Since I play this game, the question about the ability of the main infantry to build green covers was a thing. I even remember the consensus about preventing the ability to ostheer to build any green covers. Because lmg grenadiers behind green covers could be too strong and overpowered.
However, almost all mainline infantries are able to build green covers right now.
Cons obviously.
Volks obviously.
Infantry section.
Riflemen with a commander ability.
So, what do you think about this ? Should this ability switch to engineers exclusively. Instead of the actual situation ? To be far less spammable and more fair to all factions ? Or it's fine as it is. I am kind curious.
I think it would be a bad nerf to an already UP UKF faction. The only faction that I could maybe see it happen to is OKW, and even there I'm not so sure it is a good idea because I wouldn't want to be forced to buy a second Sturmpio just to build sandbags. |
The problem lies when you can prove someone else wrong, and do it, some people get offended because they feel hurt for being mistaken, but on top of that those people put themselves in between the argument and their interlocutor, ending in an obvious butt hurting experience.
The discussion was focused on the topic, whether OP liked or not
I'm guesing this was aimed at me. I wasn't annoyed because I was wrong on the cost and someone caught that I was wrong. It was being called a liar about it in numerous threads and the shout box that got annoying. It's analogous to taking a math test in the first grade, answering that 2+2=6, then having your elementary school teacher shout "Liar" at you every time they see you. I do understand what you're saying though, and will try to be less thin-skinned.
BTW - in the previous thread, I disagreed with you and others about putting the B4 in it. After using one in Counterattack a few times, I think it may not be such a bad idea. Instead of building it far back from the front lines, I built it close to the front and used it like a Pak43. Direct fire is really good if you can keep it alive. |
|
I was really expecting someone to say the USF ambulance. It has both 45 semi's AND AOE healing. |
Pity bump!
Please tone down the unstoppable recon!
I think the modders/balance team said that the IR HT can't be modded. I don't remember the exact details but it means that threads about it aren't going to go far.
Arty flares could probably be shortened, but it is in a doctrine that isn't meta currently.
Most of the doctrinal flares seem okay so I'd be surprised if anyone jumps on the idea.
In short, you're probably not going to get a lot of response on this. |
Pointless
There are enough posts about the ambulance to consider doing something different. Shared veterancy could be an option to a straight up buff or doing nothing. |
As the tile says I would suggest that shared veterancy for Ambulance and Opel becomes available.
Vet bonus could provide support bonuses/defensive bonus like longer reinforcement range, sight, speed, HP, armor, rotation, acceleration.
One could even have support opel gain veterancy gaining XP from providing extra resources.
Interesting idea, I like it. What about other factions? |
VonAsten played exclusively as OKW and USF.
Luvnest almost exclusively went SOV and OKW. He had 3 games as OH, none of these vs. SOV. He also was the only one playing as SOV against OH.
Noggano played mostly OKW and USF; he has 2 games as SOV, and 2 games as OH vs. SOV (winning 1).
Jove played 6/5/5 games as SOV, OKW and USF and only 2 as OH (one against SOV, one against USF, winning both).
Obviously you can argue that the players that mained OH didn't get to the semifinals because OH is shut down hard by SOV, but that's conjecture.
And then number of games is still limited...
I'm not saying the numbers are meaningless, they certainly can indicate a trend. However, I doubt that the data base is sufficient to prove something without the shadow of a doubt given the many factors that play a role.
The data set is terrible for trying to make conclusions. Having the four finalist rarely play Ost means that Ost will have much fewer victories than other factions and look like it is UP. If someone was going to analyze this like an actual statistician, the first thing they would do is throw out all of the outliers (3-0 or 3-1 matches). They would then be down to 5 matches with 25 games. However, win/loss is nominal data. You can't calculate anything on nominal data, you have to transform it into some type of numerical data. In this case, you would transform it into winning percentages. The problem now is that you only have five data points from the five matches. With just five data points, you couldn't calculate standard deviations for all the factions. Without a standard deviation, you cannot calculate a margin of error, compare means, or any other statistical check.
