Profile of Farlion

You earlier in this thread: "T4 is hideously bad. It's completely useless in 1v1, and I'd argue just as bad in 2v2."

You literally said it's useless. Then a few minutes later all of a sudden "no one" said it? Holy shit man, get yourself checked.

It's ok, I'll explain nice and slow so that even you can follow the nuanced point I was making. I know reading comprehension and critical thinking aren't for everyone, which is ok. We all have our limits.

T4 is bad. By that I meant the overall state of it and its viability in 1v1 and 2v2. I never said the units themselves are worthless or even the problem per se.

I follow that up by going into detail about the specific units.

"Panzerwerfer is just woeful compared to other Allied rocket arty. Rockets take forever to land, and it's utterly inferior to either the Katyu or Caliope. "

I say the Werfer is bad by virtue of the performance of its Allied counter-parts.

"Brumbär would be a decent unit if it wasn't coupled with expensive costs. You can get two Ostwinds for the price of one Brum, and I don't see a single situation where a single Brum would be a better option than two Ostwinds. Especially because the Ostwind has a turret and can blitz."

I said the Brum is a decent unit, but the problem is it's cost and that two Ostwinds do the job better and are more flexible at the same time.

"Same with the Panther. It's performance isn't necessarily the issue. But the Panther is a pure AT unit (don't give me "But the MG1!111!1"), and for the price of one Panther I can almost get 3 Stugs. Are the StuGs reliable IS2 or ISU killers? No.
But then the Panther has its own issues (namely its slow ROF and miserable moving accuracy). Again I'd argue that, whatever I'm facing, those 2-3 Stugs will perform much better than a single Panther."

Again, same as above. It's not a bad unit. It's just not as good as what I can get for its price.

So an ELI5 just for you, so that you can comprehend:

T4. Useless because cost.
Werfer. Bad because Allied counterparts = better.
Brum. Decent, but not worth the cost. 2 Ostwinds better.
Panther. Decent. Not worth the cost. 2-3 Stugs do job better.

Should I make it simpler, or can you follow now?

I think you need to check your maths.

I knew someone would be unable to follow and force me to explain it.

3 StuGs = 270 Fuel

1 Panther + T4 Cost = 235

Could you get anymore biased?

Anyone who thinks main gun crits or abandons are fun has never lost a high tier match due to it.i think Serrith’s post sums it perfectly.

All other game modes have their own set of bad maps, but the current selection of 2v2 maps is horrifically bad. In other modes you at least get enough vetoes there to block the bad ones. In 2v2, you have maybe 5 out of 14 maps that range from decent to playable.

The biggest issue is that most of the maps are just so incredibly tiny. Almost a third of all 2v2 maps follow the same concept: A left lane, a center lane and right lane, with no room to flank or maneuver whatsoever, resulting in a couple of choke-points that are incredibly dull to play against. (See Alliance of Defiance, Road to Kharkov, Market, Rails and Metal and Poltawa.)

Then you have maps like Crossing in the Woods which are decent in design, but just way too small to be a decent 2v2 map(Nevermind certain factional imbalances on it). It's a 1v1 map that somehow is in 2v2. Why?

Also, a special mention to Road to Kharkov, a map everyone knows is incredibly biased against the north spawn, but somehow still managed to stay in the map pool all these years. Heck, even Tros-Points somehow stayed in the selection for years until they removed it a few months ago.

I just don't understand why 2v2 maps in particular are so atrocious when the map selection in other modes isn't anywhere near this bad.