Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 12168 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Make Valentine and Commander vehicle be one ability？19 Sep 2021, 10:18 AM Making a designed command vehicle will make it easier to balance the unit, in pop/damage/cost. Actually the can be 2 version of the unit (or 3) a normal one, a command vehicle one (and artillery one) all thou I would rather move that ability to officer. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 2 non-doc upgrades for mainlines19 Sep 2021, 10:15 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Sep 2021, 08:53 AMGeblobt There is still the fuel cost. And thats mostly what delays tech generally speaking. I rather pay 75/20 than 150/15. And compared to UKF USF needs this to make rifle competitive. LMG Grens shit on unupgraded rifles and even stg volks have an advantage vs them. They get these upgrades at 5 min and bleed you afterwards until you get bars. But now you cant tech this cause your mp gets drained all the time. My point is that tech is becoming cheaper and cheaper this is simply a trend that should be stopped. If a faction is behind in tech instead of making cheaper it should simply become more expensive for the other faction. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: 2 non-doc upgrades for mainlines19 Sep 2021, 08:44 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Sep 2021, 08:41 AMGeblobt No they just need slightly cheaper Bars and less manpower on the weapon upgrade tech. Bars are really good but overpriced compared to other upgrades (90 Obers lmg, 90 Brens, 80 G43 Pfs). Going from 120 muni for 2 Bars to 100/90 muni for 2 Bars should make a noticeable difference while still being at a reasonable lvl. Sidetechs cost too much manpower currently imo. The fuel is there to make the decision between sidetechs and main tech. But idk why it punishes manpower income this much. Reduce it to 100 from 150 atleast. With these 2 changes USF can make the transition from unupgraded to upgraded inf faster and be more competitive in this regard. Currently its way easier for volks and grens to get their upgrade and gain the advantage. Making tech cheaper and cheaper does not seems to create new issues as seen by UKF. One should be looking in slowing down tech instead of continuously promoting it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 17:43 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 16:43 PMKurobane ... This is one of the consequences with COH 2 using a flat damage system for everything in the game. Especially when you have generic damage reduction modifiers in the from of Yellow/Green Cover that add unrealistic/unintended combat scenarios instead of more common sense/simplified target tables. Not everything has flat damage there units with bonuses vs certain units. Target tables where (over)used in coh1 and it was a nightmare. On the other hand one can make sensible use of target tables and benefit from them. (of instance ballistic can be set to 80 damage and add the rest as bones vs vehicles) Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 16:43 PMKurobane For example Mortars (and grenades) could be changed with Target Tables to ignore cover damage reduction (like flamethrowers do) as these are tools designed to combat entrenched positions not be weaker against them. Realistically a sandbag offers no protection against mortars in real life, not sure why COH 2 deems it necessary to offer 50% damage reduction in green cover. Doesn't make much sense. That is unnecessary there is no need for target tables when one can use cover tables. Target tables are used for use against specific units types. This was one of the few good changes the balance team has done as it added consistency rather than RNG elements. .... Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 16:43 PMKurobane USF has enough nerfs as it is not sure why you want to nerf them further unless you want to swap the tank traps with sandbags. Yes we know USF have been nerfed to the ground "Make America great again". Now pls read post 5 since that is irrelevant to this post. In: Lobby
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 15:36 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:38 PMSander93 Unless you can differentiate between sandbags heavy cover and regular heavy cover, which you can't, increasing certain weapon weapon damage against heavy cover is a bad idea. Regular heavy cover is not an issue at all, and as it's part of the core defining gameplay of the series, it's not needed/desirable to nerf that in the progress. The sandbags target size nerf exclusively nerfed sandbags heavy cover only. I do not see the reason there should be such "differentiation" is need. Cover is a core mechanic that does not mean that there should not be tools designed to counter it. On the contrary there are tools specifically designed for it like flamer. On the other hand other tools like indirect fire weapon have been nerfed heavily and now are not that good against heavy cover. Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:38 PMSander93 There's also the fact that there's usually up to 4 mainlines building sandbags, which is where it becomes an issue, and one light/medium indirect fire piece isn't going to counter all of that. As opposed to multiple AT weapons / tanks, that can. And this goes against the "core game design" of "rock, paper, sciccors" If one faces a vehicles one builds ATG, if one faces units in cover again build ATG... Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:38 PMSander93 Plus the fact that light/medium indirect fire pieces are already very good and cost efficient units in the more clumped/static teamgames and there's no need to buff their firepower any further. Maybe you have not seen the number of complains about these units. In: Lobby
