Profile of Doomlord52

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 960

General Information


Thread: Finally patch is live19 Jan 2021, 03:48 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Jan 2021, 01:28 AMGoldenpunch LOL. Just fix it guys Same issue for me; can't play any mode. Tried verifying files, but no luck. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Changes for Next Patch14 Jun 2020, 07:18 AM 1. Remove all off-map "recon flares" (UKF, OKW, etc.) and replace them with recon planes. Flares have no counterplay, and just aren't interesting. I'd even argue for removing on-map flares (Sov mortar, etc.), but that's another discussion. 2. Tommy Bren LMG "Ready Aim" times increased - I'd probably match them to the Guard DP28's times. This makes them a little less "mobile" as it takes longer for them to turn, setup up, etc. This also makes flanking more powerful. I'd also lower base moving Accuracy to at least 40% (from 50%). 3. Increase sturmtiger range by 5, to compensate for its low projectile arc (it hits the ground a lot) and incredibly obvious wind up animation (and lack of turret) when compared to the AVRE. 4. T34 "RAM" re-worked. Firstly, snares/stuns/mines/etc. need to cancel it while "ramming". Secondly, either the "wind up" time (when it revs its engine) needs to be increased, or the max range needs to be decreased (or a combination of both). Thirdly, what it does on impact needs to be made consistent; no more RNG engine/weapon/crew damage. 5. Mortar pit re-worked. Firstly, the mortars need to be forced to fire in 'alternating' pattern; one fires, then half-way through reloading, the other fires. This makes the damage consistent, and also prevents both mortars from hitting at the same time, insta-wiping squads from full HP. Secondly, the 'auto-fire' range needs to be decreased to either 75 (USF Mortar) or 80 (all others). This would make the pit much less of a "set and forget" unit, as it would need micro to perform at its best. To compensate for this, a clone of Ost's "Counter-barrage" could be added to vet 1; this would give it back its 90 auto-fire range, but it would ONLY auto-fire at other artillery. Additionally, turning counter-barrage off should put a ~5s cooldown on barrage and smoke (to prevent spam). 6. OKW Flak-HT given "AP Rounds" toggle ability. The intention is to make med-truck builds more viable, as the Flak-HT could provide moderate AT support against the inevitable 'LV play'. The AP rounds would have a toggle time (a few seconds), and the ability as a whole would need to be on a cooldown to prevent spam (once toggled, it can't switch back for 20s). The AP rounds should have zero AoE, so they're useless against infantry, but moderate penetration values (50/60/70, far/mid/close). Since the Flak-HT can't fire on the move, it would be a purely defensive buff. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: FINALLY remove the MORTAR PIT!10 Jun 2020, 19:27 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Jun 2020, 19:01 PMSupport Sapper An unbrace mortar pit will not tank a stumtiger shoot. A vet 0 emplacement won't survive, but vet 0 with "improved fortifications" from 'Advanced Emplacement Regiment' will survive, as will a vet 3 emplacement (with or without improved fort). ST Rocket vs. Emplacements: 812dmg vet 0 mortar pit: 700hp vet 0 mortar pit w/ Improved fort: 910hp vet 3 mortar pit: 1050hp vet 3 mortar put w/ Improved fort: 1365hp In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Reworking 'Brace'4 Jun 2020, 21:16 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2020, 20:53 PMSander93 It could, but the game is already bad at communicating things to players and hidden modifiers should be avoided as much as possible. Anyway, the original point was that the Stuka in its current state is already very good against infantry and support weapons and even vehicles (as long as it doesn't get direct hits) and it's considered to be one of the best rocket arties - making it good against emplacements as well would simply make it become overwhelming. I don't entirely agree with this. Right now, the Stuka already has hidden multipliers, and additionally, does less damage when missing than on a direct hit. I'd argue that correcting that strange behavior is worth modifying the already existing hidden values, as the overall "hidden mechanic" count goes from 2 to 1. As for it being "overwhelming", this is entirely possible, but I would think base stat changes are still possible. The only thing that could be done imo is reworking it to be more like the Panzerwerfer (rockets get lower damage but deal AOE suppression) which would make it a lot fairer against infantry and team weapons (and giving OKW a proper anti-blob tool) and then moving the incendiary barrage to vet 0 or vet 1 and rework that into a garrison and emplacements counter. But those changes would be so significant that they likely will never happen at this point. I know I've asked this before, but would it be possible to get a description (even a vague one) of what is and isn't possible? There are many users making interesting and valid suggestions, but it's hard to know if they're worth discussing since (as far as I am aware) the community has no idea which are possible to implement, and which aren't. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Reworking 'Brace'4 Jun 2020, 20:41 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2020, 20:26 PMHannibal I suppose this will just lead to huge bugs or exploits. Do you just have to jump a squad in, click Brace and can jump out? Or is the squad garrisoned then. Does brace still have a timer or can you keep it this way as long as a squad is in there? Can the squad fire out of the emplacement? I am not sure this is such a great thing, although it might be interesting. The way I would implement it is as follows (provided it's technically possible). The brace action keeps its current cooldown timer/stats. The brace action requires a squad garrisoned to use, similar to the bofor's barrage. Clicking 'brace' disabled the 'leave garrison' action for the duration of the ability. If the structure is destroyed, damage is applied as it is with destroyed bunkers/trenches/vehicles. The first two points are identical to the Bofor's barrage, and I'm not aware of any exploits there. Similarly, the fourth point is also currently in the game. The only issue is with the third point, which I'm not entirely sure is possible to implement. I'm sure this idea isn't perfect, but I think it could be a good starting point. Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2020, 20:27 PMSander93 Not really, because that would let it reliably deal 600 damage from max to a mortar pit in a single barrage which is significantly more than the Panzerwerfer, which deals about 300-400 damage on a good barrage from medium range. In that case, couldn't the Stuka be given a specific damage table entry for UKF emplacements - something like 0.67x multiplier? This would result in a rocket consistently doing 402 damage on direct hit - and I don't see a way to get more than 2 rockets from single stuka to hit directly. Since there are only 3 main emplacements, I would think this shouldn't be hard to implement, from a 'work done' perspective. /edit I wasn't aware of the existing damage-table entries that you added to your post. While this does change things, couldn't they also be adjusted to allow for a consistent 400 damage per hit? It can fire over anything that isn't a two story building or a big patch of the tallest trees (that acts as a shot blocker). That's adequate for most mortar pit positions on 2v2 maps because tall garrisons or the tall tree shot blockers are very rare in those maps. I don't entirely agree with this. On many maps there are 2 story+ buildings that a mortar pit is quite effective behind. We also need to consider 3v3 and 4v4 maps, which have many buildings like this; the worst (I can think of) being City 17's North-East side. /edit You also added some points about 3v3 and 4v4. While these are valid, it's still necessary to bring them up specifically in the "brummbar vs. Mortar pit" discussion. I'd also argue that firestorm is an awful pick for OKW in larger team-games. Additionally, I'd still say that many 1v1 and 2v2 maps do have these shot-blockers. While they don't block shots from such a large variety of directions (compared to 3v3/4v4), they are still present, and block shots from many angles. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Reworking 'Brace'4 Jun 2020, 20:10 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Jun 2020, 19:49 PMdistrofio If brace were unlocked either by the RE garrison inside the emplacements or maybe can only be used if the empacement has half HP left... This is also a good point. Right now, brace is free with nearly zero downsides (stops firing and receiving repairs). Considering the amount of power (i.e. damage reduction) it gives, it should really have some sort of downside; be it a resource cost to use, or requiring a garrisoned squad to unlock. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Reworking 'Brace'4 Jun 2020, 18:39 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2020, 10:01 AMVipper On the other hand the "two shot" kill from the mortar pit should be remove either by changing the timing of the mortar firing or by changing one mortar to barrage and the other auto-fire. This seriously needs to be fixed. Thanks to horrible spacing, its entirely possible for a mortar to insta-wipe entire squads (OST 4-man squads) with literally zero reaction time for Axis, and with zero user input from the UKF player - it's insane. It needs to be changed so that one fires, and half-way through the reload the other mortar fires. This ensures round spacing, gives Axis some time to react, and prevents 'zero-input' squad wipes. Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2020, 10:27 AMSander93 The biggest problem is that OKW tech isn't very flexible. They usually need Mechanized, but back-teching to Battlegroup to get an ISG or two to counter the mortar pit is too expensive and time consuming. Ostheer can relatively comfortably avoid it and go for T4 and counter with a Brummbar or a Panzerwerfer (which can both shoot over obstacles and deal significant damage). On top of that a major issue is that the Stuka is consistently ineffective against emplacements because its rockets have 0 penetration, which means that when directly hitting the 5 armor Mortar Pit they will "bounce" and cause only a measly 40 deflection damage (maybe 60 because of the target table but I'm not sure if the 1.5 multiplier applies to deflection damage) rather than the full 200 damage (it has the same issue against units like the Ambulance). This makes it noticeable worse against emplacements than the Panzerwerfer. Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2020, 13:14 PMSander93 Because the Stuka is already very good as is and doesn't really need any buffs without reworking it, but that'd likely be too much of an undertaking at this point. It seems like the 'easy' answer is to give the Stuka 5 pen (not 50, as someone else suggested). This would essentially only change its interaction with UKF emplacements, while leaving everything else the same. Its very unlikely that the "direct hit does less than a miss" nature is the intended design. Alternatively, as you pointed out, OKW's tech is inflexible; maybe this should be addressed. The main issue, from what I can tell, is that going Med-truck leaves you too open to LVs, whereas going Mech leaves you without any strong sustained indirect fire. As LVs are essentially a given in any high-level match, this forces OKW into going Mech first, every time. One solution could be to give the Flak-HT an "AP Round" toggle (or timed ability) that gives it, for example, 60 pen - but zero splash damage. Due to the nature of the Flak-HT, it couldn't chase vehicles, but it could hold them off quite effectively. This could make Med viable against UKF in team-games, while keeping Mech unchanged. As a result, going med-first in these UKF/Sov match-ups would be viable, and emplacements less dominant. Lastly, I wanted to point out that the Brummbar is not a viable counter for emplacements behind shot-blockers. Its arc is fairly low, and will often hit either the structure or rubble when firing over it. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: UTT and the 2v2 meta - already stale?2 Jun 2020, 20:57 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2020, 20:44 PMKatitof I like how mortar pit went from useless popcap waste to most op unit in game without any kind of change exclusively because it was used in tournament on very tight maps where most of them are not even in automatch. Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2020, 20:45 PMT.R. Stormjäger Almost as if the people who think it's OP are absolutely clueless. This happens in a lot of games, and fairly often. While the map choice for UUT2 is interesting, changes to surrounding units (or other gameplay factors) can also dramatically influence gameplay choices. A great example of this is CSGO's "AUG", where it went from essentially unused to completely dominant in competitive play despite almost zero changes (a 4% price drop). Essentially, player perception and "meta discoveries" (i.e. learning new tricks) can cause changes in gameplay despite their being no stat changes. It's happened in CoH before; vCoH pios went from "basically useless" to "unstoppable insanity" when one player ('Mags' iirc) figured out Piospam - but there were no stat changes that caused this. In: Lobby
Thread: UTT and the 2v2 meta - already stale?2 Jun 2020, 20:37 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2020, 20:16 PMSander93 On the topic of the mortar pit it should be noted that the maps that were played most (Wolfheze, Elst and Arnhem Country) all have positions on the Allied side from which a mortar pit can cover 1-2 VPs with near impunity. As opposed to maps like Rails and Metal or Fields of Winnekendonk. It also surprised me to see even the best teams not even attempting to properly counter them (ISGs, flame grenades, etc.) and instead either tried to ignore them or used ineffective Stuka barrages. We're (essentially) back at the pre-nerf brace problem. While the mortar pit is counter-able, the amount of effort and resources required is massively disproportionate, and that over-investment leaves axis open to attacks from other units. This is especially problematic on the maps you mentioned, as it means investing heavily into indirect fire units, which aren't effective against mobile infantry or tanks, which make up most of the Allies armies. A mortar pit is 400mp and 8 pop. As you pointed out, the Stuka is ineffective due to brace preventing most damage, and even without brace, 2 direct hits (2 rockets) won't destroy it. As a result, OKW is forced into a sub-optimal med-truck play, in addition to spending at least 540mp on two LeiGs (one won't counter it). This puts OKW at an incredibly large disadvantage mid-game, as they'll have nothing other than Raks to counter the inevitable light vehicles. OST is in a similar situation, where they need to either micro multiple mortars (520mp), or vet them up to unlock counter-barrage (again, likely 520mp). The only other options are waiting until late-game, or investing in a mortar half-track (STUG-E is too late, and can be blocked by shot-blockers, not to mention its shorter range); however, MHTs are only available on the "Festung Support Doctrine" (which is terrible) and the "Spearhead Doctrine", which means you're locked into one doctrine every game. Basically, for 400mp and 8 pop, UKF gets both an incredibly resilient "MP Bleed" machine (that requires no micro) as well as a massive sink for Axis to 'dump' resources in to in an attempt to stop it. In: Lobby
Thread: SU-76 - A Slight Adjustment2 Jun 2020, 20:08 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2020, 19:52 PMT.R. Stormjäger Which has proven to be pointless since the Puma has aimed shot and a lot of mobility and smoke, same with AEC, while the su76 dies if it's caught out of position and dived. The fact noone builds the SU76 and everyone builds AEC/Puma is a good indication that range isn't the end of everything. TDs lose when they are out of position and dived on; that's supposed to happen. I'm not surprised when STUGs/JP4s are destroyed when they're caught of position and rushed/flanked, either. As for 'no one building' the Su76, that's simply because it's over-shadowed by better choices for each role. Against OST, early/mid game AT isn't needed since their LVs can easily be beaten by the T70 and/or PTRS upgraded infantry. Meanwhile, mobile artillery is better supplied by mortars and Zis-3s, which have the added bonus of saving on fuel. As a result, the AI power of the T70 is much more valuable when directly choosing between the two, when playing against OST. Against OKW, I'd argue that the T70's AI power is, again, much more important. Additionally, OKW's mid/late game units tend of have more armor (P4-J/JP4) than OSTs, making the SU76s pen too low to be effective once those mid/late units arrive. Essentially, the Su76 doesn't scale against OST. The problem is, the proposed buffs increase the SU-76's power in both roles. Its AI power becomes higher, due to more frequent barrages, and its AT power increases (indirectly) because its much more mobile - and less likely to be destroyed when out of position, or when its dived on. Because of this, and because of OST's lower mid/late game armor values (compared to OKW), that increased mobility means the SU-76 becomes more effective - making it a viable "spam" (i.e. when building 3+ of them) counter against essentially all of OST's T3 units, while simultaneously providing fire against OST's static units (MG42, Pak40, etc.). In: COH2 Balance