Took a 2 month break and came back right after the free weekend; might not have been the best choice.
Me (440), 341, 1093 vs. 101, 673, 56
Me (440), Unranked (~5k), Unranked (~2.5k) vs. 163, 79, 134
Me (440), 148, 634 vs. 3x Unranked
Me (440), 351, 380 vs. 2x Unranked, 2500
Me (440), 2x Unranked vs. Unranked, 252, 206
It's not a good sign when getting a bunch of new players means the experience for everyone is significantly worse. I don't understand how there's still no "rank range limit" system in place. There's no reason a ~5k/unranked player should ever be facing top-100s; it's an awful experience for everyone involved.
edit:
Me (476 now), 648, Unranked vs. 176, 207, 114
Seriously, this is virtually unplayable; I haven't had a fair match in days. I quit for 2 months because of this, and now it's actually worse because they gave it out for free. I'm usually in favor of increasing the player base and getting new people involved, but the match-making system just isn't good enough to support a large player base or a large addition of new players.
Profile of Doomlord52
Avatar Area
Posts: 959
General Information
Signature
Opinions reflect all team modes (not 1v1)
I often edit my posts several times after posting
I often edit my posts several times after posting
Post History of Doomlord52
Thread: Relics Legendary Team Game Matchups6 Jun 2021, 05:49 AM
In: Scrap Yard |
Thread: UKF BluSonicX Balance Operation11 May 2021, 03:44 AM
Honestly, with the balance restrictions the patch team has been given, UKF isn't fixable. The core faction design is missing too much, especially when compared to the current state of the other factions (lots of utility, build options, indirect fire, etc.). UKF is missing many core functions (snares on mainlines, mobile indirect fire, etc.) which results in them swinging from "OP" to "UP" as single units are buffed or nerfed. Meanwhile, the few reliable mainline units they do have are each burdened with so many different tasks and abilities that they simply can't be good in any of them. The community will simply not accept competitive UKF. Can I only remind you of the outcry the received accuracy buff on Infantry Sections caused a few patches ago? The problem wasn't the accuracy buff by itself - they probably needed it. The problem is it was going on a unit that currently has an absurd amount of utility and upgrades, which just made UKF's build even more repetitive to both play with and against. Here's a list of all the things one Infantry Section can do or be upgraded with:
If we start removing things on that list, then they can become better on what's left - but until that happens, they simply can't excel in any one area, because they don't really have an area they're weak in. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Higher armour for Panthers13 Apr 2021, 01:57 AM
Click baity title.I've been thinking lately and I'm wondering how a higher frontal armour Panther with lower HP would be in the game. Its inspired with the recent change to the KV-1 and Pershing. If we're trying to emulate what the Pershing changes do (faster repairs, but over-all same combat effectiveness), the approach would be to keep the armor the same, lower the HP, and add a flat damage reduction modifier to it to counteract the HP Reduction. The damage modifier means the HP is effectively unchanged, despite being numerically lower, so the result is that the combat power is exactly the same as before but its faster to repair. Increasing the armor but reducing the HP would actually be quite a nerf, since Allied "60 range" TDs already effectively ignore the armor on it; so it would just lose to those quicker. Over-all, I don't see the need, though. By the time Panthers arrive, you should be able to afford detectors on Sturms and additionally, T2 gives you a permanent repair squad; those two combined can repair a panther (or anything) really quickly. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: The current state of infantry - DPS and Utility7 Apr 2021, 03:47 AM
taking your signature as an indicator, i assume you're mostly talking about team games (and rather 4v4 than 2v2), because in 1v1s and, to a slightly lesser extent in 2v2s, blobbing is not really that much of an issue. I'd say it's about equal for 2v2 and 4v4 in "top 200" level play; I've only ever seen it fall off completely in the top ~50 (or better), where players are really good at positioning, flanking, and using every single utility they have (I'm not quite at that level). in any case, no matter how much people despise it as a noob tactics, blobbing or concentration of force is a viable strategy both in-game as well as in real life. you can create numerical advantage over your opponent in a specific area and use this to overwhelm the defense - but it comes with its own disadvantages. not only will you give up map control in other places where your blob isn't around, you'll also be much more susceptible to blob counters, such as arty, mgs and explosives. I don't think this is fully accurate. While concentrating troops is a viable strategy in both real-life and in game, blobbing (i.e. 10-20 people in a 5m radius) is purely a "video game" concept, as pointed out by Klement Pikhtura earlier. While suppression does have an AoE mechanic, small arms damage does not; missed shots can't hit another model or squad, which is what would happen in reality. If anything, damage against blobs would be increased, since bursts and fire control basically wouldn't matter. Additionally, due to cut-offs, pressuring other parts of the map isn't always possible especially if playing as factions with static structures (UKF, OKW, other doc-locked stuff), since the the investment loss there can be devastating if overrun. Again, maybe this is true for the absolute top levels of play, but from my experience at around ~200 rank, this isn't what I've seen. for some reason people expect a single mg to be capable of stopping a blob of infantry squads worth 5-6 times the mp in its tracks or having a single brummbär fending off three triple zook ranger squads with ease. that's just not realistic and i don't think the game would be in a better state if it were. This is an interesting comparison, and I think it shows part of the problem. From my experience, a brummbar can actually hold off 3x 3-zook rangers if micro'd very well. While they both have the same range (35), the brummbar can fire on the move (and while reversing) whereas the rangers can't - allowing it to effectively kite them. The MG42 however, is a bit of a different case. I'd say it works really well early game when facing unupgraded and unvetted units; the issue is in the mid-to-late game stage of the game, against heavily upgraded and vetted squads, which can deal incredible damage to units even in cover. Additionally, as pointed out by elchino7, by mid and late game, yellow cover is so prevalent that suppression isn't reliable, especially against vetted squads. Unfortunately, there isn't a "micro" solution to this; no amount will make the MG win against even three fully upgraded/vetted squads in yellow cover. limiting the firepower of infantry globally across factions would affect both the attacking blob and the defending force equally, so not much is gained in total (except maybe mgs and tanks being slightly more effective against unit concentrations). especially giving IS access to a snare seems to contradict your proposed solution of making one-unit blobs less of an all around versatile option that is good against everything. Lowering the DPS of units increases the time in battle which also (usually) means more time spent as stationary targets, increasing vulnerability to indirect fire while also giving suppression platforms longer to suppress (which would help with the yellow cover issue). It also makes cover more effective, since we're applying it's damage reduction to smaller amounts of damage, while keeping unit HP the same. Additionally, since blobbing would now be 'slower', pressuring multiple parts of the map could become more efficient. As for the IS', adding a snare would only make sense if their utility (and a few other units) was brought inline with other basic mainlines; so for example, one weapon upgrade OR one squad-type upgrade (medic, pyro bolster), and one normal grenade. I think you are overlooking the fact that blobbing has always been the optimal way of playing at lower levels. At least considering the game modes you play and based your opinion on. As I said earlier in this post, my comments are based on my experience at around the "top 200" level, which can often mean facing opponents a fair bit higher than that; and outside of maybe "top 50" players, blobbing seems extremely prevalent. I'll admit that "top 200" isn't top-level play, but I also don't think it's "low level", either. Reducing or increasing DPS won't solve the issue of playing with 2x or 4x popcap and resources on a playing field that doesn't escalate at the same rate. I admit, the pop-cap issue is a problem, and I don't fully have an answer for it. That said, combined-player blobs aren't all that typical from what I've seen, except in some 4v4 games. It's usually individual players pushing 'their side' of the map, etc. where they still have a significant amount of power concentrated in a small group - but then again, they also need to cover a smaller area. As for increasing DPS and Cover modifiers, I find it interesting that both you and MMX suggested this; but I don't think it's necessary, or the only approach (it would