Login

russian armor

Why maxim is trash

PAGES (10)down
28 Feb 2020, 05:54 AM
#161
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1738

Just lowering its costs, lower reinforcement cost, lower build/reinforced time.

Just make it faster and cheaper. Done
28 Feb 2020, 07:42 AM
#162
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Feb 2020, 05:54 AMmrgame2
Just lowering its costs, lower reinforcement cost, lower build/reinforced time.

Just make it faster and cheaper. Done

So "sprinting" pgrens are an issue but super fast cheap-o cartwheel HMG is OK? Well thats a new level of double standard.

Lets make maxim cheaper then, also lower its ROF, suppression, Acc, narrow the firing cone and make its vet1 require FU instead of Amunitions.

That is a legit trash maxim.
28 Feb 2020, 07:52 AM
#163
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1738

Im just suggestion if you cant buff its performance than lower its costs.

It will still cost the Soviet player if you build maxim, just lesser bleed and faster redeployment. It doesn't hold the field as well but it can acts as a fast fix plaster unit. So cheaper makes sense
28 Feb 2020, 08:00 AM
#164
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Let me be crystal clear about maxim performance vs cost ratio.

First, answer me why cant a stug win a 1v1 afk fight against a jackson.
Some might say "the jackson costs more!". Well now again, imagine the stug vs a M4A3 sherman. Generally speaking the stug might win. But why? If the sherman is only 15 FU apart from the Jackson?

Well with that in mind now understand that units have definite limits on what they can achieve, even when the "target" unit is a counter or countered unit. There is no binary result of fights, but a full greyscale of scenarios that demand the players attention and reaction.

Maxim will more often loose frontally vs an ober squad because its out of their league. But sometimes and in some situations the maxim can deal with the same ober squad without hassle.

That is why the maxim is not trash.
28 Feb 2020, 08:10 AM
#165
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1738

Yes that's what im saying. Making it cheaper, like a plaster unit. It may win against ober, it may not mostly.

But lowered costs attract sov player to make choice to try the trash unit to hold ground and tech faster to a LV. Or play more pragmatic and progress tech on the intended scale.

Lower the cost and keeps up with the trash theme. Why not?
28 Feb 2020, 10:34 AM
#166
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1263


So "sprinting" pgrens are an issue but super fast cheap-o cartwheel HMG is OK? Well thats a new level of double standard.

Lets make maxim cheaper then, also lower its ROF, suppression, Acc, narrow the firing cone and make its vet1 require FU instead of Amunitions.

That is a legit trash maxim.


Dont drag all sorts of stuff into this that have no relevance. And how is a 240mp cart weel worse overal mg wich requires tech cheap?

What is the job of an mg? Its to control or stop infantree movement. The fact that a setup maxim can be frontaly charged by a single squad and forced off/wiped so often means it fails at it primary job quite handely. The deathloop only adds to this. 160hp extra dont make up for that. Again there is no valid reason for it costing 260mp. It doesnt need stat buffs just cost as it preforms worse then any other mg so it should be cheaper then them on a 1 on 1 basis.

The smaller ark faster traverse and quicker unpack time balance each other out.
That it can keep firing under suppression is probably tied to the deathloop as unintend and unfixable but it is very very rarely being supressed to begin with.

That the maxim is tougher to dislodge from buildings is a fact. But on the flip side the maxim has no chance vs vehicles bigger then a kubel. Axis also have very potent anti garrison with flametrack, aa halftrack and i believe ostwind as well got buffs vs garrisons the brumbar counters garrisons pretty nicely as does the stuka....

28 Feb 2020, 17:58 PM
#167
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



Dont drag all sorts of stuff into this that have no relevance. And how is a 240mp cart weel worse overal mg wich requires tech cheap?

What is the job of an mg? Its to control or stop infantree movement. The fact that a setup maxim can be frontaly charged by a single squad and forced off/wiped so often means it fails at it primary job quite handely. The deathloop only adds to this. 160hp extra dont make up for that. Again there is no valid reason for it costing 260mp. It doesnt need stat buffs just cost as it preforms worse then any other mg so it should be cheaper then them on a 1 on 1 basis.

Wrong. You assume roles perform infinitely more efficiently when in reality all units roles have a real limit of efficiency. A simple counter example is, A single TD will not always win against an infinite amount of tanks. It is often a basis of 2 to 1 or 1.5 to 1. This means that TD is 1.5 efficient. A single Vickers dont usually suppress good enough, so when 3 infantry squads charge in its very hard to stop all of them unless they blob. Vickers role efficiency is at most 2 then.

With this concept everyone can understand that the maxim has the worst cost to efficiency ratio of all HMGs by its role, its a sad thing, don get me wrong, but its meant to be that way also. Its like saying maxims is a 1v1 HMG.


That the maxim is tougher to dislodge from buildings is a fact. But on the flip side the maxim has no chance vs vehicles bigger then a kubel. Axis also have very potent anti garrison with flametrack, aa halftrack and i believe ostwind as well got buffs vs garrisons the brumbar counters garrisons pretty nicely as does the stuka....


