Disregard the rest of the thread here comes the truth 
Your question pretty much summarizes the key dilemma of the american faction.
There's 4 main solutions:
1. Go Airborne. I personally play Airborne almost all the time because I'm not good enough with tanks to omit At-Guns from my builds.
2. Go both Captain and Lieutenant. If you do this it's pretty much always better to go LT first because Stuart and 50cal provide more value early on than any captain unit. You could also consider saving the Vehicle tech and not going stuart at all. However that's not recommended in the vast majoriy of cases because it will make your opponents light vehicles infinitely stronger.
3. Rely on bazookas and snowballing. Snowballing in this context means gaining an early advantage and carrying it over in the next phase of the game by exploiting the advantage to gain another advantage etc. This is neessary because without AT-Guns you rely on your tanks for primary AT. So you always have to stay somewhat ahead in terms of Tank firepower. The main issue here is that the Sherman is terribly unreliable at fighting P4s and much more cost efficient when being allowed to use its HE shells. Going Jackson first is an even worse idea because you lose too much AI firepower. This is why most people who play without ATGuns (like DevM) use the Mechanized doctrines which offers the 76mm Sherman. The 76 is the most cost efficient medium tanks when it comes to fighting other mediums. Obviously the pershing does not fill that gap because it comes way too late so you'd actually have to rely on sherman/jackson+bazookas which is tough and not recommended.
4. Go captain only. AAHT has the best power/timing ratio in the game I think. But it requires a lot of babysitting both in terms of micro and support units. One small fuck up and it dies to 2 pak shots. 222s can catch it off guard and subsequently shred it. Overall I'd say not worht it for a beginner.
2. is probably best if you want to try heavy cav. 3 rifles -> Ambu -> Vehicle Tech -> Stuart -> most of the time captain (depending on map control and opponents tech, if you have a big fuel advantage you should skip captain and tech sherman regardless of what I've said above) -> ATGun (if needed, in the late game you should have 2 ATguns in most scenarios) -> Major -> depending on CPs sherman -> Pershing
|
This isn't up to date anymore, is it?
I´m new to the game, so maybe this was possible in the past? Because I don't see how you can go Cpt. into Stuart, or am I missing something?
The USF faction got reworked so it's no longer up to date.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6MagYGWS20&t=42s
This video is an up to date version. |
|
There are plenty of justified critiques of AE and the refs. Even though some of the stuff gets blown way out of proportion. I understand that seekings defense is kinda "gloves off". But the way people have lost perspective of what is going on and the way this gets somehow turned around against AE is crazy.
It is still HIGHLY likely from a competent neutral perspective that seeking played on the Deadbolt account POST warning. It is painfully obvious and I'm just gonna go ahead and say that if you think otherwhise you're either biased or clueless, sorry. This means that it's also highly likely that seeking is still explicitly lying. His entire defense is at least in part bullshit. AE would make a fool of himself if he didn't ban seeking after all this dishonesty and disregard of the prior warning.
|
|
No I wasn't serious. In my initial thinking upon finally being 100% convinced I'd seen someone use hacks to win publicly donated funds, I said something stupid in a private pm thread.. I dont' think people took me seriously, and I certainly didn't say anything similar after I had calmed down.
well if someone was actually proven to be a cheater in a high stakes coh2 tournament (which is not the case here as we all agree), it wouldn't be THAT absurd. It's a terrible idea just because it wouldn't lead anywhere legally and mixing up internet life and real life is generally not smart but I don't see how anyone would be completely flabbergasted by it?
I won't hop in to defend my clanmate and friend, I'll hop in to defend someone who got shit on, including by me.
I don't think it was the good call to publish screenshots from these moments, which were probably (like the clips though) out of context. I wish some names were hidden as well but too late.
But that threat on Kimbo is too much for multiple reasons :
1) He already got punished for what he did before. Double punishment is forbidden by most constitutional systems in the western countries, and that's only to quote the ones I'm aware of. I'd not recommend to proceed to do it.
2) In the hypothesis where Seeking is cheating, Kimbo would be punished for having unwavering faith, which most of us don't have, in his friend, without malicious intent.
3) Giving the option to come clean? How about letting the defendent answer to the accusations first? Adversarial system is still a thing if I'm not mistaken.
+1 Tomy 
although there's a reason the legal system is the legal system and ML is a small gaming community 
|
Not true, since John is our new CM, there were alot of bans. But mainly based on reports via Email.
I see, still doesn't change the fact that this whole procedure we're talking about here is unrelated to a potential relic ban. Is that correct? |
I have found your interjection into these debates to be deeply hypocritical.
You were involved in a subjective community process to accuse a player that didn't get detected by Relic Entertainment, you found evidence he (or an account linked to him) was involved on hacking forums, which was used in conjunction with the subjective clip based evidence that had been collected.
Here we had a subjective community process to accuse a player that didn't get detected by Relic Entertainment, we found evidence (he played on the pc and account of a player who everyone agrees hacked in replays), which was used in conjunction with the subjective clip/replay based evidence that had been collected.
All of your raz clips/replays could have been explained with "game sense bro" in just the same way as ours.
