USF PATHFINDER really？

What is happening to this forum.

Scotts OP?
Pathfinders OP?

wtf is going on.

that s the effect of denying the playercard restriction as proposed 5 years ago

A USF blob with pathfinders is the closest thing to a cheese in COH2 right now. It will always outmaneuver you and always hit when it hurts the most. Imo it is very strong in 2v2. Effort to reward ration might be too high. And the strat is absolutely disgusting, because of humongous blobs. Seen it couple of times already, will try a JLI build next time, see if it works better.

The unit itself, on the other hand, is pretty mediocre on its own.

You know you can take OP seriously when they post multiple threads that are Nerf Allies/Buff Axis.

What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the 4v4 tourney? What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the last 1v1 tourney (particularly the final)?

What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the 4v4 tourney? What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the last 1v1 tourney (particularly the final)?

You do know that a small sample size of games with a select group of people indicates very little?

Its very possible that certain people within that select group synergyze better with certain factions, if that happens to be more with allies..

You do know that a small sample size of games with a select group of people indicates very little?

Its very possible that certain people within that select group synergyze better with certain factions, if that happens to be more with allies..

So you think a bunch of completely randomized matches with all sorts of skill levels, the majority of which are far below what should be used as components to evaluate balance is a better way of determining balance issues, than a tournament of high skilled players effectively playing in controlled settings of multiple matches on the same map over and over and each team switching factions every match...?

Interesting logic.

So you think a bunch of completely randomized matches with all sorts of skill levels, the majority of which are far below what should be used as components to evaluate balance is a better way of determining balance issues, than a tournament of high skilled players effectively playing in controlled settings of multiple matches on the same map over and over and each team switching factions every match...?

Interesting logic.

Coming for two USF threads about PFs and Scotts and ranting at both looks a little bit akward if you ask me. Don't you like USF?

I personally would go for coh2 stats, set custom range from mid june to today and choose displaying Top200 games only. That data ia a far bigger and more reliable source than one tournament. Atm it is 55,1% winrate for Ostheer an d 59,5% for OKW at 4vs4.

Don't want to question that allied side performs a lot better at 1vs1 and 2vs2 though.

I always wondered why a lot of the allied buffs affect the early to mid game. They shouldn't buff units that play a big role in 1vs1 and 2vs2 where allies always had a good game performance. Buff real late game units. Example: Buff UKF hammer/anvil tanks (and raise population+cost accordingly and/or cap them) instead of buffing T0-T3 units.
Early game units have to be buffed in a different way: A good example for a game buff for an early game units that kicks in later is the 7th man upgrade for conscripts which gets unlocked at T4 automatically or at T3 with additional tech costs. It has a bigger impact in multiplayer games than in 1vs1.

Scott could be balanced easily. Just remove autofire, reduce to 320 hp and balance it completely about a decent long range barrage with an appropiate ability cooldown. Or do it the other way round. Keep health and low range autofire (+attack ground), remove barrage and adjust around decent autofire with appropiate reload. Either way it could be balanced way better.

PFs are fine however.

What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the 4v4 tourney? What was the win ratio of allies to axis in the last 1v1 tourney (particularly the final)?

IDK, do you care to share what they are or are these rhetorical questions that somehow justifies OP's complaints? Even if Allies do have a higher win% unless you show that when Airborne/Recon was picked that the Allies won a disproportionate amount of the time AND that Pathfinders contributed to that that hypothetical lopsided winning rate then that doesn't mean anything at all.

So you think a bunch of completely randomized matches with all sorts of skill levels, the majority of which are far below what should be used as components to evaluate balance is a better way of determining balance issues, than a tournament of high skilled players effectively playing in controlled settings of multiple matches on the same map over and over and each team switching factions every match...?

Interesting logic.

In your logic soviet t1 sniper opening with m3 and penals are op now because its been proven to be very effective by some high level players. Yet it costs quite a bit of mp and micro/combined arms and map control early on.

In your logic soviet t1 sniper opening with m3 and penals are op now because its been proven to be very effective by some high level players. Yet it costs quite a bit of mp and micro/combined arms and map control early on.

This is a Strawman, but if T1 with Sniper, Penal, and M3 play were a strategy that dominated at high levels then it would be arguably overpowered, yes.

This is a Strawman, but if T1 with Sniper, Penal, and M3 play were a strategy that dominated at high levels then it would be arguably overpowered, yes.

I dont see how it is a straw man. If some strat dominates even among top players it isent neccesarely op. Or standard openings or builds are as wel.

I dont see how it is a straw man. If some strat dominates even among top players it isent neccesarely op. Or standard openings or builds are as wel.

If a strategy dominates among top players and said strategy results in an overly high winrate then that is indeed indicative of it being overly strong.

"Standard openings or builds" are entirely subjective, in any case.

I would argue that when the strategy used by the top is able to be applied to all skill ranges and results in the same outcome, THEN it is overly strong.

I would argue that when the strategy used by the top is able to be applied to all skill ranges and results in the same outcome, THEN it is overly strong.

+1