Profile of Lago

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 3260

General Information
Steam: 76561198031945233


Thread: State of the Soviets5 Dec 2019, 12:39 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2019, 12:38 PMVipper To the benchmark which should be the most complete faction, the Ostheer Then buff Ostheer and UKF, then all five factions are balanced to your benchmark faction. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the Soviets5 Dec 2019, 12:37 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2019, 12:35 PMVipper No I am taking about both power level and lethality. The majority of recent patches have been buffs it is time for nerf. It's all relative. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the Soviets5 Dec 2019, 12:30 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2019, 12:29 PMVipper No it is not. Buffing Ostheer/UKF would mean that they one would try balance units on higher power level. Nerfing OKW/Soviet/USF would mean balancing in lower power level. The difference is that game mechanics would have more time to work. How much more can the FF be buffed since it can already hit and penetrate a PzIV with 100% chance from range 60 and can delete it one reload with Tullips before PzIV become obsolete? You're talking about lethality. That's a separate issue. You can lower lethality by buffing survivability. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the Soviets5 Dec 2019, 12:25 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2019, 12:22 PMVipper It is, new you get buffed and then the "old" one needs buff also. And that is was it suggested. Buffing Ostheer more although they recently received a number of buffs like: Better ostwind earlier Pgs DR in grenadier It is not the Ostheer that need buffs or even the UKF that need buffes. It the OKW/Soviet/USF that need nerf. Same thing. Balance is relative. Buffing OST and UKF has the same effect as nerfing SOV, OKW and USF. The difference is one approach involves adjusting two factions and one approach involves adjusting three. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the Soviets5 Dec 2019, 11:57 AM Power is a relative thing. Power Creep is an issue in games where units don't get patched where it's a means to make older content obsolete over time. That's not the case here. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we get rid of Bayeux?5 Dec 2019, 11:50 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2019, 03:11 AMIncendiaryRounds It's your fault if the game devolves into fighting all for the center. There's no resources there. The cutoffs and fuel are far more valuable. Or I could veto it and never have to deal with garrison hell at all. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we get rid of Bayeux?4 Dec 2019, 20:41 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2019, 19:35 PMIncendiaryRounds Why do people hate on Arnhem. I actually love the 1v1 maps. As Ost, i find I can manage all the maps except Nexus. All I need is one veto for 1v1 maps. Heavy garrison play. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the Soviets4 Dec 2019, 20:05 PM Would dropping the IS-2's armour to 350 really have a substantial impact on the StuG and JPIV's pen chances? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the Soviets4 Dec 2019, 19:18 PM The IS-2's armour value is an issue because OST and OKW have pretty middling penetration on their tank destroyers. The Tiger is a solid strategic counter, but that's not good for commander diversity. If you take the current IS-2 out of the picture, Soviets are fine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we get rid of Bayeux?4 Dec 2019, 15:08 PM Glider's come a long way and I quite like it now. I don't like the high concept of Arnhem, so I doubt I'll ever not veto that one. In: COH2 Balance