Profile of wooof

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: The elephant(s) in the room17 Feb 2014, 06:49 AM Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2014, 05:17 AMKolaris You're trying to shift the scale, trying to say that if "pay to win" loses 1 game out of 100 it's not a guaranteed win. Get a grip. please show me where i said that. seriously you have 1 hour in coh2. how are you going to try and argue balance? im not even going to bother. In: Lobby
Thread: The elephant(s) in the room17 Feb 2014, 02:33 AM Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2014, 01:17 AMTZer0 To a certain extent, yes. It is pay to win. well i guess you have a far more liberal definition of pay to win than most people. thats unfortunate, because i think youre going to be very disappointed with the majority of video games if thats how you feel. dlcs are increasingly more common in games and devs dont work for free. Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2014, 02:18 AMlanciano If you dont like the game dont play it, simple!!! he doesnt even own it... In: Lobby
Thread: The elephant(s) in the room17 Feb 2014, 01:11 AM if the weapons are balanced, yes that is fair. to be honest, this reminds me of a little kid who doesnt get his way and says "but thats not fair!" if things are balanced, its not pay to win and i see no problem with a dev charging money for extra content. going off your example, look at battlefield 4. expansion packs add extra guns that are balanced for the most part. non premium players dont have those exact guns though, even if they have similar options. premium guns have a unique combination of scatter, rate of fire, recoil, etc. is that pay to win in your mind? again, im going to have it say its not. if you want more guns, buy them. if you dont, stick with the standard guns and you will be just fine. In: Lobby
Thread: The elephant(s) in the room17 Feb 2014, 00:48 AM i am attacking both you and your arguments because you have no knowledge of what youre trying to complain about. you say that youre unable to comment on the balance of the game, but that is exactly what youre attempting to do when complaining about pay to win. pay to win implies the paid content gives you a distinct advantage over non paid commanders. how can you claim such a thing if you dont play? you also really havent made a case for them being pay to win. you simply linked the steam store and said "i would argue that this is pay to win". extra options is not pay to win. if you would like to claim it is, why dont you give me a specific example from the game? In: Lobby
Thread: The elephant(s) in the room16 Feb 2014, 23:34 PM you have 34 hours played, which is all presumably from like 8 months ago. im not sure youre really qualified to talk about the game and what is or is not pay to win. In: Lobby
Thread: New Steam Tags for COH216 Feb 2014, 21:10 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Feb 2014, 20:55 PMTwister Well, in the case of Battlefield (3 or 4) you get the full game and ALL the DLC for 100€. In the case of CoH2 on the other hand you have to pay over 200€ for the game and the DLC already released. If Relic happens to make more DLC, you'll have to pay even more. people really need to stop using this lame argument. is anyone really going to buy every skin and faceplate? if you really want to, go ahead, but thats entirely on you. the majority of you dont even have any interest in ToW, so again, why include that in your number other than to make the price of the DLC sound bigger for your argument? most of the premium commanders arent even that good. i see most players have 4-5 favorite commanders per faction which they use over and over. atleast a few of those are typically free ones as well. so for two factions youll spend maybe $20 to get all the commanders you want. even then, thats a choice and you dont need premium commanders to win games. dont bring up elite troops and industry. we all know theyre going to be nerfed In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Call to action - Let's Be Awesome Together16 Feb 2014, 20:16 PM look at all that great feedback and progress that has happened since the thread was unlocked. In: Lobby
Thread: Tiger Ace Explained15 Feb 2014, 04:16 AM it doesnt need support. a tiger will never catch an is2 because the tiger is slower in both acceleration and max speed. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Tiger Ace Explained15 Feb 2014, 01:25 AM Jump back to quoted post15 Feb 2014, 01:21 AMlink0 This is actually the reason a skilled Russian player can beat a Tiger 1on1 with an IS-2. Higher front loaded damage + long reload times allows you to use Hit+Disengage tactics. This is something anyone who has played World of Tanks will have instinctively learned. this is also made easier thanks to the tiger being slower than the is2. take your shot, reverse out of range until your reload finishes. the is2 also has a better chance to penetrate than a tiger. if you negate the tigers RoF advantage, the is2 should easily win. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Call to action - Let's Be Awesome Together14 Feb 2014, 02:09 AM Jump back to quoted post14 Feb 2014, 01:56 AMBabaRoga Seriously? Paradox or what lol FYI thats what 'communist era dictatorship' was like. They do what they want And they also didn't like toxicity of internet and peoples opinions that don't favor them. But enough about you being a 'smart' ass, stick on topic. If you don't understand it don't comment on it are we having a language barrier issue or something? relic is not forcing you to do anything. if you dont agree with what theyre doing, you are welcome to not play their game and spend your time in other ways. communist dictatorships are not like that. youll also notice this thread is full of "toxicity" and negative opinions. none of which have been censored in any way. noun has been nice and very willing to discuss and answer many questions despite peoples negative tone. again, nothing like a communist dictatorship. so stop trying to use sensational terms. youre as bad as the people calling relic a bunch of nazis. In: Lobby