Profile of elchino7

Popularity =/= effectiveness. Thinks like Combined Arms, UKF Command Vehicle or a 251 for reinforcing with spotting scopes are all very powerful abilities and yet people rarely use them. Doesn't mean they should be buffed. The same goes for the Uhu. It should be a good recon tool by all means, but given how it's stock and it's cheap, I don't see any reason to buff it to such lengths that people will only use it because it's overpowered (like now). If players don't value good recon then that's a player problem, not a balance problem. 70 view range is already enough to light up an entire crucial area (like a VP) from a relatively safe distance.

It becomes a balance problem when the cost opportunity of those abilities don't hold it's weight against other more direct options.

1. IMO 60 is too much

I suggest to try and see how they perform against 60 muni STG Volks. Vet 0 and vet 5 vs vet 3.

60 would be more than fine and i would suggest a different kind of nerf on the ability in order to keep the current damage. Increasing cooldown so it's harder to equip as many units early on despite having the munition to do so.

70 vision in a wide arc for a token price of 200mp/10fu is already better than most other recon unit in the game, except for a vetted 222 or 251 with spotting scopes but those are doctrinal, significantly more expensive and harder to get.
Numbers can be tweaked a bit further for sure but I think most people are underestimating how good 70 vision range already is. Especially considering it's a stock unit.

I have already expressed my opinion in the other thread, but if you think people under appreciate "how good 70" vision is, i guess you won't understand how people under appreciate 120 range vision with permanent maphacks included.

Intel is all good and dandy but there is a reason abilities like, tracking, infantry tracking, radio silence, radio intercept, beacons and so on never really took off despite their power and usefulness. They barely break awareness after some people show explicitly how some features are broken.

It makes sense that when new things appear in video game they are on the OP side so that people actually used them and data can be collected to better fine tune them.

It make less sense when they are not really that "new" and/or data is already available.

It also true that many thing are being iron out in it.

But there are some cases where its seem that Relic is determined to stick to its guns no matter and adjust everything else instead of the root of the problem.

For instance:
1) Many people think that ST44 VG weapons are badly designed and OP. instead of addressing the core issue Relic has tried everything from nerfing vet bonus and increase to buffing Conscripts/riflmen to new levels. For me that is power creep.

2) Many people think that M36 is OP especial in numbers. Instead of addressing the core problem Relic choose to buff Super heavies and created this rather stale meta while shrinking the window of opportunity for some less powerful units. For me that is power creep.

Closing I would like to point out that without using a benchmark it rather difficult to check if you have increased the power level or not.

1-Relic also tried increasing vet requirements, removing double 1919s, removing defensive stance, making BARs closer to AR instead of LMGs, removed smoke, removed flamer. USF issue has always been early opening against OKW be it pre or post rework. RET has also been properly nerfed out of been spammable and usable early on with volley fire.

Conscripts "worked" with the premise that they were cheap to reinforce and gave map control/hold position. Everything else in their repertoire would deal damage and wipe units. Be it lucky flame criticals, OP maxim or snipers, cheesy wipes through a pletora of units and abilities (precision strike, demos, mines, flares, indirect fire, KV8, T70, IS2, ISU152, offmap) while having almost no muni expenditures on upgrades. Free/5 muni Oorah or cheaper lolotovs.

I don't see it as power creep at all. Removing cheese and nerfing OP shit and moving that power budget in another direction.

2-Jackson is a unique problem outside of heavy meta issue which occur for different reasons. Some nerfs, some buffs and some neutral changes. (expected)
-What would happen after completely forcing all heavies to require some degree of tech.
-A heavily implied change to benefit 3v3+ gamemodes at the expense of 1v1-2v2 (CP reduction)
-Reliable AoE damage. Less wipes but more consistent damage.

So you have a nerf with tech requirement and a buff with CP reduction. Intention was to basically keep it equally on lower modes while making the heavies more viable on the bigger modes. We know this backfired badly.
Same with the AoE changes which ended been a bigger buff than expected.


Power creep is not something you can judge by the effect of a single patch, specially if the following one tries to nerf the effects of the previous one.
Only when you take EVERYTHING into context and through a large time lapse comparison you can see where you are standing.

Suggestio change title to include the word bugs

IR spot light has lines with longer range than the actual vision that are not really necessary for anything and should probably be removed.

detection ability description indicates that only infatry are detected similar to 222 ability but when I tested team weapons and vehicles where also detected.

ST grenade description indicates 1 grenade will be fire while it a timed ability and multiple grenades are launched.

I thought it been on bug section would be clear but yeah some people just look at central.