USA September patch discussion
- This thread is locked
Posts: 5279
Posts: 1794
Those words perfectly fit the panther, lol. Allies cant reliably kill it so OP :v
Unless panther have 65 range and 65 sight, so it is not the same thing.
If creeping rak death is being removed we could experiment with lowering the Scott's health to 320 so that it's actually possible to catch it out of position and kill it.
Wasnt it removed rak active camo?
320 health scott seems good.
But to be fair, we can try increasing its pop first, to make usf think twice of spamming in 2v2.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Unless panther have 65 range and 65 sight, so it is not the same thing.
It is the same case if you count "cant reliable kill" is an issue.
Posts: 1794
Scott can inflict damage from safe distance, panther cant, thats what im saying. It is incomparable here.
Posts: 785
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
why usf cant reliably kill panther? Jacksons?
Scott can inflict damage from safe distance, panther cant, thats what im saying. It is incomparable here.
Panther alway can get away with blitz and tactican(doc), it have HP, armor, speed, heavy crush, etc. Mean, getting out of danger is easy with panther.
Posts: 3053
If creeping rak death is being removed we could experiment with lowering the Scott's health to 320 so that it's actually possible to catch it out of position and kill it.
Why not just get rid of the smoke instead? It's a sort of expensive vehicle that needs to be close-ish to the frontlines in order to work, and successful dives should be rewarded, but IMO removing smoke is the best way to do that, as it makes diving really hard. Removing smoke instead of nerfing health would make it so the scott doesn't die to a stiff breeze, but still gets punished when it gets caught out of position.
Posts: 5279
Why not just get rid of the smoke instead? It's a sort of expensive vehicle that needs to be close-ish to the frontlines in order to work, and successful dives should be rewarded, but IMO removing smoke is the best way to do that, as it makes diving really hard. Removing smoke instead of nerfing health would make it so the scott doesn't die to a stiff breeze, but still gets punished when it gets caught out of position.
Either or I guess. I disagree that it need to be close to the front as it's got great range, but the fact of the matter is you need to pretty well be hellen Keller to lose one as it is now between the health smoke and range. Something has to give
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
Give it WP at Vet1.
LMAO
Posts: 450
Why not just get rid of the smoke instead? It's a sort of expensive vehicle that needs to be close-ish to the frontlines in order to work, and successful dives should be rewarded, but IMO removing smoke is the best way to do that, as it makes diving really hard. Removing smoke instead of nerfing health would make it so the scott doesn't die to a stiff breeze, but still gets punished when it gets caught out of position.
It just needs to be reworked instead of removed from the game. There were several options on other threads on how to do it.
Posts: 3260
The Scott can now be dived.
The Stuart can now actually use its utility abilities without getting blown up.
Posts: 2066
Move the Vet 1 ninja smoke from the Scott to the Stuart.
The Scott can now be dived.
The Stuart can now actually use its utility abilities without getting blown up.
That would require it's other abilities to be looked at, as its crit ability is quite powerful.
Posts: 3260
That would require it's other abilities to be looked at, as its crit ability is quite powerful.
It's powerful in theory.
In practice, it's so janky and slow that it's a good way to get rid of an unwanted Stuart.
Stuarts are all but useless against anything larger than a Puma because they only do 80 damage. The game's description text and tooltips hints the original vision for them was to be support tanks that did pretty minimal damage but had powerful utility abilities they could use on larger units.
With the Scott's smoke, they could actually do that.
Posts: 2066
It's powerful in theory.
In practice, it's so janky and slow that it's a good way to get rid of an unwanted Stuart.
Stuarts are all but useless against anything larger than a Puma because they only do 80 damage. The game's description text and tooltips hints the original vision for them was to be support tanks that did pretty minimal damage but had powerful utility abilities they could use on larger units.
With the Scott's smoke, they could actually do that.
Right. They can't stun heavy tanks then? They can't stay relavent until late game by this crit ability whilst being a good flanker and harassing infantry? They can't decrew and reduce pop cap whilst hopping back in and supporting the other vehicles again?
Posts: 3260
Right. They can't stun heavy tanks then? They can't stay relavent until late game by this crit ability whilst being a good flanker and harassing infantry? They can't decrew and reduce pop cap whilst hopping back in and supporting the other vehicles again?
They can, much like a T-70 can kill a King Tiger.
Like I said, strong in theory. In practice, dead Stuart.
Posts: 2066
They can, much like a T-70 can kill a King Tiger.
Like I said, strong in theory. In practice, dead Stuart.
Rigth, and why should this very effective little fucker, like its brother of crime, the T70, need anything extra? Why not give it HVAP while we are at it lol.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
2/4 sidetech requirement like major, 4cp?
Not sure if that's actually a good idea, just wanted to bring it up since it now has the cp reqs of a stug.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Could the greyhound be moved sooner as well?
2/4 sidetech requirement like major, 4cp?
Not sure if that's actually a good idea, just wanted to bring it up since it now has the cp reqs of a stug.
Not sure its such a great idea, its pretty great in terms of performance, but then again, all the counters are already present at 4CP.
Posts: 888
Here is my question for USF:
Why the hell is the worst engineer unit in the game AND worst starting unit in the game a 200 MP unit? Ostruppen are like 180 MP for a 6 man T0 combat unit, Royal Engineers are 210 for a 5 man unit, Grenadiers are only 40 MP more and are like 10x better. Can we maybe adjust the price to reflect it's crap preformance just a little bit since nobody wants to make it worth its 200 MP cost by maybe adding a 5th man? Maybe we can look at USF infantry as a whole. Why are Pathfinders 290 MP when their preformance doesn't match their price? Why are Combat Engineers 280 MP when their preformance doesn't match their price? Why is there some innate desire to make sure USF's infantry are consistently overpriced and underperforming? I am glad about the Riflemen buff but like I said I'll have to wait and see how that plays out.
Posts: 888
Not sure its such a great idea, its pretty great in terms of performance, but then again, all the counters are already present at 4CP.
I've never understood the point of the Greyhound. Friggen 60 fuel and it sucks against a Luchs.
Livestreams
50 | |||||
35 | |||||
30 | |||||
9 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM