What was the point of introducing DOT flame damage?
5 Oct 2015, 01:55 AM
#1
Posts: 132
Please help me understand why DOT damage was implemented. Were flame units under performing before? It seems like any unit/ability that deals DOT damage outperforms its cost. How does everyone else feel about the changes to flame damage?
5 Oct 2015, 01:55 AM
#2
Posts: 1248
For intended purposes of existing
5 Oct 2015, 01:58 AM
#3
Posts: 1891
To enable area denial tactics and further enrich the battle sphere.
The Fascisti Will Pay.
5 Oct 2015, 02:03 AM
#4
Posts: 132
For intended purposes of existing
That's not very helpful. I remember the KV8 destroying before DOT damage. Now with DOT damage it can take down OKW trucks in almost 10 secs.
To enable area denial tactics and further enrich the battle sphere.
I like the denial tactics with inf vs buildings and crew-able weapons. When heavy tanks have them it seems a little OP vs inf. It melts them lol. Maybe it's just me that thinks this though.
5 Oct 2015, 02:34 AM
#5
Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3
Ok, I'll explain it to you.
Relic has a balance wheel of fortune, after every patch they rotate it to determine which units/weapons/factions they want to overbuff and overnerf with the next patch. Flamers got selected now several times in a row, that's why they are so strong on every unit.
Relic has a balance wheel of fortune, after every patch they rotate it to determine which units/weapons/factions they want to overbuff and overnerf with the next patch. Flamers got selected now several times in a row, that's why they are so strong on every unit.
If you need to know stats of certain unit: http://stat.coh2.hu
Which faction is OP and which is UP? Check it out here
Tips for beginners and wannabe pro's
Which faction is OP and which is UP? Check it out here
Tips for beginners and wannabe pro's
5 Oct 2015, 02:51 AM
#6
Posts: 2561
5 Oct 2015, 04:27 AM
#7
Posts: 132
Ok, I'll explain it to you.
Relic has a balance wheel of fortune, after every patch they rotate it to determine which units/weapons/factions they want to overbuff and overnerf with the next patch. Flamers got selected now several times in a row, that's why they are so strong on every unit.
Lol, the balance was so good a few months ago. That's actually why I starting playing again. Relive my glorious coh1 days. But damn does it seem a few units are way unbalanced.
5 Oct 2015, 04:51 AM
#8
7 Posts: 1664
That's not very helpful. I remember the KV8 destroying before DOT damage. Now with DOT damage it can take down OKW trucks in almost 10 secs.
I played a ton of Terror Tactics before the changes and the KV8 was a solid choice against OKW HQ trucks but it was AWFUL vs infantry. Don't get me wrong, I do think KV8 and Croc were overbuffed (surprise surprise it's Lelic,) but I also think the entire KV series should have 10% accel/decel at vet 1 instead of capping and 20% better veterancy.
5 Oct 2015, 05:10 AM
#9
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
According to Relic's posts Flamethrowers and Fire were always intended to be cover denial weapons but it took them 2 years to realize that they were being used more as AI so they tweaked them with DoT. They also seem to want to promote them as hard counters to garrisons (which is a welcome change for me because players whose entire skill repertoire was "put teh HMG in deh building and win" are the worst.)
5 Oct 2015, 05:16 AM
#10
Posts: 132
According to Relic's posts Flamethrowers and Fire were always intended to be cover denial weapons but it took them 2 years to realize that they were being used more as AI so they tweaked them with DoT. They also seem to want to promote them as hard counters to garrisons (which is a welcome change for me because players whose entire skill repertoire was "put teh HMG in deh building and win" are the worst.)
Didn't Molotov's do a good job at countering that though? With flame tanks they kill mgs so fast you don't even have time to get them or out of the building.
5 Oct 2015, 05:24 AM
#11
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedMaybe if lelic playtested their changes we wouldn't deal with things like okw incendiary nades, mortar halftracks one shotting emplacements, and kv8 returning to its hellfire roast entire aarmies in 2 seconds beta form.
Ahhh lelic.
Ahhh lelic.
