Profile of SlaYoU

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 400

General Information


Thread: war spoils23 Sep 2014, 16:10 PM A simple re-roll option would be good: exchange 2x same rarity items for 1x same rarity new random one. Or trading between players, but i doubt someone would take my 9x Studded Faceplate for their 1x Close Air Support commander In: Lobby
Thread: OKW has too much Ammo23 Sep 2014, 12:55 PM Jump back to quoted post23 Sep 2014, 10:46 AMAustralian Magic SlaYoU, I will not even respond to You since You called me a troll. Next time check someone's posts or something before you judge. I'm fine with it, as discussing with you is pointless anyway. You are biased, and automatically assume everyone else is too. Have fun within your bubble (or maybe your troll cave ?). You ignored the wrong post at the wrong time, and entered my ignore list, i wish there was one in that forum that would do the dirty work for me. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW has too much Ammo23 Sep 2014, 09:34 AM Jump back to quoted post23 Sep 2014, 09:25 AMAustralian Magic OKW design. Axis fanboys say this word all the time when usf are the subject but when it comes to OKW design has no matter cause okw needs (is okw plural or singular?) 100% ammo. You are definitely right, let's bash a whole faction with zero concrete argument other than 'their fanboys are too mean, so i'll be a douche myself too'. You dare claim that people that do not want to see a Pershing added are the same that do not want to see an ammo nerf, and ignore the 2 persons who reply to you right after with reasonable arguments. Good job, you are a perfect troll. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW has too much Ammo23 Sep 2014, 09:22 AM Jump back to quoted post23 Sep 2014, 08:47 AMJohnnyB LOL, verry wrong. You assume that some players lost their reason just because they like OKW. I can search for my posts related to Pershing and post them here to prove you that I have nothing against USF getting the Pershing and even non-doctrinal too. Related to paying for LMGs or such I disagree though. Remember in most of the games OKW needs to trade amo for fuel and, in addition, cannot build caches and augment their amo income, like all other factions can. Exactly, i'm all in for a Pershing added to the game, yet i wouldn't like an ammo nerf for Oberkommando. It would simply kill lots of options in an otherwise interesting faction. Let's try to fix the problems in Allied factions rather than kill what is enjoyable and succesful in the Axis ones. If kubel is OP (gives Oberkommando too much early game presence) and must be nerfed, so be it. But being able to purchase upgrades and use units' abilities is something that must stay in the game (maybe adjust some costs that are now somewhat OP because of the new ammo rate, that i agree with). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: My Epiphany22 Sep 2014, 14:50 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2014, 14:46 PMNigelBallsworth ...never mind. On second thought, the cost/ beenfit for that wouldn't be worth it. Disregard ! And would introduce even more RNJesus whining because one game you had whatever-better-building-facing-the-good-way and the next game you didn't (or your opponent, or whatever reason to whine anyone can come up with). In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Thoughts on OKW Artillery Flares22 Sep 2014, 09:56 AM It is a feature of a doctrine based around furtivity. It is noticeable, yet require a lot of attention to spot since it is silent. I agree it should be normalized since the Oberkommando has got it's ammunition income revised to normal. It should cost 80-90M (probably 80, since you convert M to F most of the time and are very short on M throughout the game). PS: while being "unstoppable", it also has a narrower radius than every other recon ability. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: My Epiphany22 Sep 2014, 09:38 AM Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2014, 09:31 AMKhan But if everyone is playing Axis, who is playing Allies? Are the Axis players doing mirror matches? According to what we read on this forum, the ones playing against axis in team modes are martyrs that sacrifice themselves so that other can have good games. