Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Revamping the revamped Firestorm doctrine 1 Mar 2019, 13:37 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 12:37 PMKharn .... Personally, I find the Truck quite good. It provides reinforcement and an accuracy buff. . ... There is no accuracy buff, only reload. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Discuss for the votes1 Mar 2019, 13:30 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 12:35 PMKatitof UKF can donate weapons to team mates(and crew weapons). USF can donate vehicles to team mates(and crew weapons). Soviets can donate fuel to team mates. Ost can donate resources to team mates. OKW is all about leeching, so irrelevant here. Point is, in team games completely different dynamics and rules apply. You can't remove between faction synergies, because these synergies are what makes for team games. Each USF donated vehicle is 1 less vehicle for USF. Each weapon donated by UKF is 1 weapon less for UKF. Soviets and ost also do not exactly float resources they use for their supply drops and impact of raw resource boost can be greater. Also, weapons dropping is a thing, you will now want to remove weapon slots form certain units because they might be strong? Will you nerf HMG42 performance, because once captures by soviets it'll have 6 men crew? The REAL issue was cons with dual LMGs and that was already addressed ages ago, so instead of bitching about penals with LMGs, how about you'll show us examples from competitive level 2v2 where its used to the overpowering extend instead of whining how theoretically strong it is? "Weapon dropping" is irrelevant to "weapon donation" and specific measures have been taken to balance units that pick weapons. That does not mean that those measures are enough, since they do not apply to all units or all weapons. In: Lobby
Thread: Discuss for the votes1 Mar 2019, 12:39 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2019, 12:19 PMBizrock But Dhsk do not have more dps,... It does, check the raw number here: https://coh2db.com/stats/ Maxim and Dhsk stats are up to date. In: Lobby
Thread: Discuss for the votes1 Mar 2019, 10:30 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 19:34 PMKirrik M-42 and DShK in same commander is pointless, they are both are kinda bad anti-infantry weapons and bad anti-light vehicle weapons, having both in same doctrine is reduntant. Not even going to point out that currently even maxim is better than DShK as suppession/AI damage weapon .... M-42 is an extremely cost efficient weapon both as Anti-light and as AI. Your info about Dhsk is also incorrect, it has better DPS than maxim at all ranges (up to x137% close). In: Lobby
Thread: Discuss for the votes28 Feb 2019, 17:32 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 17:22 PMEtherealDragon We're kind of passed that point seeing as how Guard Motor, Shock Rifle, Armor Company, Mechanized, Special Ops, and most importantly Heavy Calvary already exist. I'd argue that 1 LMG Rifle isn't "superior" to 2X Bars so much as it is a different damage profile or play style. Adding LMG + EZ 8 is just another choice compared to Ranger + Pershing, Calv Rifle + 76MM or Ass Engineers + Bulldozer/M10 - it's not exactly novel or blatantly better than existing USF commanders. Not really. M1919 does not take all weapon slots. M1919 allow faster access to tanks while keeping one's riflemen strong since one does not have to unlock weapon racks. Special Op is rather Vamp Ober or Command panther (unless 4vs4) Pershing/Dozer are call-in tanks not related to tech. (The list can go on but is rather pointless in the this thread). Easy8s with their superior AT capabilities supported by infatry with access to flamer and LMG will prove problematic. There is large number of commander that have problematic designs and creating one more does not actual fix that. Finally this patch should focus on creating new commanders not fixing design issues of other commanders. In: Lobby
Thread: Conscript Utility28 Feb 2019, 16:43 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 16:20 PMSeductiveCardbordBox If you build only penals you are vulnerable to all vehicles If you upgrade them all to AT packages you become vulnerable to enemy infantry That is one why to look at it, another would be: If you opponent spam infantries you can beat him with the high DPS Penal have. If you opponent rushes vehicles instead, you can easily upgrade to AT and contain his light vehicles. If you opponent than decides to invest in infatry, you can have a T-70 that can wreck his infatry. It amazing how some people present that option to upgrade with PTRS as drawback. It remind me of the myth with option for HE Sherman, which was somehow presented as a bad thing. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Discuss for the votes28 Feb 2019, 16:31 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 16:14 PMEtherealDragon Why? Thematically the doctrine is supposed to be focused around Riflemen so giving them an upgrade makes perfect sense... Then thematically the Ez8 does not feet the commander. Commander should not provide both superior infatry and tanks. In: Lobby
Thread: Discuss for the votes28 Feb 2019, 16:01 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 15:41 PMEtherealDragon ...as part of the fix and then give Rifle Company another slot like M1919s or something... No more lmg pls. And having M1919 and Ez8s in the same commander is actually a bad idea. In: Lobby
Thread: Revamping the revamped Firestorm doctrine 28 Feb 2019, 15:13 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 12:32 PMblancat 60muni 3ppsh vs 45muni 5 mp40, RA bonus, grenades Conscript also get hit the ground and conscript are stronger because they have 3 mosins and 3 PPsh, they would be weaker if they got 6 PPsh. MP40 also take up all weapon slots while conscripts keep their slot. Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 12:32 PMblancat ppsh cons dont have grenade&smoke .. The grenade is for is actually a downgrade because the combination of the flame grenade and smoke grenade was considered to be too powerful, so do not try to present as a buff. PPsh Conscript do not need smoke because the come ourah similar to assault grenadiers. Let me explain this another way, for your next 2 game try in one to spam MP40 VGs and for the next to spam PPsh conscripts and tell me which one you won. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Discuss for the votes28 Feb 2019, 14:56 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 13:38 PMSander93 Also slightly increasing mid range DPS from basically non-existant =/= assault rifle profile. ... DPS Range 20 Thompson 6.2 PG MP 44 7 And again the problem with assault grenadier is not that they do not do enough damage it that they die before they can do damage. The artillery officer is much better unit. The approach of increasing DPS to make a unit more attractive has been proven to be problematic. Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2019, 13:29 PMJae For Jett Tbh, I'm sure people have heard you on that point. If they still insist on such a change anyway, it's probably because they simply don't agree with you. Repeating a subjective point that someone appears to not agree with probably won't do much besides add to the post count. People have every right to disagree with my opinion. On the other hand people also did not hear the feedback for the latest revamp when I pointed out that: Sector assault was problematic (nerfed 2 times already) Valentine was problematic (now limited to 1) JLI was problematic (nerfed 1) or That ST should get bonus damage vs building Or That ATG air drop should be replaced by pack howitzer In: Lobby