Profile of VonManteuffel

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 84

General Information


Thread: Ostheer sux ass23 Mar 2021, 12:12 PM Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2021, 08:45 AMVipper I agree with most of the analysis I do not agree identifying the problem. The problem imo was that when WFA armies where introduced it was the Ostheer/Soviet that ended be adjusted to them and not the other way around. Thats exactly the problem. Nothing more to say. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar performance21 Mar 2021, 19:20 PM Brummbär is a hardcounter to infantry with absolutely no AT. So try Jacksons, Su85s and Fireflies. Thats all you need ;-) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: My respond to the accusations18 Mar 2021, 18:11 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Mar 2021, 17:46 PMSander93 Heh, A_E misunderstood and misquoted me there (no problemo I don't mind). I meant that I didn't have any experience judging cheating or knowledge about cheats, so therefor I didn't want my verdict to be conclusive with the potentially severe consequences for Seeking in mind. Ultimately I did not find any of the evidence overwhelmingly conclusive, but I did think that the sheer amount of these game sense / lucky moments was so high that it was very suspicious. So I kept that as my verdict. I am sorry about that misunderstandment, I never wanted to disrespect your skill! I was just according to A_Es document. Can we just get some public statments from the quoted top players? Luvnest, Noggano, DevM, Isildur, Artavick and the others? I would also like to hear some thoughts from some popular casters, like Tightrope and maybe Imperial Dane? And most important, can we hear ed80hertz, why he gives benefit of doubt about this issue? Sander already explained his decision. In: Lobby
Thread: My respond to the accusations18 Mar 2021, 17:31 PM Hey guys, can we please come back to the real issue and stop complaining about who said what to whom in private or public? This is not Kindergarden... I have got 1 simple Question: Where is the problem? From 20 top high level players 18 believe Seeking was hacking. Sander confesses, he has not enough skill to judge, but also believes in hacking. Only 1, ed80hertz, gives benefit of doubt. So what are we talking about? There is no 100% save way of proving Seeking was hacking. Relic admitted that. From the beginning of this issue, everybody knew, this will be decided by opinions. And if 19 top players think, Seeking was cheating, then sorry about that, but it seems clear to me....there is not even a need for Seekings response. In: Lobby
Thread: Does Ostheer Puma really req 5 cp?9 Mar 2021, 19:59 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Mar 2021, 18:33 PMEtherealDragon Do you mean BP1? If you tech BP2 then you might as well build T3 at that point. I do think you could make Puma more similar to OKw timing that way and just fiddle with buildtime or cost if needed. I mean BP1, of course. Sorry about that. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Does Ostheer Puma really req 5 cp?9 Mar 2021, 16:57 PM Why is nobody reading carefully in this forum... I proposed: - tech Battlephase 1 - build Leichte Mechanized - build Puma (remember: 320 mp + 70 fuel; maybe same buildtime like AEC or Luchs?) And all this with 3 CPs in hand. Tell me to get that done before 6-7 minutes. I wouldn't call that "early". Every AEC is earlier on field and denies all Ost vehicles. Nobody cares. Have I already mentioned Puma's sight range was nerfed in last patch? And has anybody noticed, that Puma is crap vs. infantry since a few patches ago? It's only a hardcounter to vehicles. So maybe build infantry? Maybe some of the new improved Penals with PTRS? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Does Ostheer Puma really req 5 cp?6 Mar 2021, 15:54 PM Puma should be buildable from T2 with 3 CPs. There is absolutely no reason, why Ost Puma should arrive later than OKW one. No call-in and with buildtime, it would be perfectly balanced. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Winter 2021 Balance Patch - Discussion 27 Feb 2021, 16:50 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2021, 16:32 PMSander93 It gets the rockets on target a lot faster, which should make it significantly harder to dodge than the regular barrage. That should make it more useful especially for 1v1, where with the regular barrage it is relatively easy to hear it fire and move or retreat before the rockets land. I understand your intention and I know the differences, but you removed supression for the low angle barrage. And it's a Vet 1 ability, so you have to shoot a few times in order to get access to this barrage ability. This already is a difference to compensate its more powerful impact. Why do you have to pay extra ammo on top? Katyusha and Calliope have the same barrage mechanism and don't pay anything. This low angle barrage seems more like an expensive downgrade atm. Therefore I would suggest: Either add supression again or remove ammo cost. Both together make this ability useless in comparrison to the standard barrage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Winter 2021 Balance Patch - Discussion 27 Feb 2021, 15:00 PM I don't get the point behind Panzerwerfer alternate barrage. You pay 30 ammo for a low angle barrage with slower cooldown between rockets an no suppression. Why should I pay for that? I know the difference between those 2 barrage types and their effect, but with the suppression beeing removed there is absolutely no need to put an extra 30 ammo cost on top. It just should be an alternative fire mode with Vet 1. So remove the ammo cost. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Winter Patch Buglist 202127 Feb 2021, 08:35 AM OST Panzerwerfer's normal and low angle barrage share the same hotkey. In: COH2 Bugs