It can hold itself for a long time vs a 222 until support comes, 221 are no match for a garrisoned maxim. A FHT is intant retreat. OST T2 is good i also acknowledge it. Ostwind is another tier of unit, its basically a medium armor tank, no one uses HMGS vs those.
But i agree on this point, maxims are limited by itself and also vs higher tier units, at least dshka can dish off damage with the normal fire + vet1
28 Feb 2020, 19:21 PM
#168
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1263


Wrong. You assume roles perform infinitely more efficiently when in reality all units roles have a real limit of efficiency. A simple counter example is, A single TD will not always win against an infinite amount of tanks. It is often a basis of 2 to 1 or 1.5 to 1. This means that TD is 1.5 efficient. A single Vickers dont usually suppress good enough, so when 3 infantry squads charge in its very hard to stop all of them unless they blob. Vickers role efficiency is at most 2 then.

With this concept everyone can understand that the maxim has the worst cost to efficiency ratio of all HMGs by its role, its a sad thing, don get me wrong, but its meant to be that way also. Its like saying maxims is a 1v1 HMG.

It can hold itself for a long time vs a 222 until support comes, 221 are no match for a garrisoned maxim. A FHT is intant retreat. OST T2 is good i also acknowledge it. Ostwind is another tier of unit, its basically a medium armor tank, no one uses HMGS vs those.
But i agree on this point, maxims are limited by itself and also vs higher tier units, at least dshka can dish off damage with the normal fire + vet1


I dont presume infenite efficiency. I want a maxim to at least stop a single squad from beating it frontaly if it costs the same as the other mg,s and requires some teach unlike mg42 and vickers. The maxim already struggles as a 1v1 mg. Just like you said every other mg can do this at least and fight lv,s to an extent. Except vickers. Again there is no valid reason for it costing 260 mp if its factualy a worse mg.

The t34 76 is the worst of the mediums but its also that much cheaper so its still cost effective. This conscept should apply to maxim in relation to other mg,s.
28 Feb 2020, 20:37 PM
#169
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3381 | Subs: 1

There is no reason for the Maxim to be 260mp. The Maxim can still be the worst MG and cost less, it's not that difficult. Changing cost by 20mp =\= redesigning the Soviets. It's a small change that makes sense when you compare Maxim to other MGs

The old maxim was 240mp. That means that building 4 Maxim's costed 960mp. Currently building 4 maxims would cost 1040mp. That 80mp difference is not preventing people from spamming it... Lowering the price will not bring back the spam
28 Feb 2020, 22:54 PM
#170
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

There is no reason for the Maxim to be 260mp. The Maxim can still be the worst MG and cost less, it's not that difficult. Changing cost by 20mp =\= redesigning the Soviets. It's a small change that makes sense when you compare Maxim to other MGs

The old maxim was 240mp. That means that building 4 Maxim's costed 960mp. Currently building 4 maxims would cost 1040mp. That 80mp difference is not preventing people from spamming it... Lowering the price will not bring back the spam

Maxims are not that bad to make them cheaper. Its in the worst but only possible place. Expensive enough to stop some spamming, but bad enough performance to not overshadow any other HMG.

This is a sad example of what players do that ruin some game mechanics. Because sometimes meta is only about abusing instead of using.

You cant remove the 6 man crew for SU because its their thing, but you cant make maxims worth their cost having such durability.
29 Feb 2020, 01:46 AM
#171
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 421 | Subs: 2

The things that made maxim spam scary have all since been nerfed:

1) At the time, the Maxim was just better than a squad of conscripts and cost the same. Conscripts back then were terrible against. Now, conscripts are legitimately capable of scaling into the late game, and are a lot more consistent than the RNG cannons of years past. There is a lot less incentive to produce Maxims as mainline infantry.

2) The Maxim used to have a near instant setup time. Now, the setup time is in-line with all other HMGs. The only mobility advantage it has is a bit faster teardown time.

3) The Maxim used to have a tiny cone, which meant you needed multiple to defend an area anyway. Currently, the Maxim has a respectable arc, so it can actually be used defensively.

4) The Maxim used to have a much lower reinforcement cost than conscripts. Now, it costs the same to reinforce. Again, lower incentive to use Maxims in place of conscripts.

Why is the Maxim bad?

It costs as much as an MG42, comes later than the MG42, cannot deal with infantry blobs or light vehicles as effectively as the MG42, covers less area than the MG42, and unlike an MG42, requires veterancy, munitions, and a spotter unit to effectively perform its job at suppressing.

Plenty of people argue that the MG34 is crap, and yet, the above can mostly still be said about Maxim vs MG34; the only exceptions being that the MG34 is cheaper than the Maxim and the Maxim comes earlier than the MG34 rather than later. The MG34 is still more effective at suppressing and deterring soft skinned vehicles than the Maxim.

What advantages does the Maxim have? A six-man crew so that it survives 2 models longer before the Soviet player loses the machine gun to an unfixable deathloop bug. A faster teardown so that it can escape when it inevitably fails to perform its job if the deathloop isn't triggered. Finally, it has a faster traverse, which is its only true advantage.

Soviet T2 is quite popular nowadays due to the current performance of conscripts, not Maxims. At the moment, the Maxim is not unusable, but the sentiment that "the Maxim is in line with other HMGs" or that "we shouldn't buff Maxim because Maxim spam" is a far stretch.

Nowadays with Pgrens being in T0, Assgren/Pio + multiple MG42s stall is quite common and viable in automatch, but its not like the forum is complaining about that like they did with the Maxim. And people are worried about buffing the Maxim? In what world will Maxim ever be buffed to anywhere near MG42 levels of accessibility and performance? In what world will Maxim spam be more effective than MG42 stall? This whole fearmongering of Maxim spam return doesn't hold any water at all.

I am not saying the Maxim should compare to the MG42, but at its current price of 260, it is quite underwhelming and cannot begin to compare with any of the other 260 cost HMGs. Unfortunately, I don't expect the balance team to have any grand plans with the Maxim. I understand that Ostheer is supposed to have good support weapons, so the MG42 should ultimately be better than Maxim. I get UKF is a defensive oriented faction so the Vickers should ultimately be better than Maxim. Fine, so I propose instead: if it keeps its current stats, its cost should be lowered to the MG34 price of 250 to put it in the "lower class" of MGs. I am all for reverting the fuel cost of T2 back to 20 or even making it more expensive than it used to be (up to 30 fuel) if it means I'm not overpaying for basic tools.
29 Feb 2020, 02:52 AM
#172
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3381 | Subs: 1


You cant remove the 6 man crew for SU because its their thing, but you cant make maxims worth their cost having such durability.


This point has been discussed at length already. The death loop completely counteracts the "durability" provided by the 6 man crew

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Feb 2020, 01:46 AMKasarov
snip


I pretty much agree with every word of that post. It makes no sense to me that people still fear the maxim spam, current maxim is not even remotely close to old maxim, and no one is trying to bring that back
29 Feb 2020, 05:14 AM
#173
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1738

If gren got a reinforcement buff.
There is no reason why maxim should not reduce costs. It is too expensive!
I think it is best solution to keep the theme and help maxim without spam fear.
29 Feb 2020, 07:57 AM
#174
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



This point has been discussed at length already. The death loop completely counteracts the "durability" provided by the 6 man crew

Even when i am agreeing with you, you missed to say that the deathloop requires the attacking squad to remain "attacking" the maxim until the last model drops. It counts as a durability stats still.
29 Feb 2020, 08:58 AM
#175
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1263


Even when i am agreeing with you, you missed to say that the deathloop requires the attacking squad to remain "attacking" the maxim until the last model drops. It counts as a durability stats still.


Yes but that the models need to preform an animation to pick it up again everytime takes it dies during retreat and it takes to long. They die again before they move another inch.
Most other mg,s just have the mg teleport to the next model who is already running. Those other mg,s can all frontaly stop a single squad from nading it.
They are less likely to eat nades and have a far better chance of retreating before being wiped. So no the maxim is not as durable as some claim.
And it still should not cost 260mp. This implies it should be just as cost effective as the other 260mp mg,s. Wich it clearly is not.

29 Feb 2020, 10:42 AM
#176
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3381 | Subs: 1


you missed to say that the deathloop requires the attacking squad to remain "attacking" the maxim until the last model drops.


I didn't miss anything, that's just the definition of the death loop....?

The entire point is that you can "attack" the Maxim for longer because it gets stuck in a loop... Other MGs dont get slowed down by models dying

The squad size is often made completely meaningless by the loop. The Maxim gets killed in situations where other MGs would've gotten away. That means it's not more durable
29 Feb 2020, 21:55 PM
#177
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Feb 2020, 05:54 AMmrgame2
Just lowering its costs, lower reinforcement cost, lower build/reinforced time.

Just make it faster and cheaper. Done


So, making it more op? xDDD
29 Feb 2020, 23:04 PM
#178
avatar of miragefla
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

I would reduce its cost and work from there if possible. Perhaps back to 240-250 range to better represent its performance.
1 Mar 2020, 02:56 AM
#179
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1738

I would reduce its cost and work from there if possible. Perhaps back to 240-250 range to better represent its performance.


Do it!
aaa
1 Mar 2020, 20:08 PM
#180
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1485

I would reduce its cost and work from there if possible. Perhaps back to 240-250 range to better represent its performance.


that would change nothing. 240 mp makes it more spamable also. Didnt see any maxim in todays games. Most likely not a single one was build. Better copypast 50 cal profile or dshk. Both are balanced

Also upgraded cons reinforce price to 140, upgraded volks to 130 to better reflect their performance
PAGES (10)down
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

106 users are online: 1 member and 105 guests
comm_ash
38 posts in the last 24h
237 posts in the last week
776 posts in the last month
Registered members: 35113
Welcome our newest member, Butterfield11623
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM