Login

russian armor

Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (11)down
2 Dec 2018, 21:59 PM
#61
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1000 | Subs: 1


u still think 222 is op?

You know you're a pretty credible person when the best argument that a person with some sort of hate boner for you can come up with is a debatably correct statement (pretty sure that's also not even what I said in context) from half a year ago.
2 Dec 2018, 22:07 PM
#62
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1000 | Subs: 1




No, you are just bias about your view of the community devs.

Clearly every one of the 10+ "community devs" that have cycled through hate allies. You should have seen the one poor guy that argued that axis shouldn't be nerfed into the ground. Everyone yelled at him to stop trying to have a different opinion than the community dev hivemind before he was removed from the team the very next day.
2 Dec 2018, 22:17 PM
#63
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 11978 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 21:52 PMLago


...

You're the one who started this conversation by saying an anti-tank gun wasn't meant to counter assault guns.

Like StuGs.

PLS read again more carefully:
jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 14:27 PMVipper

ATG are not the intended counter of Brumbar, the same way Pak are not the intended counter to KV-8s. It is the other way around both units counter ATG.
..

Now if in your opinion ATGs are the intended counter vs Brumbar and KV-8, pls make present you arguments and/or a replay demonstrating the "intended" use of ATG as to counter these vehicles.

Else pls stop derailing this thread and move on.
2 Dec 2018, 22:20 PM
#64
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17522 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 22:17 PMVipper

PLS read again more carefully:

Now if in your opinion ATGs are the intended counter vs Brumbar and KV-8, pls make present you arguments or are replay demonstrating the "intended" use of ATG to counter these vehicles.

Following that logic, snipers are not intended counters of mainline infnatries, because mainline infantries will run them down and kill snipers, before they will be able to wipe any mainline infantry squad.

Distance is also a major factor in hardcountering you know.

SU-85 is hardcounter to panther that is longer then 50 range away.
At 50 and less, its the panther that hardcounters SU due to similar RoF, but 50% larger health.

You're arguing semantics or ignoring completely how units with range advantage are supposed to be used and why keeping that range is critical for them.
2 Dec 2018, 22:32 PM
#65
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1033 | Subs: 1

He has made a true point.
.


No he hasn't, one tricks claim that the community devs have a "bias" against their faction every time it gets nerfed. Like the Brummbar has been OP for forever and arguably gotten 10x easier to use since they changed the Attack Ground 100% accuracy BS and gave it a larger AOE.

It could drive up bounce a fuck ton of shit thats suppose to counter it then oneshot squads. Only a completly bias moron would claim the Brummbar didn't need a nerf.


Clearly every one of the 10+ "community devs" that have cycled through hate allies. You should have seen the one poor guy that argued that axis shouldn't be nerfed into the ground. Everyone yelled at him to stop trying to have a different opinion than the community dev hivemind before he was removed from the team the very next day.


U trynna tell me all these faction one tricks are RIGHT :hansWUT:
2 Dec 2018, 22:41 PM
#66
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1614



No he hasn't, one tricks claim that the community devs have a "bias" against their faction every time it gets nerfed. Like the Brummbar has been OP for forever and arguably gotten 10x easier to use since they changed the Attack Ground 100% accuracy BS and gave it a larger AOE.

It could drive up bounce a fuck ton of shit thats suppose to counter it then oneshot squads. Only a completly bias moron would claim the Brummbar didn't need a nerf.



U trynna tell me all these faction one tricks are RIGHT :hansWUT:


Not saying that Bruumbar is fine, but the one shot part is wrong IMHO.

The gun actually got a lethal radius of 1.11 m, relying on large (6 m ?) aoe to deal non lethal damage that quickly drops, at the edges it's not even a double digit number.

The gun is..."political", guaranteed hit but guaranteed non wipe.

The issue, IMHO, is the durability. It needs to be punished if caught with the pants down.
2 Dec 2018, 22:45 PM
#67
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5214

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:30 PMVipper

Axis armor is designed for durability and that is why most axis vehicles get an armor bonus.

My point is simple, if allied TDs are OP as you say and can ignore even vetted armor bonuses ,then axis armor unit's vet bonuses should be redesigned to get something more useful for their role, the same Katyoushas vet 1 ability needs a redesign.

If it was my choice I would make Brumbar very durably, less lethal and better vs structures, but if Relic has decided that Brumbar should be all about the "Gun" that approach should be also reflected on the vet bonuses of the unit. That is the point I am trying to get across.

The Brums vet IS useful tho, against everything that ISN'T a TD. The Katy vet is useful when you want to blow some mu and deal less damage.

I DO agree that allied TDs are OP atm and need a pen reduction which would further improve axis armour survival but even now as it stands the axis durability works for everything that isn't TDs and that's fine, or would be if allied infantry wasn't so potent and made mediums more of a tactical choice over just kitted out infantry.
2 Dec 2018, 22:48 PM
#68
avatar of momo4sho
Senior Caster Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 464 | Subs: 1

The truth of the matter is that t70 recon, brumbar nerf, etc was agreed upon by a larger group of people [ 90% of them being in the anniversary classic tournament ]. This means that they are strong players on allies AND axis. there are no axis or allied fanboys on the balance squads like you guys insinuate. It's pretty insulting to say so when these complaints stem from a l2p issue (95% of the time)

Next thread?
2 Dec 2018, 22:51 PM
#69
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Next thread?


FHT vet nerf was unwarranted.

Followed by why did you guys tried to fix Zis gun bug when there is X Axis bugs unfixed.

Finally why did you touch X map instead of Y.
2 Dec 2018, 23:08 PM
#70
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1033 | Subs: 1



Not saying that Bruumbar is fine, but the one shot part is wrong IMHO.

The gun actually got a lethal radius of 1.11 m, relying on large (6 m ?) aoe to deal non lethal damage that quickly drops, at the edges it's not even a double digit number.

The gun is..."political", guaranteed hit but guaranteed non wipe.

The issue, IMHO, is the durability. It needs to be punished if caught with the pants down.


Ya I'd say the durability was the most obnoxious part about it in combination with the bunker nuke vet 1 ability. I think its around fine now since its still a solid AI unit but doesnt feel uncounterable now since AT weapons actually pen it.
2 Dec 2018, 23:28 PM
#71
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 11978 | Subs: 1



No he hasn't, one tricks claim that the community devs have a "bias" against their faction every time it gets nerfed. Like the Brummbar has been OP for forever and arguably gotten 10x easier to use since they changed the Attack Ground 100% accuracy BS and gave it a larger AOE.

It could drive up bounce a fuck ton of shit thats suppose to counter it then oneshot squads. Only a completly bias moron would claim the Brummbar didn't need a nerf.



U trynna tell me all these faction one tricks are RIGHT :hansWUT:

Brumbar was a crappy over priced unit that no one used for years. It only started to see action when it was buffed in the JUNE 21st update (2016) and further on when it received more buffs and the T4 become easier to access.

Will simply have to wait and see how much action will see from now on.
2 Dec 2018, 23:31 PM
#72
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
So how about a faster shell speed for the Brum after all these nerfs. Just like the change that the StugE is getting.
2 Dec 2018, 23:32 PM
#73
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474


Following that logic, snipers are not intended counters of mainline infnatries, because mainline infantries will run them down and kill snipers, before they will be able to wipe any mainline infantry squad.

well suprise surprise sniper are not the counter to infantry, they are the counter to team weapons
2 Dec 2018, 23:33 PM
#74
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 11978 | Subs: 1


The Brums vet IS useful tho, against everything that ISN'T a TD. The Katy vet is useful when you want to blow some mu and deal less damage.
...

My point is quite simple:
...
Brummbars, however, you're not getting for durability. You get them for reliable anti-infantry firepower. ...

Since it seem the unit is to be redesign for its firepower, imo that should be reflected in the vet bonuses that should improve the gun or mobility and not the armor.
2 Dec 2018, 23:34 PM
#75
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned

You know you're a pretty credible person when the best argument that a person with some sort of hate boner for you can come up with is a debatably correct statement (pretty sure that's also not even what I said in context) from half a year ago.


Well you've got nothing to add to the thread so what did you expect as a response from me.
3 Dec 2018, 00:48 AM
#76
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911


Following that logic, snipers are not intended counters of mainline infnatries, because mainline infantries will run them down and kill snipers


Unless the mainline has sprint, the mainline can not run down a sniper and thus your eqivalence is false.

Futhermore no one builds a sniper to "counter" mainline infantry but to bleed it.

Plus the Brummbar is in a Prenium tier so it should overperform, yes?
3 Dec 2018, 03:51 AM
#77
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

What is the difference between "bleeding" infantry and "countering" infantry?

It seems that they are both examples of A can beat B without losing to it.

3 Dec 2018, 08:21 AM
#78
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
Solid evidence that the decision makers are Ostheer haters is that the nerf to the flamer HT doesn't have an impact on damage output. You'd think that an urgent nerf was to fix a gaping flaw in a unit's design but something as benign as slightly faster speed is what is deemed massively OP and hence can't wait for a balance patch to be nerfed and must be nerfed NOW because oh no we can't have an op ostheer unit. I don't get it. OKW has been op for ages. USF had quite a few broken op units that took a long time to fix. Same with UKF. It's the first time ever that UKF was UP.
3 Dec 2018, 08:21 AM
#79
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 557

How about we simply stop blaming each others thought as biased and just focused on the fact that brumbär was nerfed and get over it and possibly just think possible changes for the unit in future?
3 Dec 2018, 08:33 AM
#80
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
How about we simply stop blaming each others thought as biased and just focused on the fact that brumbär was nerfed and get over it and possibly just think possible changes for the unit in future?


Like making the projectile speed faster.
PAGES (11)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

Board Info

142 users are online: 8 members and 134 guests
Soheil, kibe777, moreluckplease, nascarcrash8, Kieselberg, Crecer13, Nashka, Yukiko
58 posts in the last 24h
482 posts in the last week
3256 posts in the last month
Registered members: 23093
Welcome our newest member, moreluckplease
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM