Thread: KV112 Mar 2021, 21:04 PM
That would be a significant nerf to the unit. Requiring a slow tank with a relatively weak main gun to gain vet just so that it can perform it's main role of being a sponge doesn't make any sense at all
Depends on how well it's able to perform its role as a damage sponge when it enters the field, really, and how much XP it requires for each level. I think there's some merit in an unit's Veterancy being tailored a little more to the specific unit/its role.
As other people have mentioned, the fact that there's nothing changing on the unit to imply an increase of health/armour is kind of an issue, though. Axis vehicles' HP/armour increases are generally indicated by them gaining Schürzen (except the panther, for some reason). I wish all bonuses were indicated on an units' model in this way... another thing to hope for in CoH3. |
This not exactly correct and there are many variables.
Before the patch when I tested vet 3 Lmg grenadier would beat 7 mean conscripts in cover to cover max range but 5 men vet 3 grenadier would lose more fight than they would win.
That can be explained because the DPS drop of Lmg grenadier was less.
I have not tested since the patch but I would guess that this would be similar since 5 men grenadier lost RA and Conscripts Accuracy.Conscripts can close in to grenadier and win the fight.
The best thing to do really would be to just record some tests, and demonstrate what you're saying. |
Thread: KV112 Mar 2021, 18:54 PM
I think if you were looking at nerfing/changing the KV1 the best place to start, as has already been suggested several times, would be to merely remove its DR and buff its health accordingly.
Alternatively, Perhaps it could be considered that the KV1 keep its current defensive statistics (Or maybe even have its HP/armour (the former, ideally) increased), and instead have its gun/turret nerfed in some way? Slightly reduced firerate, reduced turret traverse speed, even a small reduction in range. Being very survivable (And being very quick to return to combat even if it is forced away) is a kind of interesting niche.
The KV1 is ostensibly intended to be a "Tanky" vehicle, with the t34/85 being Soviets' "brawling" premium medium in comparison, so it may be worth leaning further in that direction if you want to differentiate the T34/76, t34/85, and KV1 even more from one another.
The only issue i forsee is that the tank's gun needs to have a minimum level of threat, or there's very little reason to target it over a squishier, and more damaging vehicle, which would render its improved survivability rather pointless. |
The STG is all gravy though. If 4 Men Grens beat 6 Men Cons at long range then 5 Men Grens beat 7 Men Cons. DPS doesn't dictate an engagement (RNG does) but it's still a pretty good indicator of the average result. SO if STG has a higher DPS at mid-long range then by definition that means on average they'll perform better on average at those ranges than G43.
Its perhaps worth considering that the 7man upgrade comes with a pretty sizable decrease in reinforcement cost, too, which helps make Conscripts incredibly cost efficient. Whether or not one unit "beats" another in a 1v1 isnt the whole story.
That said, I don't think the VSL changes have killed the upgrade, it still seems like it'll be quite good. The only upgrade I'd argue is bad for Grens is the G43 upgrade, which doesn't really give them anything worth having. |
(Posting this here because other people already did so with the other stuff anyway.)
Firstly out of respect for the coming tournament this weekend I recommend we all cool off until Monday. It is everyone's interest to take a break from this and give some room to breathe.
Thank you to everyone that has kept this civil and just wants the best for the integrity of competitive CoH, I appreciate none of this including the process has been ideal, but we're all doing the best we can. Many community members have put a lot into analysing the situation and attempting to be unbiased.
I had a lengthy talk with Seeking today to talk through new evidence, and give him the heads up also. We discussed the new information, the process, and what would be the fairest way forward. He has agreed to make this conversation public. We will iron out this situation for good next week.
The link between him and his uncle Deadbolt, who he previously admitted to playing on the account of in the past and was temp ML banned for boosting in automatch. This is now serious and relevant. Deadbolt has **three VAC bans** across his dozen or so Steam accounts, the link between these is in the video announcement. It has been shown that Deadbolt played as 'Satup' recently with 100% obvious map hacks.
It has also been shown by multiple people analysing the situation the replays in which Seeking is playing on the Deadbolt account, not just game skill but raw actions per minute. Seeking plays at a super high 100-130, Deadbolt at 30-60. This now shows Seeking is the player in clips people were saying it was Deadbolt instead as a defence.
Kimbo is no longer suspended and can play in ML events as before.
There are now some videos showing the strength of the follow camera tool in replays.
Video announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzkzK7OK0lE
Discord announcement: https://discord.gg/jxzEqyBBGx
Convo with seeking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49i9uiDuw4
Seeking on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/944289397
Deadbolt map hack video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8W069TU4e0
FoW proof replay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOzScTKOdkc
FoW proof game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJWI50cv2Ug
Updated evidence document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kmaAUD06reJOxMx3Xd2_fqpWh7HCVF2Pzs4GTWlCc8k
CPM: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tfoZ_HzsEI1-HrQczKFGjfGovfZSYTV3jtP-zhj0zj0
The fact that Deadbolt is provably a cheater, and Seeking shares his account, is making me a lot less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. |
I never tested my input lag, dont know anything about ping or any related numbers... i only care if i can play the game on any given day or not so i cant answer your question. All i know is that very fast reactions are possible.
I mean, sure, fast reactions are possible, but what seems to be demonstrated in some of these clips are genuinely inhumanly fast reactions. |
Generally, yes. In all clips about the edge of the los and seekings fast reaction the main focus was on the unit, probably selected already and a very fast reaction like shown is possible (which is just muscle memory, thers no need no think about what to do)
Input lag is on/off, some germans have it some dont, some can fix it with vpn some dont so i have no idea how this would inluence these situations.
The problem is that Seeking started reacting before he had los which is either a hack or replay inconsistency.
Assuming Seeking says the truth about him being able to spot the units unlike shown in the clips on the edge of the fow the fast reaction possible without input lag.
I wonder if its possible to have replay inconsistency cause the opposing player saved the replay instead of seeking?
There's a bare minimum amount of input lag that literally any player will have simply due to how networking functions, and there's 1/5th of a second (or thereabouts) of reaction time to take into account, even if Seeking has "very fast reactions". If the replay isnt significantly desynched, then I don't think it's a reasonable thing for him to have "Reacted" to. FoW would have to be quite different in the replay to how it was in the live game for it to really make sense.
If there's an inconsistency with the replay, I'd have thought it more logical that the opposing player would appear to react slightly /slower/ than they "actually" did, rather than more quickly?
I think we need more data points/a thorough examination of Replays to know for sure one way or another tbh.
My best guess:
The smoke animation is curved and makes it look curved.
Yeah, that's all I'm seeing here too, at best. Again, shots simply don't "curve" unless they've actually hit an unit through an accuracy roll, so it's kind of a moot point since it DIDN'T HIT THE t-70. |
Indeed.
I didn't watch the whole stream but from what i remember from 2 clips, he basically said he LITERALLY saw the squads and therefore acted upon that (even though the replay doesn't show it). It's the AssG sprint part and the cancelling of the Volks sandbag. Not sure if there are more.
Some of those sorts of clips are pretty hard to gauge, honestly. There's some disagreement on precisely how accurate replays are in terms of FoW (Though I haven't seen much to indicated that it's fantastically desynched).
Being generous, the fastest you should see one of his units "react" to something coming into view would be (200~ms + input delay), with the 200ms being the average (single stimulus) reaction time. For clips like the Volks stopping constructing sandbags, he's clearly faster than that, but if the FoW on his end wasn't the same as what we see on the replay, it... could be possible?
There's also the possibility in that particular case that he just stopped the sandbags because he got cold feet and was expecting the Paths to arrive soon... but he outright stated he reacted, so that option's out.
I'd really like to know exactly how accurate replays are, but I dont think there have been any thorough stress tests done.
Snip
Again, yeah, this particular instance with the T-70 really doesn't show what its being suggested to show. The shot doesn't connect with the T-70, and it doesn't even seem to visually curve from what I can see. This particular instance is not indicative of some sort of "Targeting hack", in my opinion. |
The last part you are inventing it.
What happened was that vet bonuses were lost upon models dying. It didn't re-apply after reinforcement. But since offensive vet bonuses started to kick in late into the game, there were plenty of other factors which increased lethality.
You have to take into account we didn't have the same tools as we have now.
Ahh, that was it. I'd seen people talk about it before, but they didn't precisely specify what they meant about "Veterancy loss on reinforcing". Thank you for clarifying, sounds like a very Lelic thing to have happened.
Hm, I wonder if it happens in CoH1 as well? CoH2 veterancy is ostensibly just "American" veterancy, after all. (Despite "simplifying" or "un-diversifying" the game a little bit, I think this veterancy standardisation was a really good idea. Kinda wish all factions had five levels of Vet, though.) |
It appears seeking has 5 different map hacks that all have the right hacking tools at the right time. In one game he can directly shoot non-attack ground shots at things outside its line of sight but a cloaked sniper in range of units cant be shot at for some reason... but cloaked at guns obviously can, makes sense.
Just activate the right maphack for each game ez
I'm not totally sold on the "Hacking" accusation at the moment, though I think this is a little misrepresentative.
The only thing that's really being suggested is that he might have some sort of cheat that lets him see where units are in the FoW (Either on the main map, minimap, or Tacmap), which would fit all of the situations that are being described. Whether or not he acts on information he /might/ (Again, I am not totally convinced) in a given scenario is kind of beside the point.
Except the idea that he can directly target units in the FoW, which is something I think only one person is suggesting, and there doesn't actually seem to be anything actually indicating that except the idea that one PAK shot in one video "Curved" (Despite it A: Not curving, and B: Not even hitting the target, so it couldnt curve even if it was directly targetted) |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