That said, it would be interesting to find out why they didn't pick Ost, in the same way that they didn't pick UKF. It may be that the four finalists didn't pick Ost because it is worse. Without input from them, we can only speculate. |
Can you stop mocking me? I don't know why you insist on continuing to be an absolute jerk, but I have shown that the ability is still good
You on the other hand have repeatedly been wrong about multiple facts related to the ability. First you got the cost wrong, then you got the travel time wrong, and then you suggested I was faking tests in order to argue with you
All I have done to you is disagree/correct your false information. You could try to respond with less of an attitude for once. At least have the balls to quote me if you're going to talk shit about me, I really don't understand your fucking problem
Since you're clearly clueless on a lot of things, I'll explain this in a way you should be able to understand. I was off on the cost of the bombing run by a little bit. I hadn't used it in years and wasn't going to play a game just to get the cost exactly. Instead of simply saying I made a mistake, you absolutely shit yourself going everywhere claiming that I am a liar. You've put it in multiple threads and even the shout box. Maybe you're too stupid to understand that calling someone a liar is an insult, or maybe you just don't know the meaning of words.
You, on the other hand, are bordering on lying when you say the bombing run is a great ability. You would have had to have tested it a bunch of times and know that it doesn't do a lot versus PIV's, Stugs, Panther's etc. You found one unit where it did well, when the bombing run is done at some strange angle, and then said the bombing run is great. By anyone else's description, a bombing run that is good against one particular type of target at some strange angle is either bad or bugged, not great. Your statement is a lie, because you know it is not true and you have the intent to deceive.
Lastly, you make really stupid statements whenever this subject comes up. It eventually leads to responses like these that were replies to you from other players:
Penal snare is actually easier to pull off, unlike grenades it will always go off once you start animation. Also you're not ambushing anything of value once enemy sees you have PTRS cons, it does not take 200 IQ to send infantry ahead of tanks especially since PTRS cons cant do anything to infantry and you're giving up on shocks and guards by selecting this doctrine.
Anyway I'm done with you, you can pretend it's good doctrine all you want I think everyone who played it would rate it as meme or gimmick at best and the fact thats it's one of the least seen doctrines in the entire game speaks louder than theorycrafting
Congratulations, you just proved you used tank hunter commander vs easy CPU.
In real games, only in an already won 4v4 fuckfest and against a plant level of reaction player you can succesfully pull a Conscript AT assault vs heavy TDs... its literally punching the dead horse.
Of course tank hunter packs quite a punch, but it is so predictable...
B4 adds some 'excitement' RNG + a direct fire revamp
In short, if you stop insulting and stop saying stupid shit then I, and others, won't mock. |
You absolutely can; I've shown this multiple times now. ..
No, you're still not understanding. When the matches are almost all 3-0, wining faction rate is determined solely by which faction was picked. Imagine for a second that instead of 64 players, there was just 2 players, Player B who won all of the matches and Player A who lost all of the matches (matches were all 3-0). If Player B plays more than half of his/her games as Soviets, you would conclude that Soviets are OP because the win rate was more than 50%
You keep trying to assert that players choice is random and follows a normal distribution, but it isn't and doesn't.
|
That would assume Soviets had a 100% win rate - they don't, and no one is claiming that. They had a 54.2% win rate against OKW and 71.2% against OST.
I'm just pointing out that the Soviet vs. OST win rate is so much higher than any other matchup that they are OP beyond any reasonable doubt. If their win rate against OST was 55%, or even 60%, there would be a discussion to have.
You seem to badly want this conclusion, but the data doesn't say that at all. You can't take the results of a bunch of 3-0 matches and conclude anything. The "effect" of the player is so much stronger than faction, map, rng, or any other factor. |
Relic Entertainment