work, though). While doing so would decrease the power of blobs against units in cover, it would increase it against anything out of cover (or even in yellow cover), which isn't my intention with these suggestions - the intent is to decrease the power of blobs in every situation. By lowering mainline infantry DPS (and utility) fights inherently would become longer; both for units in cover and out of it - and as I said before, that would make other specialized 'anti-blob' type units much more powerful, pushing optimal gameplay away from blobbing. That said, some adjustments to unit stats would likely need to be made as the DPS/EHP wouldn't correlate in the same way anymore, which could cause issues (i.e. everyone has lower DPS, but now some squads can last much longer in combat). In regards to punishing blobs and MGs specifically, i think it has been overlooked for quite a long time that MGs don't get RA with vet. As well as the fact that light cover created by small explosives exist and that provides so much RA and suppression protection almost passively. Regarding MG vet RA, this is actually a really good point I wasn't aware of. Similarly, the yellow cover issue is something I forgot to mention, but is also very valid. IS is a specific problem that unfortunately didn't get solved in the last patch, therefore practically impossible to address at this point. Yes, unfortunately it seems that UKF in general has some seemingly arbitrary restrictions on what can be changed - but perhaps this could change sometime in the future (or CoH3, who knows). As for the 2nd comment, this is why I mentioned moving the utility to other units when it's not redundant; moving all sandbags to engineers still grants all factions the same access to them (except UKF, depending on doc). Similarly, making upgrades exclusive (or at least more restrictive) also doesn't remove access to them. In the case of IS' it just means that every squad can't have double brens, healing/artillery, bolster, and two grenades all at the same time. One squad could have a bren or two, another could have healing, and another a special grenade (and/or artillery) - the utility is still there, but it's spread across more units. But yeah I would buff all MGs across the board except the 42 since its performing exactly as it should when it comes to countering blobs, which is almost instant group suppression when it runs into the arc. This is also a good approach; however, I'd take it one step further and add elchino7's suggestion of Vet RA bonuses, as well as something to deal with yellow cover prevalence in mid/late game stages (MG vet increases suppression against yellow cover?). One last thing, as this post is now far too long... I find the poll results interesting; as of this comment, the first two polls show a ~40/60 split in favor of infantry DPS and Utility not being too high, but a ~60/40 split in suggesting that more infantry upgrades be made exclusive. I'm not sure how this works, though; If more upgrades are exclusive, it means less can be stacked on a single unit, and so DPS and utility would decrease (or at least, that's what I intended). In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: The current state of infantry - DPS and Utility4 Apr 2021, 23:45 PM
To put it simply, the current state of infantry isn’t good for the game, and is actually taking away from what makes the series interesting. So much DPS and Utility has been consolidated onto squads that blobbing has become the optimal strategy at every level of play, short of the absolute top levels. To me, the game has always been about unit positioning and flanking; using cover, creating traps and so on. For the most part, the game actually supports this very well; there are 4 different levels of cover, directional cover, camouflage, ‘true sight’, mines, suppression, smoke, various forms of recon and so on, allowing for players to create interesting situations. However, the current game is not design around this; it’s designed around infantry blobs. Consider an Ober squad in green cover, with its LMG upgrade and veterancy; it will lose to an “attack-move” group of two '7 mam’ cons, just as a double BAR rifle squad will lose to two STG-Volks in the same situation. Statistically, this expected; the amount of DPS on the attacking side can overwhelm the relatively low amount of HP on the defender, even with cover bonuses, and the defender won’t deal enough damage to force a retreat due to the attacker’s larger total HP. The issue arises when considering the counter; to fight off these blobs of infantry, the opposing player will need to increase their anti-infantry power, which almost always means more of their own squads; and since those squads will need to be able to focus on the same units to increase their total DPS toward their target, they’ll need to be nearby… i.e. in a blob. “Punish the blob!” is the expected reply here, but the problem is the ‘punishment’ isn’t significant enough. MGs can be countered frontally by blobs quite easily, and there’s always smoke. Tanks can work, but with 2-3 squads, snares become significant issue even at full health – and infantry AT can always be mixed in. Artillery can work, but most blobs focus on highly mobile units, which can prove nearly impossible to hit. Blobbing is even the optimal strategy against mines, since the inclusion of a single sweeper squad protects all of the infantry at the same time. Basically, a well-controlled blob can completely ignore its intended counters, or even counter them. Ideally, infantry blobs should be balanced out by population cost and upkeep; more infantry means less support weapons, less tanks, less engineers building important assets like cover, caches and repairing, and so on; but this isn’t the case. So much utility has been focused on these units that there’s really no downside to filling most of your population with a single type of infantry unit. Consider UKF’s mainline ‘Infantry Section’ - that one squad has access to:
With so much utility, there isn’t a downside to fielding many squads of the same type, since they are so versatile – you aren’t making a choice between firepower and utility, or even specific types of firepower; so now you can have lots of "good vs. everything" firepower blobbed together, with massive utility to overcome nearly any opposition. Can anyone think of a match, recently, where after 20 minutes infantry engagements remained small; consisting of only a few squads? I certainly can’t. So what can we do about this? Simple; reduce the overall power of infantry squads to force diversity. Move utility to other dedicated squads (i.e. construction to engineer units), lower their DPS (no 2x upgrades, etc.), and increase the number of ‘exclusive’ upgrades to prevent upgrade stacking on single squads. For example, for the previously mentioned UKF Infantry Section:
Since their power and utility is now lower, the price can also be lowered; and since the utility on a single squad is lower as well, diversity is now required to field the same amount of power and utility. Perhaps, in the case of Infantry Sections, a snare could now be added since many more support utilities have been put on other units. This same approach could be taken for all of the infantry squads in the game, with similar results, and with those changes, I believe that the game could regain its interesting infantry combat, while also increasing the diversity of units and abilities seen through a match. In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: Late game performances of Volksgrenadiers and veterancy4 Apr 2021, 20:26 PM
imo instead of buffing volks, we should nerf 7 men cons vet bonus. This. The issue isn't volks; they're actually decent (although not amazing) when facing USF and UKF (to a lesser extent). The issue is that 7 man cons are incredibly powerful - and more importantly, cost effective. I'd almost argue that the "7 man" upgrade was a mistake, but I think it can still be made to work with some changes. A quick test to show what I mean: If you put 2x Vet 5 Obers w/ LMGs in green cover, 3x Vet 3 7 man cons (no upgrades) will win when closing from max range, across neutral cover. And it's not close; each squad had 2-3 models left. 640mp + 160muni locked behind T4, in cover vs 720mp + 150muni available at T0, in the worst possible attack. If we flip it, and put 3x Vet 3 7 man cons in green cover, 3x Vet 3 Pgrens lose when attacking in the same situation. And again, it's not close - the cons had between 2 and 6 models left. So That's 1,020mp losing badly to 720mp, and they have close-range weapons for when they get to the sandbags. For Cons to be balanced, both of these situations can't happen. Either the 'defending' squads need to win, since they have the cover bonus and no moving penalty, despite being less expensive (sort of?), OR the attacking squads need to win, since they're more expensive. Cons can't win in both situations; it doesn't make sense. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Relics Legendary Team Game Matchups3 Apr 2021, 20:05 PM
Me (#248) and #125 vs. #1 and #7 as a pre-made. Stop wasting my time, please. edit: Me (#250) and #100 vs. 1630 and Unranked... I only had to build 2 squads. That wasn't fun for anyone. In: Scrap Yard |
Thread: UKF have too many abilities by default.25 Mar 2021, 02:00 AM
