What about usf RE mines? Or would that be too spammable?
Miragefla mentioned he was considering replacing the tellers with tank detection btw.
Or Dank Hunters'? |
No, you missed my point which was that spamming PzGrens is not not going to work outside of 4v4 (where anything works really, largely due to the absurd low skill ceiling in 4v4).
You said 'competent', not 4v4. But whatever. |
Yes it is, my bad. The cover bonusses do apply there, I thought you were talking about the next test with the Panzergrenadiers closing in to within the 10 range threshold.
It's all good. |
Thats 3*340manpower and close to 300 Munition on a 4-model squad. But yeah, should be nerfed. Maybe half the damage of shrek so you need 6 squads of pzgrens to abuse this?
No, it shouldn't be 'nerfed', it just shouldn't be buffed or made easier to spam in the larger game modes because it's frustrating to deal with, but more important, it is not fun.
Since many people seem to be running off the incorrect assumption that I said that this is OP, that is not the case. My point was that this is commmon in 4v4, where another 3 players (who aren't spamming that) have plenty of infantry and units to fill the gaps.
I'm saying that if you _change_ pgrens, keep in mind what repercussions the changes can have in all game modes.
Imagine thinking the build in that screenshot works against anyone even remotely competent.
In terms of PzGrens, I think they're mostly fine now, with perhaps a slight MP cost reduction the only thing missing.
You either are failing to understand my words, or intentionally choosing to misinterpret them.
|
|
Maybe it's just me but there's no picture loading in your post.
edit: oh wait, there it goes, after 4 refreshes. Weird.
So he used the stuff on the map to hide the signs? Dunno man, seems like a clever use of the environment to me. |
Random note: cover bonusses do not apply when units are within 10 range of each other. So in that engagement there was no cover, technically speaking.
Also to elaborate further, directional cover does exist but only for green cover (-50% damage and -50% accuracy), although green cover always gives -50% damage from explosives. Yellow cover (-50% accuracy) is not directional.
Pretty sure this is past 10 range, right?
Conscripts have sight 35, according to coh2db.com/stats, and the enemy squad is past the halfway point of their radius of vision, so I assume the green cover there works.
You can see the bottom model sticking out; anyway it's a minor thing that's not worth harping about, but I brought it up to further reinforce my point that "single case examples" are not something to generalize "X will beat Y" heuristics off.
|
Veterancy would swing the engagement further into favor of the conscripts.
IMO, this whole cover bonus should just be changed to 10% more accuracy. People underestimate the worth of an extra model. It's not just an extra model worth of dps and health, but also increases utility, survivability and makes the squad bleed less (damage distribution). If you add the lower reinforcement cost on top of that, reducing the dps bonus to 10% more accuracy seems reasonable.
I don't think we fundamentally disagree, I also would rather we keep it at 6-men and just give them a normal efficacy buff -- if you do it via a stock SVT or DP upgrade, you'd even lock them out of picking up other weapons (and so no fear for le dreaded Vickers power combo).
Vetted upgraded-cons probably would beat grens consistently, but you'd also have grens with LMG for much longer than you'd have upgraded cons. Regardless, my point wasn't "axis op" but rather to not conveniently forget RNG whenever it is convenient to one's desire to feel incredulous. |
|
I am not at all a fan of the 7-man upgrade as it is, having said that...
Tightrope's video shows a case of "barely winning" in a match-up at long range. I feel the need to repeat what I said when his previous videos showing one-off comparisons came out -- seeing it once does not mean it always will be like that, and in such close results, RNG can very strongly sway things one way or another.
I also was disappointed in the comparison against pgrens when Shadow moved the pgrens to the destroyed tank green-cover, but left 1 model very obviously exposed, with the 2nd possibly being exposed as well since they were at an angle to the conscripts (and I am told cover is directional).
Though even if the pgrens won that engagement, it still would not mean that's how things will always go.
Regarding the changes to the m-42, I think it should rather have its cost raised rather than its performance nerfed, but then I am personally biased as I really like using that unit in pairs. Though I find it comical that we are nerfing this unit because "it is abusive when massed" when the game is plagued with blobbing issues that are not being addressed. |
So here we have an upgrade that:
- Significantly reduces bleed with 15% reduced reinforcement cost and up to 17% better damage distribution (extra model).
- Increases the total healthpool by 17% (extra model).
- Increases individual dps by 15%~37% in cover and group dps by 17% (extra model), for a total dps increase of 34%~60% in cover.
- Increases veterancy gain by 20%.
But somehow a single dp upgrade would be too strong. 
420 IQ solutions to 69 IQ problems. |
|
Sure thing Ullu, totally. Definitely.
Anyway, to the mod/balance team, please keep what I brought up in mind. Thank you. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
