Profile of SlaYoU

Why did Relic design the MG34 to be superior to the MG42 as an HMG? Shouldn't the MG42 be the best in suppressing while the MG34 be the middle ground between MG42 and Maxim?

Because it was changed along the way, it used to suck badly when WFA was released. The resulting buff put the 34 above the 42, or on par, which is ridiculous, knowing the historical difference between the 2 machine guns. It should probably be increased in price to match other HMGs (240), and to nitpick about historical accuracy, Wehrmacht should perhaps use the MG34, while Oberkommando should use MG42 (timeline wise it is plain wrong as it is now). But the historical accuracy is far less important than balance discrepancy between the two machines, much like the difference between Wehr Panther and Ober Panther, which should be looked at (and hopefully fixed in the coming patch).

The main issue is that each of us has his definition of blobbing.

Independently from numbers of squads in the same area, we face other issues like squad function in the group.

Let's take a 3 squads example, it can works with 4 squads as well:

Is it blobbing to have a engineer minesweeper with 2 volks/penals/rifles/whatever going forward?
Is it blobbing to have a dedicated AI long range squad close to a AI short range squad and close to a AT squad?

Why would they suffer penalties? Only because they are close to each other?

In the same idea, you may have regrouped them around your truck to heal them, and you're now under attack. Would you agree to suffer penalties for that?

What we call blobbing is attacking, most likely with a A-move in a direction. But there are many others situation where you aren't blobbing but keep your squads close to each other.

This brings me to say that blobbing isn't the issue in fact. Blobbing in the early game isn't an issue because counters exist: MG/HMG/AI trucks, they all rip of blobs.
The problem comes when the blob squads gain extra weapons and vet. The blob becomes at this time too much effective and an MG/HMG cannot handle it anymore alone.
Additional blob extra weapons + vet is superior than MG/HMG vet. Trucks are quite ok but when comes the late game are too vulnerable to ATguns,med tanks and heavy tanks.

What I propose is to found a way to better buff MG/HMG in the late game so it can continue to counter blobs.
I think their DPS with vet is enough, increasing it would brings some negative side effects.

As ideas to improve those counters, going with veterancy:
- better resistance to grenade
- faster deployment rate
- larger sigh of vision or larger cone of fire (depending of the MG model)
- Vet3 HMG/MG able to use grenade to defend themselve, can only be launch in the cone of fire.

Other ideas?

To keep up with the natural counter to blobs, HMG, you can as well give them more suppression when they are shooting at packed squads, to reflect what i stated before, it is easier to shoot at a group of people than individual ones. And it would be rather realistic: nobody rushes blindly toward an MG nest even if the attacker outnumber 4 or 5 times the defenders. When your life is in balance, you just hit the dirt and wait for the storm to pass. I agree that MG should be able to counter blobs (they are doing so in the early game, but they get outscaled rather fast, so accuracy bonuses + more splash suppression would work well).

Let's assume 1000 people are looking for a game and 20 people are playing the game. It's my own estimation.
Over those 1000 persons, 800 are looking for a game as Axis and 200 as Ally. we are around 80%/20%
Now, let's add those 20 actual players. 810 Axis and 210 Ally, 79.5% Axis and 20.5% Ally. Far from what he says isn't it?

Lol, for the first and only time you bring numbers to the table, you manage to screw up.
So you basically have 800/200 players waiting, and then you add 20 players, and split them 50/50 ? What are you trying to prove exactly ? That the player base is evenly split ? You are a math clown, you should have just shut your trap from the get go.

PS: Moderators, we need an ignore function, i don't want to read that guy anymore.

Buff it because its not OP anymore ? Pretty weak arguments ...

And you, what do you bring to the table, except trolling ?

If you're good at math, definitively not at analytic. That's not a problem, it doesn't change anything, spamming your theory and taking weird example doesn't make it more "true".

If you are so good in the "analytics", why can't you even understand how a bottleneck works ? You have on one end, more liquid to put in a bathtub that it can drain (liquid = axis, drain = allies). Obviously, the level of water raises in the tub.

I understood what you meant with your "first intention preference", as it actually makes sense. I kind of agree that among the allies players, there are probably a fair share who would have played axis if the queue wasn't so long. It contributes in the flushing process (to stick with the example i provided), but having a constant 80% axis searching doesn't mean there are 80% axis players. I took the time to compute what a real 80%/20% bottleneck is, and it spirals out of hand very very fast, since by the time you match 2 axis players with 2 allies, there are 4 new axis waiters for 1 new allie, and the % raises even higher than 80%. You would see a constant 100% axis players search if that was the case. Still observing 80/20 most of the time just shows that axis players are accumulating in the queue, yet they are matched frequently enough to not reach 100% ratio.

I lack some english vocabulary in the math department, so maybe i didn't make my point clear enough.