Profile of Grumpy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1960

General Information


Thread: Opinion on the "new" USF mortar?12 Apr 2017, 01:48 AM Jump back to quoted post12 Apr 2017, 01:23 AMLoopDloop I think the pack howie needs either a major cost decrease or an autofire range increase, but I still love the thing. The autofire range on everything should be decreased. The pack howie would be okay if the attack ground range was equal to its barrage range, like every other indirect. I haven't verified it by looking at the files but it seems to be 60 for autofire, compared to 80 for the Ost motor and something like 100 for the mortar pit, leig, and 120. If the mortar pit's autofire range was set to ~50 (along with all the other indirect), people wouldn't complain about it so much. Most people are too lazy to manually target the mortar pit. They want a set-it-and-forget-it unit with 100 range. In game, it is sometimes hard not to go off on a UKF teammate when they are just letting the thing autofire at a moving squad (effectively doing nothing) while ignoring the mg that you need moved in order to take a point. Set it to 50 and they either learn to use it or just lose a lot. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Opinion on the "new" USF mortar?12 Apr 2017, 01:38 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Apr 2017, 08:25 AMEsxile How do you feel the new USF mortar? I played some USF games lately and I had the feeling it couldn't hit anything in all the games I did. ....... Now I know the USF mortar was overperforming before, I was playing intensively Ostheer during all that time but I have the impression it went from OP to useless... It was situational before, meaning that it was really good against Ost with multiple weapon teams, and not so great against OKW. One leig pretty much hard countered a mortar if the player actively used it against the mortar. Now it is much more situational. It still seems to hit a lot, but not kill much. The smoke is okay, probably a little more reliable than smoke from the standard Soviet mortar. A lot of games are won through attrition. One of the key components in that is how efficient units are in terms of price, popcap, and what they actually kill. In that light, compare the new and old mortars. Old: 260 MP, 6 popcap, 30 kills in 40 minutes cost: 260 + 61.540 = 620 benefit: 30 * 28(average reinforce cost) = 840 ratio: 1.35 (really good) New 240 MP, 6 popcap, 10 kills in 40 minutes cost: 240 + 61.540 = 600 benefit: 10 * 28(average reinforce cost) = 280 ratio: 0.47 (better to build another ammo cache and possibly second RE) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Coh2chart.com new data tell us alot....11 Apr 2017, 13:17 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Apr 2017, 09:17 AMvasa1719 Wait guys, new patch with maxim nerf. They should have included the arty cover nerf, UKF armor nerf, and the Calliope nerf that Mr Smith talks about so much. It will be amusing. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: GCS placement match stats (w/ updates)11 Apr 2017, 04:27 AM In all of the matches where the results were split (each player won one), the player who was axis won every time. In the other matches, the same player won as both axis and allied. Nothing to see, move along. Better nerf Brit armor before it ruins the tournament. In: Lobby
Thread: Please, please put in more automatch 4v4 maps11 Apr 2017, 02:44 AM It would also help to redo some of the existing maps. Some like Lanzerath Ambush and Lazur Factor are terrible. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Coh2chart.com new data tell us alot....11 Apr 2017, 02:29 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Apr 2017, 14:23 PMvoltardark Coh2chart.com new data tell us alot.... Coh2chart.com What are your conclusions? Lets discuss them intelligently. Thanks. Hi VoltarDark, You're probably hoping that people would look at the move in the averages and undo some of the changes. It's not going to happen. The GCS balance mod testing will continue, followed by multiple nerfs to UKF armor, crush removed from both the M10 and Cromwell, artillery cover nerfed, etc. What you will get out of this thread is some awesome theories. My favorite is the claim that Axis top 250 play more games, because somehow 1815 + 1619 is more than 1695 + 1525 + 1405 (1v1 data). Nobody has pulled out the awesome uniform theory yet but I'm sure it is inbound. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to do any real analysis on this. We don't have any actual data on matches and can't control for player, faction, map, etc. Also, win/loss is a type of nominal variable. You'd have to get additional data like margin of victory and game length. Then you'd have to analyze those and try to infer something from it. If you could do all of that, you'd probably have a great future in sports betting. I'm going to stick with my day job. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Visions about P4 and P510 Apr 2017, 18:55 PM The Ost P4 was overpriced. It should have been around 110 fuel. Both Panthers should have had a range of 60. They are main battle tanks but used more like dedicated TD's . Also, didn't they have the same KwK42 as the JP4? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind10 Apr 2017, 01:25 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2017, 17:52 PMMr.Smith Would anybody feel that Elefant/JT are getting butchered with the following changes? - Damage reduced from 320 to 280-300 - Accuracy reduced (by a lot) to SU-85 levels The idea here is that JT/Elefant will remain marvelous at countering TD-walls (keeping them in the repair pad). They would also punish Comet/T34/85 spam/etc. They would also be amazing at dealing with allied heavy tanks. However, they wouldn't assassinate veteran medium tanks like it was nobody's business. (This assumes that Firefly's accuracy/moving accuracy also gets nerfed to SU-85 levels, to keep it even. Tulips should give the new blind TWP critical from Puma, rather than deny movement. Jackson is OK since it's brittle and will still go down to 2 shots) JT has a lot on its plate too, compared to the elefant: - Nerf mobility stats so that engine-upgraded JT performance will equal live-version unupgraded performance - Barrage no longer requires veterancy. Costs 30 munitions and projectiles follow an arc so as not to collide with ground all the time - Range decrease from both attacks to 80 (because increasing 17pounder range would be a terrible idea - Piercing rounds requires Vet5 (Vet5 currently does nothing since stun-removal ninja-buff) Elefant: - Can no longer upgrade to spotting scopes (so that we don't have to nerf scopes) Then, I would trace Elefant/JT popcap as follows: - Elefant: around 25-26 - JT around 28-29 (since it's a generalist with the barrage) CalliOP definitely merits a durability nerf first of all. It could go around Priest level. Then, range should either be reduced a lot (but kept lethal). In that way, you have to be careful not to have your CalliOP murdered, and that would differentiate it from the long-range priest. Otherwise, change the barrage pattern from 10-8 to 6-6-6. That could be an interesting idea. I think that could work. The nerfs on the JT and Ele would probably work. Would be better to try this as a first step rather than nerfing it into the ground. The ISU was overnerfed and has rarely been built since. Changing the barrage pattern of the Calliope to 6-6-6 might work. I don't think reducing it's range would make things better. It's already at its best when fired from near minimum range. It almost guarantees wipes of full health squads when used like a shotgun. The only rocket arty that is comparable is the Walking Stuka, which is better at wiping squads and support weapons when it hits, but is a little more hit-or-miss due to the tight cluster. Please don't do anything to the Walking Stuka without nerfing sim city, and please don't do anything to the Calliope without nerfing the super TD's. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind9 Apr 2017, 17:36 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2017, 15:30 PMelchino7 NOT REALLY. Some history. -USF release completely OP and specially broken against OH, but really UP on 3v3+ with it's paper tanks (on 2v2 it was more of a, let's finish the game as fast as possible with LT into Sherman rushes). -OKW release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames. -UKF release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames. -Sniper did shine/op on 1v1 but not so much on 2v2 and kinda a joke on 3v3+ -Wunderwaffe units which are hard to support on 1v1 are no brainers on 2v2+. While those are more important issues, resource inflation and specially volume of units on field per size of map and strategic points is still a problem. 1-You cap 3x/4x times faster the map which means the transition to early lights or even mediums is done faster. 2-Caches, while been a detrimental for the one building it, benefit the whole team. Been able to field 1 less unit on 1v1 can be a risk. When you have 4x the amount of units on map, that single 200mp investment isn't as risky. 3-If you have the same amount of pop as the lower modes, but equal amount of pop, then it's obvious that you are gonna end up with ~~"spam/blob"~~ a bottleneck of units fighting for the same points. Which makes AOE onmap/offmap shine. Note: what i mentioned can't be changed most probably (been what you mentioned the only things which can be changed in favour of the mode). Basically, i'm saying those are real issues, not myths, but those are part of what makes 3v3+ appealing for some people (Not having to bother with capping, huge amount of units on map). If it was mine decision, i would had test early on, having 3v3 and 4v4 have less pop (also less mp gain) to accommodate the players/volume of units into the map. Maybe instead of less pop on 3's and 4's, just revise the map pool to eliminate long narrow maps (Red Ball) and more short wide (shaped like Steppes or General Mud). The long narrow maps put Soviets at a significant disadvantage. Putting a cooldown on FRP would help, but it should apply to all FRP's including Major. One improvement to caches could be to divide the normal resource gain by the number of players (1/2 for a 2v2, etc) and then let other players improve it, 200mp at a time, until it reaches full value. Having it benefit only one player would likely result in people teamkilling caches instead of playing the game (at least in randoms). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind9 Apr 2017, 15:05 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2017, 05:32 AMpigsoup as long as relic refuse to separate 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3+ for balancing - which will be a harder work, you'll just have to deal with it. aand with so many people just jumping on a bandwagon yelling "let team modes die, but not 2v2 because i play 2v2 occasionally... but let 3v3+ die..." BS, i doubt we will see an improvement in coh2 or even in future relic titles. if the community balance teams get more power to do things, we might still have glimmer of "hope", but i mean, the game is already 3+ years old. and you cant micro balance teammodes like 1v1. a lot more variables and 6-8 players mean you have to rely way more on player's ability to #adapt. so only fix big shits like stupid super heavies, rocket arties, FRP. and maps if you have time. This is almost the entirety of the imbalance in 4v4. Add to it offmaps like the soon-to-be-nerfed Artillery cover and probably-never-to-be-nerfed Stuka CAS and Stuka dive bomb and you have pretty much all of the problem. In: COH2 Balance