Profile of wooof

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Heavy crit on vehicles from nades and fausts 18 Oct 2013, 21:38 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2013, 17:58 PMlink0 I do not find RNG elements for vehicle criticals to add ANY excitement to the game. I get excited when great players make brilliant plays, NOT when RNG causes bullshit unlikely outcomes. Cataclaw: Do you really believe that adding a random chance seige tanks to miss or fungal growth not immobilize would make SC2 more exciting to watch? well, to each his own, because i think that is actually what makes things exciting. sometimes it can screw you over, but sometimes things work in your favor. it might be frustrating at times, but i really think that adds excitement. imagine if your mortars had pinpoint accuracy at all times or tanks penetrated 100%. i dont think that would be more exciting at all. there is something satisfying about getting a direct hit with a mortar because its difficult to do (even if its not entirely skill based, its not entirely luck either). look at some mechanics that had no rng before. AT nades and ram used to work 100% of the time. can you honestly say that was more exciting? i think its awesome that i can turn my tank just in time to force the AT nade to hit front armor and have it bounch off. the same goes for getting crew shocked by a ram. so i really do think the uncertainty makes things more fun, but thats just my opinion Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2013, 19:12 PMNullist Molotov crit RNG has been a problem since forever. Would be better served with a harder AoE DoT, and less crit chance. unfortunately, crit chances are in the stats of the target, not the weapon, and they are based on weapon types. so, as far as i know, molotov crit chances cant be adjusted without changing all flame crits or creating a whole new weapon type just for molotovs. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Make weapon upgrades consistent!18 Oct 2013, 17:54 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2013, 12:52 PMBlovski the flamethrower critical system right now is extremely silly and punishing. Losing the flamethrower holder has a 10% (IIRC, could be 5%) chance of losing the weapon permanently, its actually much higher than this. from small arms, flame or ballistic weapons, the chance is 33%. from explosive weapons, the chance is 63%. thats why i never use pio/engi flamers. theyre far too risky and not worth the investment typically. In: Lobby
Thread: Oorah does NOT convey combat bonuses.18 Oct 2013, 17:36 PM he hates this so much, he made a post on his phone from work! this really is far too common though. makes me laugh every time i see it. i think its just habit for people to oorah then throw a molotov, so they use it even when theyre already within molotov range. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Proposal for a small M3 armour buff18 Oct 2013, 17:18 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Oct 2013, 11:10 AMcarloff 222 have a good range with acannon AND mg. Most of the time cons can't run to the point for throwing distance of anades. Still 222 as I saw many times have a faster turning speed then m3. Maybe, maybe 222 need nerfing the acceleration speed? the m3 and 222 have identical speed, acceleration and rotation. their weapons also all have 35 range. id honestly say cons have the a advantage thanks to oorah. besides that, it all comes down to micro. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Proposal for a small M3 armour buff17 Oct 2013, 18:28 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Oct 2013, 18:21 PMBlovski The numbers really don't sound right Woof. Rear penetration lower than frontal? I think you've halved rather than doubled for the rear armour but your frontal stats are right. sorry youre right. i got sloppy and divided instead of mulitplied. fixing them Jump back to quoted post17 Oct 2013, 18:21 PMBlovski There's also the fact that the M3 means you don't have any AT guns and the fuel for your first vehicle is delayed, which makes it much more high pressure as a strategy (i.e. a fast Ostwind can do you in if your fuel control doesn't make up for the 20 fuel spent). By contrast the Ostheer SC comes with 2 decent answers (shreks, pak) to a quick tank in the same building and when upgunned and vetted actually does pretty well itself against light vehicles. Certainly, the German scout car is way more popular right now, and I think that's a good example of the meta reflecting that stats aren't as important as being able to fill a role in COH 2. But it could just be the vet making it a bit OP - we'll see. these are good points. the stats certainly dont reflect roles, but i do think cost certainly needs to be a factor when considering buffs. a cheaper scout car being equal to the armored car just doesnt seem balanced, especially considering it can be built much sooner. i guess well just have to wait and see how the vet changes affect the meta first. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Proposal for a small M3 armour buff17 Oct 2013, 18:01 PM id be surprised if the m3 gets any armor buffs. currently, all the 222 gets for costing 25% more fuel is 2.6 more front armor and 1.3 more rear armor. the damage on their guns is very similar, except the m3 has 2 guns and also garrisons units. heres the chance for small arms to pen the cars: m3 front 11.9% rear 23.8% 222 front 9.09% rear 18.18% the difference is already very small. rng will pretty much decide if either car can survive small arms after it gets fausted or naded. Jump back to quoted post17 Oct 2013, 17:21 PMundostrescuatro dont forget the M5! m5 definitely doesnt need a buff. it has nearly three times the front armor and almost four times the rear armor of the 251, yet theyre the same price. it also has a much better mg than the 251 and lets garrisoned units shoot out of it. the only redeeming factor for both german light vehicles is their weapon upgrades, but theyre expensive. Jump back to quoted post17 Oct 2013, 17:58 PMBlovski right now I think the 221 veterancy makes a much bigger difference. i agree with you. the german veterancy is what keeps their vehicles alive. the m3 needs vet 3 to get a similar incoming damage reduction, which is much harder to achieve. if/when this changes, i think youll find the armored car and scout car will both die to small arms fairly easily. the same goes for the vet 2 251 ht. if you dont manage to get vet 2 on it, it will go down very easily. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T34/8516 Oct 2013, 08:40 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Oct 2013, 08:18 AMNullist -Move T70 to T2. t70s in the first few minutes? sorry but thats a horrible idea. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: German flexibility vs Soviet flexibility 16 Oct 2013, 08:38 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Oct 2013, 07:43 AMUGBEAR please stop trolling, seriously, They reduce the PZIV cost from previous patch, and they reduce the fuel cost of the Panther with a rise in Man power, please don't be such cherry picking. German-only player please stop calling other ridiculous. PZIV finishing off a T-34/76: (640/160)5.825/(95.6522%)=24.3591sec T-34/76 finishing off a PZIV: (640/120)4.875/(50%)=52sec 2T-34/76 finishing off a PZIV=52/2=26sec if it takes 24 seconds to kill the first t34, the second t34 will be able to kill the p4. youre even assuming the t34s fight from the front, which is a dumb idea for the soviet player, but it doesnt matter because theyll still win. so hes really not trolling. also, p4 cost hasnt changed since june, so not sure what youre talking about. Panther finishing off a T-34/76: (640/160)6.575/(100%)=26.3sec T-34/76 finishing off a Panther: (960/120)4.875/(80/270)=131.625sec 3T-34/76 finishing off a Panther: 131.625/3=43.875sec again youre assuming 3 tanks fight from the front of a panther. any decent soviet would never do that. all it takes is 1 to ram and the other 2 will be able to finish it. your numbers are still just pointless theory crafting in a vacuum. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Shock Crew on IS2?15 Oct 2013, 23:27 PM is2 actually has a 56.67% chance to pen a tiger. (170/300) In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: T34/8511 Oct 2013, 19:55 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2013, 19:34 PMCPU - Easy The entire point of the T34-85 is to be a more effective anti-tank version of the T34-76. Hence UGBEAR's comparison is completely valid and worth noting. and thats why it has 2.6 distance scatter? because its an AT tank? look at all the AI tanks. youll find they all have less than 3 distance scatter. ISU152 is the only exception but it has ridiculous AOE to compensate. in that last post he was comparing the t34/76 and t34/85. in the others he has been comparing it to the p4. currently, the t34/85 is not meant to be superior to the p4 in AT because it is better in AI. thats why ive been talking about roles. he tried this exact same comparison with the is2 vs tiger and its flawed for the exact same reason. In: COH2 Gameplay