Profile of Grumpy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1954

General Information


Thread: Visions about P4 and P510 Apr 2017, 18:55 PM The Ost P4 was overpriced. It should have been around 110 fuel. Both Panthers should have had a range of 60. They are main battle tanks but used more like dedicated TD's . Also, didn't they have the same KwK42 as the JP4? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind10 Apr 2017, 01:25 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2017, 17:52 PMMr.Smith Would anybody feel that Elefant/JT are getting butchered with the following changes? - Damage reduced from 320 to 280-300 - Accuracy reduced (by a lot) to SU-85 levels The idea here is that JT/Elefant will remain marvelous at countering TD-walls (keeping them in the repair pad). They would also punish Comet/T34/85 spam/etc. They would also be amazing at dealing with allied heavy tanks. However, they wouldn't assassinate veteran medium tanks like it was nobody's business. (This assumes that Firefly's accuracy/moving accuracy also gets nerfed to SU-85 levels, to keep it even. Tulips should give the new blind TWP critical from Puma, rather than deny movement. Jackson is OK since it's brittle and will still go down to 2 shots) JT has a lot on its plate too, compared to the elefant: - Nerf mobility stats so that engine-upgraded JT performance will equal live-version unupgraded performance - Barrage no longer requires veterancy. Costs 30 munitions and projectiles follow an arc so as not to collide with ground all the time - Range decrease from both attacks to 80 (because increasing 17pounder range would be a terrible idea - Piercing rounds requires Vet5 (Vet5 currently does nothing since stun-removal ninja-buff) Elefant: - Can no longer upgrade to spotting scopes (so that we don't have to nerf scopes) Then, I would trace Elefant/JT popcap as follows: - Elefant: around 25-26 - JT around 28-29 (since it's a generalist with the barrage) CalliOP definitely merits a durability nerf first of all. It could go around Priest level. Then, range should either be reduced a lot (but kept lethal). In that way, you have to be careful not to have your CalliOP murdered, and that would differentiate it from the long-range priest. Otherwise, change the barrage pattern from 10-8 to 6-6-6. That could be an interesting idea. I think that could work. The nerfs on the JT and Ele would probably work. Would be better to try this as a first step rather than nerfing it into the ground. The ISU was overnerfed and has rarely been built since. Changing the barrage pattern of the Calliope to 6-6-6 might work. I don't think reducing it's range would make things better. It's already at its best when fired from near minimum range. It almost guarantees wipes of full health squads when used like a shotgun. The only rocket arty that is comparable is the Walking Stuka, which is better at wiping squads and support weapons when it hits, but is a little more hit-or-miss due to the tight cluster. Please don't do anything to the Walking Stuka without nerfing sim city, and please don't do anything to the Calliope without nerfing the super TD's. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind9 Apr 2017, 17:36 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2017, 15:30 PMelchino7 NOT REALLY. Some history. -USF release completely OP and specially broken against OH, but really UP on 3v3+ with it's paper tanks (on 2v2 it was more of a, let's finish the game as fast as possible with LT into Sherman rushes). -OKW release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames. -UKF release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames. -Sniper did shine/op on 1v1 but not so much on 2v2 and kinda a joke on 3v3+ -Wunderwaffe units which are hard to support on 1v1 are no brainers on 2v2+. While those are more important issues, resource inflation and specially volume of units on field per size of map and strategic points is still a problem. 1-You cap 3x/4x times faster the map which means the transition to early lights or even mediums is done faster. 2-Caches, while been a detrimental for the one building it, benefit the whole team. Been able to field 1 less unit on 1v1 can be a risk. When you have 4x the amount of units on map, that single 200mp investment isn't as risky. 3-If you have the same amount of pop as the lower modes, but equal amount of pop, then it's obvious that you are gonna end up with ~~"spam/blob"~~ a bottleneck of units fighting for the same points. Which makes AOE onmap/offmap shine. Note: what i mentioned can't be changed most probably (been what you mentioned the only things which can be changed in favour of the mode). Basically, i'm saying those are real issues, not myths, but those are part of what makes 3v3+ appealing for some people (Not having to bother with capping, huge amount of units on map). If it was mine decision, i would had test early on, having 3v3 and 4v4 have less pop (also less mp gain) to accommodate the players/volume of units into the map. Maybe instead of less pop on 3's and 4's, just revise the map pool to eliminate long narrow maps (Red Ball) and more short wide (shaped like Steppes or General Mud). The long narrow maps put Soviets at a significant disadvantage. Putting a cooldown on FRP would help, but it should apply to all FRP's including Major. One improvement to caches could be to divide the normal resource gain by the number of players (1/2 for a 2v2, etc) and then let other players improve it, 200mp at a time, until it reaches full value. Having it benefit only one player would likely result in people teamkilling caches instead of playing the game (at least in randoms). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can't afford to leave 3vs3/4vs4 behind9 Apr 2017, 15:05 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2017, 05:32 AMpigsoup as long as relic refuse to separate 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3+ for balancing - which will be a harder work, you'll just have to deal with it. aand with so many people just jumping on a bandwagon yelling "let team modes die, but not 2v2 because i play 2v2 occasionally... but let 3v3+ die..." BS, i doubt we will see an improvement in coh2 or even in future relic titles. if the community balance teams get more power to do things, we might still have glimmer of "hope", but i mean, the game is already 3+ years old. and you cant micro balance teammodes like 1v1. a lot more variables and 6-8 players mean you have to rely way more on player's ability to #adapt. so only fix big shits like stupid super heavies, rocket arties, FRP. and maps if you have time. This is almost the entirety of the imbalance in 4v4. Add to it offmaps like the soon-to-be-nerfed Artillery cover and probably-never-to-be-nerfed Stuka CAS and Stuka dive bomb and you have pretty much all of the problem. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: GCS Balance Preview9 Apr 2017, 14:47 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2017, 10:12 AMAustralian Magic It cannot hit anything unless not moving at point blank. The normal targeting always shoots well beyond its target. I've had better success with it by using attack ground, but it still overshoots its target so you have to manually target short of the intended target. Rather than fix the Bulldozer, I'd rather they copy the ballistics of the Brummbaer to match the Bulldozer. The Bulldozer would be fine with the fuel dropped to 110 and a slight improvement to targeting. In: Lobby
Thread: GCS Balance Preview9 Apr 2017, 14:33 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2017, 12:46 PMRedT3rror Mobile infantry can escape any kind of artillery barrage, but not a straight Brummbär shot. Just be clumped up for a second and your sqad is gone. This plus regularly one-shots on anti-tank gun crews. In: Lobby
Thread: Winter Balance Patch Analysis9 Apr 2017, 03:10 AM Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2017, 16:40 PM__deleted__ Rakketen is much better than before, mainly because of aiming time standardisation time, now it fires once set up. I've still been having problems with it hitting the ground on maps where it is shooting uphill. I'd gladly give up camo for a PAK 40. In: News
Thread: Soviets needs a buff8 Apr 2017, 13:55 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2017, 06:12 AMmiragefla Not a good test, mediums almost never want to face heavies head-on unless they're swarming unsupported tank. Most of the complaining comes from team games, where the heavies are never unsupported. There are very limited flanking opportunities so any mediums that the allies have will eventually end up facing heavies straight on. It makes them worthless which is why allied players make so much arty in larger games. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviets needs a buff7 Apr 2017, 18:50 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Apr 2017, 18:14 PMzerocoh NOPE to both, horrible idea, just stop... Soviets are convoluted as it is. This kind of thing would just make them worst... Like I said before and some others too, soviets needs better veterancy (by better I mean, less stupid, ones that makes more sense) starting with conscripts. No, your idea is bad. In the current meta, cons get wiped by indirect and T34's get wiped by TD's or super-TD's. Improved veterancy won't do anything to that, other than make people rage quit when their vet 3 T34 goes up in smoke. Until the core armies are somewhat comparable, balance will be impossible. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW's early game over-dominance7 Apr 2017, 16:36 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Apr 2017, 14:17 PMFinndeed I disagree, Soviets are the weakest in team games, USF generally don't even need tanks to win. Arty and inf backed up with UKF tanks and emplacements can be an impossibly hard combination to fight for axis. Crossing in the woods with 2 mortar emplacements behind the tree's and you pretty much lose my default. I don't think I've said that anyone besides Soviets were weak in team games. Last patch, they were badly OP in 1's and not that good in 3's & 4's. Autofire for all indirect should have its range nerfed to 60 or less. That would go a long way towards solving the mortar pit problem. It wouldn't bother me if autofire was eliminated on all indirect. In: COH2 Balance