Profile of elchino7

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

General Information
Steam: 76561198076231535


Thread: Stug E and Target Weak Point4 May 2015, 03:32 AM 60% to pen a T34/76 at max range. Use it at your own risk. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Rifleman cost-effectiveness3 May 2015, 21:27 PM Jump back to quoted post3 May 2015, 05:02 AMdaspoulos Only issue is that defensive stance should not be able to be active while in combat. It should only be used when expecting infantry to attack. Hence: "defensive stance" not, "Run up hop into prone to suppress stance" In: COH2 Balance
Thread: It is OK to have tank with invisibility in this game?3 May 2015, 21:24 PM Why not give better vet abilities to other units (something i have asked for since several months) instead ? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Remove free lieutenant3 May 2015, 21:11 PM Jump back to quoted post3 May 2015, 16:04 PMvan Voort They cost what they cost. Exactly. It's only useful to account and see timing of arrival of certain units. It's trivial when doing cost efficiency, since you don't take into account faction design as a whole. In: Lobby
Thread: Remove free lieutenant2 May 2015, 20:53 PM Jump back to quoted post2 May 2015, 19:11 PMAlexzandvar Well first off, since strategic points and caches do in fact give you .66 (or at least almost exactly .66 since it's only rounding up from 1.98 to 2) if your not working off fuel points then OKW really is actually getting the amount of fuel it's supposed to, but the reason OKW get's 5 fuel from fuel points is that they get 4.62 fuel, but the game can't do fractions so it rounds up. And are you suggesting adjusting fuel income is theory crafting? Because it is literally how teching and build times are balanced. The reason why the Schwer is 80 fuel is because with the income disability your paying the same (or close to) Soviet t4 or t3. What i'm saying is that going up with .66 is wrong, when in reality, you are getting resources always above 70%. During the first 3 or more mins of the game, comparative income is higher than 75% and stabilizes on 73% with a 50-50 map control. A smaller amount of map control on both sides, benefits OKW (to a degree, how OKW was initially designed to be played). If OKW was meant to get plain and simple .66, base income would be 3 instead of 4. I'm just pointing out that the margin of error when converting is not small. It goes from 50f to +100f depending the lenght of the game. In: Lobby
Thread: Remove free lieutenant2 May 2015, 16:06 PM Jump back to quoted post2 May 2015, 05:49 AMAlexzandvar The reason you get 5 instead of 7 fuel is because when the game adjusts fuel it rounds up. If it was 66% you would be getting fraction of fuel meaning the game has to round up. When OKW can get .66 fuel without the math giving them a fraction capable being rounded up, they do. The reason I state .66 instead of going through a complicated math formula to adjust every price to assume optimal conditions I adjust it by the standard .66 reduction because that's the modifier Relic put on the fuel income. You get 2 instead of 1.98, you get 5 instead of 4.62. EDIT: Engineering major 2op. And the difference of 4-6% is literally 5-6 fuel, which is one salvage, chill your tism' Getting a PV 175/.66 + 80/.66 = 386 175/.73 + 80/.73 = 349 Getting a KT 260/.66 + 40/.66 + 80/.66 = 575 260/.73 + 40/.73 + 80/.73 = 520 If you are still gonna theorycraft with fuel convertion, again, mind you do it rightly. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance of power has shifted to Allies in 4v4AT (imo)2 May 2015, 05:37 AM Jump back to quoted post1 May 2015, 23:03 PMSarantini Someone did some analysis of the stats and 3v3 or 1v1 was definitely the least played mode. 4v4 is indeed the most popular and then 2v2. Although we have to take into account that this only applied to the top200. Maybe at lower levels the behaviour is different. Anyways, Relic release data plox. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Remove free lieutenant2 May 2015, 05:15 AM Jump back to quoted post2 May 2015, 01:42 AMAlexzandvar I wouldn't call the entire point of OKW stupid. And every faction getting the same basic income is irrelevant because it still leaves OKW at a .66 disadvantage because they are getting less from the actual points they are capturing and holding. This is gonna be an offtopic to finally debunk the myth that OKW is at a .66 disadvantage. I'm gonna do you the math, again, since it seems it's hard for you to admit hard facts. -Base income at 50-50 map control, represents 20% of your fuel income as OKW. -You are getting 5f instead of the 7f on fuel points (71%) -You get 2f instead of 3f on strategic points (66%) With that been said, i'm gonna present you #MathOP -1 Strategic point OKW: 6 Rest: 7 Result: 85.71% -2 Strategic points + 1fuel OKW: 13 Rest: 17 Result: 76.47% -5 SP + 1f OKW: 19f Rest: 26f R: 73.07% -10 SP + 2f OKW: 34f Rest: 48f R: 70.83% Now, please, try to show me how is OKW getting .66fuel. PD: why is this relevant? Because that 4-6 percent difference, means a lot on the long run. In: Lobby
Thread: Remove free lieutenant2 May 2015, 00:54 AM Jump back to quoted post1 May 2015, 20:22 PMAlexzandvar OKW is paying as much as every other faction is for teching with the resource penalty. 60 fuel for t1 and t2 and 120 for T3. (adjusting for the reduced income of course). 55-110 if you are gonna do the stupid convertion. .73 not .66 Changes i would test: -I'll rather have a more meaningful unit on the LT. Make it something a bit more different rather than just a Riflemen with sprint (on vet) and a Thompson/bar -Make tech unlock bar/zook -Zook still needs to be cheaper -Reduce the fuel cost for Cpt and increase a bit the cost for LT. In: Lobby
Thread: USF AA HT Anti-Air Mode1 May 2015, 05:50 AM Single pass strafes can't be countered unless you have an AA source between the plane and the place it wants to strafe. Against CAS, your best bet is to dodge. In: COH2 Gameplay