Profile of RoastinGhost

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Ostheer MG/Early16 Feb 2019, 17:02 PM https://www.dropbox.com/s/53oe1vmxib2il7r/CoH2%20MG%20Comparison.xlsx?dl=0 I made this when I was trying to get my head around the MGs. The stats are mostly taken from the DPS chart and looking at stats in the attrib editor. I didn't include some important stats like burst DPS, AoE suppression, or vs cover bonuses. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balance and Bugfix Patch – Feb 7th 2109 - discuss14 Feb 2019, 21:14 PM So it turns out there's a multiplier that controls resource gain based on number of players on the team. It can even be set per army. If that multiplier is functional, implementing faster CP gain for larger games would be as easy as can be. Any suggestions for what to set the multipliers to? or should it be left alone? maybe 1/1/1.15/1.3? In: Lobby
Thread: M20 dropping a bazooka is the worst thing in the world13 Feb 2019, 06:03 AM I think that would be doable with the mod tools. It would also be nice if the crew could benefit from Elite Vehicle Crews. Maybe just 1 thompson for them. I dunno. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balance and Bugfix Patch – Feb 7th 2109 - discuss12 Feb 2019, 18:50 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Feb 2019, 15:27 PMSander93 The only way of resolving this would be to manually adjust XP values so the CP gain for all modes becomes relatively equal. But that would take a very big amount of work. Why not just change the "cost" of each CP based on number of players? That would be an easy fix. I'm not actually sure if that can be used as a requirement in the modding tools, but I'll look into it. I also like the idea of caches increasing in cost with more players. In: Lobby
Thread: Recon Support this patch12 Feb 2019, 18:45 PM I agree. It would be nice if these commanders were really looked into rather than just buffed CP-wise. I think that supply drop costs should also be normalized. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Churchill Durability12 Feb 2019, 18:07 PM One thing to consider is that the standard Churchill is kind of a veterancy piñata. It would be nice if it had higher armor or damage reduction instead of a huge health pool. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balance and Bugfix Patch – Feb 7th 2109 - discuss7 Feb 2019, 23:22 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Feb 2019, 22:47 PMinsaneHoshi >Penetration from 1/1/1 to 1.2/1/1 Derp, does this change actually make any sort of difference? It means that it's 20% more likely to deal damage to light vehicles, so that would help. In: Lobby
Thread: New Commander Submission - Discuss7 Feb 2019, 22:51 PM The way I have Assault Sections set up in my mod is a call-in at 2CP for 320mp, 32 per guy. They have 1 Paratrooper-level Thompson. Their Enfields are much better on the move, and have a dps curve that's more like other Bolt Actions rather than the flat one Enfields normally have. They can also fire Brens on the move, and have a WP grenade at vet 1 instead of extra sight. Medical/pyro upgrades aren't available, but they benefit from Bolster Squads. This way, they're less efficient than normal ISs at firing from cover at long range. The Thompson cuts down their effectiveness at range, without making them crazy good up close. Since they bleed more and have no advantage when not moving, you're forced to use them offensively. Their cost, late entry, and lack of utility means you still need regular Infantry Sections, and they aren't dedicated CQC guys like Commandos. They're more like a USF Lieutenant. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance and Bugfix Patch – Feb 7th 2109 - discuss7 Feb 2019, 22:32 PM Good patch! I think the JLI cooldown nerf is going to be a pretty big deal, since you can't get a bunch of them to replace your mainline infantry right away. Feels very nice to have bugs I pointed out squashed (Commissar pistol damage, Assault Engineer Popcap and cost inconsistency). In: Lobby
Thread: New Commander Submission - Discuss1 Feb 2019, 19:07 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Feb 2019, 16:21 PMSmartie I hope thats the way the mod team will do the process. The community should not vote about the first submitted concepts but vote about already improved versions.This would guarantee a transparent vote. It would be really bad if drastic design changes had to be made after the vote - people may have voted for an other concept then. That does sound like a good way to do things from our end, but it would be a lot more effort, since the final versions of the commanders will take a lot of testing. They'd have to make both commanders and iterate on them at the same time, before having to scrap half of the work. I'm ok with voting based on the general concept of a commander. I see what you guys are saying about all-new content vs fixing existing stuff- I should have clarified that the "I want 5 of my favorite powerful abilities" approach was more what I was talking about. In: Lobby