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
5 Oct 2015, 05:52 AM
#12
Posts: 818
According to Relic's posts Flamethrowers and Fire were always intended to be cover denial weapons but it took them 2 years to realize that they were being used more as AI so they tweaked them with DoT. They also seem to want to promote them as hard counters to garrisons (which is a welcome change for me because players whose entire skill repertoire was "put teh HMG in deh building and win" are the worst.)
Why would you build a tank for denying cover though? It seems redundant since at that point in the game tanks just blow up all the cover or kill infantry outright with their high burst damage.
Infantry flamers i can see why you might differentiate them there are tons of other options for anti infantry upgrades.
However for a tank it is either going to be better or worse vs infantry than something with a cannon and if its worse you will go for the unit that can also engage other tanks. In other words flamer tanks can only be anti infantry specialists or serve no strategic function in game.
I can see the intent for infantry and the results seem like a positive direction for infantry(i try to avoid green cover and garrisons vs flamers) but for tanks the changes just don't make much sense
 | Playercard of -NSO- Hon3ynuts | |||||||||||||||||||
|
5 Oct 2015, 06:02 AM
#13
Posts: 1150
Why would you build a tank for denying cover though? It seems redundant since at that point in the game tanks just blow up all the cover or kill infantry outright with their high burst damage.
Infantry flamers i can see why you might differentiate them there are tons of other options for anti infantry upgrades.
However for a tank it is either going to be better or worse vs infantry than something with a cannon and if its worse you will go for the unit that can also engage other tanks. In other words flamer tanks can only be anti infantry specialists or serve no strategic function in game.
I can see the intent for infantry and the results seem like a positive direction for infantry(i try to avoid green cover and garrisons vs flamers) but for tanks the changes just don't make much sense
I think it may be a way for a player to push of high-vetted infantry with LMGS. With such high dps, penals, cons, rifles can easily get repulsed by LMG Obers/vetted LMG grens, which are useless against a KV-8 or a Croc.
5 Oct 2015, 06:25 AM
#14
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
Didn't Molotov's do a good job at countering that though? With flame tanks they kill mgs so fast you don't even have time to get them or out of the building.
Molotovs were absolute garbage after they removed flame crits (before the flame DoT updates) (take a look at the old Molotovs are useless thread in the Soviet forum). Flames tanks are better for pushing HMGs out of buildings where infantry with flamers or conscipt molos are likely to get suppressed. KV-8 and Croc do feel like a bit much at the moment though I will admit. Though I suppose if you want to play devils advocate that you could argue that they are both significant fuel investments for AI that leaves you hurting for AT and that they should perform to price.
Mostly I'd venture to guess that Relic was too focused on Flamethrowers, Molos, and Incendiary Grenades to really think through what flame Dots would mean for Flamethrower Tanks.
5 Oct 2015, 07:48 AM
#15
15 Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5
The biggest difference between the way fire was before and the way it is now is that the fire pools can potentially inflict a lot of friendly fire kills. Using any form of flame vehicle means your own infantry could be in a lot of danger if they're anywhere near it.
It also means flame vehicles are much better vs team weapons than infantry, which can be problematic because it leads to vehicles countering their counters: AT guns. The crocodile is obviously the biggest offender.
I think the damage over time design can create interesting gameplay, but right now almost every flame vehicle feels very strong, and if the KV-8 is borderline OP, the crocodile must be completely over the top.
The wasp though
It also means flame vehicles are much better vs team weapons than infantry, which can be problematic because it leads to vehicles countering their counters: AT guns. The crocodile is obviously the biggest offender.
I think the damage over time design can create interesting gameplay, but right now almost every flame vehicle feels very strong, and if the KV-8 is borderline OP, the crocodile must be completely over the top.
The wasp though
| Playercard of Romeo | |||||||||||||||||||
|
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
31 | ||
 |
|
|
22 | ||
 |
|
|
110 | ||
 |
|
|
12 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29144.869+1
- 4.275110.714+13
- 5.259143.644+3
- 6.249150.624+10
- 7.19265.747+5
- 8.14138.788+16
- 9.18878.707+2
- 10.669423.613+5
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
736
Board Info
479 users are online:
479 guests
0 post in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
142 posts in the last month
30 posts in the last week
142 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44954
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM