Profile of Storm Elite

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 246

General Information


Thread: How to counter heavy OKW blobs (or blobs in general)13 Oct 2018, 17:53 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Oct 2018, 07:31 AMIsmeckye It's EXACTLY the same in CoH2 but you need to mirco it yourself. Good luck losing every engagement with an HMG because you clicked on empty ground and caused the HMG squad to tear down instead of retargeting. At no point should an extremely vulnerable setup squad that requires precise positioning and actually helps enemies it suppresses take less damage require manual retargeting, where each click has a too-high-to-be-worthwhile chance of causing the team to tear down and forced to retreat or be immediately slaughtered. This happens all the time to everyone. I've murdered enemy HMG squads who accidentally tore down instead of retargeting (it was obvious the player was trying to target my squads on the opposite side of the arc from my currently suppressed squad), have had mine forced off while at full health, etc. all because of this absurd approach to suppression. The very concept of suppression fire is that you're laying down imprecise fire across whatever area you believe enemies to be in to prevent them from firing back. A machine gun crew trying to snipe a single soldier (or squad) while a dozen squads are rushing at it along open ground is idiotic both in game mechanics terms and immersion terms and every other imaginable terms. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: How to counter heavy OKW blobs (or blobs in general)13 Oct 2018, 02:34 AM I'm going to keep repeating this until it's implemented: Make machine gun teams work the same way as in Dawn of War II! Where the HMG squad suppresses EVERYTHING in its arc of fire because the gunner is basically constantly throwing the gun left and right across the entire arc -- why? Because that's the whole point of machine gun setup teams: to hard counter retards who blob. This isn't OKW-specific. USF create Rifleman blobs with bazookas, Soviets create Penal and Guards blobs with PTRSes, etc. And not a single blob is ever countered by machine guns because of the idiotic decision in CoH2 to make machine gun setup teams only suppress the single squad they're shooting at and maybe, once in a blue moon, a squad directly on top of that one, but absolutely none of the other 6+ squads standing perfectly still in the middle of the HMG's firing arc. It's absurd and contributes immensely to how heavily HMGs are underperforming across the board. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: So Axis SMGs really are intentionally inferior?12 Oct 2018, 18:01 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Oct 2018, 15:31 PMTobis They're cheaper. /thread ...I don't know why I even bother. Price means literally nothing because resources are infinite and dependent only on time and nothing else. Arguments about something being "cheaper" mean absolutely nothing when talking about objectively observable flaws. For instance, if you were to make the T70 take damage from bullets and make it cost 50 manpower and 10 fuel, it would become 100% suicidal just like the 222, and the quantity you can put out would mean absolutely nothing. Same with SMGs. Weapons that only deal damage in melee range are not viable, at all. Shock Troops are an exception because they're "armored". Dane is right when he says there's no incentive to bring out SMGs and that the game is dominated by rifles, assault rifles, and LMGs, because when your weapon does nothing until you get in melee, even flanking does nothing, because a rifle unit can just turn and fire at your flanking SMG unit and kill it before it gets into range to deal any damage. For crying out loud, stop using cost as an argument. It isn't one. It means absolutely nothing. Balance is about objectively observable performance, the kind you can observe in labbed situations where you spawn units in using the admin console without any regard to the cost of anything. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: So Axis SMGs really are intentionally inferior?12 Oct 2018, 15:10 PM Just watched this off the home page today: Is what Dane saying accurate? Is the reason Assault Grenadiers are complete and utter trash and always have been because Allied SMGs get an assault rifle profile, while Axis SMGs, including the ones Volksgrenadiers now get in Feuersturm, get a different profile, which is what makes them such trash at anything other than melee range? So all the Allied units with SMGs get to run and gun through open fields and actually be effective, while Axis SMG units need to pull of nigh impossible feats of flanking to do anything at all? And are the new Ostheer Stormtroopers going to have an SMG profile or an assault rifle profile? Assuming what Dane is saying is correct, this is just further proof that Axis, and Ostheer especially, are simply intentionally designed to be inferior, given issues like this and the fact that the 222 "armored car" is STILL not actually armored to this day. What excuse can there possibly be for just blatantly making Axis weapons and units objectively, observably worse? Not in terms of tournament win/loss ratios, not in terms of vague theorycrafting balance discussions, but in terms of objectively observable