Profile of Puppetmaster

Avatar Area

Offline United Kingdom
Posts: 871

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/Puppetmaster86
Steam: 76561197974205301
Residence:

United Kingdom
Nationality:

United Kingdom
Timezone: Europe/London
Game Name: Puppetmaster

Signature

Playercard of Puppetmaster

	2v2: P	streak: + 2
	2v2: P	streak: + 6
	2v2: P	streak: + 2
	2v2: P	streak: + 1

Show Latest Posts


Thread: Russians on Western Front? Really?29 Mar 2014, 19:39 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 19:29 PMSenseo1990 You dont play the whole war in a match but part of a battle. Plenty of battles were won by the Wehrmacht Which battle are we playing though. We are not playing battles that have actually happened and are historic. This isn't a problem but according to you it is an issue that Americans fight with Soviets because this hasn't happened (as you claim). You cannot prove that America and Russia never fought together. Thats why you cant use them in CoH2 Because it would be imbalanced, that is why. It is like that because it wouldn't be fun to play if one faction had a clear advantage. So? Did I ever say that CoH2 is realistic in every aspect and should be? Why specifically this aspect and not others? Why is this more important that other parts of the game that are not accurate? its not my fault that you didnt understand my statement. Your main argument is "CoH2 is not realistic so unrealistic things can be added to the game." With that argument you can add anything to the game BUT: You have to draw a line somewhere. Where you draw that line differs from person to person and thats why some people are fine with having units like the ostwind in the game but not with ostwinds fighting in the pacific. Or others who are fine with mixed factions but not with ak47s for the soviets. Or others who cant stand the unrealistic gameplay at all and thus prefer Men of War. The argument "But the game is unrealistic anyway" doesent work without any restrictions. And those restrictions are the center of this debate. My argument is that things are the way they are for balance purposes. It is the way it is because its makes a better game. We are not playing a historical simulator. We are playing a game. Things are done to make it a more enjoyable and equal game. Where you draw the line is balance. Once again, AK47's did not exist in WW2 (which is the period this game is set, multiplayer is 1944 / 45 if I am not mistaken). Russians and Americans did exist in WW2 and you still have not given me undeniable proof that they never ever fought together on any scale. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Poll: USA + Soviets in one team?29 Mar 2014, 19:28 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 18:52 PMelchino7 3rd option on the pole: don´t care. As some have already said, i´m just worried about balance issues which might arise. But do you believe the game is currently balanced now? Do you believe it has always been balanced. Maybe there will be balance issues, but it also might help some of the issues that exist now. Any balance issues (you would hope) will eventually get resolved. Why has no one mentioned balance issues with the 2 German factions playing together? This is just as relevant as Soviets + Americans and balance. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Russians on Western Front? Really?29 Mar 2014, 19:20 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 19:09 PMSenseo1990 You obviously didnt understand it. US and soviets fighting side by side is fantasy as well. Why would every battle end up with germany loosing? Did germany loose every battle in ww2? Interesting... No Nukes were used in europe either. And again I havent read a single comment which stated that people want CoH2 to become perfectly realistic. Youre missing the point here Germany lost the war. Multiplayer games are not a reproduction of historical events, thus the only conclusion you can draw is that Germany would lose, because they lost the war. If you are saying they wouldn't lose, please point me in the direction that shows historical information proving that the specific battle was won by Germany. Nukes were not used in Europe, but America had access to them and had the means to deploy them in Europe. Germany had very few ostwinds ever built and yet you can have many of them existing in the game at once. Can you prove that an American and a Russian solder never ever fired a shot or threw a punch at a German or other axis soldier while together or in close proximity (same city / street / building or whatever). The first result on google for the definition of fight is " To attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons." Can you say with 100% accuracy that this never happened? Because if it happened once, then America fought with Soviets. If you cant tell the difference between 2 nations who were in the same war and in the same city together fighting a common enemy and a weapon created 20 years in the future being used in WW2, I would suggest you need to seek help. I'm not missing the point at all. People are saying they don't want Americans to fight with Soviets because it isn't realistic or authentic. If they have an issue with this why do they not have an issue with every single other unrealistic in the game. Why is this specific thing such a problem? Also please post your player card. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Russians on Western Front? Really?29 Mar 2014, 19:05 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 18:52 PMSenseo1990 Yes they can blow stuff up. And yes the Panzer Elite is supposed to be Panzer Lehr and yes: A name is still something different than nation mixing. Because they never fought together. For some people thats enough to break the immersion. For others riflemen with m16s would break the immersion and then there are people who already hate the game because of wrong uniforms. Its personal preference. The M16 wasn't invented until 20 years later. Riflemen with M16's isn't anything to do with immersion, it is fantasy and even if you stretch the truth a stupid amount, it still doesn't make sense. What I don't understand is all these people complaining about immersion and realism, why do they play the game where every unit has infinite ammo? Where tanks tank 3+ shots to kill or the fact that infantry take several bullets to die. How about the fact that infantry become suppressed by an MG - in real life you can still run at it if you are crazy enough. The majority of the game isn't realistic. Should the Americans get a nuke because they had them in real life and even used them. Should it be GG for Germans @ 30 minutes because Americans unlocked a nuke? If the game was realistic it would simply suck and would be so imbalanced it would be insane. Every game would end up the same, Germany losing. It is realistic after all. Edit: Could anyone upset about Soviets and Americans playing together please post their player card. I am interested to see something. