Login

russian armor

PTRS now OP?

PAGES (37)down
8 Apr 2015, 18:49 PM
#541
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4


I will never understand the "he is good in my mind, so listen to him" argument so im going to ignore that.


It was in the context of KurtWilde's response to me.

"moving on, while i am nowhere near the top 100, I watch high level streams everyday. I haven't seen any top level player use and win with this OP PTRS blob.

As dbmb said you can't determine balance by noobs A moving noobs"

I cited daspolous' riding the PTRS "like friggin' secretariat" to get into the top10, and LEMON as another perspective from the top rankings.
8 Apr 2015, 18:53 PM
#542
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned


It was in the context of KurtWilde's response to me.

"moving on, while i am nowhere near the top 100, I watch high level streams everyday. I haven't seen any top level player use and win with this OP PTRS blob.

As dbmb said you can't determine balance by noobs A moving noobs"

I cited daspolous' riding the PTRS "like friggin' secretariat" to get into the top10, and LEMON as another perspective from the top rankings.


I dont understand this? How can u have an opinion of high level play if u dont play at that level?

watching a high level player play vs playing at a high level makes a huge difference.

This is y i try to avoid using other opinions/arguments in my posts..

p.s im not attacking u. im very curios
8 Apr 2015, 19:03 PM
#543
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4



I dont understand this? How can u have an opinion of high level play if u dont play at that level?

watching a high level player play vs playing at a high level makes a huge difference.

This is y i try to avoid using other opinions/arguments in my posts..

p.s im not attacking u. im very curios


Yeah, I don't understand where KurtWilde's animosity came from, and trying to actually provide a reasoned argument including multiple perspectives was just exhausting my time.
8 Apr 2015, 19:04 PM
#544
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



1. monitor weapon hp, repair when necessary

2. the only way you can quickly destroy an mg42 gun is if you have like 8 or so cons shooting at the gun. this means that pretty much the soviets entire army is in one sector of the map, go out and get some map control.

3. 2 mg42s will pin a con blob faster than the con blob can kill the mg42

4. dont leave your mg42s alone, as soon as you see the conblob get suppressed you should be relocating mortars and a gren or pio squad to help deal with the suppressed units with flamers + riflenades.


You don't need 8 con squads to 1 shot a MG42, you need only need 4. The point isn't that people need to repair weapons, I do that anyway (and most good players do it to). It's that you can't when a small group of conscripts runs up to you MG42 and instantly kills it at almost max range since the new PTRS will never ever miss a size 20 object.

The best counter Iv just found is CAS as Ostheer, spam LMG's so they can't get into close range.
8 Apr 2015, 19:07 PM
#545
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7



You don't need 8 con squads to 1 shot a MG42, you need only need 4. The point isn't that people need to repair weapons, I do that anyway (and most good players do it to). It's that you can't when a small group of conscripts runs up to you MG42 and instantly kills it at almost max range since the new PTRS will never ever miss a size 20 object.

The best counter Iv just found is CAS as Ostheer, spam LMG's so they can't get into close range.


youre assuming that the PTRS will always target the weapon, which isnt true. a lot of the time it will hit the crew members.

tbh, i see cons and guards decrew mg42s more than they kill them. ive seen more paks destroyed by PTRS fire than machine guns.
8 Apr 2015, 19:12 PM
#546
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



youre assuming that the PTRS will always target the weapon, which isnt true. a lot of the time it will hit the crew members.

tbh, i see cons and guards decrew mg42s more than they kill them. ive seen more paks destroyed by PTRS fire than machine guns.


The PTRS for some reason prioritizes hitting the gun over the crew (which probably has to do with crew weapons being treated at vehicles), so Iv found the number of times Iv 1 shotted MG's without even touching the crew to be much higher than killing the crew while leaving the gun intact when using con PTRS's.

The reason Paks get destroyed faster is that the crew bunches around the gun so all the shots fired at the crew manning it that miss can still hit the gun.
8 Apr 2015, 19:15 PM
#547
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7



The PTRS for some reason prioritizes hitting the gun over the crew (which probably has to do with crew weapons being treated at vehicles), so Iv found the number of times Iv 1 shotted MG's without even touching the crew to be much higher than killing the crew while leaving the gun intact when using con PTRS's.

The reason Paks get destroyed faster is that the crew bunches around the gun so all the shots fired at the crew manning it that miss can still hit the gun.


i play this game almost every day, i know that hte PTRS can hit the weapon. what im saying is that it wont ALWAYS hit the weapon over the crew.
8 Apr 2015, 19:24 PM
#548
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7

OK just did a few tests mg42 vs 4 cons w/ ptrs. if the mg42 is in open ground the ptrs blob will be able to take out the gun pretty quickly, but theyll be suppressed in thier attempt. if the mg42 is green, the cons will always be pinned before they can destroy the gun.
8 Apr 2015, 19:36 PM
#549
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

Posts: 1439

So change the commander. Make Cons upgrade more expensive but leave PTRS alone.

Unless you want to take the AI power and make it true AT weapon?
Oh I can see the whine already...
8 Apr 2015, 20:14 PM
#550
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

Posts: 1439

Update

I have finally played some 2v2 games today and don't really see the issue.

Is this large games specific problem?
8 Apr 2015, 20:54 PM
#551
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Update

I have finally played some 2v2 games today and don't really see the issue.

Is this large games specific problem?


I have faced it a couple time in 4 v 4's. Aside from actually having to fear for my armor I found the PTRS killed infantry. I think its ok? More time to tell.
8 Apr 2015, 20:56 PM
#552
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

So change the commander. Make Cons upgrade more expensive but leave PTRS alone.

Unless you want to take the AI power and make it true AT weapon?
Oh I can see the whine already...


Just make it so the PTRS doesn't prioritize the weapon instead of the crew, problem solved. Really doesn't take much more effort at all.
9 Apr 2015, 01:13 AM
#553
avatar of acosn

Posts: 108 | Subs: 1

Allies finally get an AT weapon with some parity- since it's nigh useless against tanks it has some moderate anti-infantry utility- and the wehraboos lose their minds.


9 Apr 2015, 05:10 AM
#554
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Apr 2015, 20:54 PMNapalm


I have faced it a couple time in 4 v 4's. Aside from actually having to fear for my armor I found the PTRS killed infantry. I think its ok? More time to tell.


Yeah, at this point its basically:
  • Commander that was a joke before had a buff and people are realising how good it actually is
  • This happened 10 days ago so many people have not yet adjusted or worked out how to deal with it
  • More or less the same people who complain that a single MG worth 240 MP cannot stop 4 squads worth 960 MP without a 200 MUN upgrade are now complaining that 240 MP cannot stop 4 squads with a 200 MUN upgrade. This was frankly BS before, it's even more BS now.
  • People asked for an end to call in meta and complained the Soviet play shouldn't revolve around call in tanks; this is what it would be like. Imagine what would have to happen to Irregulars to make them competitive...



I shall try some games with Partisans later, see what the PTRS Tank Hunters are like now
9 Apr 2015, 05:59 AM
#555
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned


Yeah, at this point its basically:
  • Commander that was a joke before had a buff and people are realising how good it actually is
  • This happened 10 days ago so many people have not yet adjusted or worked out how to deal with it
  • More or less the same people who complain that a single MG worth 240 MP cannot stop 4 squads worth 960 MP without a 200 MUN upgrade are now complaining that 240 MP cannot stop 4 squads with a 200 MUN upgrade. This was frankly BS before, it's even more BS now.


Oh man cmon dude. By that logic why shouldnt t34/76s or t70s beat paks from the front? Disregard the fact that this 960 manpower worth of infantry isn't even microing around an mg nor are they just simply causing a retreat. They are full on wiping the entire unit. I may be reading this wrong but are you seriously saying ptrs are fine at what they are causing??? Nobody is bitching about ptrs being good at ai, they are bitching that it has become a support crew wipe weapon. FFs. You are just seemingly in denial or biased, or stupid. Don't tell me that you're any of those now are you?
9 Apr 2015, 06:28 AM
#556
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2


Oh man cmon dude. By that logic why shouldnt t34/76s or t70s beat paks from the front? Disregard the fact that this 960 manpower worth of infantry isn't even microing around an mg nor are they just simply causing a retreat. They are full on wiping the entire unit. I may be reading this wrong but are you seriously saying ptrs are fine at what they are causing??? Nobody is bitching about ptrs being good at ai, they are bitching that it has become a support crew wipe weapon. FFs. You are just seemingly in denial or biased, or stupid. Don't tell me that you're any of those now are you?


A remarkably large number of people, some of whom complain that the PTRS is bad, were willing to defend a pre-nerf King Tiger driving across a minefield into 4 Zis and winning as being ok.


Anyway, 960 MP of infantry can beat a single MG with less expenditure of munitions and slightly more micro - see what 100 MUN of Rifle Grenades will do to it; or 100 MUN of Urrah + Molotovs. What happens to the weapon is somewhat irrelevant, because at that point it is the enemy's to take anyway.


