Profile of Burts

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 1702

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/Burts5556
Steam: 76561198033352922


Thread: Operation Charlie Fox sign-ups thread6 Sep 2015, 15:22 PM Steam Alias : Cheese steam ID : 76561198033352922 In: Operation Charlie Fox
Thread: BRITS - MOST UNBALANCED FACTION6 Sep 2015, 14:02 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Sep 2015, 14:00 PMKreatiir Comets are too strong for what they cost. And are also spammable. How the hell are comets spammable when they cost 185 fuel and are also in a faction that faces a significant map control disadvantage in the early game againts both axis factions? I mean jesus christ the brits are the weakest 1v1 faction right now by far, the comet might be OP but please do not say it is spammable. That's just ridiciluos. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why brits are so lame in 1v16 Sep 2015, 06:47 AM But wait, i thought brits are OP ? Also, keep in mind grens are currently bugged and are 9% more durable and 15% more accurate than they should be. This is why grens beat infantry sections so easily. They also beat conscripts at all ranges and vs rifles at mid and long ranges but who cares about that shit right In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 12:40 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 12:37 PMButcher Unwarranted like the Panzerwerfer-nerf after the panzerwerfer-nerf? Or the (I hope accidental) ninja Panzerwerfer-nerf in the last patch? The unit that is stuck like that for over a year now? Relic is going to do whatever the fuck they want. And a mild Tiger buff isn´t going to break the game. Keep in mind it also has been constantly nerfed (HP decrease, Blitz nerf, no armor buff on vet, call in limitation to 1). It was lacking as a heavy tank, thus needed adjustment. And instead of mirroring an IS-2, it gets range. Panzerwerfer was nerfed, so was katyusha. It wasn't very significant. Keep in mind that relic IS buffing the panzerwerfer in the next patch. I'm not saying its going to break the game, only that the change was not needed. Why did it need a buff? It was more effective againts infantry than the IS-2, and slightly less effective againts tanks than the IS-2. (More effective againts medium tanks thought, still) Just because there is one allied tank in the game that it couldn't beat in a 1v1 slugfest doesn't mean it was underperforming. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 12:25 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 12:22 PMG4bb4_G4nd4lf I like the Tiger buff. Increasing its penetration won't really affect its effectiveness against most Allied vehicles. It will mainly affect the Tiger-IS-2-dynamic. A dynamic in which the IS-2 pretty much always had the upper hand. A Tiger probably still won't beat an IS-2 (not saying that it should) but it's slightly more even now. The range buff, however, feels kinda unwarranted. I'd like to know what the idea behind that buff was. The tiger will beat an IS-2 now. Even before, the IS-2 only held like a ~4s time to kill advantage over the IS-2. The tiger is now significantly better againts infantry, and better againts armor than the IS-2. I honestly doubt that the buff will stick, because the buff was completely unwarranted in the first place. It wont affect much anyways, since IS-2 is still a very good tank.. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 10:18 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 10:17 AMMr. Someguy Pak 40 Pen Chance vs IS-2: 50% - 56% ZiS-3 Pen Chance vs Tiger: 60% - 67% You are forgeting the pak-40 fires way faster than the zis-3... In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 09:59 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 09:58 AMCardboard Tank But the Tiger has to face British. I guess we have to live with that. Soviets and their heavy tank aren´t the center of the universe. And currently the Tiger loses more than half its health to a FF with rockets in about 5 seconds. Those are the consequences. Well, then lets buff the tiger and also buff the is-2? Or nerf the british tanks. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 09:54 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 09:49 AMAchtAchter Is2 has much better survivability due higher armour and speed. The Tiger became a bad choice due changes with balance patches. I hope the buff can put it back in meta now. It was stupid that such an iconic tank became a niche unit. IS-2 isint really more durable because of stronger ostheer AT guns. The time it takes for a zis-3 to kill a tiger is exactly the same as a pak-40 takes time to kill an is-2. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 09:36 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 09:35 AMAlexzandvar It has only slightly worse scatter but better AoE IS2 Pen Profile: 250.0/220.0/190.0 New Tiger I Pen Profile: 240/220/200 Which has a decent amount more of, 375 on the IS2 to the Tiger I's 300. Honestly the only real problematic thing will be the Tiger have 55 range at Vet 2, should just replace that with a survability buff instead IMO. Well, okay it has comparable penetration. But that doesn't change the fact that the tiger has faster RoF than the is-2, and 5.7 scatter vs 4.3 scatter IS NOT slightly worse scatter. IS-2 has slightly better AOE with alot worse scatter. Anyways, this isint a major issue, since the IS-2 is still a very good unit, but it still doesn't change the fact that the tiger is now better than the IS-2 in pretty much every way. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 09:26 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 09:23 AMWhoa Looks like you don't play with Tiger, don't know the stats for them either. IS2 has better stats, and after Tiger test change IS2 still much better. No it doesn't. IS-2 has significantly worse performance againts infantry, and now has less penetration , less RoF and less range. Only thing it has is slightly better speed and more armor. But because zis-3 shoots slower than pak-40 the time to kill tiger/IS-2 for the factions respective AT gun is essentially the same. In: Lobby