Speigass
banzai
EIR Veteran Posts: 114
|
|
« on: June 06, 2009, 12:38:12 pm » |
|
I remeber when puma and sherman upgun upgrades cost fuel and not ammo. I wonder why was it changed?
We should get possibility to put our fuel somewhere besides buying entire new vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RikiRude
Donator
 Posts: 4376
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 12:39:40 pm » |
|
i much rather pay fuel for sherman upgun then muni.
but im sure there are just as many people that rather pay muni then fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea" ... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid |
|
|
| Scyn
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2009, 12:41:22 pm » |
|
Muni makes more sense, but Fuel would definitely cut back on the amount of light vehicles, etc etc. and allow infantry to take more upgrades.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
God is a genetically induced obsession that we interpret in such a way as to maintain our obedience.
|
|
|
Baine
Steven Spielberg
 Posts: 3713
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2009, 12:42:12 pm » |
|
Yes, especially with the amount of munitions you now have. It's a lot less, so things like that would make it a bit easier.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mr Hat 93
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2009, 12:47:17 pm » |
|
What was it??
200 mp 115 feul?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2009, 12:57:34 pm » |
|
I would be all for Sherman upguns costing fuel instead of munitions - we would see them a bit more often. 100 fuel, or maybe 80 or 90, would be a decent cost I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Akranadas' Greatest Hits, Volume 1: Vet has nothing to do with unit preformance. We are serious about enforcing this, and I am sure you all want to be able to have your balance thought considered by the development team with some biased, sensationalist coming into your thread and ruining it. |
|
|
| Scyn
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2009, 01:00:13 pm » |
|
Or we could go half-half 50mu / 50fu
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2009, 01:01:08 pm » |
|
upgrades always cost fuel
this wouldnt make sense..
then they have to change all skirts and mgs on tanks costing fuel
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draken
Chess master
EIR Veteran Posts: 1852
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2009, 01:02:46 pm » |
|
Or we could go half-half 50mu / 50fu
lol no. You know what would be great if we were able to trade munis for manpower and fuel for munis etc, but it would propably make possibility to abuse. Anyway I think upguns should cost munis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2009, 01:03:54 pm » |
|
Or we could go half-half 50mu / 50fu
this idea is even worse.. allies only have tank which dont cost too much-> every sherman would have upgun (upgun is damn good imo) every allied can get 4 shermans; if he puts out his light vehicles he can get upgun on all 4 is that intented?...i hope no |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Scyn
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2009, 01:05:36 pm » |
|
Agree, aloha. But Armor is the only one that can get upguns for the most part, Infantry and Airborne players usually end up spending a great deal of munitions on Thompsons or RRs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2009, 01:08:08 pm » |
|
thats the deal, isnt it?
if you do that, you just would it make easier for everyone to get upguns, i think thats not intented...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Bubz
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2009, 01:08:26 pm » |
|
Or we could go half-half 50mu / 50fu
this idea is even worse.. allies only have tank which dont cost too much-> every sherman would have upgun (upgun is damn good imo) every allied can get 4 shermans; if he puts out his light vehicles he can get upgun on all 4 is that intented?...i hope no I see many players who have skirts on all their tanks tbh. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sharpshooter824
I <3 Aloha
EIR Veteran Posts: 775
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2009, 01:44:28 pm » |
|
Rofl aloha..
You wouldn't want 4 upguns would you? To hard to kill with your P4s? Come on dude, this has nothing to do with shermans getting upguns, obviously they are meant to be bought and cost quite a lot of munitions but guess what, so are skirts, MG42 gunners ETC. this is not about allies getting more upguns this is about what they should cost.
And really..players are meant to choose what they want to spend their resources on.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 01:47:14 pm by Sharpshooter824 »
|
Logged
|
Rawr
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
 Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2009, 01:48:21 pm » |
|
The current system works pretty good. Infantry spend munitions on thompsons, AB spend munitions on RR's and Armoured spends munitions on vehicle upgrades. Thats not to say that the other doctrines cannot but Armoured tends to get a better deal for them with their unlocks
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 02:04:10 pm by brn4meplz »
|
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  |
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2009, 01:54:43 pm » |
|
I'd actualy argue for reducing the cost on upgun for shermans. They're already seen considerably rarely on the battlefield, and they grant a debuff in conjunction with the penetration buff - yes, you reload longer, and your splash damage suffers. For such a double-edged sword, the upgunn is really just very costly, and a small reduction in price should be considered.
I do not think a fuel cost would be appropriate - fuel has always been the resource that shows the unit's survivability, more than anything else - the more fuel you spend on a unit, the more armored and the higher HP it gets. Surely, the gun is taken into account with this cost, but most high survivability units cost a lot of fuel(except for the churchill, but, well, there's a reason for that).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2009, 01:59:47 pm » |
|
i wont reduce price only to see them more often on the field its an insanely good upgrade caus the 76mm penetrates even KTs most of the time (ATGuns doesnt penetrate that much) and: and they decreased the price by 40 a few weeks ago, do u really want to do that again? buffbuffbuff? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2009, 02:04:16 pm » |
|
The upgun sherman has a 45 percent chance to penetrate a KT at point blank range from the front, actualy. It actualy has a 10.8 percent chance to get bounced at point blank from BEHIND
38 percent for the jagdpanther.
If noone buys something, means it's not useful, means there needs to be a buff, n'est pas?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2009, 02:06:51 pm » |
|
i have upgun on all of my shermans because they rule.
mostly i see p4s when i play ami so upguns is teh best
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Latios418
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2009, 02:10:15 pm » |
|
Yes, but your upguns are special from your ally bias in that they allow you to one hit kill Tiger Is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Anonymous 06/19/09(Fri)11:55 No.4931966
Is Akranadas in this thread? Fucker can't stop bragging about his "waifu taldeer" and cosplaying in an eldar farseer costume while shouting "Flithy monkeighs!" interspaced with random eldar gibberish. |
|
|
|