I'd only agree with the stock infantry units: Infantry Sections and REs. The amount of utility on these two units is completely absurd, and allows for them to become far too powerful, especially in groups. You have a stock infantry unit - with no docs - that can have 5 models, 2 LMGs, two grenades, off-map artillery and smoke (or healing), and can build sandbags and caches all at the same time. The same can be said for REs. This is just too much utility on a single squad. My suggestion: 1. bolster becomes a per-squad upgrade (locked behind one command upgrade), costing 2x the squads reinforce cost (i.e 56mp for IS, 52mp for REs). This adjusts the overall squad MP cost to match what they should cost based on their model count. If the base squad cost needs to go down a bit to compensate, that's ok. 2. Bolster/Pyro/Medic/Heavy Engineer upgrades each take up one weapon slot. If you want a bolstered medic squad, it can't have two Brens. Similarly, if you want a 2x Piat RE squad, it'll have 4 models and no Heavy Engineer upgrade. This limits the overall squad power to reasonable levels, much like how OST's VSL upgrade took a weapon slot (and prevented the LMG42 upgrade purchase). 3. Caches removed from Infantry Sections; RE's should be the ones building things. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Ostheer sux ass24 Mar 2021, 02:05 AM
I agree with most of the analysis I do not agree identifying the problem. Right, that's sort of what I was getting at - maybe just not in enough detail. The problem is, in CoH2, it's a lot easier to tweak an "aggressive squishy/cheap" faction than it is to tweak a "defensive tanky/expensive" faction. That, combined with the requirement to keep "faction flavor" is what I think we're seeing here. Making a squishy/cheap/close-range faction better is pretty simple; increase the DPS to keep up with higher HP units, but keep the HP pool low while keeping cost down. If it's too squishy, adjust the HP up a little. There's really not too much of a limit to this, either. Cost can go down to zero, HP can get close to zero, and only DPS has an upper limit (at some point you hit "instant-melting" levels). However, as the price of units is generally low, you don't expect "instant-melting" DPS from them. Adjusting a tanky/expensive/long-range faction has way more limits. Defensive stats can't go up infinitely as eventually the unit is indestructible and becomes an "I win" button. Price also can't go up infinitely, as it becomes non-viable to float the resources required to build it. Additionally, DPS needs to be reflective of the price; an expensive unit can't do low amounts damage (near-zero), as then it can be safely ignored - so DPS is somewhat tied to price. This is what I think we're seeing with ost; we're hitting two of the limits. We can't make the mainline units tankier (i.e. stock 5-man 2-slot grens), because they'd stay in the field too long doing high DPS. We can't make the tanks tankier, as it forces the allied factions into more and more niche AT roles. We also can't make the units more expensive, as OST already struggles with MP bleed. Essentially, we've hit the point where OST is a caricature of what it once was, and it's because of the expansion factions. Basically, if we (well, the balance team) wants/needs to keep the current faction flavors, OST and to a lesser extent, Sov, need to become the limits of "offensive" and "defensive", with every other faction in between. As long as they're not, they can't fill the design roles they're supposed to. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Lefh Counter Barrage Controversy23 Mar 2021, 03:48 AM
I'm amazed that this has only been found now - the ability has been in the game for nearly 8 years now? I don't think this is something that can be "tuned" though, if the flaw is in the counter-barrage's 'script'. My guess is that the "order of operation" is incorrect, and it's: 1. Is enemy in fire-cone? If not, turn to face them. 2. Fire barrage If the "fire barrage" step is the same as a normal barrage, then step #2 includes step #1 and it's redundant. However, since it needs to wait for #1 to be "true" before firing the barrage, it can be exploited pretty easily, as shown in the video. Alternatively, the counter-barrage could work on some other strange system - I'm not familiar at all with how CoH2 works, technically. Regardless, I think the best change is to replace the ability as a whole; zero-input/high damage abilities have always been pretty bad. My suggestion from another thread: 9. OST/OKW (multiple docs) LeFH "Counter Barrage" replaced with something else. The amount of damage this does with zero user input is a bit much. Perhaps replacing it with something like a "precision barrage", where it fires 1-2 rounds (with more delay between them) but with half the scatter (and a shared cooldown). edit: did some testing 1. Counter-barrage still respects the LeFH's maximum range; it'll still turn to face your units (even when it can't see them), but if your units have moved outside it's range it won't fire. 2. The LeFH has a tiny window where it can "re-setup". If the target is outside it's cone, it will turn to face it (as in #1 above): however, if during the tiny period of time between the LeFH stopping its turn and the "setup bar" being displayed the target leaves the cone again, they'll pick it up and turn again. 3. As soon as the "setup bar" shows up (even at 0% filled) its barrage location has been chosen; even if the target keeps moving, etc. In: COH2 Balance |
868110865805861634860386859731859719859458857069856831856622
Latest replays uploaded by Doomlord52
Livestreams
64 | |||||
21 | |||||
13 | |||||
12 | |||||
10 | |||||
65 | |||||
21 | |||||
14 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.1218499.709+1
- 2.820243.771+3
- 3.456179.718-1
- 4.297193.606+3
- 5.505407.554+1
- 6.187110.630+1
- 7.16798.630+7
- 8.10520.840+3
- 9.8633.723+2
- 10.18372.718+2
- 1.2033873.700+2
- 2.405276.595+2
- 3.18693.667-1
- 4.21674.745+4
- 5.10825.812+4
- 6.15154.737+1
- 7.639341.652+10
- 8.494259.656+5
- 9.771344.691+4
- 10.357294.548-1
- 1.1382718.658+1
- 2.445210.679+11
- 3.340267.560+1
- 4.478325.595+1
- 5.303193.611-1
- 6.305136.692+6
- 7.474200.703+22
- 8.399189.679+3
- 9.762448.630-5
- 10.249182.578+2
- 1.355126.738+7
- 2.342169.669+5
- 3.282165.631+1
- 4.281266.514+1
- 5.329135.709+22
- 6.238123.659-2
- 7.808223.784+20
- 8.316127.713+6
- 9.922387.704+4
- 10.598304.663+15
- 1.1368637.682+3
- 2.2542916.735+5
- 3.862236.785+28
- 4.519225.698+4
- 5.491191.720+33
- 6.714389.647+12
- 7.1307482.731-1
- 8.547316.634+18
- 9.737.913+1
- 10.552290.656-1
- 1.333121.733+4
- 2.27521426.659+2
- 3.706364.660+7
- 4.15175.668+3
- 5.479353.576+12
- 6.246123.667-1
- 7.12741.756+1
- 8.354169.677+3
- 9.413253.620+6
- 10.1240763.619+2
- 1.663347.656-1
- 2.657285.697+2
- 3.423213.665-1
- 4.9027.769+4
- 5.16295.630-1
- 6.20788.702+1
- 7.9840.710+1
- 8.16691083.606+7
- 9.437372.540-1
- 10.16683.667+4
- 1.198188.513+2
- 2.391310.558+2
- 3.481227.679+2
- 4.538497.520+2
- 5.403266.602+1
- 6.296281.513+3
- 7.339314.519-1
- 8.381313.549-2
- 9.12798.564+1
- 10.412288.589+1
- 1.910310.746+13
- 2.432256.628+3
- 3.602335.642+5
- 4.606195.757+9
- 5.3598807.817+2
- 6.70542658.726-3
- 7.421275.605+5
- 8.347190.646+10
- 9.464104.817+10
- 10.22497.698+12
- 1.1374615.691+4
- 2.2013668.751+14
- 3.15071070.585-3
- 4.18270.722+8
- 5.634245.721+10
- 6.16851198.584+17
- 7.475239.665+5
- 8.1028640.616+3
- 9.935518.643+1
- 10.1159536.684+2
- 1.390163.705+5
- 2.683301.694+3
- 3.415133.757+1
- 4.22392.708+13
- 5.1919520.787+1
- 6.652280.700-1
- 7.291102.740+28
- 8.408230.639-1
- 9.309129.705+2
- 10.596278.682+2
- 1.328152.683+6
- 2.639207.755+6
- 3.1621791.672+7
- 4.31991218.724+3
- 5.182117.609+13
- 6.807408.664+3
- 7.1205560.683+9
- 8.700282.713+25
- 9.607292.675+1
- 10.325357.477-1
- 1.476142.770+2
- 2.843331.718+9
- 3.23476.755+10
- 4.383201.656+2
- 5.1871662.739+5
- 6.34512181.613+1
- 7.316140.693+3
- 8.412183.692+2
- 9.209108.659+7
- 10.34191721.665+2
- 1.25001407.640+5
- 2.406168.707+1
- 3.453190.705+4
- 4.297150.664+2
- 5.13853.723-1
- 6.220108.671+13
- 7.464219.679+2
- 8.310213.593+3
- 9.770419.648+6
- 10.9936.733-1
- 1.322172.652+8
- 2.2447810.751+6
- 3.1480575.720-1
- 4.16968.713+3
- 5.436161.730+1
- 6.384178.683-2
- 7.683230.748-2
- 8.239173.580-1
- 9.848649.566+7
- 10.7222.766+3
- 1.179143.556-4
- 2.11221200.483-1
- 3.290191.603+4
- 4.421288.594+2
- 5.150129.538+2
- 6.13859.701-1
- 7.13857.708+2
- 8.410313.567-1
- 9.926792.539+2
- 10.13041084.546+1
- 1.278110.716+16
- 2.269144.651+1
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.558230.708+2
- 5.968565.631-3
- 6.253150.628+14
- 7.250135.649+1
- 8.22491.711+11
- 9.8120.802-1
- 10.13556.707+3
- 1.1568886.639+6
- 2.915277.768+16
- 3.463229.669+2
- 4.1943868.691+2
- 5.740594.555+2
- 6.14656.723+9
- 7.18821031.646+2
- 8.915656.582+4
- 9.289147.663+9
- 10.329158.676+2
- 1.884390.694+8
- 2.647252.720-1
- 3.1055437.707-1
- 4.16395.632+1
- 5.316127.713+4
- 6.536158.772+1
- 7.287125.697-1
- 8.335149.692+1
- 9.35158.858+1
- 10.7231.699+4
- 1.10652.671+1
- 2.480354.576+4
- 3.344258.571+3
- 4.204146.583-2
- 5.432344.557+1
- 6.472372.559+3
- 7.15281235.553+8
- 8.177172.507-3
- 9.20521867.524-1
- 10.977684.588-1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
771
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX
Board Info
515 users are online:
515 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
36 posts in the last week
147 posts in the last month
36 posts in the last week
147 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45242
Welcome our newest member, Vanstran
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Vanstran
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM