Profile of Jae For Jett

I won't comment on your statements about balance.

I will give you some context though:

Top 400 is pretty bad. Top 200, even top 100 is quite bad with how the ladder is currently. Sometimes I face players in the top 50 who clearly lack basic things like a proper capping order, build, micro, and game knowledge (evidenced by the fact that they take losing fights). Perhaps 2v2 is more competitive and everyone in 2v2s is just smarter and better at the game than 1v1 players are. If not, what I said stands.

Not all of the 2v2 maps in the 1v1 rotation are larger than the pure 1v1 maps. Some are of course, but some aren't; regardless, I see your point.

I'm sure that nearly everyone would agree that the map you get is a factor in who wins. How big of an effect the map has on the result depends on which two factions are playing on it, and which side each faction is on.

The thing is, map balance depends on well...everything. How close are the garrisons to spawn, how close are the strat points to spawn, what kind of cover is around the strat points (maybe one side has heavy cover that can completely overlook a point, maybe they both have heavy cover but one side has larger heavy cover that is able to protect more models in a squad), how much cover is there in general, how close are the garrisons to spawns, how many windows do each of the garrisons have, how many garrisons are there, how large is the map. The entire matchup can be defined by any single one of these factors, so once you throw all of them in...

On a related note, my largest gripe with the 2v2 maps being used in 1v1 maps is that the spawn positions (not just the sides) are all completely random. You can be put in the far spawn and have to walk your units an extra 10-15 seconds just to get onto the field. In some matchups, this means you essentially have lost map control the instant the game started.

Like I said before, look at how ace performs, even with ost repairs. Now this is 1v1 we are talking. Sure the breathing space you have after you damage a KT will be a lot bigger but nothing that will save you if you are already losing. On team games this will be almost negligible since you can have other people helping you (multiple engies and mech trucks).



oh look, speaking of shitposters...

and he speaks of things in the past of which I was right LUL, now comets are a rarity on the battlefield you only see firefly spam now.

Yeah. The ace is severely hampered by the low repair rate of pioneers. Of course, there are a bunch of other issues that surround the ace that make it hard to compare anyway. So yes, if I look at the ace and how the low repair rates affect it (which, again, is a comparison that I wouldn't want to make) then the lowered repair rates should indeed have a noticeable impact on the KT, and we should still wait to see how they actually affect the KT's performance before suggesting nerfs.

Also, last response to you since I don't want to feed the troll. I only replied to you for the sake of anyone who is reading you and taking you seriously (to those people: you probably shouldnt).

I think any talks of a nerf to the KT (whether you believe it is over performing or not) should wait until we all see the impact of the repair rate nerfs. With the KT having much less uptime, it may become harder for it to pull its weight (as will be the case with all WFA vehicles, really, but especially okw vehicles with just how much their repair speed got nerfed).

I am VERY much against the 1.3 sturmpioneer changes. If those changes go through as they are, I'm going a sturmpioneer into kubel start, and the enemy isnt going to get their cutoff. On some maps, it might honestly be a free win. The 12 second difference in construction time is massive and probably the only reason why we dont see actual double sturm starts.

Ill see if i can get some matches on the mod to illustrate my point (or prove myself wrong)