Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Super Heavy tank requirements in Winter balance preview12 Mar 2020, 14:18 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 14:08 PMEtherealDragon If only you were allowed to to place T4 inside your base where it was safe... I think the kids call it "risk/reward"? I don't play 3s and 4s but I'm fairly certain that most maps are all big enough so that even if you place T4 covering the 1st cap circle outside your base that it's safe enough that if you get pushed back that far then counterplay is fair enough. And what I suggest simply make punishment less severe. In the end of the day if the risk is not worth the reward and currently in 4vs4 is not lets offer a discount to OKW that are built in base or even not allow them to be built outside the base. In: Lobby
Thread: Super Heavy tank requirements in Winter balance preview12 Mar 2020, 09:49 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:45 AMEsxile Didn't say it need buff, I said we'll see the Pershing being the most expensive of all heavy tank because the singular cost to get it doesn't reflect that in reality you must invest more fuel and manpower into your tech and USF peak is almost entirely depending on getting at least one light vehicle. IS2 is also impacted in fact if the player decides to go conscript. In reality you'll need to unlock Cons upgrades and get a T70 to benefice from your momentum. If you want to talk about balance there plenty of other thread about Super heavies. This thread is about their requirements and going into balance is actually off topic. Thanks you. In: Lobby
Thread: USF teching system revamp, aftermath.12 Mar 2020, 09:45 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:40 AMT.R. Stormjäger I don’t see why USF should be neutered like that. Then read again more carefully this time, it is clearly explained. Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:40 AMT.R. Stormjäger I also don’t understand your obsession with removing power spikes. Who told you they’re a bad thing? I am not obsessed with power spikes and I am not suggesting to removed only to tone them down. Allowing earlier officer and earlier M20 as suggested here will increase the power spike making USF even more powerful vs Osteer. It is only natural that the spikes need to be toned down. In: Lobby
Thread: USF teching system revamp, aftermath.12 Mar 2020, 09:41 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:31 AMblvckdream Yes, but the balance team said multiple times they will not make changes like that. I don't think there is any point in theory-crafting about it. Allot of things has been said that will happen and eventually did happen. Point here is that something has to be done. LT is a far better choice and Ostheer are losing badly. Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:31 AMblvckdream If the Pak Howitzer wasn't as OP as it is the issue wouldn't be this big anyway. If one nerfs the Pak people will use the mortar instead, they will always start with LT and no one will unlock the mechanized (unless desperately needing AA). In: Lobby
Thread: USF teching system revamp, aftermath.12 Mar 2020, 09:36 AM Contrary some claims the LT/Captain captain choice is not 50:50 in 1vs1. This is clear from the WC2019 where the ratio was 88/12 as I have pointed out in post 3. In: Lobby
Thread: Super Heavy tank requirements in Winter balance preview12 Mar 2020, 09:33 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:25 AMEsxile Few but every time with tiger and almost none with Pershing. And the situation already exists live. You cannot compare the live with the mode. Tiger had a number of nerfs. In addition Heavy cavalry is one of the most picked commander in 1vs1. It does not seem to need any buffs. In: Lobby
Thread: USF teching system revamp, aftermath.12 Mar 2020, 09:23 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:21 AMblvckdream Well obviously if you just remove units from a tech tier no one will bother with it anymore. It's like saying Soviet T3 would be dead without T70. Or saying OKW mechanized would be dead without Luchs or whatever. IMO USF doesn't need all these big changes. Some units are just slightly too good and need to be nerfed. As I said plenty of times. Non-doctrinally: Pak Howitzer, Scott, Jackson and doctrinally: WC51, Recon Support Pak Howi+LMG Para drop. I probably forgot some stuff but these are the worst offenders IMO. If the Pack howizter remain in captain and the mortar in T0, I do not really a solution, it will either be OP or not cost efficient compared to mortar. The timing is simply wrong. In addition as long as USF have access to a better indirect fire weapon they will be able to bully Ostheer. In: Lobby
Thread: USF teching system revamp, aftermath.12 Mar 2020, 09:14 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:09 AMblvckdream Captain is already meta in 2v2. It does not need to be made more attractive compared to LT. That is probably because pack howitzer is OP. If you remove the Pack, Captain will not been seen again. In 1vs1 in the last tournament as start: Lieutenant vs Captain 88% vs 12%. Unlock Mechanized Platoon vs Unlock Mechanized Company 98% vs 23 % In: Lobby
Thread: Super Heavy tank requirements in Winter balance preview12 Mar 2020, 09:06 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 09:04 AMEsxile No wonder you barely seen Pershing in 2vs2 while Tigers are there every single game. These number are from winter balance preview. How many 2vs2 winter balance games have you seen? In: Lobby
Thread: Super Heavy tank requirements in Winter balance preview12 Mar 2020, 09:04 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Mar 2020, 08:35 AMUnit G17 Before Panzer Authorization was introduced you had to pay the full price (120 fuel) to replace the Schewerer Panzer headquarters. It would be a massive buff, as you would regain access to medium tanks much easier. The Panzer Authorization system was only introduced to make obers more accessible... (and tbh, I don't see it being used much, obers without their lmgs just doesn't worth it. /offtopic) The suggestions in this thread is about doctrinal units not JP/Panzer IV/Panther. In: Lobby