Profile of Enkidu

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 351

General Information


Thread: Commander Overlap a serious problem22 Nov 2013, 09:12 AM +1 The current commander setup is so strategically boring it almost hurts. In: Lobby
Thread: Flames18 Nov 2013, 17:50 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2013, 14:12 PMNullist Enkidu, three times its been explained to you. If you still dont understand the difference between what a Flamer does to a 4man unit relying on armor as compared to a 6man unit, as well as weapon crews, as well as on garrisons then thats your problem and repeating the question like a parrot isnt going to get you a different answer. You didn't answer my question. My question isn't whether or not a pio flamer is equal to an engi flamer, my question is, why should it be? Are combat engi flamers better in most situations because their targets have smaller unit counts? Yes. They also cost more to buy and reinforce than pios. Not only that, but flamers are the only upgrade soviets have to their vanilla infantry where Ost have more options. If you want a higher dps upgrade, get an lmg on a gren; if you want to clear out a building, get a flame pio. If pio flamers were buffed to make them force off 6 man squads just as fast as engis force off 4 man squads, then I can't think of any reason why engis should remain a 240mp unit while pios only cost 200. Isn't the flamer discrepancy the sole reason why engis are currently more expensive? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Flames18 Nov 2013, 10:17 AM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2013, 09:50 AMNullist A) Ost infantry is armor reliant and smaller units. Against which the Sov Flamer is quadratically more effective than Ost Flamer is vs Sov larger units. You answered your own question. B) CE/Pio cost is a separate issue, if it even is one. C) There doesn't need to be an "exact parity", but an asymmetric equity. A wider template with reduced DPS for Ost would achieve this. I disagree. The cost is a factor as combat engis are more expensive in exchange for being more effective (in a direct comparison) when upgraded. Isn't this already an "asymmetric equity"? My initial question still stands however; why exactly do ost need a better flame pio unit? Do you feel as though flame pios are currently incapable of fulfilling their role of building clearing and supplemental infantry dps? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Flames18 Nov 2013, 09:44 AM Why exactly should the pio flamer be buffed? A flamethrower against a 6 man squad isn't AS good as against a 4 but combat engis cost 240 vs 200 of pios and the flame weapon itself still does it's job. Isn't this asymmetrical balance? The flamer is the only muni based, non doctrinal infantry dps upgrade the soviets get. If there must be exact parity in this, then why shouldn't cons get lmgs (for example)? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: DLC pricing. #Milking (Ranting and Suggestions)17 Nov 2013, 01:08 AM Jump back to quoted post15 Nov 2013, 03:09 AMbigchunk1 The feeling of being ripped off is the most off putting part. I can easily afford these commanders, but should they really be worth that cost? Have you checked the steam sales these days? I also am unsure of what direction they are taking this game and I don't want to support a business practice I don't fully understand. I'm not sure how radically changing game balance monthly is supposed to create a tournament community. I'll happily continue to play my $60 game though. +1 I love the coh franchise and the style of gameplay but I'd much rather pay for an expansion and know what I'm going to get and what I'm going to be up against rather than this constant limbo of not knowing what the next fotm is going to be and how much I'm going to eventually have to spend to get it. In: Lobby
Thread: So far I've played against the Germans,now Tiger Ace16 Nov 2013, 18:20 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Nov 2013, 17:58 PMKalismist I think the old saying "You get what you payed for" fits quite well in this thread. If you buy the pay 2 win commanders you are supporting the economic model and relic/segas decision to implement it. I'd love to try out all those new units and abilities but my fucking integrity and principles is keeping me from getting them. I'd even buy skins if they had gone another way or reverted this retarded system. I feel the same way. I'd love to try out the new commanders but there's no way I'll continue to support this business model. In: Lobby
Thread: DLC pricing. #Milking (Ranting and Suggestions)13 Nov 2013, 08:32 AM I'm a die hard CoH fan and this pricing model has completely turned me off. I played almost 2000 hours of coh1 and wanted to support the company through coh2 but this just feels like unashamed gouging and I can't embrace being ripped off. In: Lobby
Thread: Turning Point Official Patch Notes11 Nov 2013, 19:07 PM Sweet! I think I'm most excited about the vet changes and the 180 degree arc firing changes. Should change things quite a lot. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: P grens need durability buff9 Nov 2013, 04:34 AM Rofl, this thread! If this isn't trolling, then it's a pretty flagrant example of how hyperbole in balance threads can make someone look like a jackass. ZiS guns dude... Really? You should have just said "I want nothing to stop my mans from going this way, that way, or anyway they choose!" In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Pace of teching22 Oct 2013, 09:10 AM I've recently gone back and started playing some vcoh again and teching definitely feels faster in coh2. Part of the fun in vcoh was the infantry war that took place over controlling fuel but as in coh2 you can never really cut off your opponent's fuel completely, mid game always rolls around whether you've gained an advantage or not. I feel as though this mechanic favors the Germans slightly as Ost t2 is more flexible and more capable of both shock and defense than soviet t1/t2. Soviet t1/t2 are more like t1.5 but if you grab them before 4 cons, you are basically just conceding map control and if you get one of the two at 4 cons, you're already countered by German t2. In: COH2 Gameplay