Profile of UGBEAR

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 954

General Information


Thread: Invasion of maphackers has begun13 Jul 2013, 20:44 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Jul 2013, 19:52 PMZ3r07 it also has 10x the amount of players playing the game because it's free, and almost a pay to win, which I don't think can work for a strategy game. it's now becomes a pay to save sh*t load of time game, which is good In: Lobby
Thread: Nerf the building cover?13 Jul 2013, 20:34 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Jul 2013, 14:56 PMMadrRasha Hahahaha i wonder why u play video games Mr Realistic... i rly do... I just got no comment on ur post since u dont read anything u just answer blindly... THIS IS A GAME! its not real life... try not to mix that 2 up hotshot oh, now you admit "THIS IS A GAME", your logic serves you well....self conflict. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf the building cover?13 Jul 2013, 12:09 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Jul 2013, 06:17 AMWarMonkey how so on the flames? flames ignore armor and cover, and the building is nothing more than 3x green cover for the squads inside... thats what i remember the devs saying at least :/ IIRC, explosives and mortars have a damage bonus vs. structure in vCOH, ppl found out the building were too tough since alpha, the flamer ignores the armor and cover yes, but no damage modifier vs. structure in COH2......... I just don't want to see the game like everyone rush to the crucial building and then became literately invincible until the flamer arrives, and in COH2, pio/engineer with flamers ofen dies by explosion of the gas tank with out pass it to another squad member, which makes the flamer weapon very risky against buildings( flamer M3 not included) and.............. grenade seems do minor damage against buildings as well, camping in building with nearly no risks in early game is just silly....... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf the building cover?13 Jul 2013, 11:51 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Jul 2013, 10:05 AMMadrRasha I guess u see this game as fantasy , and from now to further on i wont argue with you cuz u dont see that game is realistic , but still needs balance and devs i guess tried to keep as much realism as possible but still making the game function which is quite hard you know cuz its unique RTS, this is not Call of Duty T-34/76 bounce off Stug and Panzer IV rear armor is not fantasy? T-34/85 lose to a PZIV every game is not a fantasy? Tigers rear has more than twice armor then the T-34/85 and T-34/76 's frontal armor are not fantasy? Tanks maxim main gun range is below 100m is not fantasy? Infantry shooting each other using automatic weapon at point blank range and still took years to kill one is not fantasy? .................................................... GG for your real life is too fantasy Mr fanboy In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 feels plain pathetic 13 Jul 2013, 08:32 AM Crell got a point, a dedicated AT variant like Mini-Panther T-34/85 is indeed a good idea In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf the building cover?13 Jul 2013, 08:32 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Jul 2013, 08:20 AMMadrRasha relic devs said the building cover in real life did provide much greater protection to troops that are inside , which is true i guess and its not like u re unable to remove from buildings , imo but snipers should take care of troops inside easier , similar to vcoh thats just my opinion oh, since when this game have in "real life?" In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf the building cover?13 Jul 2013, 06:13 AM no, flame weapon have no bonus modifier vs. building, either does grenade, which is stupid In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Nerf the building cover?13 Jul 2013, 04:21 AM I think it's too tough and too lame...... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Invasion of maphackers has begun13 Jul 2013, 02:30 AM I think if both SEGA and relic contribute some manpower to identifying Multiplayer-game cheating, there will be a huge improvement for sure, steam will give heavy punishment once the Cheater is confirmed........ (permanently ban for multiplayer for this account) and ofcuz, if relic want to do this. In: Lobby
Thread: Comments on the July 10 Patch Notes!13 Jul 2013, 02:16 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Jul 2013, 01:22 AMvon_manstein1939 Just in case anyone is interested, the IS-2 IRL had a super low rate of fire because it required a separate shell and powder charge and could only carry 28 rounds of ammunition. It was primarily used as a heavy breakthrough tank and not in an anti-tank role. and that doesn't means this gun is not a effective anti-tank weapon, it's an answer to the German Panther and Tiger Tank, and it has proved itself of capable destroying both Tiger and Panther, and it's frontal armor is impenetrable for Tiger I & Panther at point blank range. please google before you write down "Not an anti-tank role" I just don't want replying the ignorance ppl's naive comment anymore In: COH2 Balance