sheffer
|
|
« on: June 04, 2010, 11:06:29 am » |
|
Hi guys.
I have an idea for stealth system - disable cloaking on a road (negative cover) for all units. Infiltrating became an a serious task, not just move at a point.
What do u think?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Senseless and ruthless.  |
|
|
| winisez
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2010, 11:13:26 am » |
|
While I understand this from a realist point of view I fail to see the balance needs for it, it would be a significant nerf to any thing with camo that moves, snipers, stormtroopers. Neither unit really seems to require balancing, even if either one of them did, this would be a very round-about way of fixing them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Grundwaffe
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2010, 11:14:56 am » |
|
Everywere should be negative cover WITHOUT cover.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
SublimeHauken - Back from the dead - Since 2007'
|
|
|
| Spartan_Marine88
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2010, 11:41:12 am » |
|
Everywere should be negative cover WITHOUT cover.
Why? i mean standard terrain has little bumps possibly long grass to give you some semblance of help. While on a road its just flat terrain nothing to even hide your feet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Yes that's me, the special snowflake.
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2010, 11:56:17 am » |
|
Everywere should be negative cover WITHOUT cover.
While on a road its just flat terrain nothing to even hide your feet. Quick, hide the feet - fuck your head, just SAVE YOUR GODDAMN FEET!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Spartan_Marine88
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2010, 12:38:12 pm » |
|
Everywere should be negative cover WITHOUT cover.
While on a road its just flat terrain nothing to even hide your feet. Quick, hide the feet - fuck your head, just SAVE YOUR GODDAMN FEET!!! Rather not have my feet shot off thank you |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Grundwaffe
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2010, 01:08:21 pm » |
|
Everywere should be negative cover WITHOUT cover.
Why? i mean standard terrain has little bumps possibly long grass to give you some semblance of help. While on a road its just flat terrain nothing to even hide your feet. mmh, yea off course, i kinda always dislike the cloaking system lets say an open field of no grass and a cloaked sniper is able to cloak that well. Sniper or not, pak or not, i would see it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| smurfORnot
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2010, 01:10:25 pm » |
|
you wouldnt if it has magic camo!
just imagine it has harry's potter cloack,he puts it ,and zzzup...invisable!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| winisez
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2010, 01:10:35 pm » |
|
he is wearing an active camouflage secret weapon suit, EIR is alternate history, hence we have falls and pershings in the same game.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Unkn0wn
No longer retired
 Posts: 18379
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2010, 01:20:58 pm » |
|
Falls aren't alternate history, falls paradropping is alternate history.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
 Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2010, 01:48:53 pm » |
|
i still think stormtroopers are crap. They cost less than a ranger squad and are much more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"
Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2010, 02:03:00 pm » |
|
my ass cost less then a Ranger squad.
300/4 = 75
330/6 = 55
Not to mention that a 6 pop ranger squad has 6 men on field. where as a 4 man Storm squad is 5 pop on field. Rangers don't get a bargain but they don't get a penalty
|
|
|
|
|
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  |
|
|
Malgoroth
Donator
Posts: 960
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2010, 02:06:48 pm » |
|
Not to mention 300 munis for double shrecks. That's a serious, easily suppressed investment right there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2010, 02:07:05 pm » |
|
in total price not price per man. tell me, if you had a choice between a storm squad and ranger squad as an unlock, what do you go for? most go for the storms because schrecks > zooks and mp44's > smg's. bundle nades > pineapple nades, Cloak > fire up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2010, 02:07:20 pm » |
|
Not to mention 300 munis for double shrecks. That's a serious, easily suppressed investment right there.
if ur getting ur storms suppressed, ur using them wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2010, 02:08:17 pm » |
|
If I were basing my choice off a vanilla squad. I'd actually take the Rangers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malgoroth
Donator
Posts: 960
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2010, 02:15:01 pm » |
|
Not to mention 300 munis for double shrecks. That's a serious, easily suppressed investment right there.
if ur getting ur storms suppressed, ur using them wrong. They get suppressed easily. It's not to far fetched. If the enemy is playing correctly and keeping units in support around their armor, you have to make on the spot decisions about whether or not you can take that shot and gtfo. If you wait for tanks to be alone they'll rarely pay for themselves. Not even an hour ago you suppressed and gibbed a vet 3 storm squad with creeping barrage. Don't even act like storms are OP. Deep down you know this to be true and only want your games against Wehr players to be easier |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gamesguy2
Honoured Member
Posts: 2238
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2010, 02:53:07 pm » |
|
Could disable cloaking on suppressed or pinned units.
Just an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wildsolus
Donator
Posts: 807
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2010, 03:08:29 pm » |
|
Could disable cloaking on suppressed or pinned units.
Just an idea.
i agree with this 100% though it would suck to walk your sniper near an mg when a teammate is gettin suppressed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
LeoPhone
Honoured Member
Posts: 0
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2010, 03:11:14 pm » |
|
yup, they should not uncloak from getting supressed. just make it unable for them to get back in cloak if they are supressed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
