Profile of sherlock

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/il_sherlock_ll


Thread: t70 recon nerfs22 Nov 2018, 09:31 AM Jump back to quoted post22 Nov 2018, 03:14 AMmomo4sho Post complaining about t70 recon nerf using 222 + scopes as a comparison. Lets break everything down for you OP. 1) 222 spotting scope got nerfed long time ago. 2) you're using incorrect stats for your argument. the difference is not 3.5 range. lol 3) spotting scopes require doctrine selection. 4) t70 is a stock soviet unit 5) t70 is a million times more lethal than a 222 so getting high vet is actually extremely easy and takes 3 ATG shots to kill. I agree with the general statement that the t70 sight range was too much and needed toning down. For the sake of completeness however: 1) the 222's sight range is 91 with spotting scope 2) vet 3 222 sight range is 65, new t70 68.5, the 3.5 difference is correct 5) the 222 also takes 3 atg shots to kill (with vet), otherwise correct if it doesn't have vet 3 I'm surprised however that people are still using 222 spotting scopes when getting them on a 251 flame ht provides the same sight and the unit vets much faster (or rather used to) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 23:12 PM I'd also second a change to the m20 mine, disable is frustrating and the mine itself too expensive to be used early on. Switch it to a teller and adjust cost: win-win. I don't think removing shared vet would create any problems and think it should be removed since the squads (Lt and Cpt) are capable enough to gain vet. Not so the major, however. If it is possible, the captain's received accuracy should be brought to the same level as rifles and Lt at vet3. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 10:36 AM Nvm In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 09:56 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 09:47 AMVipper I am under the impression you are looking things from of perspective how to optimize USF build order with the tech changes. Imo you should be looking things from of the perspective of how it compares to Ostheer tech options. You are mistaken. I am playing the mod and point out what I observe. I am looking at how the timing compares to how it is now (the unmodded version). I also realise the futility of these "bait and switch" discussions, which is why I'll refrain from entertaining them, within threads, if you wish to discuss this and other points further, please feel free to pm me. As it stands, the m20 is now less potent when it hits the field since the close range damage was reduced (for good reason) and hits it slightly later depending on build order. Its window of opportunity is notoriously short and potentially shortened, which is why I pointed it out. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 00:48 AM Jump back to quoted post20 Nov 2018, 18:53 PMmiragefla Your officer should still be arriving as the third unit if you're rushing for it. You might float a bit of MP, but you can also immediately build a team weapon off the bat, just delayed, which we found as a fair thing. You want map control/early combat power: you go with the 3 rifles. You want a slower, but more diverse start, you go LT then .50cal or have your Captain fast build delayed units. Or build an extra RE instead during the delay. I see the rational, I'll try and see with a couple more games. A couple of things I noticed: all first light vehicles had their cost increased by 50 manpower with the exception of the m20 (which had a 100mp discount with v1 and now a 50mp discount) due to the change to Lt and Cpt cost in comparison to vanilla pricing. I don't think it is a problem, but maybe something to be further tested. The M20 hits the field later now if one goes for a 3 riflemen start. The only build order that allows similar timing is 2 rifles, Lt, rifle, unlock, m20 which is a build that sacrifices a lot of map presence due to the high build time of the Lt and the delay of the 3rd riflemen due to the Lt tech as the third unit. I'm not sure if this is a problem either, but something that might require further testing. (Edit: I should have mentioned that this is in comparison to vanilla m20 timings) With a couple of games, I like most changes. I think nades could be bumped up to 20 fuel due to the added utility of smoke and the increase in starting resources. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog20 Nov 2018, 18:47 PM I'm not sure if I like the changes, but maybe I didn't try to get both officers on the field quickly enough. I still think that the cost for the officers should be lowered by about 5 fuel to allow them to be fielded as the 3rd unit, to offer a meaningful alternative to the 3 riflemen builds. The to counter balance the issue of both officers and then mayor being too cheap, at least one unlock can be required, which is exactly the 20 fuel difference. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog20 Nov 2018, 18:24 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Nov 2018, 17:03 PMVipper Is the mod team considering that some USF units should be nerfed with the proposed tech system to come in line with units from other factions? Examples: 0.5 has AP round from vet 0, is that really necessary since USF have access to both Bazookas and ATGS? Should this ability move to vet 1 like HMG-34/42. If the M20 is so cheap 240/20 should the crew come with bazookas, should it have higher armor values than 222, should it have access to mine that immobilizes, should it come out with vet 0 smoke? If the M15A1 is in the same tier with ATG and can be protected by them VS vehicles should be able to suppress while on the move unlike the 251/17 or the Quad. Should the M8A1 be so deadly? Out of all the units the M8A1 and m14a1 on the move suppression are probably the only things that might have to be looked at from a balance perspective. Putting AP and incendiary on the same level is a bit odd. One does +100% damage and the other 25%, the former reduces the reload duration by 50% while the latter does not and requires a lot better foresight and timing. I leave it up to you to figure out which one is which, the buff in penetration is about the same (9 vs 10). This ability is such a non issue with its near negligible effectiveness against infantry that probably no one would mind if it was moved to vet 1, but it's not an ability that ever overperformed. This is a call for homogenisation, which I am fine with, but it is not a balance issue. It is conveniently ignored that the difference in armour between the m20 and 222 is small (9 vs 11) and that the difference in health is a lot bigger (240 vs 320). This again is not a balance argument since the m20 has not been an issue ever since it was nerfed, this is another call for homogenisation where two very different units (one effective against infantry and light vehicles the other only against infantry) are compared, all differences ignored and then the difference in armour picked out because they both have 4 wheels. The smoke argument is odd, since all light vehicles (that have it) get smoke at vet 0 (the only exception being the m8a1, which is a t4 unit). Personally I'm all for locking it behind vet 1 for all light vehicles. I'm all for changing the mine to a teller clone, imobilisation is frustrating to face and the mine often too expensive to use, so it would almost be a win-win. I've made that suggestion several times in the past. I do agree that the m5a1 should potentially lose its on the move suppression. It has to be seen however if its performance needs adjusting after the change. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 13:44 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:59 PMVipper That is simply incorrect, currently in live Ostheer and USF mortar are almost identical. "almost" is not identical, is it? No one will dispute that the ost mortar is the strongest. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:59 PMVipper The bugs where fixed by "July 28th Hotfix", yet by March 28 it was deiced ti was op and it was nerfed. Even if one toned down USF to be a "wer clone" vs 4 entities the USF would still have an advantage because their option to flank an enemy position if much better than wer who is forced in more static type of game by faction desing. Your original post made it out to be the fact that rifles are stronger was the reason why the mortar in usf hands was too strong, when it is clearly the mortar that is too strong period when going up against smaller squads, that was the thing I was pointing out. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:59 PMVipper I never claimed that Penal where given flamer (those where available for year with no problems), I said Soviet where given a "rifle company riflemen" type of infantry in the patches penas only more powerful since 6 men entities, flamers and ourah combination. I quoted your original statement in my response. Your exact words were: "Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam)" Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:59 PMVipper The intention has been to give this unit a more devastating anti-infantry and emplacement profile. Stats reflect a less potent Brumbar, with the upside being that the 105mm is turreted. Using an established and known unit to describe how one aspect of a unit will perform (here the damage) doesn't mean they are the same, it simply means they use it to describe it with something that is known. They also highlight the difference to the brumbar in the very part you highlight, it is less potent (the gun), all other differences (health, armour) are still the same. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:22 PMVipper What makes it even less logical is the fact that it can become available by a simply MU upgrade of the normal Sherman. I assume you're referring to the mechanised company ability. The munition upgrade doesn't give the sherman the dozer gun, it gives it only the dozer in front of the tank which boosts it health and gives it the ability to clear obstacles and build barricades. Back to topic: I've had a chance to have a couple games with a friend. The initial observations remain: the Lt cost should be lowered in my opinion to open up builds. The m20 feels more viable but the mine is still a sore spot: too expensive to use it when playing usf, too frustrating when you face it and see your tank completely disabled. My suggestion here still is a teller clone. I am not sure if it is necessary to lower the cost of nades. I'd rather keep the costs high but make the upgrade for light vehicles global and therefore making backteching (having both lieutenant and captain and all vehicles available cheaper but unlocking the vehicles for one officer with vehicles still as expensive) and therefore open up more builds. Maybe I'm a bit biased by my own mod (inspired by Lago's ideas in another thread), but I'd agree with others that the officer should be more expensive in terms of manpower. I would also set the research time for the officers identical to the build time of a rifle since they could/should replace another rifleman squad. The unlock of the light vehicle should then be the remaining time so that the overall research time does not change in comparison to the current system. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 11:30 AMVipper Prime examples: Wer had the best mortar because it suited its combined arm/defensive style, a similar mortar was gives to USF and was completely broken since USF already had the best mainline infantry. Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam) Moving to your example with UKF now, adding a mortar to UKF even at Soviet level will also prove disastrous because UKF will be better than Ostheer defensively (Tommies with heal, spot, duel lmgs, emplacements...) will have indirect fire support and powerful "off maps" like base howizters and doctrinal abilities/units. If one gives a mortar to the UKF faction one has to tone down the rest of the faction to Ostheer levels. One has to either make all faction very similar and start rebalancing or makes changes keep in mind the strengths and weakness of each faction. What one should not do is go with "grass is greener on the other side of fence" approach taking the best of faction and giving it to another with a completely different design. (see turning Dozer into a Brumbar, Stormtrooper into commandos, M4C into T-34/85 and so on...) The stated examples are somewhat poor and there is quite a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation contained within. The Ost mortar is still the strongest. The issue did not arise because USF had strong mainline infantry but because a mortar that was designed to go up against 6 man squads now went up against 4 man squads and for that reason, understandably, overperformed drastically. The same way the ost mortar somewhat overperforms against squads that are smaller than 6 men. Penals were never given flamethrowers, they had them when the game launched, you can see them in IGN's original review (https://youtu.be/QH7kFOrnYoo?t=158). The DshK, sherman call-in meta was when Penals had already lost the flamethrowers in the run-up and during GCS 1. The dshk was then addressed only last December after it had become a dominant meta (after GCS). "grass is greener on the other side of fence" I see this expression being tossed around ad absurdum to oppose any and all changes. While I do agree that not everything should be homogenised between factions, the two examples made are rather poor again since they only focus on one aspect while completely ignoring all others. In the case of the dozer, the only thing considered is the projectile and aoe profile, completely ignoring, health and armour which are the other aspects that make the brumbar powerful. For the m4c it's again only its potency against tanks while completely ignoring the bigger health pool the t34 85 has or the fact that it is a toggled ability that lowers reload. If anything the unit is more distinct from the t34 85 than ever since it also loses its soviet veterancy (which is stronger) for the usf one. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 09:29 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 09:20 AMEsxile In the mod, you can do 2xRE + 2xRM 3xRM + Lieutenant 2xRM + Lieutenant + 1xRM or anything else such as mortar, HMG or Pathfinder. There is also the grenade unlock, I haven't tested it but grenade before lieutenant is also a consideration. No, you can't do the 3rd option, because you'd float manpower. And that's exactly why I said Lt should be 20 fuel and the 10 fuel put into the unlock tech for light vehicles In: Lobby