Profile of Grumpy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1958

General Information


Thread: December 10Th Hotfix11 Dec 2015, 15:07 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Dec 2015, 14:26 PM__deleted__ Still someone does not noticed I talk only about 1vs1 balance ? Sorry, I hadn't noticed. Maybe you should make yourself a special badge and put it in your avatar to advertise. You could start with this and add "No 4v4's allowed" In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Shrek and Bazooka should be more EXPENSIVE11 Dec 2015, 14:45 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Dec 2015, 10:07 AMBIS-Commando What do u think about cost increased for Shrek and Bazooka? Shrek from 90 to 120 and Bazooka from 50 to 80-85 muni. I'm sick and tired to see all the players making hoardes of volks+shreks and riflemen+zookas. Almost nobody bought bazookas when they were 60 munis, and few people buy them now. You can't really compare zooks to shreks anyway, because shreks penetrate nearly every time and zooks penetrate 1/2 to 1/3 of the time (and IIRC do less damage). I'm not sure if shreks should have a price increase. Shrek blobs are still real and destroy allied armor quite well but they're also attached to an infantry unit that gets wiped somewhat easily. Leaving it alone for now would be good. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: December 10Th Hotfix11 Dec 2015, 14:10 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Dec 2015, 12:55 PM__deleted__ I think puma + oswind meta is coming. Something like molo style 2.0 Also tiger 2 is now overprized peace of pudding. EDIT: I fear hidden sotrms with stun nade and tactical assault stgs so much ... Four of us Bears ended up randomly matched against the #85 Axis team last night. I remember seeing a lot of Oswinds but not Puma's. On some of the other matches there were still quite a lot of KT's. We had 7 vp's left for what felt like 20 minutes. They had good map control and even with the fuel increase still had a lot of vehicles. Fixing the pop cap was what made the comeback possible since they weren't able to replace squads as easily as they would have before the patch. 1 VS ~TAB~ NJM ~TAB~ Glendizzle ~TAB~ GBPirate ~TAB~ Effen.Newbie o4sis HavoK $Temp \m/ flag$ Temp \m/ Brennus Allied Comeback from being down 7 to 380 and base-pinned by: Grumpy map: Lienne Forest 1 - In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Another late allied comeback11 Dec 2015, 08:07 AM Sometimes you build a lot of engies because you have delusions of playing like sprice. Other times, you build them because you're not keeping anything alive anyway and would rather lose 200 mp instead of 280. This was one of the latter. We were down roughly 40 to 430 and still won. I tried to keep the middle VP and just got pummeled - but we held on just long enough In: Replays
Thread: Allied Comeback from being down 7 to 380 and base-pinned11 Dec 2015, 07:25 AM Hope for allies? This game had some huge swings. We started even, went down to (roughly) 32 to 438 and briefly base-pinned. We stopped losing VP's at 7 to 380 and held on for a 7-0 win. Several times the other team almost took one of the VP's and would've only had to hold it for around 20 seconds. In: Replays
Thread: The OP utility of engineers. 10 Dec 2015, 14:22 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 16:03 PMKatitof Where are these popular strats then? I hear a whole lot about them, but haven't seen ANYONE do any kind of engi spam, maybe except Romeo who tried to RET spam, sprice who is sprice and does weird shit that somehow works but exclusively for him and Redxwings, who usually fails if he tries stuff like that. I hear a lot about how heavy REs were OP, but not once faced heavy RE spam-the apparently most powerful "engies are core" strat out there, at least according to forums. So, if these engi centric strats are so strong, why no one plays them? I bet a lot of people have tried RE spam, failed, and then went back to what they were doing before. Before the price increase, RE's were something like 20 mp to reinforce so if you could keep 6-8 of them going while not losing any then it would work out. As soon as you lose a whole squad then your cost is 40/model for the new one which is expensive for the low combat ability of a new squad. Also, in the previous patch you had to outnumber Grens at least 2 to 1 to win any of the early battles. If you had to retreat a few times you would dig yourself a big hole. I didn't enjoy it, even on the few games that I won. It felt like I lost almost all the battles but won the game because I didn't lose squads and simply out-capped the other player. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics10 Dec 2015, 02:27 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:46 PMcr4wler did the numbers myself as well Gamemode: 1v1 Timeframe (including): 29.10.15-2.12.15 Code Faction: Games won Games played Ratio OST: 1890 2920 64.72603% OKW: 1526 2453 62.20954% USF: 1721 2376 72.43266% UKF: 1357 1989 68.22524% SOV: 1073 1533 69.99348% (there could be minor mistakes in there, but i'm fairly certain that at least the math part is entirely correct) clearly the numbers for the axis factions are not as low as i said i remembered them, but, to be fair, i was talking about a different timeframe (since brit release, so basically starting 19.09.15 instead). especially if you look at that timeframe (19.09.15 until, lets say 29.10.15, so your start date) the numbers should come down to what i remembered them as. but even with your timeframe, all allied factions have significantly higher win percentages than the axis factions. and i guarantee you, if you go further back, the winrates for axis will go down further. on a side note, as others have already explained, these statistics are at least flawed, if not downright false, at least at times (see oct 31st for sov/ost). but since only relic has the "real", the useful data, we'll have to make due with what we have. The data you showed has a 63.6% win rate for axis versus a 70.4% win rate for allies. During that time, allies played 525 (9%) more games than axis. Normalizing for number of games played brought the difference down from 6.8% to 3.9%. I didn't get the data for the last week but it looks like about a 30%+ advantage for axis since the patch. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The game is too damn FAST10 Dec 2015, 01:40 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:39 PMOmega_Warrior or we can just stop letting teammates benefit from caches which is actually the problem. It's not like teamgames have more default points then 1v1. It's just that caches put out 4x the resources into the game then they would in a normal 1v1. Is there any doubt in your mind that people who play random 4v4's would start killing their own team's caches so they could get the extra resources for themselves? It might be funny to watch, but only from a safe distance as things go nuclear. If you want something like this, just reduce the added fuel or muni per player. Right now, a cache makes +20 total fuel or muni per team in a 4v4 instead of the +5 that it does in a 1v1. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: The game is too damn FAST10 Dec 2015, 01:34 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:56 PMLeodot I would expect that 4v4s will go much more than an hour, or 2, and that is not practicable. There are still only 500 VP's, and someone is almost always losing one every 3 seconds. Occasionally games go beyond an hour but that usually requires contested VP's to be uncapped at times. Resource inflation happens partly because capping is faster and partly because it's easy to build caches early in team games. Fuel and ammo drops help make it go faster also. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics9 Dec 2015, 14:33 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 08:00 AMJohnnyB This is rubbish. Statistics said otherwise. LOL - please show us any statistics that showed the game was unbalanced before the patch. In: COH2 Balance