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: My Epiphany22 Sep 2014, 09:20 AM Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2014, 08:53 AMsimpelekees I think he did. Also, I think first, you should back up your case. Why would balancing 4vs4 not affect balance in 1v1? What exactly does it make an equivalent to: balancing with Pros -> balancing with Noobs. Your argument goes like this: Balancing 4vs4 wont break 1vs1 Because you tune the greater before the smaller. Because always balance the maximum before the minimum. Because the complexity before the simplicity. Because there is no exception to that rule. Then your example of shrinking a picture...wtf?? I'm sorry, but before I accept your 'rule' as universal. I'd rather take both options as equals. Your argument is circular. My opinion is that all game modes: 1v1 -> 4v4 are equally vulnerable to adaptation of balance. This is where hagen his examples come in. - Nerfing axis late game heavy armor appropriate to 4v4, will probably make them unviable and underpowered in 1v1. Which will probably change the whole meta-game in favor of mid-game Medium-armor, favoring the army that has the strongest mid-game. - Paks and HMGs are indeed easier to flank in 1v1s and perhaps require a slight nerf in 4v4 to avoid campy battles and Axis advantage (due to high penetration and damage). In 1v1 this will probably make the Paks easily counterable by any light-armor, since it won't be such a threat anymore. I think his diversity of examples better suits an argument than the sketch I gave of your argument above. Exactly, or how can one promote a "universal rule" that makes no sense. Fixing the greater before the smaller ? WTF does that even mean ? If you nerf lategame Axis with 4v4 in mind, you simply break the 2 factions in 1v1, how can it ever cross someone's mind that it wouldn't impact 1v1 at all ? The only thing you can change without impacting the 2 different modes are the maps. Have 4v4 maps have less income / captured point, so that lategame Axis comes online later. If you screw with the units, whatever the gamemode you aim to fix, you will screw the other in some way, since they are both so inherently different from eachother. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Most requested unit in coh2 history...19 Sep 2014, 09:35 AM I'm sure Pershing will eventually hit the battlefield, in a doctrine with mostly team based assets, so that USF can have a reliable team doctrine to head to. Sure it would be incorrect to see many of them as it saw very few combat action IRL, but hell, we do have some rare German vehicles as stock or doctrinal units (namely Elefants, Jagdtigers, Pumas, Ostwinds). Also i would like to reply (i think it was QueenRatchet) to the players using the real world "breakdowns" as an argument against historical accuracy. This is still a video game, and avoiding every real life inconveniencies is fair for everyone. IRL, Machines Guns do overheat, small arm weapons do jam, tanks and vehicles in general do have breakdowns, get stuck in the mud, etc.. This is not World War 2 Simulator (you could play the Wargames series if you want something less arcade oriented). To keep the game interesting and action paced, getting rid of every "too realistic" issue is a must have, yet it doesn't mean that we should have out of timeline vehicles / weapons added to the game, or maybe i should ask Relic to add Maus tank (whose development ended at the prototype phase, and would have probably hit the field by the end of 1944 if the allies bombing runs didn't dismantle German industry capability). If we start to head this road, we will end up with a game as historically accurate as Wolfenstein, and this, nobody wants (despite Wolfenstein being a quite cool game to play). I think we all agreed to have historical incoherences when we began fielding USF vs Wehrmacht on some Eastern fronts maps, for the sake of it being a game. In fact, having Wehrmacht and Oberkommando teaming together is also some kind of inaccuracy. The same goes for Soviets fighting alongside USF, as it never happened in the conflict. The next logical step would be to have mirror matches, as it is a game, and even if it doesn't make sense, i can accept to close my eyes (for the duration of a single game) on the issue for the sake of fun. But this is OffTopic, if it can help USF to attract more players to add a "Late War Tactics" commander with Pershing, why not. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A simple solution to have a more people playing allies18 Sep 2014, 13:31 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Sep 2014, 09:58 AMraw Yes! It's just that 90% nazis, Wehrmacht-Lovers, Russophobes and Ami-Haters love this fucking game this fucking much. Has nothing to do with imbalance at all. Durr, what was I even thinking? Yeah, what were you thinking ? Don't even want to know what happens between your ears, so no need to reply. Even when Axis were UP, the number of people automatching with them was very high. Obviously it is all about balance, you are right. Even better yet, learn how to browse this very board, and find a maths explanation about why queues are not representative at all about real number of players per side. It shows a preference, of course, but nothing more. In: COH2 Gameplay