So do vanilla Cons still lose their vet 3 accuracy bonus? They don't exactly roll over anything in the live version, and if the SVT's get too strong at vet 3 then it seems like those should be toned down instead of all Cons.
To be clear Angelus main gun crits and other "bad" RNG (main gun crit in this example) should definitly be an option in casual matches or campaign, but it has no business in ladder.
I understand what you're saying, but would really be surprised if Relic agrees to it. I had one game that went an hour on Steppes. My team lost by a couple VP's because a plane crash killed my rifle squad on a VP and they capped with an engineer. I can see why a pro wouldn't put up with that, but also would be really surprised if COH ever became a e-sport.
Crits should definitely stay in the game. ...
And whilst pak howi nerf might be good for the 1v1 side, USF will get butchered in teamgames as the paks will no longer instill fear into static units. Pak needs an accuracy nerf, not a lethality one. Otherwise why not go double mortar (cheaper) and use that. Pak already needs a lot of XP to vet up. That combined with the scott nerf is strange.
Like a lot of things in the game, main gun crits were intended to approximate something that happened in real life. Sometimes hits on the mantlet would jam the mechanism so that the gun either couldn't aim or would aim at the ground. Relic probably considers that a core feature and is likely to not approve removing from the game.
I'd be fine if autofire was removed from the Scott, pack, and ISG. They should just have a attack ground and barrage. The range for those should be further than a mortar though, at least 100 and maybe 120.
It would probably be okay if mortars kept their autofire. The time to hit is longer and they don't seem to turn into the homing missiles like the pack, ISG, and Scott.
So you're telling me on a wire, with 150 Mbit/s D/U, latency is normal when there are no players from Asia, South America, Australia, South Africa and somehow it's on my end? It can be:
A) Packets getting lost in hops from my router, through the A1 (my provider in Croatia) servers(Telekom Austria Group), to the US server
B) The network code is written that it somehow effects who connects from where on the main server. Especially if there is some sort of synchronization (because a packet, to get processed and reach the US from China, takes much longer for the whole round trip than from Europe to the US)
C) Some other super rare reason I do not know of, probably the people at Relic don't know as well.
If something was wrong at my end, I'd know of it. Tested on a desktop in my home town and on my laptop (ROG GL702ZC). Same thing.
I sometimes have the same problem when playing with people from Asia, but it isn't all of the time.
I used to have it always when using CenturyLink DSL. I think they named it CenturyLink because of the ping time.
Stop playing statistics numbers or tests in a vacuum and start playing the game and you will see that the T-34-76 sucks.
It's classic vipper. You should know by now that there is no such thing as a underpowered allied unit. There are only underappreciated allied units. The only way to fix that is to nerf all of the other units from the underappreciated unit's tier until people use the underappreciated unit.
I actually think the T34/76 is fine in 2v2's or less. The T34/85 should be the stock tank for 4v4's. It's bizarre that Soviets have their 1942 units while axis have their 1945 units. But it's also bizarre that the ISU was somehow considered in scope but the JT and Elephant are not. I also think the feedback from anyone who plays Soviets in 4v4 is going to be really negative for this patch.
I dont understand why you are complaining about it, considering you will be able to face upgraded axis inf with 7th grade faster then before.
No, the 100/20 upgrade is in the live game. The only thing they did was eliminate the auto-unlock at T4 and tried to spin it by saying that they're giving us a choice. If they were wanting to make it better, they'd move it to being something that could be unlocked after T1 or T2 was built. As it is, it's a straight nerf.
We are decoupling this upgrade from tech. Our focus with this upgrade will be to make this a worthwhile choice for the player when deciding whether they want to rush for tanks or focus on a stronger infantry game.
How does was a triple nerf to cons make something a worthwhile choice? This patch is looking shittier by the minute.
You're not adding anything, and for those of us that use cons as a utility unit, this just makes them another 100/20 more expensive.
Heavy artillery (105MM,152mm,203mm,Sexton, and Priest) should limited to one like heavy tanks. This go a long way to help break up the Arty spam meta of 3v3 and 4v4
You could probably throw in rocket arty to this list (Calliope, Walking Stuka, Katy, etc).
I agree with this bit. I feel like emplacements and trenches should be tankier against AP weapons and weaker to HE weapons. A high velocity chunk of metal won't do as much damage to a dirt wall as a big explosion.
This change makes trenches worthless once the first TD (which now stands for Trench Destroyer) hits the field. It seems like another really odd change like nerfing the ISU. There haven't really been any threads about trenches in the balance section since the invisible UKF-only shields were demolished.
Why so much focus on the barrage? USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.
Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity.
These changes make it too similar to the MHT. I'd rather they gave the barrage a decent range like 120-135. The 80 range makes it just another mortar.
I do like the idea of switching the Calliope and the Scott. That would make the USF better in team games.
Relic Entertainment
