Extra Schreck price?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[lionel23]

I'm going to have to support a price reduction on shreks and/or a price reduction on the second shrek.  A lot of times I wish I could field more man-packed AT without having to rely on the grens too much (4 man squad).

Trying to portray yourself as unbiased by supporting an essentially irrelevant axis buff?

Eh?  For the double shreks in a gren squad (being a T2 unlock), I think it does need to get a price decrease, but only for the grens.  Storms should stay the same because of their wtf-factor of stealth to own tanks.  And Bazookas get a discount on doubles over singles too, every other weapon pretty much comes in pairs only (piats, RRs) so I can't use them as a comparison.  I do believe that the double shrek option does need to be a bit more viable on a gren squad though.  It's like full-package rangers, taking that is just silly unless you're swimming in excess muni, far more efficient to have SMG and bazookas seperate on them to maximize their effectiveness - more guys to buffer the weapons.  With Grens you lose more of your buffer (2 man instead of 3) and that's a lot sitting in a single squad that could easily get hit by mass LV or get hit by a pershing and boom, you lose a good chunk of your man-packed AT MU firepower from a single crippling loss.  It's not like grens can cloak and sneak up and take advantage of that double shrek ability.

So if the best you can come up against my argument is that I'm trying to be counter-biased (which I am not, I just prefer allies more for my playstyle), then you're sadly mistaken and need to stick to the point of the thread, as your post contributes nothing relevant to this discussion other than to attempt to bash me for lack of anything better to say on your part.

[CrazyWR]

Awesome to hear. i finally used shreks for the first time in months. and was not surprised how much they failed.

1. couldnt ever get in range
2. Kited and easily loosing half the squad in 1 shot
3. Missed religiously
4. Damage was shit!, frontal shot on sherman and it only took away a tick of health

all of this can be reverted when buying a cheaper alternative. a Pak.

put them in buildings, make the allies come to your AT, don't chase their vehicles.  Don't try to use shreks as main AT.  Don't try to kill shermans with shreks unless you have literally no other choice.

[lionel23]

+1 with Crazy, Shreks - while powerful - really need to be used as a support weapon with SOMETHING.

But I do still stand that there should be a price reduction to double shrek grens, even if its minor like 20 MU or something.  Just to give an incentive since it makes the squad a bigger target.

[TodlichPanther]

I'm going to have to support a price reduction on shreks and/or a price reduction on the second shrek.  A lot of times I wish I could field more man-packed AT without having to rely on the grens too much (4 man squad).

Trying to portray yourself as unbiased by supporting an essentially irrelevant axis buff?

Eh?  For the double shreks in a gren squad (being a T2 unlock), I think it does need to get a price decrease, but only for the grens.  Storms should stay the same because of their wtf-factor of stealth to own tanks.  And Bazookas get a discount on doubles over singles too, every other weapon pretty much comes in pairs only (piats, RRs) so I can't use them as a comparison.  I do believe that the double shrek option does need to be a bit more viable on a gren squad though.  It's like full-package rangers, taking that is just silly unless you're swimming in excess muni, far more efficient to have SMG and bazookas seperate on them to maximize their effectiveness - more guys to buffer the weapons.  With Grens you lose more of your buffer (2 man instead of 3) and that's a lot sitting in a single squad that could easily get hit by mass LV or get hit by a pershing and boom, you lose a good chunk of your man-packed AT MU firepower from a single crippling loss.  It's not like grens can cloak and sneak up and take advantage of that double shrek ability.

So if the best you can come up against my argument is that I'm trying to be counter-biased (which I am not, I just prefer allies more for my playstyle), then you're sadly mistaken and need to stick to the point of the thread, as your post contributes nothing relevant to this discussion other than to attempt to bash me for lack of anything better to say on your part.

No need to react like that, all he is doing is noticing a trend in your forum posts and commenting on what he see's. Im reasonably new ( come back after long time) and it certainly is interesting noticing the trends in certain peoples posts. - if you look at mine im often talking about SE stuff...take a guess what my main doctrine is hmm?