facts (i.e. weapon profiles of SMGs and absence of actual armor on an armored car). Why don't Assault Grenadiers and SMG Volks get to have the sheer destructive power of Allied SMG squads? Like, crap-your-pants-while-hitting-retreat power, the way Allied SMG squads interact with Axis units? Why do Allied light armor units get to drive around the entire map and into an Axis base without taking literally a single point of damage, while the 222 blows up from base MGs while trying to finish off a sniper? And the overarching question that covers all of this: why do Allied factions get to pose a GRAVE THREAT to Axis players, yet Axis units pose NO THREAT to Allied players? I personally have never known anything about weapon profiles, and to anyone else who didn't, this Dane video is going to be a revelation of epic proportions that showcases just how blatantly unfair CoH2 faction design is. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Adjustment of building covers12 Oct 2018, 05:08 AM I mean, SMGs already do fair damage against garrisoned squads by sheer virtue of their rate of fire at such a close range. You're supposed to get flammenwerfers or mortars or throw grenades to deal with units in buildings. What you're asking for would basically remove the need for the aforementioned garrison counters which have existed in Relic's tactical RTS games since vanilla Dawn of War II, while simultaneously breaking multiple units (Assault Grenadiers would go from useless to godlike, Commandos would instawipe garrisons, etc.), oh and probably kill Ostheer completely (LMGs are only truly viable from garrison windows due to the absurd target acquisition and other pauses Grenadier LMGs incur when outside). Doesn't make any sense to change this, either for weapons or for squads. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW UP?29 Sep 2018, 17:51 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2018, 10:30 AMTactical Imouto Yeah its so UP it had the highest winrate in GCS LMAO This is the most absurd fallacy ever, yet I see it across all game forums, from MOBAs to RTS to FPS. Win rate means literally nothing. You cannot and must not, ever, adjust balance/redesign around win or loss rates. A character/faction/unit/weapon in a game can be literally a Godmode hack, killing every single enemy instantly from across the entire map, and it could still have a 50% or 30% or any percent win rate due to player actions. When something is underpowered or overpowered, it's objectively obvious. It's evident from observation, in an isolated scenario without tactics/player choice/map selection/etc. and without the need for statistics. The moment you bring win/loss rates into it is the moment you go off the rails and start overnerfing or overbuffing things based on completely arbitrary, temporary state of multiplayer gameplay that depends on random factors and player decisions, not unit/character/weapon performance. Please, just stop using this flawed argument and try actually reasoning from first principles for once. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What is the point of the OKW Flak Half-track right now?29 Sep 2018, 17:42 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2018, 09:10 AMgbem 1. the flak HT is fragile... but it can and will stop a blob of 3 squads... A blob, maybe. A properly spaced three squads? While taking two full volleys to maybe suppress one of them? Yeah, no. And no, I wasn't talking about units in cover. It currently can't suppress one unit out in the open, without even yellow cover, in two volleys. That is not balanced, at all. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Teller mines and OHKs29 Sep 2018, 07:18 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2018, 07:12 AMgbem no need to reduce the cost... just reduce the damage by around 40 or 60... that ways a teller isnt an OHK but will significantly cripple anything thats hit... ...do you not understand how balancing works? If you reduce the damage output of something, you have to reduce its cost. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What is the point of the OKW Flak Half-track right now?29 Sep 2018, 07:06 AM Have any of the players in this thread actually used the flak half-track recently? It literally doesn't suppress anymore. Check for yourself. Two volleys -- nothing. I'm not going to go digging through patch notes, but it's pretty obvious it was overnerfed at some point. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Teller mines and OHKs29 Sep 2018, 03:40 AM I'm ALL for nerfing its damage and reducing its cost to 30 munitions. Mines NEED to be laid as early as possible, and Tellers cost too much to start planting in the earliest stages of a match when Pioneers run around unopposed capping and building stuff. I've literally been playing OKW more lately purely because I've been exploring defensive play and wanted to mine heavily, which I can do with Stormpioneers starting very early. Of course, OKW mines are trash because they're triggered by infantry, but it's still more fun and more flexible to be able to plant mines earlier and in higher quantities than the situation with Teller Mines. And in general, more AT mines = easier to defend your base and other key areas against brazen armor rushes. So aye, I'm all for it as long as the cost is lowered sufficiently. In: COH2 Balance