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 15:30 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PMMMX i don't think letting AT guns become more effective at taking out sandbags makes indirect fire any less desirable. you'd usually not be getting a mortar specifically to fight units entrenched in heavy cover anyway, but rather as general fire support against any sort of stationary target (e.g. weapon teams) from outside retaliation range. Or you simply do not get a mortar... weapon teams can also benefit from cover.. Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PMMMX in addition, mortars and AT guns still have two fundamentally different roles: one destroys cover to make the units behind it more vulnerable, the other does little to nothing against the cover itself but damages the entrenched units directly. so if anything, this creates more synergy between indirect fire pieces and AT guns instead of rendering either of the two redundant. The difference mechanics are of less importance if both get the job done. Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PMMMX i'd also be careful about making units in green cover more susceptible against indirect fire in general. the fact that you have to stay immobile and pretty clumped up to enjoy the benefits of cover is already a pretty big penalty in itself. hence, reducing the 0.5 dr too much could easily make indirect fire too powerful. This is not a general change but for certain specific weapons. If for instance the scott was better vs unit in cover that would make the unit more desireable. In: Lobby
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 14:34 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PMPip Sure, but USF are the only faction who both have access to Tank traps, and lack Sandbags (both nondoctrinally). Making the build time for Traps longer and making them yellow cover is pretty much a direct USF nerf, rather than a true universal change. This quite irrelevant. Each faction should have access to the tools they need. The fact the USF build tank traps as "heavy cover" is silly. If they need heavy cover then simply replace tank traps with sandbags. One can then make tank traps actually work as tank traps instead of cover. Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PMPip The ATG/Mortar changes you suggest aren't bad, though. I would go a little further to suggest that Mortars have their base damage reduced, and have little to no penalty at all for firing at heavy cover, which would make them a dedicated "anti-cover" unit type (while also preventing them from oneshotting squads with lucky strikes). Mortar already do "reduced" damage and can not 1 shot entities, but you get idea. These units should be good vs cover without being oppressive vs units in the open. In: Lobby
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 14:17 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:13 PMPip Surely USF would need to gain Sandbags as standard on REs if their Tank Traps were to become yellow rather than green cover? If you ask me there should less sandbags available in game and not more but this hardly the issue of this thread. The issue of this thread is improving cover and anti cover mechanism because imo having ATG and TD dislodging entrenched troops is bad design. If you need sandbags they should get them. In: Lobby
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PM Cover and especially heavy cover increases the durability of unit significantly. Combined with the ability of faction to create heavy cover become an issue. An issue also seem to be the damage of indirect fire weapon where some people claim that do not do enough while other that are too power As solution the MOD team increased the target size of sandbag. The problem with that solution is that it allow ATG weapon to destroy them easily making indirect fire weapon even less desirable. Facing tank? use ATG/TD Facing entrenched infatry? use ATG/TD For these reason I would suggest the following changes: 1) Sandbag target size change revert. Heavy cover should not be countered by AT weapons from long range. 2) Certain weapon get improve modifiers for firing on heavy cover those can include Scott/Leig/mortars 3) Other weapon like rocket artillery remain as they are or even become worse vs units in cover 4) Tank traps build time increased greatly, target size reduce, resistance to ballistic weapon and now provide yellow cover. The changes will help to diversify build including indirect fire weapons when facing heavily fortified opponents and make certain units worth building without making them oppressive. In: Lobby
Thread: OKW teching clarity18 Sep 2021, 09:48 AM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 09:30 AMWAAAGH2000 Maybe could keep upgrade even HQ build cost，like lost T4，only need buy new HQ truck and free deploy. I was talking more about the display of upgrades and bonus which can be a bit confusing to navigate. For instance ostheer reinforcement bonus comes T4 and the user can not see unless he actually build the T4. If the icon was moved in T0 then it would be more player friendly. In similar manner the Soviet one is available in T3 and free in T4 if the icon was move to T0 it might become easier to see and explain. Maybe there could be a separate tab in HQ that has all the upgrade (non related to the building itself)/bonus. In: Lobby