Let's talk about the scott

Most of the other players that are calling for the nerf have similarly balanced player cards.

So if you're like a blatent fanboi (like I am) your opinion is invalid, but as you said, those with "balanced" playercards are calling for it as well, does their unbiased opinion not count?

You are right i have the feeling you came here for the sake of arguing. Please if you dont want to answer any question dont reply more.

I answered your question, you originally seemed confused to as why someone could could support a unit with high dps (supposedly) like the Stuka or pwerfer. And that's because those units die in one shot. You then got confused.

Now we can lock the thread I think

We getting there don't worry Array

But yeah keep it on the scott please

I answered your question, you originally seemed confused to as why someone could could support a unit with high dps (supposedly) like the Stuka or pwerfer. And that's because those units die in one shot. You then got confused.

Im still confused why you are arguing with me when we already concluded that you dont want scott to be nerfed. You came into discussion and started pointing out that stuka dies in one shot. Seriously dude find another discussion partner if you want to talk about "extended unit dynamics". As of now we concluded that scott and pwerfer/stuka dont need nerfs so everyone can go home.

We don't get the point that it doesn't need a nerf.

But many people would like to see a change on it. So it becomes more an artillery unit, instead of a sniper.

So if you're like a blatent fanboi (like I am) your opinion is invalid, but as you said, those with "balanced" playercards are calling for it as well, does their unbiased opinion not count?

I'm honestly not sure if the opinion of anyone here counts, other than Miragefla's.

As for the 1v1 players, their ranks were in the low 100's. I would take their opinion with a little bit of skepticism. The 1v1 rankings are pretty stratified. There is a big difference in skill between people in the top 30-50 and someone in the low 100's. My best rankings in 1v1 were in the upper 200's/lower 300's. When I would play a 100 level player, I'd usually lose, but a lot of the games were close. When automatch would take too long and decide to place me against a top 10 player, it was a completely different game. Most of the time I would be out-positioned so badly that the game would be lost at the 10-15 minute mark. However, sometimes they would decide to test some troll strategy. Von Ivan once built 3-4 raketens against and used them to cap like crazy. It worked well for me until he decided to stop messing around when he was down to 200 vp's. He then completely wrecked me in the first serious battle. I could have came here and started a thread "Raketens OP", but they aren't. In the same manner, I don't think that Scotts are OP.

Lastly, USF's early and mid game aren't in good shape. While the tech changes may help, it seems way too early to be asking for nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been shown to be competitive yet.

I dont think Scott should be reworked because someone in 2v2 can win games with them.

Well, I (and most people who agree with me here) just want to see the Scott better at barraging and not sniping squads like a sniper on steroids, people hated the old Leig for exactly that.

And here we go again with the rocket artillery, you hear the firing sound, you move somewhere else, you avoid most damage. For the panzerwerfer, maybe some rockets will hit your units out of sheer RNG but the for the stuka, you basically (usually) avoid all damage by strafing your blob or moving your weapon teams (it fires in a line after all). They hit hard, sure, but only against static targets like Brit's emplacements or poorly microed weapon teams and blobs.

Well, I (and most people who agree with me here) just want to see the Scott better at barraging and not sniping squads like a sniper on steroids, people hated the old Leig for exactly that.

And here we go again with the rocket artillery, you hear the firing sound, you move somewhere else, you avoid most damage. For the panzerwerfer, maybe some rockets will hit your units out of sheer RNG but the for the stuka, you basically (usually) avoid all damage by strafing your blob or moving your weapon teams (it fires in a line after all). They hit hard, sure, but only against static targets like Brit's emplacements or poorly microed weapon teams and blobs.

...and with this statement we should probably be done here. You came here complaining about double Scotts, which I've never seen an elite player complain about, and ended it with implying that only noobs get wrecked by the Walking Stuka, which is ironic because one of the games in the 2v2 finals last weekend was turned, in part, by a pair of Walking Stukas. Maybe you can offer your rocket micro training to them since it is so good.

I'm honestly not sure if the opinion of anyone here counts, other than Miragefla's.

