Ignorance is dropping from a game because it's not going your way, champ.
Sorry to say, but your Axis stats ae still at 11 played, most lost, as they where 3 weeks ago, yet you harp on about preferring Axis and playing them?
Whats the story, man? |
Regardless of the outcome duels like that wouldn't be a bad idea.
If anything, they would show is if the one who is crying about imbalance even have a clue on how to play the game.
Come on, don't tell me you wouldn't want to see sierra, lolcake, ssheini featured in mini tournament.
Dev have often lost matches to community players, even though its granted to assume they know the game and its stats better than any of us.
That alone is sufficient to eliminate the notion of "I beat you therefore Im right".
If I fight you IRL and beat you till you cry for mercy, does that make my opinion right?
If you think so, lets do it, you and me. Loser leaves CoH2.org forever.
We can make a poll for which streamer livecasts it (Id prefer Sib myself)
My army experience vs your supermarket shopping cart pushing experience!
Yes/No? |
As a tierless call-in, I think the Muni costs are fine, and overall inline with weapon upgrade costs.
As to the Button nerf, its somewhat peripheral, because if you wanted to destroy medium+ armor, youd need combined arms anyways, and in an isolated situation, disabling the maingun was a bit cheesy, and in anycase now answered by a slow rotataion and fire rate.
Guards dropping weapons is a problem, and one of the things that points to a need of Sov restructure, especially in regards to Penals as a diversifiable tech unit. PTRS AND DPs is too much to situate on one call-in, not only as Commander specific, but also because of weapon drops and also the PTRS already inherently hampering AI efficacy. Also, wtf with an AT snare located on an AI weapon? Its just all kinds of confused contradictions.
Even swapping DPs instead of PTRS as native in Guard, would go a long way to augmenting Cons AI problems, through combined arms. And additionally moving the Button to a secondary PTRS upgrade. |
Greeb:
If Relic saw fit to add a negative modifier to Cons, then perhaps its you who needs to adjust your perspective on what Cons are, or should be.
Arguing for balance changes sort of makes sense BEFORE a change is made, not really thereafter, when its been stamped by Relic. Then its sort of been approved by a higher power, with better resources and understanding, if you know what I mean.
Especially on Cons, some people seem to have unrealistic expectations or a warped perspective of what they should and can be, as opposed to Relics view and steady patching relating to that ever since before launch even. I dont know why that is, but basically the opiniins of these people have manifold been shown to not coincide with Relics opinions.
As Oz points out, though there certai ly have been examples of particular outrageous Axis posters, there seems to be a persistant Allies core of posters who refuse to accept things as they are, and have huge difficulty accepting Relics proven and consistent line when it comes especially to Cons.
For some, it seems a historical accuracy hangup. For others, they basically want Cons to be Gren equivalents, but with Merge/Oorah from start, 6man, cheaper reinforce and a weapon upgrade. Its also been my longtime observation that many of these posters absolutely refuse to play Axis for one reason or another, sometimes to the extreme with zero axis games played, and their card shows it.
As was outlined in the stream by Relic, Cons now have a wider "close" range, and better accuracy at close-mid. I can only speculate, but I figure the accuracy received penalty is a result of optimising ranges and accuracies, without changing native damage (which is set at a multiple for purposes of avoiding overkill and "wasted" shots). Something perhaps related to the number of rifles in a Con unit, and models for soaking.
This is a turning point patch, for sure, when it comes to basic infantry combat.
The range optimisations will take some getting used to, and was an interesting lateral approach, especially to naturalising WFA into the pre-existant Ost/Sov system of balance.
Many of the actual figures seem arbitrary, some even extending to three decimals. I think this is the new metric based evaluation system that Relic talked about sometime ago showing itself. The genie on that is out of the bottle, and those can be adjusted later as an interesting alternative for small arms combat balancing asymmetrically, now that these base changes have been set.
Pwnding a possivle complete Sov overhaul, I understand that people "want" it to come from Cons. But that is fail. Penals are there to fill the gap, for many reasons. Improving Cons is not, and never has been, the answer atleast as Sov is structured now. Penals are. |
I see. It seemed to me that any >0.0% modifier is still a penalty.
Well, anyways, seems that's the way Relic wants it then.
L2Adapt to the change, I guess. |
If they wanted to remove the AI capability of shreks and zookas, the only thing they would have to do is set their aoe to 0 like on the ptrs.
Go ahead and tell Relic that instead of getting your panties in a jumble at me.
As I said, the patchnotes explicitly state they want to reduce the AI efficacy of handheld AT, and they did exactly that in this patch. |
Too much words to say nothing.
Which is pretty much what you've been doing all thread.
Which was my point, exactly.
Explain us then why the received accuracy increase was needed in conscripts. Were they overperforming before to deserve such a nerf?
Have you even read the notes...?
Grens, Rifles and SturmPios (atleast) also got that.
And any ability or upgrade that conscripts have fits with the new role Relic wants them to play.
LMGs where nerfed and their range optimisations adjusted. Especially Ost.
They all are short range abilities, with the new received accuracy it's suicidal to try to approach to throw a molotov or ATgun.
Short-mid. And no, its not suicidal. Just don't approach over open ground unless you like being retarded.
Molotov is now primarily an area-denier against setup-teams and buildings, as well as pre-emptively blocking assault infantry from approaching you. Use it for that instead of thinking its a grenade.
And as I said, and you've apparently completely overlooked, is that other units also got a received accuracy penalty.
Cons are now even more effective in short, and mid, now than they where before, especially compared to the commensurate nerfs to optimisation at those ranges that other opposing basic infantry took.
I think you haven't even read or comprehended the actual specifics in the patch notes.
I strongly recommend you go back and seriously read every entry in great detail and try to internalise what the patch has actually done to basic infantry small arms balance. |
AT gun received accuracy seems to be unintentional
http://www.twitch.tv/relicentertainment/b/567569238?t=43m07s
Yes, stated as unintentional.
He also talks about hotfix costs/organisation, and since they already put out a hotfix, dunno how long it might be till they put out another to fix this oversight.
Shame it didn't make it into the last one. |
Its an AT upgrade that reduces AI slightly.
And overall this is inline with Relics design choices in the last patch, where they specify they want handheld AT to have less effect vs AI. |
No, because here's the thing:
Soviets don't have a choice in the matter. You get guards or you don't have any kind of mainline infantry at all.
Penals.
Cons are what they are as a T0 baseline unit which has part of its value invested in 2 native utility abilities, which unfortunately also causes them to suffer somewhat if shoehorned into a role as a dedicated combat unit, which they are only "average" at. They come out of the box as more utilitarian, but with comparable dps, and begin to lose as a dedicated combat unit towards later game due to lack of scaling for that role, instead forced to rely on that initial utility advantage which they carry throughout the game, alongside a better soak.
If Cons where brought inline with other early base infantry interms of combat efficiency in later game combat role upgrades, it would require a pretty massive re-structuring of Sov, especially of Sovs larger infantry units, removal of merge/oorah as native, and cause efficiency problems in relation to the ubiquitous infantry callin-options.
Guards being weapon-drop pinatas is a problem.
Can't really just stop them dropping weapons.
Can't really reduce PTRS to a single weapon with 2x efficiency.
Can't really reduce DPs to a single weapon with 2x efficiency.
I'm still a huge proponent of Penal improvement (preferably as weapon diversifiable) as the missing link in Sov mainline infantry lineup. |