Login

russian armor

Ideas on Bringing the UKF into Balance

17 Mar 2016, 03:26 AM
#21
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

maxim teardown increased to 1 seconds from 0 second

I'd think might be better to increase the Maxim's set-up time, maybe nerf traverse a bit too instead. It's important for it to be able to dodge rifle grenades, which I'm suspecting is a key reason why all the allied HMGS but the mostly-HMG42-clone Vickers move around so fast (and of course the part where it isn't a clone is where its suppression's worse so anyone using it that ever complains about it says it gets grenaded all the time...these players aren't getting the benefit of garrison VP camping with it, of course)
17 Mar 2016, 05:03 AM
#22
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Mar 2016, 03:26 AMVuther

I'd think might be better to increase the Maxim's set-up time, maybe nerf traverse a bit too instead. It's important for it to be able to dodge rifle grenades, which I'm suspecting is a key reason why all the allied HMGS but the mostly-HMG42-clone Vickers move around so fast (and of course the part where it isn't a clone is where its suppression's worse so anyone using it that ever complains about it says it gets grenaded all the time...these players aren't getting the benefit of garrison VP camping with it, of course)


well, everything in there are untested. I am willing to try everything, but I want to at least give each change a chance before removing/replacing it.
17 Mar 2016, 06:25 AM
#23
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320



Grenades can be teched, Vickers does respectable damage against garrisoned units, sappers on a building flank (no windows) are fairly effective, mortars have good range, bofors suppression ability flat out destroys most if not all buildings in one barrage, not to mention doctrinal options. The UKF lack of building clearing tools is only apparent within the early game (which is still extremely critical, I get that) but they gain access to plenty of tools within a few minutes of match start. The lack of "serious play" probably has more to do with older factions being practiced more and being more comfortable rather than British overall performance.


Grenades do not counter squads in buildings. They barely counter MG's in buildings, this also requires tommies to run up close.

the idea of "Shoot at them until they die" is a very poor building counter and allows players to stall and take the map. I also do not count commanders because no faction should need P2W commanders.

Yes the mortar pit does, and you want to nerf brace, the thing it uses and needs to not die.
17 Mar 2016, 08:39 AM
#24
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1



As good as this sounds this doesn't happen. If done properly, you keep the opponent away from areas you'd like to set up emplacements on with Vickers and Tommies. Once you force a retreat you are free to put up an emplacement. Leaving a properly placed emplacement alone is not an option, especially on smaller maps where single emplacements are easier able to cover VPs. Not to mention the abundance of maps currently in the map pool that feature plenty of shotblockers which in turn promote campy play; not that there's anything wrong with campy play if that's your thing, but emplacements are simply too cost effective at the moment and shouldn't be dominating the current meta as they are.


As good as it sounds, it is exactly what happens. This is why, when 1300 euros were on the line in the ESL (multiple monthly salaries for some East-European countries), nobody went for emplacements.

Going bofors in 1v1 is extremely risky. You give away the initiative to your opponent and then you can only pray that he launches a few small-scale assaults onto your bofors; which will naturally fail as bofors are designed to stop small scale assaults. By going bofors, you completely give away your offensive capabilities as you just locked yourself out of the AEC, which is your only early game offensive option against a player who is smart enough to get a 222 when he sees a bofors.

In 1v1, dealing with bofors is simply a L2P issue. Once you figured out the trick, you will win every time. The bofors only counters players who have the wrong mind-set and think they need to take down the bofors ASAP.
17 Mar 2016, 08:41 AM
#25
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

"The bofors only counters players who have the wrong mind-set and think they need to take down the bofors ASAP."

This.

Players with a bit of patience, those who force brace, look elsewhere and then attack, take them out easily.
17 Mar 2016, 08:48 AM
#26
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1094



-Slightly increase standard Churchill speed/acceleration to open up its roles a bit more. Currently the units only real purpose is to camp emplacements and soak damage and discourages offensive plays to a player who invests in them. Would also help to make Anvil more appealing.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?


A speed buff for the churchill? Out of all the buffs it desperately needs you go for the one disadvantage it should have?

It needs armour buff and a price nerf.
17 Mar 2016, 15:41 PM
#27
avatar of Svanh

Posts: 181

UKF Changes

I strongly disagree with several of your changes.

Firefly:
firefly cost lowered to 350 mp 125 fuel


The Firefly currently has both poor DPS and maneuverability, making it only useful with Tulips or vetted. Reducing the cost will not change this. Instead, increase the Firefly's damage from 200 to 240 and reduce the vet 3 damage bonus from 80 to 40.

tulip rocket damage lowered to 2x100


2x160 would be a better choice. It removes the one-shot potential and still allows for a significant alpha strike.

tulip rocket ability cost lowered to 60 munition


If Relic goes with 2x160 damage, 75 munitions would be a better cost. A reduction in recharge time would also be good.


PIAT/Cromwell/Churchill Penetration:

I have often thought that some suggestions made on this forum were incredibly unimaginative (and frankly boring) ways of balancing units and serve only to detrimentally homogenise factions.

PIAT projectile now track its target
PIAT damage lowered to 80
PIAT deflection modifier lowered to .25
PIAT range lowered to 35 meters
PIAT cost increased to 45 munitions


The PIAT is, minus its projectile speed and unnecessary scatter values, an AT weapon perfectly designed for the long-range but stationary and late-game focused Infantry Sections. Your suggestion would turn it into a budget Bazooka. Instead, remove the scatter and increase the projectile speed from 80 to 160, pending further adjustment should it prove OP. If you'd like to test this change, here's a mod. :)


cromwell and churchill main gun penetration lowered to 80/100/120


Is there a particular reason for this change? Price efficiency is currently the issue with the Cromwell (The Churchill certainly doesn't need any outright nerfs) and while the penetration certainly contributes to this, it isn't a major cause. A 10-15 fuel cost increase to the Cromwell would be a better change.

I apologise if my writing is somewhat unintelligible. I'm a little tired. :)
17 Mar 2016, 16:27 PM
#28
avatar of IGOR

Posts: 228

if brits are op, what is okw then ? shrek blobs that can perform very well early till late game ?
if brits gets another nerf okw better be looked at too.
17 Mar 2016, 21:49 PM
#29
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1


In 1v1, dealing with bofors is simply a L2P issue. Once you figured out the trick, you will win every time. The bofors only counters players who have the wrong mind-set and think they need to take down the bofors ASAP.


"The bofors only counters players who have the wrong mind-set and think they need to take down the bofors ASAP."
Players with a bit of patience, those who force brace, look elsewhere and then attack, take them out easily.


Ok, so what do you lads propose I do then?

17 Mar 2016, 23:29 PM
#30
avatar of GundamZphyr7

Posts: 36

Quit whining and learn to counter-play.
18 Mar 2016, 00:02 AM
#31
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2260 | Subs: 1

kick out bofors and and mortar pit

give them regular mortar an done

18 Mar 2016, 00:03 AM
#32
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

How about remove British all together. They are what started the cancer for relic.

But for OP I do agree with your points.

A clear sign why some of the balance team deserved what they got
-artillery cover
-brace
-emplacements in general
18 Mar 2016, 00:14 AM
#33
avatar of Pablonano

Posts: 297

Or maybe people should complain less on other factions having cool stuff and ask for the vanilla factions to get their cool stuff to be more in line with the newers
18 Mar 2016, 19:50 PM
#34
avatar of Xutryn_X7

Posts: 131

The game should be balanced even on 4vs4.Stand fast it's stupid,vickers spam to bofors,mortar spam it's gg.I hope you realize what 3 okw,1 osther vs 3 british,1 usf means.Allies win so easy with so little skill(sim city).Stupid placed bofors,mortar should be punished.I don't want 2 mortar pit with their ability to fire faster to wipe/take half hp vet2-3 3-5 infantry squad that are SPREAD,not blobbed in green,yellow cover just to capture a stupid VP.They lockdown 1 bofors,2 mortar pit+stand fast until 30 minute where it's gg.What a useless balance in 3vs3,4vs4
18 Mar 2016, 20:10 PM
#35
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1094

The only nerf I agree with is changing counter battery.

Everything else I think is an issue of axis players seeing traits in a faction they are normally used to only having themselves.
19 Mar 2016, 03:59 AM
#36
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Mar 2016, 15:41 PMSvanh


a specialist tank like the tank destroyer should be affordable. Something spammable to counter armor spam. Considering the british already have expensive tanks like the comet or the churchill, making the firefly another expensive tank would be too impractical.

I don't think a simple reload buff would make the firefly worth the 440 mp 155 fuel, unless it's a ridiculous short reload. There might be a room for both reload buff and a price decrease.

the purpose of changing the PIAT is for countering light vehicles. I do like the concept of the current PIAT but the british need a reliable infantry back up for their otherwise excellent anti-tank arsenal.

another option would be to give tommies anti-nade, but I think that's going to make the tommies too versatile. The squad is already the british's main healing unit and their main artillery unit.(since I buffed the coordinated artillery)

fuel increase for the cromwell was another option I considered. It was neither a ~10 fuel increase or a pen nerf. I wanted to standardize the penetration on the sherman, t34/76, and cromwell since their guns were historically inferior to the 75mm on the panzer.

right now the cromwell and sherman actually have superior gun to the panzer4, but I think it's actually the Survivability of the panzer and cromwell that make them more attractive option than the sherman.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

428 users are online: 428 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
141 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45064
Welcome our newest member, edmond2003s
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM