Profile of Lago

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 3260

General Information
Steam: 76561198031945233


Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 19:34 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 19:27 PMT.R. Stormjäger I think the armour buff was good and the unit is in an good spot right now. If there is to be another change, it will be seen after the patch release. For now, this thread is completely pointless and the suggestion quite bad since the KV2 is already quite OP since its shell speed was increased. Again with this oversimplistic 'everything is power level' approach. That's not how making a game works. I can understand the people who think the Brummbar's current implementation is a good design. I disagree with them, but I understand. But making something badly designed deliberately as a nerf? That's just absurd. Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 19:30 PMKatitof Is 2 shooting full health squads regardless of squad size and spacing balanced? I refer you back to the rest of that post. If manual targeting is overpowered, then it needs toning down. My entire argument is the Brummbar shouldn't have this massive power spike when you manually target it. The difference between its autofire and attack ground performance should be comparable to other AI tanks. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 19:23 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 19:13 PMT.R. Stormjäger And force a damage nerf since it would be way too good. Absolutely not. Do you think the Brummbar is overpowered when microed manually? If not, then it wouldn't get nerfed. Units are balanced around their peak performance, not around rank 1000 4v4. Bringing autofire's effectiveness up to manual targeting's effectiveness wouldn't make the unit more powerful, it'd make it easier to use. If so, then it needs that damage nerf anyway. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 19:20 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 19:15 PMSerrith I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a higher micro unit being bad design. One of the resources in rts which isnt as tangible as manpower, gold, or minerals is player apm and multitasking. Knowing how to distribute that among all the tasks you have to do is a very important part of rts, and some units requiring more just means you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using too many of those micro or apm heavy units. Knowing how to tax your opponents multitasking and apm is just as important. And there are lots of manually targeted abilities designed to work that way. Zis barrages. Sturmtigers. The skillshots on the Pershing and Firefly. They all require manual aim and careful judgement. And they all have cooldowns. The Brummbar demands disproportionate attention to perform compared to other direct fire anti-infantry tanks, and that's a bad thing that's very easily fixed. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 19:06 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 13:04 PMSander93 And its vet 0 performance is already very good in the hands of someone who can micro it well (using attack ground), which is exactly the reason we're reluctant to directly buff it. Then why not close this performance gap? Speed up the shells and the performance gap between autofire and attack ground is reduced. You fix the Brummbar's inconsistent power level, mitigate its disproportionate micro demand and give it a hefty usability improvement in one fell swoop. The StuG-E could do with the same. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 19:01 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 18:46 PMWiderstreit It it really true I have to make videos to compare all units? The game is only cancer. I only say Preisleistungsverhältnis That viewpoint is simplistic to the point of being outright wrong. The Volksblob wasn't removed because it was underpriced, it was removed because it was a bad design. So is a unit that requires its autofire to be manually aimed. It's not a case of buffing it or nerfing it: it's making the unit not require a disproportinate amount of babysitting compared to similar units. If a unit is meant to be manually targeted, it typically gets a long cooldown so it doesn't demand constant attention. The ZiS's barrage ability is a good example. A unit that requires manual targeting but has the fire rate of an autofire unit in a strategy game where attention is divided amongst multiple units is really bad game design. It's so easy to fix, and it baffles me why people are defending it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 18:46 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 18:27 PMBlueKnight 90% of the time I manually target attacks for KV2 too, unless you mean the siege mode. But the performance gap is that much smaller. With most vehicles you can squeeze some extra performance out of them with a few clever attack grounds. The Brummbar has a huge performance gap between autofire and attack ground. Speeding up the shells doesn't buff it when it's being manually targeted (you just lead your shots less), but reduces the performance disparity between the autofire Brummbar and babysat Brummbar. It seems like a total no-brainer to me. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 18:17 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 18:07 PMBlueKnight When you need your generalist heavy tank to score an important shot you do attack ground with it as well to make sure it doesn't target the far away model, especially true vs ATGs or MGs, when you want to kill the guys crewing the actual weapon and not the bystanders. Keep in mind that enemy infantry needs to micro dodge vs Brummbar if it wants to avoid autofire or attack grounds, so it's micro vs micro. I think that Stormjäger is right. Also there is no other stock vehicle (except KT) that can continuously force retreats like the Brummbar. All these arguments also apply to the KV-2, which does have a decent shell speed. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 17:47 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 17:30 PMT.R. Stormjäger In no way is that a problem. It’s very much usable if you just right click on enemy squads but rewards predictions with manual firing with improved performance. Nothing wrong with it and no change needed. If it's meant to be a manually targeted unit, scrap the autofire and just give it a barrage ability. If it's meant to be an autofire unit, make its autofire work properly. It seems silly to me that generalist heavy tanks can hit with autofire just fine, but a dedicated anti-infantry heavy has to be babysat to get its full performance. PIATs were changed for the exact same reason. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar change1 Mar 2020, 17:05 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2020, 13:04 PMSander93 And its vet 0 performance is already very good in the hands of someone who can micro it well (using attack ground), which is exactly the reason we're reluctant to directly buff it. This is the problem with it really: it's an ostensible autofire AI unit that needs constant manual input to function. If it's too powerful with the shells sped up, tone down the damage a bit. If it's too good against tanks, tone down the deflection damage. PIATs got reworked for the same reason. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How to reducing USF's reliance on Jackson29 Feb 2020, 16:12 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2020, 21:37 PMMazianni Could just make the 76mm Sherman non-doc. Nobody uses it in Mechanized anyways. That's only because of the abominable Bulldozer upgrade. In: COH2 Gameplay