British Patch 3 Sep

Lol at people still thinking the M5 is somehow ok.

I don't think theres a single person that plays at a reasonably good level that is dishonest enough to claim that the M5 isn't severely overperforming. When the thing can kill Ost T2 vehicles at max range in two bursts, wins every 1v1 vs the Flak HT, runs down squads better than any other unit, suppresses at max range, is extremely mobile, is AA, reinforces, and comes out at 7 minutes, 8 or 9 conservatively, while costing 270 manpower, 30 fuel, and 120 munitions... I don't even need to go on anymore.

Yes, you can counter it, its not unbeatable. It still requires an extremely disproportionate response to its presence.

Glad to hear its being looked at. The weapon crit change is a good start.

It can't kill Ost vehicles at max range, at least not that quickly. Its bursts scatter far too much. You want a fix to that problem? Buff the 222's health so it doesn't die to an engineer squad.
USF AA HT wins every 1v1 against the Flak Halftrack as well, can kill a Luchs if well microed, and simply rips through buildings and emplacements. Why aren't you calling for its nerf?
T70 is better at running down squads.
Flak HT and AA HT both suppress at max range.
Fine, raise the fuel cost to 45. I'd be ok with that.

IT DIES IN TWO HITS OR LESS TO ALL AXIS AT AND GETS ONE SHOTTED BY TELLER MINES. L2P.

I think it's safe to say that we can just ignore the opinion of people that thinks Quad M5 is OK. as deeply biased.
I trust Relic to adjust it in early September balance patch they promised.

oooohhhh, such logic, much rationality, wow!

It's safe to say we can ignore the opinion of people who call for the M5's nerf and fail to provide any sort of logical argument as whining Axis weeaboos who can't be bothered to prepare for something they know is coming.

It can't kill Ost vehicles at max range, at least not that quickly. Its bursts scatter far too much.

It's weapon is a small arms one, small arms will always hit vehicles no matter what.

Its weapon is a small arms one, small arms will always hit vehicles no matter what.

If true, that's something that could be changed. At least make it reflect what I'm seeing on my screen where half of the tracers miss.

There's still myriad other solutions to this "problem" than simply nerfing the M5 into the ground.

IT DIES IN TWO HITS OR LESS TO ALL AXIS AT AND GETS ONE SHOTTED BY TELLER MINES. L2P.

I think it´s hilarious that you, with about 140 games played, tell one of the top 100 to L2P. Nr. 31 Soviet 2v2 to be specific.

The M5 is overperforming, no doubt about that.

I think it´s hilarious that you, with about 140 games played tell one of the top 100 to l2p. The M5 is overperforming, no doubt about that.

If HelpingHans or VonIvan or anyone else of that caliber came in and said the same thing, I'd still tell them to get out. Because it's wrong.

You can't prove wrong what I'm saying, so you resort to stat shaming and waving your epeen around. Nope, not accepting it.

And BTW, 135ish of those 140 games have come since March, before that I mostly played compstomp, ToW, and customs. So I'm quite familiar with the current patch.

Actually, scratch that, you clearly can't count. I have 290 games as Soviets, not 140. So yeah, is that enough for you?

It can't kill Ost vehicles at max range, at least not that quickly. Its bursts scatter far too much. You want a fix to that problem? Buff the 222's health so it doesn't die to an engineer squad.
USF AA HT wins every 1v1 against the Flak Halftrack as well, can kill a Luchs if well microed, and simply rips through buildings and emplacements. Why aren't you calling for its nerf?
T70 is better at running down squads.
Flak HT and AA HT both suppress at max range.
Fine, raise the fuel cost to 45. I'd be ok with that.

IT DIES IN TWO HITS OR LESS TO ALL AXIS AT AND GETS ONE SHOTTED BY TELLER MINES. L2P.

oooohhhh, such logic, much rationality, wow!

