*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 30, 2024, 09:26:47 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[November 01, 2024, 12:46:37 pm]

[October 05, 2024, 07:29:20 am]

[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]

[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]

[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Whoever made 95mm cromwells 180 FU, and staghounds 80 FU  (Read 2526 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Katusha Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 989



« on: July 21, 2011, 06:10:18 pm »

go fuck yourselves

sincerely,

katusha
Logged
Killer344 Offline
The Inquisitor
*
Posts: 6904



« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2011, 06:16:39 pm »

u mad bro?
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.
Unkn0wn Offline
No longer retired
*
Posts: 18379


« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2011, 06:17:41 pm »

This isn't the balance forum.
Logged
Katusha Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 989



« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2011, 06:18:16 pm »

Why is there even a balance forum?
Logged
Unkn0wn Offline
No longer retired
*
Posts: 18379


« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2011, 06:20:18 pm »

So people like yourself could rage post in it after losing a game, obviously.
Logged
DarkSoldierX Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3015



« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2011, 06:22:35 pm »

Dude, u bring this wimpy thing



And we bring this



guess which 1 winz u nub?
Logged

two words
atgs and fireflies
Looks who's butthurt
*waiting* 4 DarkSoldierNoobiX pops up to prove how much shit the T17 is penetrating KTs back and Jagd front and how much better the ac/puma is penetrating m10 rear  Cool Cool Cool
Killer344 Offline
The Inquisitor
*
Posts: 6904



« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2011, 06:23:04 pm »

So people like yourself could rage post in it after losing a game, obviously.

Not if they get banned from the Balance Forum for rage posting lolz.
Logged
Unkn0wn Offline
No longer retired
*
Posts: 18379


« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2011, 06:25:42 pm »

Not if they get banned from the Balance Forum for rage posting lolz.

Shhh

Also, everything is better with bacon
Logged
Katusha Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 989



« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2011, 06:28:09 pm »

So people like yourself could rage post in it after losing a game, obviously.

Maybe that's why I DIDN'T post it in the balance forum

I think the non-doctrine buffed 95 is fine really, only the dual T3s may be a little too much.

Great sense of balance, really it is

In my opinion, as meaningless as mostly everybody else's here, 95 MM cromwells need to go up to AT LEAST 220 fuel. Everyone is really undervaluing it having a turret. Second, Staghounds to at least 100 fuel.

Why am I even posting this, all I'm gonna get is "no it feels good where it is," "its not so much of a problem because they are really easy to counter with tanks," and the best one "hey you started with a rage post, so why should we listen to you?"
Logged
Unkn0wn Offline
No longer retired
*
Posts: 18379


« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2011, 06:33:08 pm »

Honestly, as someone who has been using them extensively (without dual T3s) long before they became the FOTM I can assure you the base unit is adequately priced at around 180 F. The real and only issue lies in the dual T3 combo (+25% AoE and +20% Damage). Go make a non-doctrine buffed 95mm spam company, then come tell me it's OP.

You lost a game, I get it, it sucks to lose games, even more so when it's against some stupid gimmick. But making these kind of threads about it doesn't give you any real credence.

You want to discuss the 95mm? Go discuss it in the balance forum, the proper way.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 06:36:19 pm by Unkn0wn » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.08 seconds with 36 queries.