I hope you guys all know programming or something like that!!!
So here, because, smartness and stuff lol!
a = with the dumb posts
b = stop
print
b + a
Sick/bored of MG42 -.-
12 Sep 2013, 02:54 AM
#281
Posts: 69
12 Sep 2013, 03:17 AM
#282
Posts: 829
in your attempt to be clever (like your thread, Patch is problematic. Relic, wtf!!!!) you ended up making no sense. if youre going to say you know math and be condescending you should atleast make your "math" correct. x>y so x*c>y*c.
My maths is correct
Value of C = 0
Even tho value of X is greater than value of Y, multiply those values by factor C (in this case zero) and you end up with A (x*c) = B (y*c)
Simple math rule, 5 grade stuff
Meaning of this, you are always right with your presentation on code values, sure. Yet using simple subtracting and adding to prove complex thing such as COH2, while dismissing other factors as separate issue and focusing solely on one point, pfff.
Unless you come here with complex equation that takes into account all variables, don't be so sure you have proven anything conclusively and water tight.
BTW, this was directed @ Nullist. You Woof presenting numbers I have no issue with..
12 Sep 2013, 03:33 AM
#283
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
My maths is correct
Value of C = 0
Even tho value of X is greater than value of Y, multiply those values by factor C (in this case zero) and you end up with A (x*c) = B (y*c)
Simple math rule, 5 grade stuff
Meaning of this, you are always right with your presentation on code values, sure. Yet using simple subtracting and adding to prove complex thing such as COH2, while dismissing other factors as separate issue and focusing solely on one point, pfff.
Unless you come here with complex equation that takes into account all variables, don't be so sure you have proven anything conclusively and water tight.
BTW, this was directed @ Nullist. You Woof presenting numbers I have no issue with..
ha. c=0. ok you got me there. i admit, i wasnt expecting 0 or a negative number. with all positive numbers i was right atleast
maybe youre a little more clever than i gave you credit for.i agree with you though. taking a few stats and trying to prove things with them is silly unless you understand the mechanics behind it. for example, lots of people went crazy over the small arms changes when they had very minor effects. so small they wont be noticed. that didnt stop people from freaking out when they saw the damage stat go up or down. i dislike this as well
12 Sep 2013, 03:40 AM
#284
Posts: 2425
Permanently Bannedi agree with you though. taking a few stats and trying to prove things with them is silly unless you understand the mechanics behind it.
I take great pains to roll through as many actual, game related variables as possible in my posts.
Claims that "i dont consider the larger picture, the actual ingame situation or variable x, y or z" are misplaced.
I do. I just dont let them trump hard stats, nor derail the topic when they start being contrived.
MG42 is, categorically, squishier, than Maxim.
This is the cold hard status quo atm.
I dont understand why people tie their colons in a knot over "admitting" that, and constantly try to extend somekind of extenuating explanations ontop of that to somehow "justify" it.
MG42s are, categorically, squishier, than Maxims.
If people cant "admit" even that much, what fucking hope is there for balance.
12 Sep 2013, 03:46 AM
#285
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
ive never denied that. but did you see my post in another thread? of course the mg42 has always had 2/3 the hp of the maxim. it still has 2/3 the effective hp after the change.
12 Sep 2013, 03:52 AM
#286
Posts: 2425
Permanently Bannedive never denied that. but did you see my post in another thread? of course the mg42 has always had 2/3 the hp of the maxim. it still has 2/3 the effective hp after the change.
Good.
So we have established and agreed that MG42s are squishier than Maxims, with only 2/3 their hp pool.
Now, why is that?
Why is MG42 squishier?
12 Sep 2013, 03:58 AM
#287
Posts: 589
the survivability of the MG42 seems fair now, but I dislike how slowly targets are changed. The advantage of the wide firing arc is much less now that it takes a long time to change from target to target. Any thoughts on this?
12 Sep 2013, 03:59 AM
#288
Posts: 2425
Permanently Bannedthe survivability of the MG42 seems fair now
How is it fair that Ost Support Teams have only 2/3 survival of Sov Support Teams.
12 Sep 2013, 04:00 AM
#289
Posts: 589
Why is MG42 squishier?
because the MG42 has a wider firing arc I presume
12 Sep 2013, 04:01 AM
#290
Posts: 2425
Permanently Banned
because the MG42 has a wider firing arc I presume
For which the Maxim has a faster setuptime.
Doesn't account for the hp differential.
