Login

russian armor

Sick/bored of MG42 -.-

PAGES (17)down
5 Sep 2013, 14:36 PM
#81
avatar of Stoffa

Posts: 333

I recall in Vcoh that if the german player built an MG first there was a high potential of getting punished with that build first, by a jeep or flanking rifles. In this game there is like NO Punishment for building a MG-42 first, I think 90% of German players do that, it's probably even higher.


This.
5 Sep 2013, 14:39 PM
#82
avatar of OnkelSam
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 1582 | Subs: 4

Explain this to me.

You trying to seriously claim that Relic broke the game by raising MG42s survival from 1/2 of Maxims, to 3/4?
you.


MG42 have a much bigger cone of fire. MG42 especially with the bulletin supress much faster. Maxims can hardly pin squads, but only supress. MG42's can be built from the natural Tier1 building while russian Maxims require T2. And like roflethecat pointed out, one viable counter (clowncars) for MG42's received an indirect nerf last patch.

Its not simply a 1/2 to 3/4 survivability buff. If you really play both factions you will know that MG42s perform much better than Maxims do in the current meta.
5 Sep 2013, 14:40 PM
#83
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned

How does a Maxim own an MG-42??
Please explain,I'm thrilled :)


Read the post again. You missed the past tense.

@Onkel: Explain to me how going from 1/2 Maxim survival to 3/4 survival is connected with arc.
5 Sep 2013, 14:43 PM
#84
avatar of Stoffa

Posts: 333

The whole maxim vs MG42 debate is WAY too limited. To properly balance the MG42 you have to regard the entire metagame and have them fit in, not just look if the maxim and mg42 are of similar strength.

- Having conscripts chase a moving MG42 all over the map and doing close to no damage is NOT a proper fit in the metagame.
- Having MG42's stand in Molotov's for ages while taking almost no damage is NOT a proper fit in the metagame.
- Having a suppression bulletin that gives almost instapin is NOT a proper fit in the metagame.
- Having a way bigger cone of fire than in CoH1 combined with a player now being able to actually switch targets when in buildings as well is NOT a proper fit in the metagame.

Do I need to go on stating the obvious?
5 Sep 2013, 14:46 PM
#85
avatar of jeesuspietari

Posts: 168

Explain this to me.

You trying to seriously claim that Relic broke the game by raising MG42s survival from 1/2 of Maxims, to 3/4?



I believe these 2 units are not directly comparable, in the current metagame at least.
The suppression alone makes the mg42 stand out from it's counterpart.

I have seen you verbally attacking people who approach balance debates such as this from a narrow angle yet here you are yourself repeating this single sentence which does not actually even directly relate to the issue being discussed.

I will not bother digging up the posts I referred to, my point being such elitism is uncalled for =).
5 Sep 2013, 14:47 PM
#86
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Implying I have ANYWHERE claimed otherwise on even one of those points.

I havent. Show me the post if you claim otherwise.

The survival increase has absolutely nothing to do with the shit you are arguing.

MG42 having 50% survival of Maxim was way out of whack.
HMGs need changing, but THAT change was good, necessary and completely unrelated to arc, suppression rate or setup times.
5 Sep 2013, 14:47 PM
#87
avatar of Stoffa

Posts: 333




I believe these 2 units are not directly comparable, in the current metagame at least.
The suppression alone makes the mg42 stand out from it's counterpart.

I have seen you verbally attacking people who approach balance debates such as this from a narrow angle yet here you are yourself repeating this single sentence which does not actually even directly relate to the issue being discussed.

I will not bother digging up the posts I referred to, my point being such elitism is uncalled for =).


Forget about it, he will never learn. I have one word to define Nullist: Daft.
5 Sep 2013, 14:48 PM
#88
avatar of OnkelSam
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 1582 | Subs: 4


@Onkel: Explain to me how going from 1/2 Maxim survival to 3/4 survival is connected with arc.

I gave you a list of things at which the MG42 performs better than the Maxim. If you limit your comparison to the 3/4 survivability one might think the MG42 performs poorly compared to the Maxim. But if you include all the other advantages you will find out that the MG42 is much better than the Maxim and the survivability just shifted it even more into that direction.
5 Sep 2013, 14:49 PM
#89
avatar of c r u C e

Posts: 525



Read the post again. You missed the past tense.

@Onkel: Explain to me how going from 1/2 Maxim survival to 3/4 survival is connected with arc.

Wow right on spot sorry...didn't play beta either so I didn't know :)
5 Sep 2013, 14:50 PM
#90
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
I didnt limit it to that.

I asked you to explain what relevance the survival increase has to them, since you seem to think it was a shit change.
5 Sep 2013, 14:51 PM
#91
avatar of ☭NoobElite☭

Posts: 72

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Sep 2013, 14:47 PMStoffa


Forget about it, he will never learn. I have one word to define Nullist: Daft.


