Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: About Grenade Inconsistencies7 Nov 2019, 11:53 AM Jump back to quoted post7 Nov 2019, 11:30 AMSander93 ... I'll add that to the bugs list to be fixed next patch. With the target size for B4 and the speed of retreat hmg I hope. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: About Grenade Inconsistencies7 Nov 2019, 11:16 AM My suggestion would be to differentiate offensive and defensive grenades. They could have different modifiers vs cover/Garrison. For instance stun grenade could do extra damage vs garrison and/or heavy cover. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Defensive and offensive Auras7 Nov 2019, 09:40 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 18:41 PMelchino7 Offensive: It would be a boost towards units which excel on CQC and grenades, while a nerf on the opposite. So less A moving long range expert Blobs and that is a good thing. Many units accuracy goes so high with the current system that they can ignore some the cover bonus target size reduction. For instance a vet Penal squad with mother Russia has 114 accuracy at max range and 165 accuracy at range 16. Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 18:41 PMelchino7 Defensive: It would be counterproductive to the nature of the ability. You are doing more damage to opposing force, but you will get dislodge faster from a point. If your plan is to hold a point, for as much as you can, this produces the opposite effect. If the opponent uses focus fire or comes close enough you will be dislodge from your position anyway, point here that if you fail to stop an enemy blob you will at least punish more for blobbing. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Commander Reshuffle7 Nov 2019, 09:35 AM Moving Rangers/combined arm away from heavy cavalry commander are solid change imo. Flamer assault engineers and off map smoke could become an issue thou. I guess one could try to remove the flamer upgrade from As.Eng and give them incendiary grenades and/or Thompson upgrade option. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: About Grenade Inconsistencies6 Nov 2019, 23:06 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 22:46 PMHannibal The position of the explosion does not matter the position of the unit throwing the grenades does. If the cover is between the unit throwing the grenade and the target cover bonus apply else it does not. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: About Grenade Inconsistencies6 Nov 2019, 22:42 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 22:28 PMKatitof Watch what you wish for, remember bundle nade costs as much as guards nade and is incomparably better. That is incorrect , RGD-33 cost 30 munition Bundle is 35. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: My Proposal to change Allied TDs6 Nov 2019, 22:25 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 18:22 PMelchino7 Unfortunately that wouldn't mean much when you can get like 9CP by 17 mins. And imo Super heavies need to be delayed, actually I do not really see why progressively more powerful units become available earlier. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Remove faust from falls6 Nov 2019, 17:29 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 17:24 PMSerrith If FSJ are going to retain their status of having great dps at all ranges with cloak first strike and multiple grenade options, then Faust should definitely be removed. Well put. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Jagdpanzer 4 nerf nao 6 Nov 2019, 17:25 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 17:07 PMRepoRogue Close, but faster. 5 seconds vs. 5.65 at vet zero. That matters because the Jagdpanzer is significantly more likely to get off the killing blow first, especially when it pens the SU-85 100% of the time but not vis versa. I'm curious why you felt the need to contest this point when it is correct? The disparity is relatively small at vet 3, but significant once the Jagdpanzer reaches vet 5. The reason I have pointed out the ROF is that it has been used as the "selling point" of JP over the cheaper SU-85. (The difference is 0.65 secs at vet 0 down to 0.05 secs at vet 3 hardly noticeable) Sure the JP will beat SU-85 or FF or M36 if they decide to slug it out. On the other hand it not more cost efficient than SU-85 vs mediums while being significantly less cost efficient vs heavily armored targets. In its current incarnation its it too expensive in cost and pop vs the units it good at countering Medium/TDs while being inferior to allied TDs vs heavily armored targets. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Remove faust from falls6 Nov 2019, 17:20 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2019, 17:08 PMBlebfeesh Unless you are brain dead you arent going to charge a tank against a guard. That's how you lose it. The same is true against falls. A engine critted tank is a dead tank. A point blank buttoned tank is a dead tank. PTRses are good at scaring off LVs, but are not reliable ways to kill them. They end up being better AI than AT in the late game. I didnt choose to bring up guards. I dont claim they are UP. I don't want them to be unbeatable at every range. Their niche is long range, and they are extremely good at it. It just so happens that all allied infantry is up compared to falls. PTRSes are less scary as the game goes on while snares remain always relevant. Max range faust>max range button The only points I made are: Guards are not "jack of all trade master of none", they are master of long range combat. FallJ are not "jack of all trade master of none", they have no AT weapon only a snare. In: COH2 Balance