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Russians on Western Front? Really?29 Mar 2014, 01:55 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 01:52 AMLichtbringer Good start with the post, but yes, here you are totally off the mark. I know its hard to understand it, but CoH2 was announced like "oh this is so realistic" so I see where the expectations come from. (I really understand it btw. It is important that the game lets you imagine you play WWII and not jsut a videogame.) But a truly realistic game wouldn't be fun or balanced. Why bother playing the game if it isn't fun? There are many areas where the game isn't realistic even from the word go. Why are people only mentioning it now when it has been this way for 10 months? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Russians on Western Front? Really?29 Mar 2014, 01:41 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 01:28 AMluvnest Well Relic said themselves that they put much effort to keep the game as historical acurate as possible (e.g. campaign). American and Soviets in team matches is just stupid. Since people are so focussed on realism, should Germany lose most of their battles? Should Germanys resources go lower and lower the longer the battle goes on? If everyone is so eager on realism, then Germany should lose because they lost the war after all and if I am not mistaken, the multi player part of the game is based on 1944 / 1945?. Maybe German tanks should be redesigned to replicate the ever worsening quality of materials used to build armour. The Russians massively outnumbered German forces, especially nearing the end of the war. Sure they were less trained and inferior, but German troops were not exactly in the best shape either due to how the war was going. Should soviets in game have many times more forces to simulate realism? Should we also simulate how many German tanks were extremely unreliable, often being abandoned due to mechanical faults. A game that is truly historically accurate would be terrible. The way the game plays should be both fun and balanced. Factions shouldn't be the same, they should excel in some areas while lacking in others. Maybe I am way off the mark and please do correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that its mostly people favoured towards Germans that have a problem with Americans and Soviets playing together, because maybe they will work well together and actually have reliable and strong tactics / forces, rather than relying on conscript spam pre patch and lacking any proper counter to German late game. It is good for the game that Relic have done this. It expands the game, opens it up to more players and I would argue in the long term will make balancing better. If we are getting a greater variety of units due to more factions, maybe there will be less focus on the commanders as well. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: American Speculation Thread 29 Mar 2014, 01:25 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Mar 2014, 15:20 PMMarcoRossolini Sigh... So the Soviets have been shelved. :/ Maybe not. I would say depending on how Americans are and what changes happen for Soviet (if any), you might find that Soviets & Americans work very well together. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Comming update: IS-2 and ISU-152 will be buffed29 Mar 2014, 01:11 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2014, 00:59 AMbraciszek I think all dedicated AT should have an option to avoid firing at infantry. It is stupid to see my elefant automatically targetting conscripts. Su-85, and the stug, i guess. And the pak/field gun. Can we also have a fix for the stupid target weak point missing, yet using up the ability? You can fix Weak point missing when you fix German tanks going backwards faster than T-34's can go forwards when attempting to ram. Imo blitzkrieg should be removed from German armour and instead give T-34's a Sprint / Boost ability, since for them to have any hope of doing damage they need to flank. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: A couple of post-patch balance issues/suggests27 Mar 2014, 20:08 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Mar 2014, 19:41 PMAurgelwulf Cons can oorah into an mg and throw a molotov. The molotov is more effective than a rifle nade because even if the squad doesen't wipe, the MG will still have to pack up and retreat or else they will die in the persistent flames, if a rifle nade doesen't wipe the squad (6 guys, how likely is that?) then he can keep firing away. But Soviets are told to stay in cover constantly, how can you run up to an mg and throw a Molotov while in cover. Grens can stay in cover and use rifle nades. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: L2P thread of post-patched Soviet27 Mar 2014, 19:29 PM I think we need to rename 2 units. Pioneers need to be renamed Combat Pioneers. Combat Engineers need to be renamed to Engineers. Seems more in line with their roles People also keep saying you need 2x cons to beat 1x gren. This idea is fine, but why does it take 480mp to beat 240mp? If soviets need 2 units to beat 1, the units needs to be made cheaper. This also encourages "spam" which German players seem to keep complaining about. As it stands now, it feels like early game Soviets can build as many conscripts as Germans build grenadiers (due to the reduced starting mp) but Germans get T1 including in that and will apparently win because Soviets need twice as many units. What I would like to see is either changing some Soviet units out of commanders and into the standard core of units or put some German units into doctrines. I think most would agree (at least before) that Panzer Grens are roughly equivalent to Shocks. This being the case (armour / damage aside), why do the Germans have this as a standard unit with excellent AT capability, where as shocks do not have that and are a doctrinal unit. Guards are also no where near as good AT. I'm not saying guards suck at AT, but soviets seem to require 2 units where as Germany gets one. Panzer grens when vetted are still decent against infantry even with 2 Panzer shrecks as well. In: COH2 Gameplay