...
I just provided the winrates of USF in 4vs4 games and they are doing as good or better than other factions. What makes you think that USF are worse than soviet or UKF in teamgames? |
And here is where the disconnect lies. People, if you want to talk about faction performance, you had ought to specify the gamemode you're talking about. As always, my comments are about faction performance...
-in 4v4
Win rates in 4vs4 last patch:
USF 48.5
UKF 47.9
Soviet 46.4
Top 200
UKF 47.7
USF 46.9
Soviet 46
Seem that USF are doing better than other allied factions... |
And this led USF to be in the place where it is. Because original unit design was changed, while core design ideas of faction were left. Besides PF abuse, the only saving grease of USF in teamgames, is min 0 forward reinforcement abuse, which is just as cancerous to play against.
That is inaccurate. The original designed had USF with limited access to support weapons so they either got light vehicles support or support weapons (because of that those those units where OP).
Facts. Problem is, even if we left alone the fact that literally all other factions have units to support mainline early and not go for x3/4 mainlines, before getting support units, Rifles aren't performing as 280MP mainline, especially when you have either 10MP cheaper IS or 10MP more expensive Penals, both of which out perform rifles straight off the bat + have support units to back them up straight off the bat as well.
USF get a T0 mortar which is a support weapon.
IS do not have a mortar as support weapon or snares or the mainline infatry and they have to carry the faction. Actually UKF are worse designed than USF so I am not sure why you want to bring them up.
T1 and Penal are also badly designed and one has to build time and MP on building T1 before having access to them.
As shown from stat USF are doing fine in 1vs1 and have higher win ratios than OKW/Ostheer so do not see any indication that faction is doing bad.
None of that changes the fact that Pathfinder should not have the role of mainline infatry. |
Easier access doesn't mean, they aren't relying mainly on inf. Other factions aren't relying on mainline, because ostheer and soviets have plenty of support weapons early into the game to mix or skip their mainlines. On top of having a lot of call-in options.
UKF can either spam mainline, chose one of the dozens of mainline replacements or even go for support weapons as well.
OKW can either go for PFs, STs, Volks or even stale with kubels until call-in elites.
What USF can do? You are still, no matter how you want to play will go for at least 2 rifle squads + officer, if you aren't picking PFs\Ass.Engis. Even with easier access to support weapons\LVs, your core army will still be made out of rifles and first 5 mins you will be playing with them almost exclusively.
The Faction had an original design that has being changed patch after patch. Same applies for USF.
Mainline infatry are supposed to be the core of faction army. Same applies for USF. |
...
USF on the other hand got dog-shit. Hell, faction which is supposed to rely on mainline exclusively didn't even receive late game MP bleed adjustments, while factions which rely on combined arms did.
...
USF stopped relying on mainline infatry and got easier access to support weapon with the Tech rework.
Fact remain that Pathfinders being used as mainline infatry is an issue that should be addressed. |
The intended use is close range with a vetted acc of 1.14, which SMG vetted or not is more accurate at its intended range? Why are you bringing up far accuracy in a question about short range unit?
1) because units do not suddenly appear at range 0-10 so they unit will do more damage while they are closing in and more damage when the enemy retreats
2) because there is also garrison where the accuracy bonuses actually contribute.
Because one should not describe an smg as "high accuracy weapon"
Generally speaking imo SMG troops veterancy should be more focused on durability and reinforcement reduction than damage output.
But every single example you gave involves RNG, damage reduction for Grens with a target size of 1 completely removes that at short range for Vetted PPSH, VET Para combines, VET SVT as they all have 100% acc or better.
1) The game is RNG based by design
2) do not always fire at target size 1 units in the open
I agree, but the game promotes saving VET, units losing a vetted squad to clumping which has nothing to do with skill is infuriating. Something as minor as 5% damage reduction could stop a full health squad from dying upon exiting a building or turning a corner
That is why mortar and small howitzer can no longer do 80 damage.
If one wants do reduce squad wipe potential of artillery piece they can change weapon and does not have to add damage reduction.
Certain weapon are meant to be able to wipe squads though.
They sure do, its just seems to be the one area where the damage reduction probably doesn't help as much as having a better target size.
The situation is a bit more complicated than that since the scoped rifle is a high accuracy weapon and damage reduction might not help against the "critical kill shot" but it might help to reach the threshold slower. |
Your right, for most cases it would just work as a dampener. However I am hyper focusing on highly accurate weapons(Vetted PPSH, Para Carbine, Penal SVT...).
PPSh is anything but a "highly accurate weapon" with far accuracy of 0.12
Every weapon should have a maximum damage they can do once you hit an accuracy of 1 if the target has a size of 1 which Grens do. AT that point the damage modifier becomes a CAP, again using the PPSh example as it is most relevant, each gun would get capped at 12.8 DPS and there is no way to increase that damage.
Accuracy, damage reduction, armor all have similar effects in the long run because in most small amrs fights the weapon do not fire with 100% accuracy.
If the above is correct, making damage reduction at various levels a VET bonus would have been a better way to balance all units. This would remove a lot of RNG from tank shots/120mm mortar/howi killing an entire squad in one hit giving a chance for counter play(SMASHING RETREAT)
Explosive weapons work different than small arms, since the accuracy of most of these weapon is too low to have a significant impact.
But yes damage reduction would work to protect infatry from these and that is why Grenadiers get it.
On the other hand neither the 120mm mortar nor the Pak howitzer do 80 so they can not kill entities with one shot.
The Game is RNG based so there is little wrong with RNG in general.
Once say Penals/Shocks get vetted isn't most if not all of the bonus from Mother Russia pointless aside from the rec acc?(Same for other highly accurate weapons for other factions)
1) depends on range
2) depends on enemy being in cover or not.
Also similar but not completely related, this could also be why OST has such issues with Pathfinders. As the scoped carbine is fairly accurate and Grens have a target size of 1, the shots have a great chance of landing and since they have sniper crit once the threshold is passed it partially negates the purpose of the Gren damage reduction.
Damage reduction comes at vet 3 and the problems exist way before that. |
You mentioning the K98s in response to him saying that IR STG has very good moving DPS creates the impression that the whole IR Ober squad does not have good moving DPS because of those two K98s. But they do, that's why I corrected it.
I am very sure it applies after the RA modification. I once tested a different approach to snipers by giving them >1 accuracy, but without the instant kill. On open field, they always hit the target, but once the target was in cover, they missed from time to time. Although I have the feeling that I specifically tested veterancy RA, I am not 100% that I really did. Cover RA is surely taken into account, so I assume model RA is as well.
Many of those coin flips however might not be as determined by chance as it should be, but also by netcode. At least if we assume that what Rosbone says is true, which it might very well be. For infantry fights, there's basically no chance of really determining that unless someone is willing to really dump a couple of hours into that issue.
Point was that one should be looking at total squad DPS and not individual properties, like:
"They both keep around 60% or better on the move. Stens/Thompsons/MP44/PG STG seem to do about 55% or less on the move so there chase potential seems to be a lot less."
Cover modifiers are properties of the weapon itself and not of the targets or users of the weapon so the mechanisms might be different. |
Although he talked about the IR STG, what rumartinez said is true though for the whole IR Ober squad. IR Obers have about 70% moving DPS in close range and 63% far, while their weapon distribution helps them to retain DPS better than some of the other squads that have been in this comparison.
I never claimed that STG Ober do not have good DPS on the move.
...The lower RA of the targeted squad will usually push the overall accuracy below 1 (to 1.12x0.77 = 0.86 in our example), which will not be capped and mean that the veterancy accuracy bonuses have the effect that they are intended to have.
..
I am not sure when or how the accuracy cap applies since I am under the impression that I have seen misses even when there should not be one. |
...
IR Obers have great DPS on the move for chasing, especially considering that afaik their modifier against retreating squads is still better than usual. The damage concentration also helps in that role.
Second point had more to do with the fact that one should be looking at total DPS of the squad from all weapon and not just one type of weapons or only one of its properties, (IR STG) in this case.
Actually exaggerating about STG Ober performance talking just about IR STG used to be quite common. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
