Login

russian armor

Why does the M20 mine need to one shot the Puma?

4 Nov 2014, 06:36 AM
#81
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



puma costs 93 fuel. and spare me that OKW 66% fuel bullshit


BullPudding, not shit, (you naughty boy learn to behave! tz tz tz) can be called something that doesn't exist and people just made it up. But the 66% fuel income it's something real. You allied fanboys allways hate this argument because you can't say anything about it. It's right there, and it's obvious. :nahnah:
4 Nov 2014, 06:48 AM
#82
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2


But the 66% fuel income it's something real. You allied fanboys allways hate this argument because you can't say anything about it. It's right there, and it's obvious. :nahnah:


Salvage

5 levels of vet

4 Nov 2014, 07:00 AM
#83
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



Salvage



You can't be serious. Are you?!
4 Nov 2014, 07:04 AM
#84
avatar of Flamee

Posts: 710

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2014, 22:19 PMCadoc
Serious question - in a theoretical situation where the M20 mine is nerfed, how would the USF counter an early Puma, given lack of other effective AT at that stage?


Well this is a crazy thread but the question above is the one I'm curious also.

And don't tell me with AA HT because that hasn't been the case since WFA got its first patch.

I don't see any problem with M20, you have to build A) tier and B) unit from the tier to build C) mine where your opponent MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN HIT.

I mean, wtf.
4 Nov 2014, 07:25 AM
#85
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239



BullPudding, not shit, (you naughty boy learn to behave! tz tz tz) can be called something that doesn't exist and people just made it up. But the 66% fuel income it's something real. You allied fanboys allways hate this argument because you can't say anything about it. It's right there, and it's obvious. :nahnah:


Here's what I'll say about it:

At equal map control it's actually about 73%, not 66%
4 Nov 2014, 09:49 AM
#86
avatar of GreenDevil

Posts: 394

I'd like them to change it so that the crew has to get out and plant it and make it take the same amount of time to plant. So, it requires a little more micro. The damage it does is fine as it's easily negated by mine sweepers.
4 Nov 2014, 10:15 AM
#87
avatar of willyto
Patrion 15

Posts: 115

I'd like them to change it so that the crew has to get out and plant it and make it take the same amount of time to plant. So, it requires a little more micro. The damage it does is fine as it's easily negated by mine sweepers.

That's it, more micro for an already intensive micro faction as it is USF.

You just want to let the enemy kill the M20 crew while they plant mines so they can't get inside anymore which will grant free M20 to the enemies. It sure does a lot of sense.

It is the only mine that the USF has and you just want to nerf it to a useless level.
4 Nov 2014, 10:47 AM
#88
avatar of TensaiOni

Posts: 198

By the way, you're calculating the adjusted OKW fuel cost incorrectly.

Assuming 66% fuel income for OKW, Puma's adjusted cost would be 106 fuel, not 93.
4 Nov 2014, 15:11 PM
#90
avatar of Yossarian

Posts: 70

By the way, you're calculating the adjusted OKW fuel cost incorrectly.
Assuming 66% fuel income for OKW, Puma's adjusted cost would be 106 fuel, not 93.


OKW's fuel income is actually 2/3 as far as I know. 66% is just a rounded down number. In any case, considering puma as a 105 fuel unit is unfair. OKW units' high fuel cost (=less income) is compensated by other advantages.

By the way, I think it is fine that an AT mine one shots puma. Play USF and try to bait puma into an AT mine. You will find it difficult unless your opponent is less skilled than you. In my experience, only 1 of 3 mines does its job while the others are disarmed or ignored whole game. Spending 180 munition is a huge investment.

4 Nov 2014, 15:39 PM
#91
avatar of TensaiOni

Posts: 198



OKW's fuel income is actually 2/3 as far as I know. 66% is just a rounded down number. In any case, considering puma as a 105 fuel unit is unfair. OKW units' high fuel cost (=less income) is compensated by other advantages.

By the way, I think it is fine that an AT mine one shots puma. Play USF and try to bait puma into an AT mine. You will find it difficult unless your opponent is less skilled than you. In my experience, only 1 of 3 mines does its job while the others are disarmed or ignored whole game. Spending 180 munition is a huge investment.



It's not about the percentage, but how the adjusted cost is calculated - the incorrect cost of 93 fuel for Puma is achieved by multiplying it's cost by 1.33, while I should have been divided by 0.66 (or 0.(6) depending on how precise you want to be).
4 Nov 2014, 15:52 PM
#92
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862



Buffed zook + m20 mine nerf is a fair trade. zooks do suck anyway. Though not buffed to the point where there are OP zook blobs, since they would be too spammable.


Sorry, I got here late, but it is impossible to not read this as:

"Buff the zook enough that it would justify nerfing the m20 mine without buffing it enough to actually be useful."
4 Nov 2014, 15:57 PM
#93
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2



You can't be serious. Are you?!


Salvage will probably not get OKW to anything like 100% fuel equivalent (very much dependent upon the flow of battle and everyone's tech choices); but it would be disingenuous to maintain that it doesn't matter
4 Nov 2014, 17:33 PM
#96
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

Because you need to buy minesweepers.
4 Nov 2014, 18:31 PM
#97
avatar of JimmyC7A1

Posts: 94

OMG Jagdtiger can kill tanks pls nerf.
4 Nov 2014, 18:57 PM
#98
avatar of joebill

Posts: 54

So if losing the puma loses you the game, how come OKW players still win games without building one?
4 Nov 2014, 19:05 PM
#99
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

It's not about the percentage, but how the adjusted cost is calculated - the incorrect cost of 93 fuel for Puma is achieved by multiplying it's cost by 1.33, while I should have been divided by 0.66 (or 0.(6) depending on how precise you want to be).


LOL cmon guys is math really that hard

93 fuel was achieved by correctly assuming the base cost of the puma was 70 instead of 80 and correctly multiplying by 1.33

106 fuel was achieved by incorrectly assuming the base cost of the puma was 80 and multiplying by 1.33

dividing 80 by 0.67 is the same as multiplying by 1.5 and yields 120, which is completely wrong.

4 Nov 2014, 22:11 PM
#100
avatar of Yossarian

Posts: 70

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2014, 19:05 PMRomeo


LOL cmon guys is math really that hard

93 fuel was achieved by correctly assuming the base cost of the puma was 70 instead of 80 and correctly multiplying by 1.33

106 fuel was achieved by incorrectly assuming the base cost of the puma was 80 and multiplying by 1.33

dividing 80 by 0.67 is the same as multiplying by 1.5 and yields 120, which is completely wrong.



Dear Romeo, learn math. -Juliet

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

202 users are online: 202 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48733
Welcome our newest member, service
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM