Profile of Rappy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 526

General Information


Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 22:53 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:46 PMImagelessbean This was the point. It gave clear counterplay to handheld AT. You could target an individual and try to prevent him from firing. In exchange you left your tank very vulnerable to rear shots or snares, and you required high amounts of micro. The other player needed only decide when to retreat. Or, if you were near a building you could jump in and fire then jump out another door. I fail to see how giving players a tool in which to deepen the game is so broken that it needs to be removed now. The problems that we are dealing with are specific to only a couple of tanks and not to the medium tanks as a whole. The times when a trap has been set, aside, and for the greater number of times infantry aren't hugging the walls of garrisons, it was far too easy to murder with an over performing efficiency. That is all I'm saying. If you follow the rest of my points, I said crushing should be brought back but normalized across factions and toned down with certain tanks. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 22:49 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 21:12 PMTobis And I'm saying that is completely wrong. Ok dude. Whatever you say. You have provided no argument at all as to why that is wrong. But I can't be bothered to continue this debate over such a petty point. So yes I bow down to your inferior argument. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 22:45 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 22:33 PMFichtenMoped The argument, that M10 should be viable for AI made me die a little on the inside. It's supposed to be a TD not an Anti-Infantry Bulldozer +83 Thank god there is still some sense left in this thread. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 20:00 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 17:32 PMTobis Don't blob up then and spread your units out. Problem solved. Why should one squad of infantry completely negate vehicle play? If you have multiple AT units spread out and if they try to crush they will lose the tank. I was talking about this from the perspective of the tank driver not the blobber. Read again if you must. Point is it's less risky to dive in for the crush against infantry handheld At than it is to stay put, or in some circumstances to try and leave the scene. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 19:57 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 17:42 PMferwiner What about snares then? They hit the tank when soldier is getting crushed even if he didn't manage to fire. Precisely why I said handheld AT and not snares. I was responding to an erroneous post saying that it is risky for a tank to go in for an infantry crush against infantry with handheld AT and snares. I was pointing out that handheld AT doesn't fire. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 16:55 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 13:39 PMkingdun3284 I think when a tank risking itself to crush into infantries which have snares or hand held AT, it should be rewarded Infantry crushing prevents handheld at from firing since the infantry are automatically moved and their weapons aren't able to fire when moving. No risk involved. In fact it is far more risky NOT to dive in for the crush when you see handheld at blobs. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How does moving accuracy works? I think I figured it out22 May 2016, 06:41 AM What about infantry? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change21 May 2016, 22:02 PM Jump back to quoted post21 May 2016, 20:45 PMCookiezNcreem I don't think anyone is defending m10 crush. What's dumb is removing it from ANTI INFANTRY medium tanks. It's a terrible change in that regard. Why should a medium tank be backing off and playing peek a boo and footsies with basic infantry? It may be dumb to remove it completely but some other solution for faction balance must be sought then. Why should Cromwell or t34 crush twice as swiftly as a p4 or Sherman? I agree that tanks should not be hiding from infantry, but in my opinion that has more to do with no limits on handheld at and the potency of at snares and nades. Soviet at almost always wrecks an engine in one shot. Crushing isn't way to solve that since at nades and Faust still go off even if it stops schreks and zooks from firing. Also its just too efficient in some tanks with no real reason except as by product of a better mobility, which is already an advantage in and of itself. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change21 May 2016, 19:51 PM Jump back to quoted post21 May 2016, 19:23 PMDAZ187 JUST RETREAT also it makes the game more intense. changes should be reverted That's just a terrible solution, sorry. Why should a tank destroyer have a force retreat or die option on infantry? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change21 May 2016, 16:55 PM Jump back to quoted post21 May 2016, 16:02 PMDoggo T-34, Cromwell and M10 are all going to require buffs to make them relevant now that crushing is out. I disagree. The Cromwell was over performing. To a lesser extent so was the wolverine in comparison to puma. And I'm not sure if you noticed but the t34 just received a bunch of buffs. In: COH2 Balance