Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: M36 Jackson6 Jun 2019, 03:47 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Jun 2019, 18:32 PMJae For Jett Im just going to spoil the idea of what we have brainstormed for the jackson and FF. -Jackson far pen down: you still get your 60 range jackson and can outrange panthers, but maybe it shouldnt be so reliable at that range... -Jackson fuel cost up: the jackson is a premium tank destroyer (again, basically the best in the game), but its price doesnt really reflect that. Its the only dedicated AT vehicle usf have, and people argue its high performance is a necessity for usf. So then keep its performance, but at least make sure players have to pay for that performance. FF cost down: same deal. FF performance is okay, and performs well against heavies relative to the other TDs, but its the most expensive allied TD by a sizeable margin, and thats just not very justifiable. I personally want tulip costs decreased (one of the other things that makes the FF distinct from other TDs besides its damage; sad that theyre too expensive to be practical) but thats not currently in the draft. That approach will not solve the issue that allied TD are very effective vs ALL vehicles. Imo one should be more creative. One should test creating 2 set of rounds similar to Sherman 76 and use them to balance Super heavy tank and medium tanks separately. Unit meant to Counter Super heavies could have access to "AP rounds" with range, accuracy, penetration and ROF design vs those units , while normal round with characteristics better suited vs mediums tanks. One could ever take a bit further increasing the target size of Super heavies (maybe decreasing of other vehicles also) so that thing become easier to balance. Finally one can create more interesting profile for vehicles and create a "flanker" clash that would benefit the most from engaging enemy units close. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage5 Jun 2019, 16:41 PM No matter what people say about tech cost, the probability is that a Churchill or KV-1 will arrive on the field earlier than the Panther. Even if the Panther arrives earlier it will hardly have the same impact due to it bellow mediocre AI. If one is not prepared to KV-1 or Churchill he is in trouble one can stop a Panther simply with ATGs. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage5 Jun 2019, 14:54 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Jun 2019, 13:50 PMLago Okay, steering this conversation back on track and out of 'red units op' and 'my opinions are facts' territory... For: The Churchill's huge HP pool means it can slug it out even with its dedicated counters for quite a long time. The Churchill's high rear armour means flanking manevers aren't rewarded much, so no matter how cleverly you maneuver you still need to get Panthers or doctrinal super TDs. Against: The Churchill needs this giant HP pool to do its job: all its abilities are geared towards close combat so it's got to survive in close combat. If you nerf its survivability, you kill it as a viable option. The best way I can see to reconcile these are to tone down the Churchill's durability to normal heavy tank levels, then give it abilities to support its breakthrough tank role. Make it worse at sitting there getting shot, then make it better at making space for infantry. I actually disagree with the analysis. Problem is that the units it too effective vs a number of targets. It can take out ATG even in pairs, it can fight 2 Ostheer PzIV, it can stock smoke to escape... It's rotation and acceleration are abnormally high while its vet bonuses does not fit a heavy tank or provide too much: Vet1 Crew will defend tank from inside with Small arms vet2 Turret rotation +35% (makes flanking ever less rewarding) -30% reload time (a vet 3 bonus for some other tanks) vet3 MAXIMUM Speed increased by 20% Rotation speed increased by 25% (why increase already high rotation) Engine criticals currently active will disappear upon reaching vet 3,and engine criticals received therein after take 15 seconds to repair. (even more durability vs snares) The claim:all its abilities are geared towards close combat so it's got to survive in close combat does not hold water, the only ability that CQC is the grenade which is also available to Comet or Persing and I do not see anyone claiming that they are CQC tanks. Churchill does not need to close to be effective it's damage output is comparable to other tanks even at long range. It's penetration is only 5 less than that of PzIV at max range and it can kill a Pak/rak at max range. The unit should simply be redesign having specific role and weakness and it should be a part of army and not an army on its own forcing. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage5 Jun 2019, 11:54 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Jun 2019, 11:13 AMKatitof Panther, vetted ost P4, OKW P4, JP4(if it'll ever get in range, which it won't with that op acceleration and up speed). Also, it appears you have just found a way to deal with churchill yourself, congratulations, mission accomplished. A Churchill can deal with vetted a PzIV,a OKW P4, a Brumbar without any support. Churchill has a good chance to deal with 2 PAks/Raks without any support, it even has a decent chance vs 2 Ostheer PzIV with little support. If it faces Panther or JP it simply need some ATG support and it is fine. Pls elaborate how you (and not We) have established that "Churchill does need plenty of support". And pls try to learn the difference between stating facts or expressing your (or the many using we) opinion. Pls try to tone down the personal insults. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage5 Jun 2019, 10:01 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Jun 2019, 09:34 AMKatitof Woah, I see you're on a roll here, but I'm gonna stop you right there. We have well established that churchill does need plenty of support, mainly in the field of AT as its own gun is pretty impotent against late game vehicles as well as it does need some minimal infantry or at least anti infantry support to not get fausted as that means certain death for it(its not going to crawl back with that massive, overpowered, imbalanced acceleration, when its top speed drops from pathetic 4 to standstill 2). There is little reason to refer to yourself as "we", it rather confusing. Which is this "late game vehicles" you are referring to? because if you are referring to the Panther I really hope you are not suggesting that the Churchill should perform better vs a more expensive AT oriented unit. Can you pls inform us how many faust must hit a Churchill before it gets an engine damage? Churchill is not weaker than other vehicles vs snare, it even remove critical at vet 3. