Profile of Firesparks

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1930

General Information


Thread: [may preview] cromwell's size nerf20 May 2016, 09:43 AM Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 09:11 AMButcher The size just got increased to about the standard of all other mediums. What is so bad about it? Seems to me that if Brits don´t have every advantage in the game any longer, people are getting upset. A 110 fuel unit that easily beat a 125 fuel Panzer IV and could even challenge Panthers due to mobility and rate of fire with vet was beyond stupid. I feel like this is a well deserved nerf. Or as Katitof would say: Cromwell is AN option and not THE option now. and the panzer 4 have better armor than all the regular medium. Uniquess are there to keep the faction samey. The cromwell's smaller target size is there for a similar purpose. the panzer 4 also have better coaxial and hull mg than either the sherman or cromwell as well. stop trying to squish every advantages possess by the the allied medium. and if the emplacement is really going to take a nerf, then the brits better have decent medium armor. The churchill and comet were already the best armor fielded by the brits during the war, unless relic start digging into experimental tanks. Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 09:11 AMMyself You can't actually use "Blitz" as an argument "war speed" is better than "Blitz". I also reduced target size in a target that is small to begin with (prepatch)... 21-22 is probably a better size for Cromwell... PZIV are probably some of the least cost efficient medium tanks currently...Cromwells are more cost efficient... if cost effectiveness is that much of an issue, just raise the cost on the cromwell. axis shouldn't be the only one with decent tank. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [may preview] cromwell's size nerf20 May 2016, 07:13 AM Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 05:45 AMTiger Baron The Cromwell's size is also historically accurate compared to the Sherman's tall stature, also, I don't think their guns have much of a difference besides the Sherman's round switching capabilities. the sherman gun is more accurate on the move and the HE rounds does give the sherman better firepower against infantry. penetration wise, they are about the same. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: LEIG needs a fix20 May 2016, 01:31 AM I think autofire with range great than 80 is just inherently too powerful. stuff like the mortar emplacement, leig, and the 120mm should get a nerf to their auto fire range down to 80 meters. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [may preview] cromwell's size nerf19 May 2016, 22:39 PM Jump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 22:35 PMCultist_kun Ask youself why Brits should have best stock medium tank in the game for the cheapest price at the same time? Cromwell is even better then PIV (which is more expensive), and have insane flanking capabilities and insane speed with vet. Sure we can bring target size back, with cost increase or left it with new target size for same 110 fuel and it still well best medium in the game. the insane crush ability is one of the reason why the cromwell is one of the best medium tank in the game. Nearly anyone who use the cromwell abuse the crush. Nerfing the crush ability is going to be a huge and jusified nerf to the cromwell. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal19 May 2016, 22:33 PM Jump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 19:37 PMVuther While a fairly logical idea, I am entirely certain doing this would cause ragequits over pathfinding screwups to increase exponentially. it would just affect the four offending units, instead of affecting nearly every tank. and if the sherman, t34/85, and panzer 4 have such extreme path finding problem, it would be better to find a separate solution instead of overpowering it with insane turn rate. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [may preview] cromwell's size nerf19 May 2016, 22:19 PM okay, the crush ability need a nerf/removal, but combining it with the size nerf is just too much. First of all, it's a double nerf to remove the crush and nerf its size at the same time. Most people who are decent with the cromwell can crush infantry with it. Removing the capability to crush, however justified, is already still a huge nerf to the unit. The cromwell's small size is one of the main reason why it has good scalability into late game, unlike the sherman. The cromwell's small size and speed give it survivability against the multitude of high penetration weapon possessed by the axis. The cromwell can dodge instead of trying to "tank" the axis doom cannon. Cromwell's better survivability make it a better investment compared to the sherman's better firepower. Removing the cromwell's small size just turn it into a mediocre tank like the sherman. Even the panzer4's main draw is really its survivability. It has higher armor against the generally weaker allied anti-tank. in my other thread ( https://www.coh2.org/topic/52976/week-3-may-preview-alternative-to-crush-removal/page/1#post_id535347) I propose nerfing the cromwell's chassis rotation rate as a nerf to infantry crush. It would also result into a slight nerf to mobility as well. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal19 May 2016, 20:22 PM Jump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 20:14 PMOmega_Warrior How is a units ability to change direction, minimal to mobility. It's pretty much half of it. It directly effects the units ability to get out of danger and circle targets. It's not like all maps are straight lines. there's a difference between turning tighter vs turning faster. nerfing the rotational rate means the tank would have a wider turn, but it shouldn't turn that much slower. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal19 May 2016, 20:09 PM Jump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 20:07 PMOmega_Warrior But what about the effectiveness of those two units. Cromwell and M10 depend on their mobility to be effective. Why should we nerf them just to keep a machinic in the game that was never intended to be a large part of it in the first place. Shouldn't we also start adding crush potential to units cost then if we are consdering it a large part of the game? Are we never going to allow there to be an medium vehicle with high mobility in the game, just so we can keep crushing around? this is what testing is primarily about. I am fairly certain that nerfing the chassis rotational rate will have minimal effect on their overall mobility, but it's really something you need to actually test to know for certain. and 34 deg/s is still decent while removing a huge chunk of their crush ability. It's the same rotational rate as the t34/85 and the 75mm sherman. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal19 May 2016, 20:05 PM Jump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 20:02 PMMyself Valentine is also extremely good at crushing... and the valentine have identical movement stats to the cromwell. I forgot about the valentine because rarely anyone use it, but everything I said about the cromwell's rotational rate and crush ability applies to the valetine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal19 May 2016, 19:40 PM Jump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 19:32 PMPencilBatRation That would be a double Nerf; mobility and crush. aside from infantry crushing, chassis rotational rate isn't that important. The most important characteristic of a flanker is turret rotational rate, acceleration, top speed, and chassis rotational rate, in that order. As long as your chassis rotational is above a certain amount, you don't need an insane amount of it. The jackson only have 30 degrees/ per second. it's still less drastic than removing crush entirely. In: COH2 Balance