And its not just MG42 that is squishier, its ALL Ost Support teams.
12 Sep 2013, 04:05 AM
#291
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
if you want that answer, you need to talk to the devs. thats been their design choice since i began playing in beta. hell, we even had 3 man squads then. i was so happy when we got a 4th man. personally i always thought it was kind of silly too. thats how they chose to represent the superior numbers of the russian army though.
as for what we get to compensate for smaller squad size, its pretty complex. its also very hard to quantify and say whats balanced without more time testing it.
mg42:
better close range dps
faster at suppressing at short range
much faster pinning (less difference at long range)
large arc
slower traverse
slow setup
more maneuverable
maxim:
better long range dps
faster at suppressing at long range
much slower pinning
smaller arc
faster traverse
about half the setup time
less maneuverable
like i said, comparing all these differences isnt easy based purely on stats. they also have to deal with different units/abilities. for example molotov has short range, rifle nade has much longer range.
as for what we get to compensate for smaller squad size, its pretty complex. its also very hard to quantify and say whats balanced without more time testing it.
mg42:
better close range dps
faster at suppressing at short range
much faster pinning (less difference at long range)
large arc
slower traverse
slow setup
more maneuverable
maxim:
better long range dps
faster at suppressing at long range
much slower pinning
smaller arc
faster traverse
about half the setup time
less maneuverable
like i said, comparing all these differences isnt easy based purely on stats. they also have to deal with different units/abilities. for example molotov has short range, rifle nade has much longer range.
12 Sep 2013, 04:11 AM
#292
Posts: 2425
Permanently Banned
mg42:
better close range dps
faster at suppressing at short range
much faster pinning (less difference at long range)
large arc
slower traverse
slow setup
more maneuverable
maxim:
better long range dps
faster at suppressing at long range
much slower pinning
smaller arc
faster traverse
about half the setup time
less maneuverable
Good comparison!
However, Im sure you also recognise that even those factors youve listed there may be asymmetrically balanced, they still dont account for the 2/3 survival discrepancy.
The factors you list can be considered "equal" and mirrors of each other.
But as balanced as those are against each other, none of them explain the 2/3 survival difference.
12 Sep 2013, 04:26 AM
#293
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
The factors you list can be considered "equal" and mirrors of each other.
But as balanced as those are against each other, none of them explain the 2/3 survival difference.
I'll explain the 2/3 survival difference.
To quote my earlier reply in this thread,
The problem is, these support weapons (and indeed all units in both armies) face different circumstances and different counters, while appearing at different times from different buildings to fufill not-necessarily identical tasks. You can't just compare them directly.
For example there's the Pak and the Zis. The Pak appears in a tier almost all german players go for, but has to face hard-to-hit T70s, is vulnerable to snipers only if the soviet goes T1, not very useful against Soviet M3s due to snipers in the same tier, fires faster, but has to deal with soviet mortar precision barrage and KV8s, not very useful against Soviet T4 due to long range of SU76/SU85, etc etc. The Zis appears in a tier only some soviet players go for, has a barrage ability, is more survivable, has to face mortar halftracks, has to deal with blitzkrieging Ostwinds, not that vulnerable to Snipers but poor against heavier vehicles, works well with ram/button from Guards/T34s, etc etc.
There are so many factors to consider when looking at the effectiveness of the unit in each role that a simple 6 man versus 4 man survivability question isn't appropriate. It's whether the unit fits into the faction arsenal as a whole.
The fact of the matter is, there's no point whatsoever in comparing attribute-to-attribute. The MG42 is less survivable in terms of direct model HP. But it also comes from a different tier, faces different counters, so on and so forth. So what if the Maxim has 6 men and the MG42 has 4? The point is, as long as they fit appropriately into the complex web of what they counter and what they are countered by, they are balanced. The Maxim doesn't face Flamer cars, but has to tackle Ostheer Mortars. The MG42 doesn't face mortar halftracks, but has to be balanced against conscripts.
Tl:dr- No point comparing the two- compare them in their roles. Survivability differences are there to balance their effectiveness relative to opposing factions, not to grant attribute equality to both sides.
12 Sep 2013, 04:33 AM
#294
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedTl:dr- No point comparing the two- compare them in their roles. Survivability differences are there to balance their effectiveness relative to opposing factions, not to grant attribute equality to both sides.
Yes.
Then what is the balance rationale for Ost Support teams having only 2/3 the survival of Sov Support teams?