+1
5 Sep 2013, 14:52 PM
#92
avatar of ☭NoobElite☭

Posts: 72

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0NIfofQeE
Pretty much sums it up for me.
5 Sep 2013, 14:53 PM
#93
avatar of OnkelSam
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 1582 | Subs: 4

I didnt limit it to that.


You indeed limit it to that by asking this single question again and again ignoring all other facts.


I asked you to explain what relevance the survival increase has to them, since you seem to think it was a shit change.

In fact i already gave you the answer to exactly this question by pointing you to the fact that a survability change shifts the favor further towards the MG42, which outshines the Maxim, if you include all points. I'll quote myself for you to reread.


I gave you a list of things at which the MG42 performs better than the Maxim. If you limit your comparison to the 3/4 survivability one might think the MG42 performs poorly compared to the Maxim. But if you include all the other advantages you will find out that the MG42 is much better than the Maxim and the survivability just shifted it even more into that direction.
5 Sep 2013, 14:55 PM
#94
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
The survival increase has fuck all to do with what you guys are arguing for.

MG42 having only 50% survival was and is utterly unbalanced.

I agree that HMGs overperforms vs flanks, though many of you seem incapable of only attributing to me opinions which I have actually stated.

Ive NEVER said HMGs dont need adjusting for flanking.

I am saying that claiming the survival increase was "wrong", is fucking stupid though.

The survival buff was unequivocably needed. If you cant understand that, I have nothing else to add to you.
That does NOT however mean, thoug people like to imply imaginary shit that others havent said, that HMGs dont needmadjusting for more rewarding flanking.
5 Sep 2013, 14:57 PM
#95
avatar of jeesuspietari

Posts: 168

The survival increase has fuck all to do with what you guys are arguing for.

*** cut ***


I am saying that claiming the survival increase was "wrong", is fucking stupid though.


How does the survival increase not make flanking even less viable?
5 Sep 2013, 14:58 PM
#96
avatar of OnkelSam
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 1582 | Subs: 4

Not even saying that it was wrong, i am just saying that it shifted the favour too much, making further changes necessary. If you look at what i posted earlier, my suggestion actually isn't to revert the survival change, but to remove the supression bulletin for the MG42 and to reduce the line of sight of all HMGs so they need a spotter again.
5 Sep 2013, 14:59 PM
#97
avatar of Stoffa

Posts: 333

I didnt limit it to that.

I asked you to explain what relevance the survival increase has to them, since you seem to think it was a shit change.


Again, you ask to explain why water is wet.

The 3 to 4 man change caused flanking to be a hundred times harder. If the mg has more health it can stay fielded longer, and thus suppress/pin more squads. It means that a successful flank almost never results in a player actually losing his mg42 since the healthpool of the unit is enormous, and there is all the time in the world to retreat.

Before going from 3 to 4 men we hardly saw german players make more than 1 mg. Because of this change we can see the metagame switch to german players making 2, sometimes even 3 mgs.

Also, in regards to the metagame: the way bigger survivability of the MG42 combined with the big fire arc combined with the instapin bulletin combined with the ability to switch targets in buildings (Semoskiy) means this unit becomes godlike.

THIS is what a metagame is about Nullist. It's not just about comparing the MG42 to the maxim like you are doing.
5 Sep 2013, 14:59 PM
#98
avatar of c r u C e

Posts: 525

What's with this survivability,I don't really understand the argument,if you approach the Maxim with two Grenadiers squads head on in it's cone of fire Maxim can take two riflenades and they are gone in 20-30 seconds...because it doesn't PIN!!! where as if you approach an MG-42 with two Conscripts squads,well then,it's church bells for Yuri and Vasili
Are you refering to mortar effects versus HMG?
5 Sep 2013, 15:00 PM
#99
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned


How does the survival increase not make flanking even less viable?


The survival increase was absolutely needed to retain even a semblance of asymmetric survival between the two HMGs.

The PROBLEM is that nothing else was done to reward flanking. It is being done NOW.

But the survival buff a no brainer. 1/2 survival was just flat wrong.
Obviously the Devs agree, since they are the ones that implemented it.
5 Sep 2013, 15:01 PM
#100
avatar of ☭NoobElite☭

Posts: 72

The survival increase has fuck all to do with what you guys are arguing for.

MG42 having only 50% survival was and is utterly unbalanced.

I agree that HMGs overperforms vs flanks, though many of you seem incapable of only attributing to me opinions which I have actually stated.

Ive NEVER said HMGs dont need adjusting for flanking.

I am saying that claiming the survival increase was "wrong", is fucking stupid though.

The survival buff was unequivocably needed. If you cant understand that, I have nothing else to add to you.
That does NOT however mean, thoug people like to imply imaginary shit that others havent said, that HMGs dont needmadjusting for more rewarding flanking.


You need Mad? What? What does unequivocably mean?
PAGES (17)down
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

609 users are online: 609 guests
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