It's safe to say we can ignore the opinion of people who call for the M5's nerf and fail to provide any sort of logical argument as whining Axis weeaboos who can't be bothered to prepare for something they know is coming.

I just seriously called out the ROFLCOPTER to let me roll even more on the floor to laugh about you. Sorry but you can't tell me that a 5:41 second M5 with Quad (I achieved it multiple times in top 200 games) it's OP with regarding to what Dusty said. I dedicated a full post about the nerf of completly the T3 because it costs way too less for the units it gives. T70 and SU-76's aren't even the biggest pain in the butt, but the M5 Quad is fast, A real killer and can clear all AT/MG's in a matter of milliseconds without any time to react on it, since it justs moves on Kappa. Yes it dies by 2 hits of any AT, but first try to get 1-2 AT guns at the 5 minute mark as Ostheer. Even OKW has a hard time with it since Raketten doesn't have the same range as a Pak 40 (If I'm not wrong, correct me if it's the same range)

L2P shouldn't be an issue anymore after a month and seriously wouldn't for any top 200 players. The one you say L2P is to a top 50 player. If you got that skill, then we'll talk.

If HelpingHans or VonIvan or anyone else of that caliber came in and said the same thing, I'd still tell them to get out. Because it's wrong.

You can't prove wrong what I'm saying, so you resort to stat shaming and waving your epeen around. Nope, not accepting it.

And BTW, 135ish of those 140 games have come since March, before that I mostly played compstomp, ToW, and customs. So I'm quite familiar with the current patch.

Actually, scratch that, you clearly can't count. I have 290 games as Soviets, not 140. So yeah, is that enough for you?

so 5 (almost 6) months of actual multiplayer makes you a good player Kappa. You're telling people with a minimum of 2 years of multiplayer experiense on a high lvl to L2P. Some wire is lose at your head

so 5 (almost 6) months of actual multiplayer makes you a good player Kappa. You're telling people with a minimum of 2 years of multiplayer experiense on a high lvl to L2P. Some wire is lose at your head

Well, you don't "need" years to "git gud", just need to dedicate time, play improve etc. Ofc, with an established playerbase it'll take time to become one of the "best", but not years, if you dedicate enough time etc.

I was pretty bad at the game for a while until a month or two ago. People can only git gud when they realize they need to look at themselves and what they need to improve, rather than blaming others for their failures.

Self assessment is important, also realizing you will never be good enough and improvement is always possible.

If HelpingHans or VonIvan or anyone else of that caliber came in and said the same thing, I'd still tell them to get out. Because it's wrong.

You can't prove wrong what I'm saying, so you resort to stat shaming and waving your epeen around. Nope, not accepting it.

The only thing you achieve by that is a getting a reputation as a rampant fanboy. Nobody will take you serious and care what you say. With proper ranting you can become a new lolcake, pussyking or ratchet.

Rule No1. of the internet, do not feed the troll.

Well, you don't "need" years to "git gud", just need to dedicate time, play improve etc. Ofc, with an established playerbase it'll take time to become one of the "best", but not years, if you dedicate enough time etc.

Quite true. Of course, some of us don't have that kind of time. Some of us play other games, work 10 hours a day during the summer, are in their final semester of college, etc. I've still managed to accumulate almost a thousand hours in CoH2.

Jump back to quoted post28 Aug 2015, 14:41 PMThatRabidPotato

If HelpingHans or VonIvan or anyone else of that caliber came in and said the same thing, I'd still tell them to get out. Because it's wrong.

You can't prove wrong what I'm saying, so you resort to stat shaming and waving your epeen around. Nope, not accepting it.

/quote]

The only thing you achieve by that is a getting a reputation as a rampant fanboy. Nobody will take you serious and care what you say. With proper ranting you can become a new lolcake, pussyking or ratchet.

Sooooo.... what? If someone with a higher ranking than me disagrees with me, I am automatically supposed to concede that they're right? Is that how things are done around here? If so say it now and you have my word I will never post here again.
And those names mean nothing to me.

Jump back to quoted post28 Aug 2015, 16:07 PMRMMLz

Rule No1. of the internet, do not feed the troll.

So because I express an unpopular opinon, namely that the M5 Quad is not outrageously overpowered and needs at most a few minor tweaks, I am now an evil troll and should not be engaged in debate?
Sigh.
The joys of the internet.

It is stats we can add if we need it but we didnt see any instance where we needed to tuned those values specifically for different unit or unit types.

Regarding light cover, its something we are thinking about. One step at a time though especially with changes like these. If we change too much stuff too quickly it may result in undesired results. But I do understand your point.

Regarding explosives generating green cover, possibly but this might not be something you want. All Green Cover in the game thus far can be destroyed. Cover created by these type of explosives will not be destroyable because it'll be terrain deformation.

Too much green cover on maps will also slow down the pace of the game. Something to keep in mind.

Thx for the answer.
Note that i'm wanting only few specific big ordinances been able to create green cover. No vanilla unit/ability and just specific commander offmap/units which have a high cost/cooldown with low amount of shells/explosives.

I'm not sure if you forgot, but terrain deformation cover type gets overwritten by the last explosive type. Grenades, mines, mortar, tank shells, artillery, etc will make all green cover into yellow cover. So you could still "destroy" or alter this type of covers.

Even undestroyable things such as on maps trenches or walls (like the ones in Rails and Metal) will lose green cover (at least visually it appears as light cover) property over something as simple as a grenade.

Off: never ever pull the L2P card, unless you are also a top player and prepare for the consequences (e-peen flame war).
Anyway, theres always a higher chance that someone who puts more time into the game and it's also good knows what is OP or UP in contraposition to someone less skilled or who has invest less time or is not as knowledgeable.

There are other things rather than simple performance of a unit which can make it "OP".
Cost, timing, risk, utility, versatiliy, micro requirement, etc.

When you compare the M5 Quad with other HT, you are forgetting that the other 2 cost more fuel (delaying your tech), do not reinforce and have to be still to actually suppress.
Cost opportuniy is also a factor. The Flak HT will delay your medics and the USF one will put you on a "underwhelming" metawise tier Lieutenant.

1-The M5 needs to ONLY suppress while been inmobile (like other HT or Kubel)
2-Reduce slighly and adjust DPS against vehicles. Reduce damage and increase accuracy instead. This will lead to similar damage against infantry, but won't shred other light vehicles as easily.

at one point the m5 quad got buffed from 8 to 12 damage, why not change it back because back then the quad performed but tier 3 was lacklustre. this will allow lv's to deal with the quad.

Nice patch - especially the changes to flamethrowers. I am looking very much forward to the Brits.

Sooooo.... what? If someone with a higher ranking than me disagrees with me, I am automatically supposed to concede that they're right? Is that how things are done around here? If so say it now and you have my word I will never post here again.
And those names mean nothing to me.

When multiple people with a higher ranking say something is OP and have streams where people have seen the units over-performing, then yes they have more credibility than you.

I have your word you will never post here again?

When multiple people with a higher ranking say something is OP and have streams where people have seen the units over-performing, then yes they have more credibility than you.

I have your word you will never post here again?

Those "multiple people" don't include you, it would seem.
And having just spent three hours watching Han's stream and seeing his Quad get blown away after a couple minutes in just about every match, no, it did not look remotely OP to me.

Off: never ever pull the L2P card, unless you are also a top player and prepare for the consequences (e-peen flame war).
Anyway, theres always a higher chance that someone who puts more time into the game and it's also good knows what is OP or UP in contraposition to someone less skilled or who has invest less time or is not as knowledgeable.

There are other things rather than simple performance of a unit which can make it "OP".
Cost, timing, risk, utility, versatiliy, micro requirement, etc.

When you compare the M5 Quad with other HT, you are forgetting that the other 2 cost more fuel (delaying your tech), do not reinforce and have to be still to actually suppress.
Cost opportuniy is also a factor. The Flak HT will delay your medics and the USF one will put you on a "underwhelming" metawise tier Lieutenant.

1-The M5 needs to ONLY suppress while been inmobile (like other HT or Kubel)
2-Reduce slighly and adjust DPS against vehicles. Reduce damage and increase accuracy instead. This will lead to similar damage against infantry, but won't shred other light vehicles as easily.

Quad also need suppression reduction
it have .3348 near .3400 mid and .3375 far it is madness for a unit that is cheap have good damage and able reinforce. if OH 251 have same suppression or flak HT have reinforce i wont complain this much. i say M5 need either damage nerf or suppression nerf and AT nerf.

USF AA HT wins every 1v1 against the Flak Halftrack as well, can kill a Luchs if well microed, and simply rips through buildings and emplacements. Why aren't you calling for its nerf?

USF AA HT don't have reinforce and it needs it ass facing frontline, why not take out M5 Quad reinforce and make it ass need to face front to fire, no one will call nerf on it same as USF.

also USF AA HT cost 350MP 60FU which is more expansive than M5 even convert mu to FU

T70 is better at running down squads.

not really if there is another gren or shrek sq come to retreat sq aid, T70 need to run, while Quad can just suppress the new sq and ate it and force it to retreat too

Flak HT and AA HT both suppress at max range.
Fine, raise the fuel cost to 45. I'd be ok with that.

compare Quad M5 with flame 251, same price that is 120mp 30fu 120mu the performance is difference between sky and earth.
if compare Quad M5 with flak 251. Quad can chase Flak if flak try to run, yet Flak can't chase Quad if Quad want to run, the sec Flak move it gonna die to Quad. also M5 is 120mp 30FU 120MU and Flak HT is 270MP 55FU i usually conside 5 mu = 1 FU so 120mu = 24FU so M5 price is 120mp 54FU if consider OKW FU income, Flak HT price is really 270MP 83.33FU. so for 130MP and 29FU (which can buy another M5 without Quad) cheaper M5 get reinforcement and fire while moving yet have similar AT, damage and suppression and same HP . all those HT die to any AT gun in two shots.

as i said it before M5 is 251/17 and 251 combine, so price is 390MP 113FU

so it need at least double the price to 240MP 60FU and make upgrade to 240MU or then it should be fine with its price with its preformance.

IT DIES IN TWO HITS OR LESS TO ALL AXIS AT AND GETS ONE SHOTTED BY TELLER MINES. L2P.

all HT and light armor dies to two shot of any AT gun except SU76 and puma. and they all pretty much die to any AT mine, if it lives, usually only have very little hp can be finished with small arms.

It's safe to say we can ignore the opinion of people who call for the M5's nerf and fail to provide any sort of logical argument as whining Axis weeaboos who can't be bothered to prepare for something they know is coming.

well I provide the cost and effective argument, but prob you just gonna ignore it and say some thing else blah blah. whatever, so i prob will ignore your future argument.

The trouble with the m5 is that its:

a) Way too good for its cost. I mean, its as good (if not better) than USF HT right now at a fraction of the price. I'm not even comparing it to any axis units; that it outclasses its allied counterpart at half the fuel cost is telling in itself.

b) Its upgrade cost isn't a real factor because the faction has no real muni sinks.

c) It synergizes extremely well with infantry and team weapons (maxims/mortars/mgs), making it harder to kill.

d) Its high threat and shock value makes the opposing team predictable. Which is a huge advantage in the early game. As an axis player, a pak/rak is mandatory before 6 mins. The sov player can capitalize on that in various ways e.g. getting more inf instead (which pak/rak won't do jack to). This wouldn't be such a massive problem if there were alternative ways of countering in the early game, but currently none exist.