Commensurately, this should result in them being significantly better than Sov Support teams, in performing those functions relative to opposing faction.
In those "roles", they should be a great deal better, since they suffer the 2/3 handicap right off the bat.
It is not reasonable to state that comparison of the differential in Support weapon crew sizes, is somehow not a valid balance concern or element. It "exists" and is part of the game, and as such is up for and subject to scrutiny as an element of that complex interweb of balance you refer to above, in the same way as is everything else.
You can't just write off the difference by implying that hp pools and crew sizes are somehow not, in and of themselves, also adjustable elements of balance.
Why are Ost Support teams categorically handicapped by a 2/3 survival differential?
12 Sep 2013, 04:46 AM
#295
Posts: 829
I take great pains to roll through as many actual, game related variables as possible in my posts.
Claims that "i dont consider the larger picture, the actual ingame situation or variable x, y or z" are misplaced.
I do. I just dont let them trump hard stats, nor derail the topic when they start being contrived.
MG42 is, categorically, squishier, than Maxim.
This is the cold hard status quo atm.
I dont understand why people tie their colons in a knot over "admitting" that, and constantly try to extend somekind of extenuating explanations ontop of that to somehow "justify" it.
MG42s are, categorically, squishier, than Maxims.
If people cant "admit" even that much, what fucking hope is there for balance.
What I am trying to say Nullist, you are probably the person I agree most with on this forum, 95% of the time. Yet those other 5% (my experiences with game and trying to expand those stats into my experiences with game) get us arguing all the time.
Paradox for me, that I agree with someone so much, yet get so annoyed with.
12 Sep 2013, 04:50 AM
#296
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
It is not reasonable to state that comparison of the differential in Support weapon crew sizes, is somehow not a valid balance concern or element. It "exists" and is part of the game, and as such is up for and subject to scrutiny as an element of that complex interweb of balance you refer to above, in the same way as is everything else.
You can't just write off the difference.
If the MG42 performs in it's role and is balanced, and if the Maxim performs in it's role and is balanced, then the difference is of no consequence and can be written off. You can't bring up a list of pros and cons of both HMGs and argue that each must have the same number of advantages and disadvantages to get perfect balance. If the MG42 has less statistical advantages, for example, it may have other advantages on its side- example would be in-situ reinforcement is much easier due to the much easier access to the halftrack the Germans get, whereas with Merge may leave conscripts undermanned and dangerously low on health so close to the front line. This is just an example,and not a very good one, of course- I'll think of a better one in a bit.
Time will tell if the MG42 and Maxim are balanced in their current state, and with continual updates and balance patches to the game they might have to be adjusted to compensate. But if they are balanced, then there's no problem if one is more survivable than the other.
12 Sep 2013, 05:06 AM
#297
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedRegardless, it leaves the universal situation, that Ost Support Teams are all significantly squishier than their counterparts.
That, in and of itself, is certainly something that needs to be taken into serious account when considering balance of Support units, and their performance of their roles.
Mg42, 81mm and PaK, are all only 2/3 as durable as their Sov counterparts. They are all squishier.
That, in and of itself, is certainly something that needs to be taken into serious account when considering balance of Support units, and their performance of their roles.
Mg42, 81mm and PaK, are all only 2/3 as durable as their Sov counterparts. They are all squishier.
12 Sep 2013, 05:11 AM
#298
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
Regardless, it leaves the universal situation, that Ost Support Teams are all significantly squishier than their counterparts.
That, in and of itself, is certainly something that needs to be taken into serious account when considering balance of Support units, and their performance of their roles.
Mg42, 81mm and PaK, are all only 2/3 as durable as their Sov counterparts. They are all squishier.
Indeed they are. And as long as they aren't under-performing in their roles due to this fact (might be arguable that the Pak underperforms, but that's another issue altogether), there is no cause for concern.
12 Sep 2013, 05:19 AM
#299
Posts: 2425
Permanently BannedIndeed they are. And as long as they aren't under-performing in their roles due to this fact ... , there is no cause for concern.
Which may however now be the case with MG42 survival.
12 Sep 2013, 05:20 AM
#300
Posts: 35
So, Nullist are you accepting Strummingbird's premise? Or are you dismissing him? If you accept it, then why don't you just say so?
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
7 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265
Board Info
976 users are online:
976 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50013
Welcome our newest member, toxsltechnologiesSA
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, toxsltechnologiesSA
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM