Profile of Burts

OST sniper is actually fine.

Buff penals now

Their flamer actually cannot explode or be dropped though, which is one advantage. But doesn't make them worth it though. If you base your play around penals, you'll get stomped over by any remotely decent opponent.

If they had even AT nades I think they would be seen more often. But then, would anyone use conscripts because you could equip penals with AT nades AND flamers?

All flamers haven't been able to explode for ages.

Penal buff when?

I really hate 1v1 elitism, and its so evident on this website. Why do people look down on someone who prefers team games? I don't get it. These people need to get over themselves. So Relic should forget about everyone else and focus on, not only 1v1 players, but the top 50 1v1-ers? Lol are you real?

Because the game is designed for 1v1.

2V2 is fine, but 3v3 and 4v4 any kind of balance is thrown out of the window.

The game is made in for 1v1. Just how SC2 is designed for 1v1, and Dota 2 is designed for 5v5. Relic has stated that 1v1 and to a lesser extent 2v2 are supposed to be the competitive "balanced" modes. They could of made 3v3,4v4 balanced instead and made 1v1;2v2 not unbalanced. But they decided to do 1v1. This is how the game was designed, and this is how the balance of the game WILL continue to be changed catering to 1v1 and 2v2 specifically. (Unless relic changes their minds, anything can happen )

Team games simple cannot be properly balanced in coh 2 without redesigning the entire game.

And yes, catering to the top 50 (top players) IS how every single competitive game is done.

Why?

Because at low skill level, you can simply IMPROVE and all balance issues are completely irrelevant everyone plays very poorly.

In a top player enviroment, they cannot improve as easily because they are already so good, because they are so good , balance issues QUICKLY become apparent and top players who play specific factions QUICKLY dominate the other players who play the faction which is not as strong.
If it was a low skill game, the other player could of simply won by playing better, he probably did basic mistakes.

In a top player enviroment, improvement is not an option because they are ALREADY playing very well.


Anyways, balance isin't really a major issue in coh 2. It never really was aside from some major fuckups (OKW, Brits, march deployment, okay there were quite a lot of major fuckups but still )

The current general trend is that allies tend to win 5-10% more than axis in 1v1s. That's completely fine.

Gameplay being shallow has always been the problem in coh 2. The fact that theres always 1-2 "meta" builds that overshadow everything else and make the gameplay very boring because everyone that wants to win spams the same boring strats over and over again.

This is what needs to change. Useless units that have no use need to be buffed in order to be atleast somewhat viable.

I don't think there was any real way of actually winning the war for the axis. The odds were simply stacked againts them from the start.

USA would of entered the war anyways, even if Japan hadn't attacked.

I guess something could of been done if Japan had focused all it's millitary industry on land forces instead of navy with the hope of crushing the soviets, and Japan would attack the soviet union in the far east while Germany attacks it from Europe.

It would of helped if their allies were better i guess, Italian, Romanian forces weren't of very high quality.


If Germany didin't attack the Soviet Union and focused on invading Britain theres a very high chance the soviet union would of attacked eventually i still think that an attack in 1943-1944 would of happened. And then the soviets would of probably have fully modernized and a much more capable fightning force than they were in 1941-1942, while Germany would probably be dragged down by trying to invade Britain.