[lionel23]

Sorry if my reaction is negative from your point of view, but when the first thing I bring up in ANY post is 'you're biased' because no one can refute or offer a counter argument, by God you bet I'm going to call people on the floor on that, and if you notice that 'trend' in the forums people keep accusing me of:

• Bias (Whether axis or allies)
• That some doctrine issues are 'my fault' cause I may or may not have proposed something, which by the way was open to everyone during the PUBLIC discussions events
• That I need to L2P cause I obviously don't know how to play COH, even though I've played this game since Alpha testing and through all the releases, obviously I must not know how to play, right?

So yeah, I'm saying that Masacree's post has nothing relevant to do with this thread other than to attack me and saying my opinion is irrelevant though I offer up a good reason/support why.  I don't see how he has done so in his reply specifically directed at me, do you?

[Jinker]

If the two of you (crazy and lionel) are saying that the shreck cannot be relied on by itself, and must be used in conjunction with something else, then it either needs a buff in some way, shape or form (price/acc/range/scatter), which i doubt will happen, or a price reduction.

Personally I don't think it needs anything, except maybe a slight reduction in price for the second one. Anything else would make stormies too effective.

[CrazyWR]

uh, jinker, please name 1 ATG or piece of handheld AT that can be relied on by itself...?

[Malevolence]

Recoilless tbh.

Or at least lots of airborne players seem to think that.

[lionel23]

Price reduction for grens is all I'm suggesting, Jinker.  Storms have the advantage of cloak and thus two shreks on them is way, way more devastatingly effective than if they were on grens.

Now what's wrong with relying on something else?  Bazookas work the same way. Yes you could spam them all, but good luck if that tank is facing you.  RRs are great against tanks and HTs, but man run into an army of ACs/Pumas and watch that phase armor kick your ass.  Piats?  Love em that they can shoot over things, but good luck hitting anything moving without a Bren-equipped squad.  Yes, they are expensive (which for a single shrek I'm against a price reduction on that), but for a T2 doctrine unlock it should give just a slight discount to grens for 2x shreks as its allowing more firepower at the cost of a buffering guy and making the squad an instant high-priority target that itself can't cloaked (hence why the storms are powerful with it).

In summary just to be clear, all I'm suggesting is: Slight MU price reduction for Double Shrek (via Doctrine) Grenadier squads ONLY.

[Unkn0wn]

*Whistles*

[Demon767]

dont go high and mighty on me Crazy. i did not say i used them alone with no support, get your head out of your ass.

[Smokaz]

uh, jinker, please name 1 ATG or piece of handheld AT that can be relied on by itself...?

Zooks.

muahahaha.

[Tymathee]

uh, jinker, please name 1 ATG or piece of handheld AT that can be relied on by itself...?

Zooks.

muahahaha.

only en masse.

[CafeMilani]

srsly guys, this thread is ridiculous. before the schreck price increase and the handheld AT price increase schrecks were 'OP' or 'far too cost-effective' in your eyes. now they are are 'shit' and 'overpriced'. if we wanna balance this mod we cant make stupid decisions and revert them a week later only because we see that it was a wrong decision. sadly, this happens way too often  
have a think about it..

[Unkn0wn]

Before the shrek price increase there was no T17 or Staghound in the game yet.
Also, shreks were at 130 Mun for a long time, it's not like we raised its price and lowered it again the week after. Several months had passed.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Personally I don't think it needs anything, except maybe a slight reduction in price for the second one. Anything else would make stormies too effective.

Storm Schrecks =/= Gren Schrecks.
And here's the kicker: Storms actually do get a discount on their second Schreck while Grens don't, even though Storms are 'better,' and don't require a T2 unlock.

[jackmccrack]

srsly guys, this thread is ridiculous. before the schreck price increase and the handheld AT price increase schrecks were 'OP' or 'far too cost-effective' in your eyes. now they are are 'shit' and 'overpriced'. if we wanna balance this mod we cant make stupid decisions and revert them a week later only because we see that it was a wrong decision. sadly, this happens way too often  
have a think about it..

Well the meta game changes all the time, thus prices change.