lot of voices in the community. The majority was fine with jli and sector assault until it hit live. The majority was fine with valentines for a fair bit AFTER they hit live (see the post revamp poll). Having ones opinions heard doesnt necessarily mean getting ones way; that would be paradoxical with the sheer number of opinions. The fact that broken abilities like Sector assault/JLI make it thru has more with trying to change too many thing at same time than anything else. That actually slow downs the balance process more than if someone made sure that the changes one introduces are solid. I am certain that my opinion is being heard along with opinions of everyone else because, especially since many changes that I brought up (like the damage reduction for Dozer/Kv-2) do actually make it in live and I hold no grudge for the points I make that are not implemented. I have vision of direction the game should be taken and I am sure that every member of the moderation team also has one. But I do think that I should point out directions that work or do not work even if that mean repeating myself, especially when direction that I consider wrong are taken. (at least until directions are tested and are proven inferior to other solutions) In: Lobby