As for the 1v1 players, their ranks were in the low 100's. I would take their opinion with a little bit of skepticism. The 1v1 rankings are pretty stratified. There is a big difference in skill between people in the top 30-50 and someone in the low 100's. My best rankings in 1v1 were in the upper 200's/lower 300's. When I would play a 100 level player, I'd usually lose, but a lot of the games were close. When automatch would take too long and decide to place me against a top 10 player, it was a completely different game. Most of the time I would be out-positioned so badly that the game would be lost at the 10-15 minute mark. However, sometimes they would decide to test some troll strategy. Von Ivan once built 3-4 raketens against and used them to cap like crazy. It worked well for me until he decided to stop messing around when he was down to 200 vp's. He then completely wrecked me in the first serious battle. I could have came here and started a thread "Raketens OP", but they aren't. In the same manner, I don't think that Scotts are OP.

Lastly, USF's early and mid game aren't in good shape. While the tech changes may help, it seems way too early to be asking for nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been shown to be competitive yet.

It is a forum everyone's one opinion counts.

Else yours does not count either so why post it.

Now lets try to talk about scott and not who claimed what.

Scott is in just the right place IMO. If it's getting changed at all, I would say nerf it and move it to captain (part 2, or whatever we're calling the second tier upgrade).

Having it arrive earlier but with less power as to not punch too hard for it's time would be kinda nice. Sometimes i feel like it's too late to get one even when I could really use it. They can be hard to keep alive if you don't have any real tanks to keep it protected.

I'm honestly not sure if the opinion of anyone here counts, other than Miragefla's.

As for the 1v1 players, their ranks were in the low 100's. I would take their opinion with a little bit of skepticism. The 1v1 rankings are pretty stratified. There is a big difference in skill between people in the top 30-50 and someone in the low 100's. My best rankings in 1v1 were in the upper 200's/lower 300's. When I would play a 100 level player, I'd usually lose, but a lot of the games were close. When automatch would take too long and decide to place me against a top 10 player, it was a completely different game. Most of the time I would be out-positioned so badly that the game would be lost at the 10-15 minute mark. However, sometimes they would decide to test some troll strategy. Von Ivan once built 3-4 raketens against and used them to cap like crazy. It worked well for me until he decided to stop messing around when he was down to 200 vp's. He then completely wrecked me in the first serious battle. I could have came here and started a thread "Raketens OP", but they aren't. In the same manner, I don't think that Scotts are OP.

Lastly, USF's early and mid game aren't in good shape. While the tech changes may help, it seems way too early to be asking for nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been shown to be competitive yet.

I'm not sure how you decided on where the "cutoff mark" is for a player whose opinion counts. Most players in the 100s and 200s understand the game mechanics and general strategy of the game, but don't have the micromanagement ability to climb higher.

In any case you are indeed correct that the 1v1 rankings are highly stratified - at rank 100 or so, I struggle terribly against top 50 players because their micro is much better, and meanwhile (contrary to your experience) I've never had a single close game against someone in the 300s because my micro is much better.

The problem though is that you dreamt up a scenario in which rank 100 players were losing badly to Scotts plays and hence claiming that it is too strong. I could do the same hypothetical BS and imagine that you lost a Scott to a single Panzershreck squad, and hence think the Scott isn't good at all.

I use Scott-Jackson-Pershing every single USF game - it might be a playstyle issue because I can get careless with my rocket artillery (which dies to 1 rak shot), but the Scott never dies, so that's why I rate the Scott highly. And I do think that's the general thrust of most arguments about the Scott - it's very low on micro-tax since it has deadly auto-fire with good range, and gets away from trouble extremely easily because it has a light tank's speed and needs 3 shots from a tank or at gun to kill.

...You came here complaining about double Scotts, which I've never seen an elite player complain about, and ended it with implying that only noobs get wrecked by the Walking Stuka, which is ironic because one of the games in the 2v2 finals last weekend was turned, in part, by a pair of Walking Stukas. Maybe you can offer your rocket micro training to them since it is so good.

Does being ironic-ception count as offtopic?
I mean, why on earth do you compare totally DIFFERENT units (rocket arty is meant to hit hard and fast, but scotts are like a premium mortarHT) on their performance/result ingame?
Scott are as effective in their role that they also do other roles (indirect fire, support other units and also snipe infantry), with and without skill. But on top of that they have quite a few survival tricks and im not going to count the smoke barrage.
Being said that, how can you possibly defend its overperformance? Is it meant to be "that" good? Why would it be?
Scotts are not brumbarrs neither, they support other units and can make some good damage to infantry too. They are a special unit if you ask me, balance them in their own terms.


I can see 2 possible ways to get into a concensus, the first one make scotts like any other rocket arty: remove their autofire and improve their barrages. The other one, remove the sniping capability of scotts: slow its bullet travel speed, make it par with StuG-E, tweak fuel cost if neccesary. Or make them more like any other motorized mortar.

I'm not sure how you decided on where the "cutoff mark" is for a player whose opinion counts. Most players in the 100s and 200s understand the game mechanics and general strategy of the game, but don't have the micromanagement ability to climb higher.

In any case you are indeed correct that the 1v1 rankings are highly stratified - at rank 100 or so, I struggle terribly against top 50 players because their micro is much better, and meanwhile (contrary to your experience) I've never had a single close game against someone in the 300s because my micro is much better.

The problem though is that you dreamt up a scenario in which rank 100 players were losing badly to Scotts plays and hence claiming that it is too strong. I could do the same hypothetical BS and imagine that you lost a Scott to a single Panzershreck squad, and hence think the Scott isn't good at all.

I use Scott-Jackson-Pershing every single USF game - it might be a playstyle issue because I can get careless with my rocket artillery (which dies to 1 rak shot), but the Scott never dies, so that's why I rate the Scott highly. And I do think that's the general thrust of most arguments about the Scott - it's very low on micro-tax since it has deadly auto-fire with good range, and gets away from trouble extremely easily because it has a light tank's speed and needs 3 shots from a tank or at gun to kill.

You're reading way too much into the reply to Hoshi's question. All I meant is that I don't know who decides what gets into a patch and what doesn't. I somewhat assumed that Miragefla has some input because I thought he was part of the group that is actively working on the patch, but don't even know that for certain. I should've worded it better and wasn't trying to insult anyone.

You're reading way too much into the reply to Hoshi's question. All I meant is that I don't know who decides what gets into a patch and what doesn't. I somewhat assumed that Miragefla has some input because I thought he was part of the group that is actively working on the patch, but don't even know that for certain. I should've worded it better and wasn't trying to insult anyone.

Typically its a group of 1v1 and 2v2 top players who are part of the patch team.

Scott is in just the right place IMO. If it's getting changed at all, I would say nerf it and move it to captain (part 2, or whatever we're calling the second tier upgrade).

Having it arrive earlier but with less power as to not punch too hard for it's time would be kinda nice. Sometimes i feel like it's too late to get one even when I could really use it. They can be hard to keep alive if you don't have any real tanks to keep it protected.

That is simply incorrect.

Scott have some of the best defensive properties that include:
400 HP
19 size
7 speed
40 Rotate
Defensive smoke
barrage on the move

Now if you are talking about a situation where one's opponent has tanks and one does not have any AT to counter that is actually bad play and not an issue with Scott.

Now if you are talking about a situation where one's opponent has tanks and one does not have any AT to counter that is actually bad play and not an issue with Scott.

Play more USF then.

Play more USF then.

The number of my game with USF is irrelevant to the Performance of the Scott and especially it defensive properties. I also happen to have around 800 games as USF.

Turning balance issues into personal issues is non constructive and I would suggest you avoid it.

The number of my game with USF is irrelevant to the Performance of the Scott and especially it defensive properties. I also happen to have around 800 games as USF.

Turning balance issues into personal issues is non constructive and I would suggest you avoid it.

You're the one turning balance issues into your personal issue to understand the basic of each faction.
If you say something stupid, I'll not blame the balance or the game, but say you said something stupid.

In this case I've been kind enough to tell you to play more with USF instead and not being so affirmative with your opinion. Because if your 800 games with USF would have been enough for you to understand the game mechanisms, you'll have see that USF isn't design around having AT capability every time available and thus USF units need to be design with this aspect, especially when they are only available late game.

This may change with the new patch but at the moment, there is nothing evident that shows the Scott over value a Pz4 that comes a couple of minutes later with the same AI potential once upgraded with in addition strong AT capability.