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage5 Jun 2019, 07:14 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 23:25 PMmurky depths So what is your suggestion about that improvement? I asked a similar question 2 pages ago. What would you change about the churchill? edit: I'll reiterate my point -- I think it's HP is too high. I liked what was suggested earlier to lower the HP but give it the KV-1 treatment of damage reduction so it's fewer shots to kill but also doesn't take an eternity of repair time. Though that's neither a buff nor a nerf, it's more like a "simplification". If the question is directed to me and you are asking my opinion it can be found on page 10 at post 181. I would be a bit skeptical about swapping HP for effective HP since Heavy sapper are one of the faster repairing units in the game, unless one also redesign heavy sappers. In addition I am against damage reduction as passive ability. I would rather see it as an active timed ability that would allow the unit to take more damage but for a limited time. That would make the ability easier to balance easier to explain it to player, it would require more player input , while it would also allow for some counter play. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage4 Jun 2019, 23:07 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 22:36 PMSkysTheLimit What about the KV1 having a higher top speed? And lower cost? You can have great acceleration all you want. If your max speed tops out at 2/3 the speed of most medium tanks, then its not that great of an advantage. I have clearly pointed out that Churchill's acceleration is abnormally high. Can we now PLS stop this silly game of who is wrong or right and get back on how we can improve the design of the Churchill. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage4 Jun 2019, 21:54 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 21:03 PMKatitof If your reading attention span lasted over 4 words, you'd find the relevant part. In regards to acceleration, you've been over this already with conscript accuracy vet. High acceleration to low top speed isn't a big deal and high acceleration doesn't make the unit mobile - speed does. Rotation helps, but its all about speed at the end. This is why we don't consider slow units to be very mobile, regardless of how fast that top speed is achieved. A) Are you stating facts or expressing personal opinion here? Because if you want to provide your personal opinion you should use "imo" more often. B) As I have explained to you before quoting one comment on something (like acceleration in this case) and then talking about something completely irrelevant (like rear armor in this case) is something you should stop doing. It is misleading and it can tantamount to laying. Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 21:03 PMKatitof If your reading attention span lasted over 4 words, you'd find the relevant part. No that this is not the case: "The unit of similar role is KV-1, which happens to have a high rear armor since forever and what it lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility." If you theory was correct that KV-1 "lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility." it would mean than Churchill should have lower or equal speed lower or equal rotation and lower or equal acceleration. There is no justification for Churchill to have more than double the acceleration of the KV-1 and thus the value is simply too high. You last 4 words prove you wrong while proving nothing relevant to what I have posted. Pls once more stop quoting me and writing irrelevant things. Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 21:03 PMKatitof This is why we don't consider slow units to be very mobile, regardless of how fast that top speed is achieved. Who is this "we" or do you simply refer to yourself as "We"? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage4 Jun 2019, 20:55 PM IMO Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 17:20 PMLago It's not philosophy. It's literally the definition of the word 'objective'. It is philosophy, if there is no universal truth than nothing is objective. Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 17:20 PMLago If you say your opinion is a fact you're either mistaken or lying. That is your opinion and not a fact. Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 17:20 PMLago If you're unable to tell the difference between actual facts and your opinions then you have no place on a balance forum. Unless you are moderator or repeating forum rules it is not your place to say who has a place on a balance forum Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 17:20 PMLago All your 'too high' claims are opinions. They may be well-researched and reasoned opinions but they are still opinions. They are not facts. Unless you capable to defining what is objective and until you define what is objective everything is an opinion. That is a fact. Pls move on. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage4 Jun 2019, 20:47 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 14:24 PMVipper No you do not. You simply need the value of the unit with similar role that you use as benchmark. Tell you what, find what unit have more acceleration and rotation than Churchill and we can continue this. Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2019, 20:04 PMKatitof .. The unit of similar role is KV-1, which happens to have a high rear armor since forever and what it lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility. .... If you are going to quote me at least say something relevant to my point, we where talking about acceleration and not rear armor. And as since brought KV-1, it is nice to see that you actually agree with me that Churchill's acceleration is too high since its x219% higher than KV-1s although according to you "what it (KV-1) lacks in raw health, it makes up with bit higher mobility". In: COH2 Balance