Profile of Vuther

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Should UKF emplacements be fire resistant?5 Sep 2015, 19:56 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 15:23 PMRedT3rror Oh there are plenty of ways. You just have to use that thing on top of your shoulders and you might come up with something useful. Are you saying to find and bludgeon my opponent with my shoulderpads? Because I think the match will probably be over before I can find them. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 16:19 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 16:05 PMCorsin I dont really see the need for such a drastic nerf in MG42 damage, 0.4 would of made more sense... but with the dps nerf i hope the price goes back down to 240 too... The first post says the DPS nerf was reverted. In: Lobby
Thread: Patch Preview: Normal Volks Grenade gone5 Sep 2015, 14:39 PM I too would like it on SPs. Makes sense with their concept and role perfectly. Always bothered me the Sturmpioneers can't toss grenades until vet 3. I mean, one would probably have a better chance assaulting a building with actual grenades and a bolt-action rifle over having just an automatic rifle...there's a reason why modern soldiers keep using the former while they've also got the latter. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 14:03 PM Personally, I would have preferred they swapped the IS-2 and Tiger's speed, keeps them distinct - IS-2 would be the tougher, slower, heavier-hitting tank good at AT; Tiger would be a faster, more delicate, fast-attacking tank good at AI. Plus, the game's sense of logic generally makes weaker vehicles faster to compensate in survivability terms... Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 12:39 PMTheSleep3r I also have a simple question: when will descriptions for Tankoviy Batallion and Mechanized Armor Kampaneya be updated? My OCD ticks every time I read Tankoviy has traditional turreted tanks and Kampaneya has tank destroyers. Heh, yeah. Just swap their names and descriptions, please! In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 06:26 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 06:19 AMBurts Well the tiger buff was completely random and unnesecarry. Now it has more range than the king tiger or is2 and outclasses the is2 in pretty much every way. Has better armor pen faster RoF. and more range and is way better againts inf. Only thing is2 has now is more durability but that's. Hardly an advantage when you have better axis at.. Well, technically, the IS-2 is also a bit faster and its pen at close-range is better by 10. But the faster RoF would definitely easily beat that last point. In: Lobby
Thread: M5 Halftrack losing reinforce on upgrade5 Sep 2015, 04:35 AM I agree with the nerf in general, but it does kinda suck that Soviets' getting AA has only become less effective (much easier for all the other factions to get AA outside of doctrines, and none of them will have to be giving up forward reinforcing to do so). But just reverting the Quad buffs would have worked too. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 04:30 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 04:27 AMbC_ no the damage aoe profile means at the ranges (near / med / far) it will do the base damage x that. For example lets say the profile is (1 near / 0.5 med / 0.25 far) and the base damage is 100. at near assuming it is a hit and scatter is not a factor you will do 100 / 50 / 25 damage at the ranges. the changes to the HMG profile were to reduce the damage it did at ranges as it was looking like it was killing too many models thus compounding the "manpower bleed" of the USF. However like I said earlier with the buff to rifleman it did not seem necessary anymore. Ah, thank you. So it actually was what I suspected it should be at first glance, which I then assumed was not the case because I wasn't even aware the game had such a mechanic. Thank you very much for your time. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Preview Update 09/04/20155 Sep 2015, 03:19 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Sep 2015, 02:56 AMbC_ the change in itself was a very minor decrease in profile (0.05) With the increase in durability in rifleman it up it did not feel necessary to warrant the change. Speaking on that, I wanted to make sure I understood the change - it would have reduced the effectiveness of scattering shots which manage to hit another unit aside from the gun's main target as caused by focus fire being off on the gun, right? In: Lobby
Thread: About the comeback of the mortar pit...4 Sep 2015, 02:17 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Sep 2015, 02:12 AMcomm_ash I've been against the mortar pit since alpha. The biggest reason is because it goes against British Army design. By Relic's own admission, UKF is supposed to have the ability to play either with a mobile playstyle (hammer) or a defensive one (anvil). Forcing all players to use a static mortar just defeats the purpose of the hammer/anvil decision, since in most 1v1 games you are forced to get one as your primary counter to buildings. My fix is to add another hammer/anvil choice in UKF T2. 100mp for each choice. 1 path gets you the mortar emplacement for 350mp (to partially offset the hammer/anvil cost). The other path gets you a mortar halftrack or infantry mortar, which will give you shorter range, but mobile fire support. I personally enjoy playing the Brits offensively, but it is just impossible on maps like Faymonville where indirect fire support is a necessity. The mortar emplacement forces you to place troops guarding it. I like it! In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: About the comeback of the mortar pit...4 Sep 2015, 02:14 AM I really wish they made the thing a cheap and disposable indirect weapon that could be dismantled to refund some of the cost. Different flavour of mortar still, and not a dramatic feast-or-famine sort of unit. In: COH2 Gameplay