Why Stuart is sh*t compared to T70

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 09:46 AMEsxile

What don't you understand when I say that at the realize of the extension the Stuart was a monster vs infantry but with low vision and low range. What do you expect to find in a patch not about it? You only find that its AI has been nerfed to the ground but it kept its low vision and low range.

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 08:18 AMHannibal

[...]

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2022, 23:46 PMKurobane

The T-70 having -1 in its Range Profile basically makes it use the Near Accuracy most if not all of the time.

When testing the Stuart with -1 in its Range Profile being the only modifier changed suddenly the Stuart is on T-70 levels. Like night and day difference.

So the conclusion here is that the Stuart suffers greatly from essentially always being at FAR range due to its shite Range profile while the T-70 is almost always at Near Range thus making it significantly more potent due to the large increase in accuracy between Near and Far.

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 10:07 AMMMX

Good post that basically covers it all already. However, just to add to this specific part:



I'm not sure what specifically you've tested there, but when I ran a test with the Stuart's accuracy profile set to 1, 0.5, 0 (n,m,f) and range set to -1, -1, -1 (n, m, f) I get exactly the expected result: Accuracy is interpolated between 1 at 0 m and zero at max range (40 m) just as for any other tank weapon without specified range points (i.e. ranges set to -1, -1, -1). No surprises or anomalies here.

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 10:10 AMVipper

When some people run out things to rant about they discover any difference in stat and try to blow it out of proportion and present it as a major disadvantage.

First we had the "wind up" and now the far range.

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 10:36 AMMMX

I wouldn't assume there's any bad intent behind this per se, it's just that many of the fundamental mechanics in CoH 2 are pretty obscure and not well explained anywhere, except maybe a in few, long-buried forum threads. That makes it difficult to judge what effect many of the different parameters have, not least due to how much the RNG nature of the game makes testing things by yourself an arduous task.
I hope CoH 3 will be a bit more transparent on that front right from the start...

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2022, 23:46 PMKurobane

The T-70 having -1 in its Range Profile basically makes it use the Near Accuracy most if not all of the time.

When testing the Stuart with -1 in its Range Profile being the only modifier changed suddenly the Stuart is on T-70 levels. Like night and day difference.

So the conclusion here is that the Stuart suffers greatly from essentially always being at FAR range due to its shite Range profile while the T-70 is almost always at Near Range thus making it significantly more potent due to the large increase in accuracy between Near and Far.

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 09:20 AMVipper

Are going to try the "easy" way out by playing the usual "run out of arguments derailing card" or are you going to admit that your description of Stuart performance is false?
(Actually is simpler to admit you got something wrong.)

Jump back to quoted post26 Mar 2022, 12:47 PMMr Carmine

This post was not directed at me, but i have to say this about it.

The sheer nerve of the last few posts.
You should really follow what you posted here yourself. Admitting when wrong is something you cant grasp apperantly. You are absolutly in no position to accuse some one else of derailing threads or going on about "their" narrative at all. Esp when you clearly have your own, and your track record of derailing threads is very long to say it mildly.

A large dose off self reflection is long overdue in your case.