As I said I will be interested to see when I try Partisans what they do now.


But if you do, in any way, pay any attention to me (if so thank you) you will know that I don't like to make my mind up fast about anything because the meta needs to settle


It is not yet two weeks after patch, too early to take a decision either way but so far the arguments I have heard have not been persuasive
9 Apr 2015, 07:01 AM
#557
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
I don't think waiting 2 weeks to require a formal opinion on the patch is necessary. We have been playing the game for quite some time now. Those of us who know the game can get a pretty good idea of the patch before its released or even after a few games with the changed units. More so with a full week.

Ptrs blowing up crew weapons from the front, is not good balance. This is basically the same as ONE shot squad wipes in a way. This isn't some new game mechanic that brings new dynamic and playstyles for the better. Ptrs spam goes against the way coh is meant to be played. This encourages spam, even when not spammed why should ptrs conscripts be able to Lol cut down support crews.

This would be a lot easier to explain by comparison. OK so for instance. We have lmg grens. Should lmg grens when blobbed be able to shoot rifle nades for free? Button tanks? Shoot down planes? Beat other units while suppressed? Cause suppression themselves? Be a soft threat to tanks? Why not? I don't like building mg42s, I don't like building snipers. Why can't I just build lmg42 grens and still be on equal footing if not have an advantage over my combined armed opponent?

Conscripts as of now, can snipe retreat infantry with pure rng due to 40 dmg alpha strike at random. Outright destroy weapon crews, stand up to other upgraded infantry, destroy light vehicles, pose a threat to heavier armored vehicles when near each other. By comparison to other infantry do you not think that conscripts have to much utility given their price?
9 Apr 2015, 07:19 AM
#558
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


Oh man cmon dude. By that logic why shouldnt t34/76s or t70s beat paks from the front? Disregard the fact that this 960 manpower worth of infantry isn't even microing around an mg nor are they just simply causing a retreat. They are full on wiping the entire unit. I may be reading this wrong but are you seriously saying ptrs are fine at what they are causing??? Nobody is bitching about ptrs being good at ai, they are bitching that it has become a support crew wipe weapon. FFs. You are just seemingly in denial or biased, or stupid. Don't tell me that you're any of those now are you?

Hey, 4 of them do.
Just like 4 of anything will beat its counter. if it isn't impenetrable or attacked by RETs.
9 Apr 2015, 07:57 AM
#559
avatar of KurtWilde
Donator 11

Posts: 440



I'm sorry you find structured arguments so offensive as to incite you to defamation of an essentially anonymous member of a computer game community.

daspolus and lemon negate your "argument", regarding "high level play", but in case you have a change of heart and decide that the other tens of thousands of people that play this game aren't meaningless to you, let me point out that in a divided community, this a thread which, within weeks has garnered 21,613 views.

let that sink in for a moment.

21,613 views, yes, those aren't unique, but that is a lot of conversation, a lot of people wondering, "what is going on with the PTRS" which inferring by my logic, says there's an issue here.

that issue, for which i will repeat myself for the final time. is not balance.

it's not an issue of balance.


it's a question of how PTRS's operate within the engine, specifically regarding weapons teams, this is exacerbated when large amounts of infantry, IE, tank hunter cons, have access to the PTRS, and something that we suspect was overlooked when relic implemented these changes.

allow that to be my final riposte to you, and may i never have the misfortune of crossing your path again.



I was talking about guards. I dont think PTRS in the hands of Cons should have the same stats as when guards yield them. I don't think everyone here agrees that Guards PTRS is OP, the opinion is divided and i personally don't think that destroying weapons is quite common as you insist though.

I watch Imperial Dane's casts, follow Romeo, Siberian, Redwings, Hans on twitch. Didnt see this
9 Apr 2015, 08:03 AM
#560
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8




I was talking about guards. I dont think PTRS in the hands of Cons should have the same stats as when guards yield them. I don't think everyone here agrees that Guards PTRS is OP, the opinion is divided and i personally don't think that destroying weapons is quite common as you insist though.

I watch Imperial Dane's casts, follow Romeo, Siberian, Redwings, Hans on twitch. Didnt see this

Panzershreck is no different on volks or pgrens.
Bazooka is exactly the same on paratroopers, rifles and RETs.
Not really a single reason why PTRS should be any different here.
PAGES (37)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

405 users are online: 1 member and 404 guests
PatFenis
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49063
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM