Login

russian armor

Winter balance (1/2020) feedback - UKF

PAGES (16)down
11 Feb 2020, 22:18 PM
#241
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Exactly, the buildable medics are buggy but they also are extremely cheap, can cap, and has REALLY FAST HEALING when they do work.

It's much easier to make them autohealingbots.

What do you think about putting the medics back in to the HQ glider and removing the heal bots from the glider?


I'm not a massive fan of buildable medic squads. Without an ambulance-like AoE lockdown, I just find them janky.

If they go anywhere, the Vanguard glider's the place though.
11 Feb 2020, 22:41 PM
#242
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2020, 22:18 PMLago


I'm not a massive fan of buildable medic squads. Without an ambulance-like AoE lockdown, I just find them janky.

If they go anywhere, the Vanguard glider's the place though.

I do not the them either and have razed some of the issue with them.

If one is determined to use them I guess one could try to have behave like base heal medic. Lock them with a banner similar to major and have run around and heal like base medics. I suggest this in previous post to get negative answer from the team.

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Feb 2020, 12:17 PMVipper




12 Feb 2020, 04:38 AM
#243
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

Command vehicle still bugs out when the vehicle abandons
12 Feb 2020, 12:11 PM
#244
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Feb 2020, 04:38 AMzerocoh
Command vehicle still bugs out when the vehicle abandons


The Command Vehicle Ability could use a rework.
12 Feb 2020, 12:27 PM
#245
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

The Command Vehicle Ability could use a rework.


Why? Besides the bug, it's one of the most powerful abilities in the game. Double Firefly with an AEC Command Vehicle is genuinely the scariest AT composition there is. The downside is that it takes a lot of resources and micro to make it work, which keeps it balanced. It's criminally underrated.
12 Feb 2020, 13:06 PM
#246
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

I think glider medics are a bad idea just like the reason a forward battlegroup HQ for okw is a bad idea.

It's a lot of investment for something so vulnerable, glider is even worse than the OKW truck in that regard. Maybe go ahead with the automatron medics like others have said and make it a HQ upgrade.
12 Feb 2020, 13:07 PM
#247
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 16:52 PMVipper

Neither Ostheer or OKW have CQC stock units they have mid to close range units.


See what tightrope has to say on the subject.

Again the issue is not if the unit should be introduced but how should it be designed.
I can't take you seriously sometimes when you just ignore people's posts and their point, and you instead focus on specific wording instead of the argument.

But I will explain to you. CQB is the same as close range, CQB is an acronym for close quarters combat.

Pgrens perform great in CQB, they also have the benefit of being able to dish out DPS at mid range. So yes Ostheer do have a unit that can fight in CQB.

12 Feb 2020, 18:41 PM
#253
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930



Why? Besides the bug, it's one of the most powerful abilities in the game. Double Firefly with an AEC Command Vehicle is genuinely the scariest AT composition there is. The downside is that it takes a lot of resources and micro to make it work, which keeps it balanced. It's criminally underrated.

it makes everything better, the centaur is actually insane with the buff.



The Command Vehicle Ability could use a rework.


it need 10+ range on the aura since they nerfed command vehicle on UC and the next cheapest vehicle is AEC

13 Feb 2020, 00:01 AM
#254
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Feb 2020, 18:41 PMzerocoh

it makes everything better, the centaur is actually insane with the buff.



it need 10+ range on the aura since they nerfed command vehicle on UC and the next cheapest vehicle is AEC



Designate Command Vehicle
Penalties to commanding vehicle:
-50% accuracy.
+100% weapon cooldown
-100% reload speed.
Churchill AVRE's ability reload also affected.

Units with the Aura will get :

Infantry bonus: +20% accuracy.
-20% cooldown.
+20% reload speed.
Range of aura - 40.

Vehicle bonus: +30% reload speed.
-30% weapon cooldown.
+30% accuracy.
+15% penetration.
Range of aura - 30.


The Ability itself isn't bad but it tries to do too many things at the expense of making one of your units practically useless which is why ideally you would want to use it on the cheapest vehicle possible (which would be the AEC). You would never want to use the ability on a Firefly, Comet etc which is why the ability should be reworked so that you would consider using it on these units and not on a throwaway vehicle like the AEC.

So for example if you look at the Puma Aimed Shot ability:

Puma fires a single shot with 1,000% accuracy, which will damage the engine of a light vehicle.
Puma fires a single shot with 1,000% accuracy, which will stun turretless vehicles.
Puma fires a single shot with 1,000% accuracy, which will turret lock the enemy's vehicle.
SU-76M will be stuned and engine damaged.

The Puma Aimed Shot ability works differently based on what vehicle you use it against. Designate Command Vehicle should work in the same manner that it would provide different things (including different penalties) based on what vehicle it is used on. For example - Using Designate Command Vehicle on Churchill (an Infantry Support Tank) Would Grant Infantry Aura bonus's (Kind of like Panzer Grenadier Combined Arms) While using the Ability on a Firefly would increase Penetration of Nearby Vehicles allowing Cromwells to screen for the unit and actually penetrate things as oppossed to - Toss ability on AEC and make everything around it OP
13 Feb 2020, 04:10 AM
#255
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I can't take you seriously sometimes when you just ignore people's posts and their point, and you instead focus on specific wording instead of the argument.

But I will explain to you. CQB is the same as close range, CQB is an acronym for close quarters combat.

Pgrens perform great in CQB, they also have the benefit of being able to dish out DPS at mid range. So yes Ostheer do have a unit that can fight in CQB.



I remind you that tightrope showcases a vet3 officer mopping the ground with pgren vet3 face.

I really would like this so called forum warriors to actually play the factions they attack sometimes
13 Feb 2020, 04:23 AM
#256
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

New subject:
Bofor's suppression barrage currently require a squad garrison inside the emplacement to use while being free.

Can we remove the garrison requirement and put a munition cost on it, like zis barrage? About 35-40 muni per use ?

The whole garrison bonus system has been made little effect for long.
13 Feb 2020, 05:44 AM
#257
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

To make bofors a crewed weapon that can be decrewed sounds odd, but it could justify some indirect buffs to it, like durability.

Fire skills will not damage it if its not crewed and that could lead to some interesting balance.

I would really add mortars to the concept
13 Feb 2020, 09:41 AM
#258
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833



I remind you that tightrope showcases a vet3 officer mopping the ground with pgren vet3 face.

I really would like this so called forum warriors to actually play the factions they attack sometimes



Literally where did I say vet 3 officer doesn't beat vet pgrens up close? It's a nice strawman you're attacking as I never claimed that. So read my posts again.

So try again "forum warrior"
13 Feb 2020, 09:45 AM
#259
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

New subject:
Bofor's suppression barrage currently require a squad garrison inside the emplacement to use while being free.

Can we remove the garrison requirement and put a munition cost on it, like zis barrage? About 35-40 muni per use ?

The whole garrison bonus system has been made little effect for long.


It's not worth it for 40ammo, but devs need to be careful with buffing emplacements because some really average players cheesed their way to top fourty before just by putting Bofors and pit together in the centre of maps.

What could be a possible fix to emplacements is a 80 range "no build" zone for mortar pit after you build a Bofors. This would prevent sim city
13 Feb 2020, 15:12 PM
#260
avatar of Princeps

Posts: 214



It's not worth it for 40ammo, but devs need to be careful with buffing emplacements because some really average players cheesed their way to top fourty before just by putting Bofors and pit together in the centre of maps.

What could be a possible fix to emplacements is a 80 range "no build" zone for mortar pit after you build a Bofors remove brace. This would prevent sim city


fixed for u
PAGES (16)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 49

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

298 users are online: 298 guests
0 post in the last 24h
20 posts in the last week
136 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45005
Welcome our newest member, Kreitner
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM