Profile of FelixTHM

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: cavalry riflemen16 Dec 2018, 06:05 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Dec 2018, 05:14 AMSkysTheLimit I didn't compare them. I literally just gave reasons why you shouldn't compare them. Then you decided to explain that a more expensive doctrinal unit performs better than a cheaper stock one. What a revelation. Pretty sure a whole bunch of the usual "Axis OP" screamers did. In any case, I'm not even entirely sure about cav riflemen strength at this point, since their stats aren't on the spreadsheet. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: cavalry riflemen15 Dec 2018, 17:43 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Dec 2018, 17:20 PMSkysTheLimit Well you can't nerf 2 units for the same reason when one of them is doctrinal and costs fuel and the other is stock and a cheap mp cost. Not sure if you guys are really comparing Kubel with the Jeep. One is trash and trades early game combat presence for capping really fast, and the other is a troop transport which has serious wiping potential as well as a very decent lmg upgrade which contributes a fair amount of bleed. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Let's talk about the scott12 Dec 2018, 19:13 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2018, 16:29 PMSkysTheLimit Do you think the Scott needs to be nerfed? Cause I said it was fine, so I really don't care if you disagree. It's not "simply incorrect", you disagree. Congratulations. Some of the best? First of all, why did you list 400 hp? Being a t4 vehicle with 400 health is not a positive, and it needs all the other things you mentioned specifically because its health and armor are so low... If I need OTHER AT assets to protect a t4 vehicle, that unit is by definition hard to keep alive. Your mistake is assuming I'm saying that there's something wrong with that. Snipers can be hard to keep alive too, and require other units for protection. By that nonsensical definition, even vehicles like Ostwind and Centaur are hard to keep alive. No dude, the Scott is insanely easy to keep alive. It's almost impossible to kill because it has a Stuart chassis while having long range, which puts it out of AT fire and makes it impossible to snare. 400hp is significantly more than any mortar halftrack or rocket artillery like stuka/pwerfer/katy. It's super fast, has small target size, and has smoke. I don't understand how you can even warp logic to the point that you can say the Scott is "hard to keep alive". You can disagree about its accuracy/bleed being too good, or claim its cost and tier justifies its performance, but no sane player could possibly claim that the Scott is hard to keep alive. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Let's talk about the scott12 Dec 2018, 04:08 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Dec 2018, 02:07 AMGrumpy I'm honestly not sure if the opinion of anyone here counts, other than Miragefla's. As for the 1v1 players, their ranks were in the low 100's. I would take their opinion with a little bit of skepticism. The 1v1 rankings are pretty stratified. There is a big difference in skill between people in the top 30-50 and someone in the low 100's. My best rankings in 1v1 were in the upper 200's/lower 300's. When I would play a 100 level player, I'd usually lose, but a lot of the games were close. When automatch would take too long and decide to place me against a top 10 player, it was a completely different game. Most of the time I would be out-positioned so badly that the game would be lost at the 10-15 minute mark. However, sometimes they would decide to test some troll strategy. Von Ivan once built 3-4 raketens against and used them to cap like crazy. It worked well for me until he decided to stop messing around when he was down to 200 vp's. He then completely wrecked me in the first serious battle. I could have came here and started a thread "Raketens OP", but they aren't. In the same manner, I don't think that Scotts are OP. Lastly, USF's early and mid game aren't in good shape. While the tech changes may help, it seems way too early to be asking for nerfs to a faction that hasn't even been shown to be competitive yet. I'm not sure how you decided on where the "cutoff mark" is for a player whose opinion counts. Most players in the 100s and 200s understand the game mechanics and general strategy of the game, but don't have the micromanagement ability to climb higher. In any case you are indeed correct that the 1v1 rankings are highly stratified - at rank 100 or so, I struggle terribly against top 50 players because their micro is much better, and meanwhile (contrary to your experience) I've never had a single close game against someone in the 300s because my micro is much better. The problem though is that you dreamt up a scenario in which rank 100 players were losing badly to Scotts plays and hence claiming that it is too strong. I could do the same hypothetical BS and imagine that you lost a Scott to a single Panzershreck squad, and hence think the Scott isn't good at all. I use Scott-Jackson-Pershing every single USF game - it might be a playstyle issue because I can get careless with my rocket artillery (which dies to 1 rak shot), but the Scott never dies, so that's why I rate the Scott highly. And I do think that's the general thrust of most arguments about the Scott - it's very low on micro-tax since it has deadly auto-fire with good range, and gets away from trouble extremely easily because it has a light tank's speed and needs 3 shots from a tank or at gun to kill. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Conscripts need to be cheaper12 Dec 2018, 03:38 AM I often get 1 cons squad to build sandbags and to merge with team weapons/Guards squads. The slight penalty to received accuracy is well-worth the staying power of a super valuable squad and/or a massive discount on MP costs. Generally I never open Cons unless my mind is set on going Guard Rifle. In fact I feel it pigeonholes me into choosing Guard Rifle because the Cons I built for early game presence would be trash if I didn't have PPSHs. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Let's talk about the scott10 Dec 2018, 15:08 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Dec 2018, 12:26 PMblvckdream I dont even want to answer to you. You are just being silly now. He said no one picks USF because they are not good and then you twist his words around and make it look like he said USF is OP and ez win. What´s the point? Thanks for reading my earlier post blvckdream. I actually think USF is in a bad spot atm because the late game potential often doesn't matter/can't salvage an already-lost game. I'd much rather play Soviets - far more versatile, with much better ability to handle as well as apply early game pressure, and a far more dominant mid-game with T70 and Guards (often with sniper). I do think the Scott is very good, and I use it often in 1v1 games - but I do often forget that the Scott isn't exactly cheap, so I might simply be evaluating it incorrectly. I suppose we'll have a new consensus on balance once USF revamp kicks in. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Let's talk about the scott10 Dec 2018, 09:54 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Dec 2018, 09:37 AMKurfürst Another reason why the Panther needs to get 200 damage with corresponding RoF nerf, to be able to do its job. That would make the Panther beyond atrocious vs medium tanks. It might also become worse vs heavy tanks, depending on how much the ROF nerf is. It would probably need 220 damage and a significant (30%?) ROF nerf, which would be a major rework of the Panther. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Let's talk about the scott10 Dec 2018, 09:49 AM So many people who don't play USF or have never played Axis (and hence never have to face USF) claiming the Scott isn't overperforming. USF late game is definitely top tier, with only maybe Soviets being even somewhat comparable. USF late game comp is simply insane and the Scott is a major factor. Puma needs 5 shots to kill the Scott (assuming no misses...haha) and the Scott moves extremely fast so it can easily reverse while other units back it up, and even if you manage to trade 1 for 1 the Puma costs more than the Scott anyway. The issue with USF is that early-mid game is so terrible vs OKW into Luchs, or vs snipers and Ost LVs, that generally getting to the late game is very very difficult. If USF early-mid issues ever get fixed through Riflemen buffs or through Axis factions no longer have dominating early-mid LV rushes, we'll start to see USF late-game really shine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why such a short range of IS2?!9 Dec 2018, 14:59 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2018, 15:52 PMAntAttack Maybe yes maybe not. The game is historically accurate on what regards to the design of troops, weapons, tanks... and how they look like and move. For sure it can be a bit historical accurate on balance, commander skills... and other aspects. Historically Tigers outranged SU85s. And the Soviet Union probably had 4 conscripts squad vs 1 Grenadier squad. People also die when you shoot them once, instead of when you shoot them with a light machine gun 20 times. Tanks often get destroyed by one penetrating shot. Tanks had more than 40 meters of range. Even a Kubel could drive over someone and kill him, but we can all imagine how BS it'd be if Kubel had crush. Stop obsessing over "historical accuracy" and learn to play the game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: King Tiger - Is it worth buying?5 Dec 2018, 17:44 PM KT actually inflicts massive MP bleed. For the owning player. That 26 pop cap eats a big chunk of your MP income every minute it's alive. In: COH2 Balance