I like how you compare AI light tank to generalist medium, like you're trying to make a point, but without actually knowing what's happening.
I like how you bit the bait. The only point i was trying to make is that the comparison i quoted was pointless. It was very effective... |
T-34-76 shots bounce off Brummbar rear armor.
Luchs shots bounce off t34 rear armor |
Why IRHT still in Random match if banned from tournament? Isnt that will make Okw BattleHQ only give FlakHT & Supportgun while MechaHQ gives many powerful Light options.
IRHT should be removed in BattleHQ and replaced with another unit. I cant tell what should be in the slot since Okw just have everything in hand.
This kind of ideas are the ones that kill a game, a long overdue dead game.
Valentines recon area was bigger and it was "just a dude with binoculars". The dev team buffed it and removed the recon part to make it a viable LV, also remove a possible exploit with its recon mode.
IR HT on the other side IS the recon, there is no secondary objective for it now. Take a moment, make a tea and read all the constructive discussion made to rework IR HT into something both balanced and useful.
The "remove" button is only for bad players, the game units are not to blame |
No matter what the balance team do for heavy tanks nobody will be satisfied. At first, the heavy tanks came in very late due to high CP requirements which impacted 1 v 1 and 2 v 2 players. Then we changed the CP requirement again and now they come super early along with fast tech.
Agreed, but thats why balance its not a matter of taste but rather tight designs.
Heavies in CoH are a doctrinal exclusivity, roughly speaking, there are some that replace mediums, others are specialized tanks hunters and others are meat shields. Its a big diversity of roles to be fullfiled by heavies. All of them have an elite version of a specific role.
People will be satisfied if the heavy tank design is coherent, balanced and pruposeful, regardless of those people that dont understand it or want it their way. This is a harsh statement but a solution to a endless debate about tanks, heavies and TDs. |
As long as they have a build timer I'm good with your idea. If you can call them in still it would be too easy to replace a lost heavy
Losing a heavy might mean GG in 1v1, but in long team games you can easily see more than 1 from the same player (not at once of course)
Exactly, thats what i meant.
The buildtime method to request a heavy tank add another time to it, the downside is that the player can cancel it and recover the investment. If heavies are made cheaper the impact of this mechanic will be minimal.
On the other side the call-in method solves the resource refund problem, imo is a better solution, but it must be balanced properly with high enough CP+Full tech tree.
Loosing a heavy tank should put the player in a big disadvantage because it will take too long to get another. Of course even heavy tanks have different roles/durabilities, that should be taken account into aswell. |
|
Even when im so tempted to answer the CODGUYs troll last comment, i would simply address the whole thread instead, giving food to trolls does not only give them a reason to keep posting trash but also disrupt other people putting their best effort.
Rangers could use a better start with 0CP only if some drawback is created, like increasing their reinforce cost up to double their actual value or so |
|
I want to take a risk and suggest something completely different.
Reduce all heavies accordingly but around 50% of their current FU cost, to make them "useful" because of their outstanding performance/cost. But increasy hurtfully the CP and buildtime/CD to dangerous 15cp/20 min or so.
Everyone will get a heavy with this but not everyone will risk it, even with resource overflow
Added: There are no mayor risks on making Heavies cheaper, since they are limited to 1, IMO. But their timings should adjust and balance its availability and cost |
|
To both, Skyisthelimit and Stuglife, lets consider that different skill level matches will change the units used. Its not a simple black or white argument. Stupas are a rare sight on even matches i would add.
I see brumbarrs more often when OST can secure both fuel points on teamgames, because Allied are cornered to abuse infantry and team weapons. But that makes brumbarrs a little unnecesary, because they only secure an already won match. In 1v1s i see brumbars when the allied player goes full mainline+support weapons. stupas come very late in the game, to turn back the tides, but allied easily invest stockpiled fuel in a TD and after that Stupa is a burden, similar case to flame hetzer with some differences.
Its true that allied TD shut down too effectively stupas, even if it makes sense but on the other side TD are not threatened in any way by stupas. My point is there is no NEED for TD to overkill stupas, there is a REASON but it is not worth the overperfomance of TD that already counters mediums/heavies/AI tanks |
i think stupa is kind of fine now to be honest, it used to be way to armored to be penetrated by paks. If it needs anything then it could do with a small hp buff so it survives an extra shot
Stupa is kind of meant to counter paks...
At the same time ATGs are ment to counter armor.
I would balance it towards the stupa because its more niche unit than ATGs. |
|
Slow projectile speed is fine, it gives room for counterplay and retreat if the other player really wants. It preserves mainlines but still punishes team weapons, wich is perfect.
I would like an armor buff definitely, since it doesnt harms any other tanks, damn i would even buff it to withstand HVAP of M36s. Since its a hull tank it can get snared easily when used offensively and it will die to flanking attacks in no time.
I will suggest to give it a single extra HE shell, single shot use to be fired like a mini ST round. It stuns tanks, it suppress squads. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