Do me a favour, go and watch one of the last 1v1 games Seeking played before the accusations went live. He manhandles a player that goes life and death with everyone. Don't look at my time stamps, put your head in the players and count at the times you go "hmm", then watch any other 1v1 game replay on the ladder and do an equal exercise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy2gxRMwuW8
Now I'm willing to accept either of the following two scenarios:
1) Seeking has an innovative gameplay style and incredible game sense that would always have led to suspicion at some point - but you don't agree with the panel of top players, referees, and casters that analysed his play and felt yourself to be in a position of unbiased view so were able to compose a google doc declaring it was mostly chance and game sense.
2) Seeking was hacking either via Fog of War or the minimap (both currently possible) - but you don't agree with the panel of top players, referees, and casters that analysed his play, and felt yourself to be in a position of unbiased view so were able to compose a google doc declaring it was mostly chance and game sense.
Which is it?
I've literally done this to pga 5 games in a row back in the day and I was never an A-tier player like seeking. What could arguably raise suspicion is how he absolutely rolled over noggano and to a lesser extent devm. |
No he wasn't which is exactly my point. Preferential treatment.
That doesn't make any sense. Your main argument was that seeking was given time for a defense etc. That happened in the context of ML. Why would he get banned by relic? Is anyone getting banned? There just simply hasn't been a ban wave on relics part recently. |
Please read what I wrote and try to understand my point. What you just wrote has nothing to do with my point.
I have never said that the ML and its organizers ban players from COH2.
My point is that Seeking has received preferential treatment compared to an average coh2 players when confronted with hacking accusations. The point is this: Some random automatch player would have never gotten a chance to defend himself. He would have just been banned by Relic and that would have been it. Meanwhile Seeking had the chance to explain everything and has now not been banned even though the presented evidence would have easily gotten someone else banned.
Did seeking get banned from automatch? You're comparing apples and oranges. |
There was a time where I didn't think this forum was filled with delusional no-lifers, and that's when I actually posted and was involved in discussions (naive me).
Anyway, how does anyone plan to prove this guy was guilty without a shadow of a doubt? No matter how many hours you put in into analyzing each and every game he played and comparing them to the suspected replay, you will never be able to say "yeah, he cheated".
I'm not saying to close this thread because I don't like it, but because a player is being lynched without actual evidence. I mean, I think he did cheat, but that is not for the general public to decide. That's why this thread should not exist. And I did not actually look at it. I looked at the OP post, a few posts below it and commented. Don't mistake me for someone who gives a bit of a fu** about this forum. What I do give a f*** about is the fact that a "trial" is being made public, without any reason and that people are jumping on the bandwagon defending/attacking the person involved. I don't care about his/her reputation, nor his game. What I do care about is not abusing the fu***** mob mentality because some dumb fuc*s idea was to make it public.
EDIT: Yeah, you need absolute proof for stuff like that. If COH2 is one part of his income, then yeah, absolute proof is needed. What you're going to do? Deny him the opportunity because he was suspicious? Got lucky?
Again, I think he did cheat, since I do not believe such plays are possible and so many instances of luck can occur in one game, but that's not for me to decide (and in the end I don't care if he gets banned or not)
This isn't a trial nor a lynching. It's just a discussion. And no you don't need the kind of proof you're talking about to ban someone. That's not even how it works in the legal system, much less in a private gaming tournament where it's a purely ethical question lol. |
Lol. Reputation. Like this is something important. Of course Seeking won't be banned. Cheating (probably) or not. An 8y old game with barely the playerbase, blowing this sh** out of proportion. People just like to feel important I guess.
If this were at all serious, you'd watch the clips, analyze and make a decision. Pretty much every thing on those clips can be summed down to "luck" or "game sense", and as such, no damning decision will be made, so stop this nonsense thread.
You don't need a comity of 300 posts and people following this BS thread to make a decision.
"Innocent until proven guilty" won't pass here because you don't have any concrete evidence. Only suspicious behaviour... so don't give all that BS about "innocent until proven guilty". Proven guilty about what? Even if he had 10 cheating bans on the account, it doesn't prove a thing.
So again. Stop this BS public thread. Go private. Decide whoever you feel like has no life to actually waste time arguing/proving this case like it's a life/death situation and get on with it.
EDIT: I mean, "seeing this investigation through".... You're hoping to get your hands on a video camera showing Seeking turning on the cheats?
If you wanted to make a decision, you would have done it. There is nothing smart or profound to be found here. You have a male/female person that had an above average number of "luck instances". That's all there is to it. Simple statistics. From my experience, as an average player (so trying to push my luck as far as it goes since I have nothing to lose, unlike tournament plays), I'll get 2-3 instances of pure luck in a game. Be it retreating in just the right time, moving something out of harms way, without knowing the harm is coming, randomly barraging FOW and getting a squad or two in the process..... etc.... so from my point of view, the clips on the first page are extremely suspicious. No amount of game sense is going to give you such precision. You can get lucky once or twice, but that's it.
There's such an arrogance to people on this forum it just pisses me off. Just makes using coh2.org a miserable experience. Who are you to demand closing a thread? Just don't look at it. And it's always the people most involved in the forum wars who make these judgemental statements about other peoples threads and opinions.
How is analyzing circumstantial evidence not a valid way to come to a conclusion? You have this very naive assumption that "proven guilty" means some kind of absolute proof is required. That's not how it works lol.
Also this thread has nothing to do with the decision making. No one claimed 300 posts were needed. It's just a forum where people talk about topics surrounding their favorite game. You have 700 posts in it. Wtf are you on about.
|
Germany
God Is an Astronaut
Alastor
SturmTigerFish
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
