Profile of ZeaviS

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 160

General Information


Thread: Yep I'm going there, Panzerwerfer18 Nov 2014, 18:49 PM These two units fulfill different roles, so it's hard to directly compare them. Kats are supposed to be used as an area denial artillery, that's why there are 4 salvos. The werfer is supposed to be a very concentrated barage in one go. So wefers are better against blobs, and doing direct damage. It's like the difference between the mg42 and the maxim. If I'd change anything about the werfer, I'd take a look at it's vet1 ability. Does anyone even use counter barrage? That seems pretty useless to me. Whereas the Kat vet1 ability is very useful, which might be why it seems so much better. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Just bring us old Stug III! 12 Nov 2014, 21:46 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Nov 2014, 03:28 AMZombiFrancis Exactly. The issue isn't so much with the StuG itself so much as it is with how it becomes available and when. This is a big part of it. The StuG is actually pretty good for 80 fuel. It has 10 more pen than a P4 and shoots a lot faster, resulting in almost 10 more dps at equal ranges, plus it also has a great vet ability and bonuses that make it even more deadly, not to mention 10 more range than a P4. Just like an su-85 though, you have to baby sit it a bit and make sure it has support. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Luchs and 22212 Nov 2014, 02:10 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2014, 03:51 AMatouba Sure the 222 has same level of HP with M3 and has autocannon. But 222 comes out later than M3. And it need 55 munitions to upgrade autocannon weapon. 222 can kill a M20? You must be joking... M20 crews have bazookas man... The crew can just abondond the vehicle and make 222 stoping firing on M20 and kill 222. Definitely not joking, which is why I said, with proper micro. If you keep the 222 at range, you can back away before the zook fires. In the cases that you can't, the 222's small car size will ensure that sometimes the zooks will miss. So it's definitely not a hard counter, since, I've done it before. Jump back to quoted post10 Nov 2014, 05:31 AMhannibalbarcajr M3 available immediately, needs no ammo upgrade and can carry units to project power....222 needs 55 ammo to be worth a darn, requires tech which means an opponent will have some kind of counter out if they aren't being foolish/overconfident. If it gets better armor, which it should to not be so intensive it should also get a MP and fuel cost increase so it isn't a cheap shredder but it will still be dead meat to guards/zis and a single at nade from a conscript with oorah which slows it to a crawl. Just because it comes out later, doesn't mean it should overperform for cost. If you want to give it more armor, then I'd be in favor of it with a cost increase. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Luchs and 2226 Nov 2014, 21:15 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 13:34 PMelchino7 210mp 15f 200hp 11/5.5 armor 190mp 15f 200hp 5.4/2.7 armor Guess which units are we looking at here. PD: AT guns do 160dmg. Oh! Oh! I know! The first one is the 222, the second one is the M3. Seriously, why do you guys need something that costs only 15 to be a wrecking machine? You know why the luchs is so much better? Because it costs 50 ( or 75 if you want to take into account okw fuel econ ) fuel. It costs only 20 mp more than a m3 scout car, which it demolishes once it gets the autocannon. With proper micro it can kill an M20 as well, which costs 20 fuel. Should we also buff the M20 then? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: List of ninja changes?5 Nov 2014, 19:35 PM So nobody has the full list? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: List of ninja changes?3 Nov 2014, 05:13 AM Anyone have the full list of ninja changes? I've seen a few already like the fuel increase for soviet tier 1. Wondering if there is a comprehensive list somewhere. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What do you think of an SU-85 buff?29 Oct 2014, 01:01 AM The problem isn't really the su-85, it's that the su-85 is really the only reliable tank destroyer the soviets have. They don't have any non-doctrinal AT infantry, and guards aren't even that good either. Whereas with okw, they don't need to get a JPIV, because they have so many other options, what's the point? It's a great unit, but there is hardly a need to build it. I think the su-76 isn't that bad, the issue is that it's too expensive, and comes out too late. I'd like to see the su-76 have more of a stug-E type role, I think that would be more useful. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The overbearing balance of 4's15 Oct 2014, 00:54 AM Jump back to quoted post14 Oct 2014, 08:50 AMthomasthetank I only suggest this because I doubt Relic will create separate balance profiles for team games. If they stick to their 1v1 trickle up balance then team game will have to be forced to play like 1v1. Maps are the only direct impact the community can have on balance. Perhaps a community made map forcing players into a 1v1 style may produce better win/loss ratios. I agree with you that resource flow is major contributing factor to state of the team games. In team games I have encountered stukkas at 7 mins and KTs at 20 mins. Ideally it should be looked at but if I remember resources are tied to the maps. Fuel upkeep would a solution in part if done correctly but that is tired to the units stats and would require Relic to introduce into 1v1 balance without a separate profile. I think it's not because there are more, it's because you gain control of your side of the map quicker, and because you can afford to save up fuel more, because of your fortified position. In 1v1, you probably wouldn't necessarily rush a stuka at 7 min because you'd need a puma or a luchs for support at some point. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: PAK 40 is overperforming when compared to other AT guns13 Oct 2014, 18:12 PM What I think should be done is to make the pak40 less accurate. This would reduce performance against light/med vehicles without compromising it's performance against heavies. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: PAK 40 is overperforming when compared to other AT guns10 Oct 2014, 19:26 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2014, 18:17 PMStephennJF SOV possess a lot more utility than USF when in comes to displacing or killing support weapon teams including HMG and ATG. Sniper forces the unit to immediately move or risk squad wipe. Mortar is significantly cheaper than pack howizter and provides more reliable high angle fire. Not to mention it provides smoke for free to cover tanks if your not sure where exactly to barrage. Zis-3 has the potential to be a threat with barrage. Access to on-map artillery is more readily available to SOV via T4 (katuysha/SU-76) and doctrines. Both T70 and T34 can easily survive from a pak40 as long as you do not over commit. T70 also has recon run which can more easily determine the exact location of a pak40. Heavy tanks can destroy pak40 outright. There is probably even more reasons that I can't think of, but yeah SOV have heaps to deal with it. USF has few that does not result in a risk in losing MP and catching the pak40 out of position for an easy flank with infantry/armour. The chance of pak40 being poorly placed in the hands of a good player an a high LMG gren army (more vision control) composition is low. I'd certainly like to engage on a few points: 1. I would argue this only the case if the pak is by itself, which would then then your statement true for any infantry squad catching it by itself. 2. This is true, however the pack howitzer at vet1 has the phosphorus smoke, which blocks vision AND does damage over time, over a much longer range. Although, I'll concede that it's cost is a major deterrent to anyone even getting this unit in the first place. 3. I agree with this point. 4. The point about T4 I agree with, although it's kind of part of the problem. If you had went T3 instead then you wouldn't have this option. I'll concede off map artillery being more readily available. 5. In this sentence, could you not replace "T70 and T34" with "stuart and sherman"? They don't have any more survivability, and I'd argue the sherman is in a better spot because it has smoke. 6. I'll concede this point. What am I missing in my analysis? I appreciate the back and forth stephenn, very interesting. In: COH2 Balance