Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
puma costs 93 fuel. and spare me that OKW 66% fuel bullshit
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.
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
Posts: 710
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?
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.
Posts: 394
5 
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.
Posts: 198
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2
You can't be serious. Are you?!
Posts: 665
Posts: 94
Posts: 54
15 
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).
 | Playercard of Romeo | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 70
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.
 |
|
|
27 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
328 | ||
 |
|
|
214 | ||
|
|
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
12 | ||
 |
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
