Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback4 Dec 2020, 08:01 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 23:31 PMthedarkarmadillo well yes, its a nerf in the same way that the +5 fuel it got a ways back is a nerf. we check the box saying it was nerfed but realistically no change takes place I agree that the change will have minimal impact but it shoots down katitof theory that "Jackson is not OP and doesn't require any nerfs" and that I am the only saying the unit is op. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: General Balancing Ideas3 Dec 2020, 22:57 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 22:50 PMMr. Someguy The StG 44 uses the Automatic Rifle profile, alongside the FG 42 and BAR. In general this means they are as effective as an SMG at close range or a bolt-action rifle at long range, while being most effective at mid-range vs SMG or LMG or Semi-Auto. The VG StG does use this profile, it just has a much lower damage ceiling. That is incorrect. The ST44 VGs uses a profile vastly different from the one PG and SP uses, it rather flat. It allot close to SVT. The FG-42 again uses a unique profile that makes the weapon good at all range. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] General Discussion3 Dec 2020, 22:20 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 22:11 PMSander93 There is hatred, but it is not irrational. They do not fit into the core cover gameplay because they ignore it. Furthermore Relic has failed to provide proper counters and has made the mistake (again) to not give all factions access to one. This makes them very annoying to deal with for many players. I dislike them as well, I think they should have been replaced by recon squads like JLI or Pathfinders with more utility. Do note though that this is just my personal opinion, I didn't weigh in on these sniper changes as it's more of a 1v1 affair. I do think the current changes to the sniper might be fine on their own but that they might be a bit too much in conjunction with the HMG crew formation changes because this causes some issues. Something to keep an eye on. Think the least annoying one although powerful is the UKF on probably because he arrive later. If one delay the the Ostheer/soviet one maybe it would easier to balance. Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 22:11 PMSander93 The Scott has been on the list of overperforming/annoying units to tackle for years. It's been touched before but those changes haven't had the desired effect yet. Now they're being followed up on. The Scott has been on both my and Miragefla's balance wishlists for months. We would never let 1 game or 1 player, or outcry because of 1 game, influence decision making. I find the "fictional" stories behind the changes counter productive. The important question will the change improve the game or not? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: General Balancing Ideas3 Dec 2020, 19:41 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 19:29 PMPip I presume when you say "MP44" you mean "MP40"? "MP44" is just another name for the STG. What exactly would this solve? Vs's MP44 is weapon that does not use a standard weapon profile, it close to SVT. It allow the unit to fight decently. The MP44 uses smg profile and thus is only good at close range. The change would create 2 uses for VG. Either upgrade good at long range or upgrade good at sort ranges. That would allow more interaction with the other mainline infantry since correct positioning would become vital. (edited) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] General Discussion3 Dec 2020, 16:14 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 15:50 PMHannibal Regarding the sniper discussion, I think we could also have some more options: - Reducing speed in general - reducing speed when in combat - reducing speed out of cover (would emphasize the stealth part more) - this one would require more rework: Make them waaaay cheaper (250-280 MP maybe) but decrease the ROF (and potentially pop cost). This way snipers would similarly long pay for themselves and could be used more for non-fighting duty. But most importantly: The whole early game would not revolve around them so much, since the loss of a sniper would still be bearable while not using it 100% effectively would also be okay since the investment is not as high. Also, bleed for the opponent is not as high until vehicles come onto the field to provide counters. In that design I think it would be more interesting if sniper had weapon similar to JLI with critical kill on a threshold vs infatry and critical kill vs support weapons or critical full hp kills required come with restrictions or timed ability better suited vs support weapon and not infatry. (although it might be a little complicated to mod) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling. 3 Dec 2020, 16:12 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 15:43 PMHannibal My point is not about support weapons in general, just about mortars. I would surely not add the StuG to that, since they functions completely differently, and also not the scott since that one is bought mostly for its autofire that is a bit more like a mini brummbar that a real mortar. But these points are not the focus of the thread now. There seems to be a value issue with mortars in small modes. Apparently there is no space for mortars in the early game, despite them being designed to have their main value in this time frame until rocket arty takes the crown. Yes and what troubled be when I saw 2019 stats was that the once Ostheer "defensive" depended on support weapons faction was using about equal or less support weapons than the one "offensive" depended on riflemen factions the USF. I am not sue if that sift was intended but I do not think I like it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling. 3 Dec 2020, 15:25 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 15:15 PMHannibal Apart from maybe USF it seemed to be quite poor then as well. One single mortar every 5th to 10th game is not much, especially regarding the amount of MGs built that would be good targets (plus ATGs obviously). The USF seem to be the champion with 10 mortar and 9 pack howitzers one could add 7/5 MHT and 5/4 scott while the Osther use 2/2 MHT and 1/1 Stug-E. When I first saw the numbers I was surprised how many support weapons USF seemed to use for a faction original designed to be depend on riflemen. More 0.5 produced and HMG-42 look a bit odd. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling. 3 Dec 2020, 15:06 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 14:45 PMHannibal As long as we don't have facts it is hard to really say if this is true or not, but as Elchino already mentioned we regularly saw 3-4 support weapons in normal builds which seems like a reasonable amount. The only thing I find a pity is that mortars are not among them, since they seem to be not worth it in 1v1 and partially 2v2. I just trying to point out that is seem to be quite a recent changes: WC2019: Ostheer 40 games, number of units builds/number of games: MG42 51/33 GrW 34 Mortar Team 8/8 Soviet48 games, number of units builds/number of games: M1910 Maxim 31/23 DShK 38 Heavy Machine Gun 9/5 Paradrop DShK HMG 1/1 PM-41 82mm Mortar 6/5 HM-38 120mm Mortar 1/1 OKW 61 games, number of units builds/number of games: MG34 Heavy Machine Gun 93/57 7.5cm le.IG 7/6 USF 44 games, number of units builds/number of games: M2HB .50 cal 80/38 M1 81mm Mortar Team 10/10 M1 75mm Pack Howitzer 6/5 Air Dropped Combat Group 4/4 UKF8 games, number of units builds/number of games: Vickers HMG 5/3 3-inch Mortar Emplacement 1/1 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling. 3 Dec 2020, 14:24 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 14:16 PMHannibal It would be interesting to compare the WC2019 WC2020 of number of indirect fire weapons used because support weapons where used allot in 2019. Unfortunately the numbers are not available for WC2020 but I am under the impression that the pace of the game has been increased and support weapon saw less use. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback3 Dec 2020, 14:16 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 14:15 PMAerohank Commets can lose their grenades and WP rounds when UKF gets nondoc rocket arty. The suggestions is not to for the faction to lose them but to move them in to Churchill Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2020, 14:15 PMAerohank It's easy to see the commet as beeing too well rounded but it's also easy to forget that the brits have a roster that is not equiped for basic tasks such as softening up AT walls before an attack. Although UKF have have issues the argument that "a faction needs rocket artillery stock" simply does not hold water. USF do not have stock artillery and their are fine. UKF already have smoke and HE barrage on their infatry and smoke round in their tanks that can help vs ATG walls plus a plethora of doctrinal stuff. The point is that a premium main battle tank has now no reason to have 2 tools that hard counter ATGs, this is simply bad design. The solution of making the Comet more expensive does not really solve anything simply pusses the problem under the rag. It pack wall become a problem for UKF other solutions can be tested. In: COH2 Balance