Profile of Maret

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 711

General Information


Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 16:11 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Oct 2019, 14:42 PMthedarkarmadillo The idea is to remove some of the frustrating elements of paying for a td/high armour unit and it not doing what you are paying for. Medium AT has a good balance for how well it works, same with ligh at (as limited as it is) but once you amp up the scale things start to fall apart. You pay ~200 fuel for a tank that won't bounce anything is just as frustrating as buying a ~140 fuel hard counter that doesn't pan anything. I'm looking for a reliability and predictability to the most unreliable and unpredictable portion of the game. It would still have RNG, but also still be predictable. In fact, i think there is more good option - increase health pool of heavy tanks or damage reduction (like kv-1 have). If TD get decreased pen with deflection, it become very unreliable against heavies (buy 130 fuel TD without turret, potent against only mediums...not good choice). You couldn't rely on TD that have low chance to penetrate and instead deal small damage. How you supposed counter Panther with blietzkrieg? Only if, you don't want make from panther slow-moving unit, to compensate decreased penetration of TD. Problem that Axis have heavy armored rush units. That could easile outmaneuver your TD, easpecially on open maps. IMHO, i prefer health-pool, because damage reduction only good for such units as kv-1 (low penetration and low mobility). Yea, in such case you need spend more time to repair, but i think it's better repair your tank neither build new one? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 13:58 PM Why not add non-doc smoke for brumbar? Or smoke shells? it completely resolve problem with AT-guns. While he still vulnerable for flanking. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 11:59 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Oct 2019, 11:34 AMT.R. Stormjäger The reason is that in reality a T34:76 could fire at the upper glacis of a Tiger and fail to penetrate, but a couple more shots at the same spot could cause spalling that damages the crew and potentially kills, while armour plates taking shots are then less able to resist more shots coming their way. If anything you could make it 50% to pen and 50% for deflection damage. This would allow for higher armour values which would make things more interesting and less arcadey. In reality t-34 will be shoot to barrel of gun or trucks. Because if you hit and destroy track, enemy tank will turn on side and show his side armor (not mention about full immobalize). But it in reality. Problem in game design. What we want? Make more realism or more dynamic and fun in-game? Realism and dynamic with fun always lays in different sides. Someone lack AT in game that we need deflection? I think every faction now, have enough AT options for every part of game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 11:49 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Oct 2019, 11:20 AMthedarkarmadillo Not everything would necessitate deflection damage, just proper hard counters, like the ones that are currently ignoring armour. I don't by any means want mediums and lights to have it, they can flank. But those than can't flank shouldn't be a dice roll (or lack of in the current case) to get through armour. Think of it as mid way between vcoh and coh2. Also all hand AT already deals deflection damage. IRC only ISU-152, KV-2 and Brummbar deal deflection. Proper hardcounters for which targets? M-42 proper hardcounter for any lv. Could it deal deflection for mediums? Su-76 could deal deflection to heavies and mediums? I don't see any reason make deflection exclusively for heavy TD while other AT units will be without deflection to their targets. If you have high penetration, you don't need deflection at all. Deflection could be option for units with poor penetration to not become burden for your pop-cap in lategame. Or for units like KV-2 and brum. Deflection for these guys? SU: SU-76, M-42 "baby at-gun", Zis-gun, IS-2 ? USF: AT gun (have pretty high ROF), Jackson, M10, Pershing ? UKF: M10, 6 pounder, 17 pounder, FF, Churchills, Comet? OKW: raketen,Puma, JP4, JT, KT ? OST: Tigers, pak, Elef, Panther, Stug? In fact, deflection hurts more, units with high armor. While only allied doctrinal heavies have enough armor, Axis will hurt much more from such change. P4 armor skirts will become less workable. P5 armor too. I think, such change just broke entire balance and dynamic of game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 10:46 AM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 23:34 PMthedarkarmadillo To provide adequate reliability for both heavy tank and tank destroyer I'd have deflection damage added so that all shots do more damage, some just do more(or less depends on how you look at it) flanking with cheaper tanks an hand AT are still available and applicable Heavy armour should be a combined arms event because of cost and upkeep While this idea sounds good and cold bring more "realism" in game. But there is hidden "poison" inside - snares. Now, snares cripple engine only if you penetrate enemy armor. If deflection damage will be bring for all AT and tanks, it make any armor pushes more risky action than before. You don't need to penetrate armor, just few shots to cripple engine. And i don't mention about balance of handheld AT, now only PTRS could deal deflection damage, if shrecks, piats and zooks will do it, it will also lead us to rebalance of handheld AT too. And i think shrecks and zooks blobs become more often event than before. You will get "constant" AT damage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehr weak penetration18 Oct 2019, 12:44 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2019, 12:40 PMStug life More specifically panther is a tank hunter , like puma ,Stuart, etc Stuart - tank hunter? Hunter for kubels, p2 and halftrucks? These guys barely could be called "tanks". Tank destroyer - armor unit that have high effectivness against any armor units, main factor - good accuracy and penetration. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehr weak penetration18 Oct 2019, 12:38 PM Why not made from P5 tank destoyer similar to Jackson or FF, if 60 range TD so crucial for OST? Low mobility, 60 range, lower HP, increase penetration to level of other TD. Enough armor to not fear stock mediums, while not effective against other TD. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehr weak penetration18 Oct 2019, 12:29 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2019, 12:18 PMachpawel Only stug with further range could help here imo. It would be much worse than jackson, su85 or firefly but they would at least have sth that could shoot at them from equal distance. It would lead to making them more careful and punished if they don;t pay attention, which would be enough. They would still beat stug decisively in 1v1 scenario. Not for current stug stats - 160 dmg per shot, high accuracy, 540 HP (it still need 4 shots to die) and 90 fuel cost. Also OST have 60 range tool that completely counter any stock ally TD - pak40. It always penetrate them and have enough accuracy to not miss. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehr weak penetration18 Oct 2019, 10:39 AM Bad design decision was non-doctrinal heavy tanks for OKW and Brits. That completely change how works AT for every faction. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehr weak penetration18 Oct 2019, 10:37 AM Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2019, 10:32 AMVipper Balance might or might not be fine but having TDs that can hit and penetrate anything that is not a KT from range 60 with chances close to 100% is bad design resulting in reducing game diversity. Reducing the effectiveness of long range TDs at max range will be an improvement to the game. If you want rebalance allied TD, the first thing - make KT doctrinal. After that, we will stay with Panther vs Allied TD - and could try to rebalance they match-up. But while KT is non-doctrinal option, allies must have reliable non-doctrinal tool against it. In: COH2 Balance