scrapking
|
|
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2009, 12:41:12 am » |
|
Also support AMPMs suggestion.
It would go a way to fixing issues I have with unit survivability.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
 Posts: 18378
|
|
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2009, 03:16:08 am » |
|
20% more health, 10% less received incoming accuracy AND something special, all at vet 2?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
 Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2009, 03:24:07 am » |
|
Yea, its called being worth spending PP for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 . . . . . . . . . . . |
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18378
|
|
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2009, 04:48:08 am » |
|
Except even the old vet 3 didn't give those kind of bonuses to units and it was still considered to give too much of an advantage  . There's a thin line between 'being worth spending the PP' and 'being too powerful' against non vetted companies. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AmPM
Community Mapper
Posts: 7978
|
|
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2009, 04:54:20 am » |
|
Why shouldn't you get a significant advantage by actually keeping things alive and paying more for them?
Thats the point of persistance, otherwise units don't matter and you just throw them away.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2009, 05:43:55 pm » |
|
I had a vet 2 radio equipped scout car for a while as PE, used it to chase down Commando's and heal my guys, but it got stickied through a hedge and died. not like the bonuses we're any good anyway
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
He thinks Tactics is a breath mint Wow I think that was the nicest thing brn ever posted!  the pussy of a prostitute is not tight enough for destroy a condom  |
|
|
| Blitzen
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2009, 06:01:56 pm » |
|
Agree with most here. Vet needs to make units more survivable, and more worth the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bullshit, only fags and girls dont like star wars |
|
|
| Khorney
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2009, 08:29:10 pm » |
|
i dunno, it's 1 PP, hardly needs to be 'worth it'. looking at the upcoming vet tables, vet 3 seems to be where the party is at, but vet2 has hardly been neglected, with alot more extra gubbins than currently.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| wildfire444
|
|
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2009, 08:36:38 pm » |
|
hold fire vet for 57at would be amazing...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
not tym
|
|
|
RikiRude
Donator
 Posts: 4376
|
|
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2009, 10:12:17 pm » |
|
the most important thing about vet is it needs to fit the unit and make it better in a way where people will want to vet certain units to make them more proficient at what the do. example:
more penetration on an AT gun is more then enough of a reason to keep your ATGS alive, getting more penetration on your croc equals, keep suiciding them because there's no use in vetting them up.
Vet 1 should be something minor, since it's free, and doesn't necessarily have to make the unit much "better" like vet 1 on shermans makes them faster. but vet 2 needs to be something useful that makes it better at what it does. or useful with an ability. maybe vet 2 gives it a free smoke use and gives it more penetration. then vet 3 could be one of two or three things.
either it gets lots of small bonuses that help it: 10% faster, 5% more penetration, 5% more damage, 10% quicker reload.
one big improvement: 50% faster rof including the .50 on top.
something small and an ability: flank speed and 10% harder to hit.
or any kind of combination.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea" ... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid |
|
|
| Peiper71
|
|
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2009, 11:54:54 pm » |
|
Well, my basic point at the start is that basic infantry just doesn't reach vet 2 or 3. Regardless of how good that is or isn't. I agree that once they make it they should be tougher, but really I think the problem is the requirements. 188 xp for a vet 3 grenadier? Do you really want them to be that rare...
You are likely to see 10+ Heavy tank vet 3 to every any grenadier vet 3 you see. I'm probably being ultra-conservative on that estimate too. I don't understand the arguments about keeping a lid on vet armies in the present light either. Isn't the requirement to spend PP and provide div. req advantages to unvetted armies the solution that has been implemented anyhow? I would have thought then the more people can vet up basic infantry the better this would be for the PP economy anyhow.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
Posts: 18378
|
|
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2009, 04:04:26 am » |
|
I think the biggest problem is that they no longer get xp from just being in a battle, which will be resolved.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2009, 08:31:18 am » |
|
I got my first vet 2 grenadier squad and the first game i used it it killed 3 infantry before being turned into lawn care product by a howitzer round. It seems like so much care goes into trying to vet basic infantry rifles included just to have the get pummeled by something. I know axis squad sizes have alot to do with artillery insta gibs but it's not like you can screk rifles until they vet then swap them out for something else. so there is balance in that regard. It just seems crazy to have the requirements so high.
I don't want to see a game where vet 3 is everywhere. but i also don't want to see a game where vet 3 is retardedly hard to get and gives god like bonuses. I know it's a fine balancing act but lowering some of the requirements would go a long way
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
 Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2009, 09:16:56 am » |
|
I think the biggest problem is that they no longer get xp from just being in a battle, which will be resolved.
yeah.... how? I have only 1 vet 3 gren after... like 25 battles lol. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If I get shot and it's a gay medic fixing me up, he's not gonna be fondling my balls while he does it. You can't patch a chest wound and suck a cock at the same time.
|
|
|
| Jinker
|
|
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2009, 10:28:24 pm » |
|
The highest that I've been able to get any infantry is a vet 2 gren squad. I've lost a few vetted squads to allied douchebags who run them over with M10s (not that any allied player would ever try to do that...). On the other hand, I can't recall that last time I fought a ranger squad that wasn't at least vet 2. Do those things start that way or what?! Also, the vet on the rangers seems a little ridiculous... vet 3 is MORE damage and LESS time between FU uses. Don't get me started on the allied sniper vet. If I tried to say anything aimed at it, it would simply miss. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
