Login

russian armor

Why the 7 model Cons

10 Mar 2020, 23:08 PM
#1
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 197

Why was the 7th model Conscript upgraded introduced a few patches ago?
What event made that "improvement" come true? Who requested it?
10 Mar 2020, 23:29 PM
#2
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2636

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2020, 23:08 PMLeo251
Why was the 7th model Conscript upgraded introduced a few patches ago?


Because the lack of non-doctrinal weapon upgrades for Conscripts resulted in abhorrent late game scaling, as well as the inability to purchase and upgrade a vet 0 Conscript squad in the late game because it would get absolutely nuked by veteran Axis infantry (especially elite infantry) with weapons upgrades, resulting in very unfair and one-sided situations were late game wipes on veteran conscripts were game deciding. Thus the balance team had 2 options, either to give them a weapon upgrade such as a double/single DP28 LMG, or to increase the squad size to 7 and provide rate of fire bonuses. They went with the later, as well as reload and veterancy gain bonuses to allow the Soviet player to purchase Conscripts in the late game and not be unfairly punished for it.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2020, 23:08 PMLeo251
What event made that "improvement" come true?


It wasn't really a single event, more of an issue with players constantly going T1 for Penals and choosing not to bother with conscripts. The Soviet faction did not have usable mainline infantry, and to the balance team's credit they identified and fixed the issue.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2020, 23:08 PMLeo251
Who requested it?


About 90% of the playerbase and about 99% of the elite 1v1 players. The general consensus before the May 2019 Balance patch was that Conscripts were in dire need of late game scaling and some kind of upgrade was necessary. Feel free to read up on that: https://www.coh2.org/topic/89485/soviet-general-faction-changes-new-cmdr-mod-5-0




Anything else?
10 Mar 2020, 23:33 PM
#3
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 571

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2020, 23:08 PMLeo251
Why was the 7th model Conscript upgraded introduced a few patches ago?
What event made that "improvement" come true? Who requested it?


Because conscripts had no chance vs any inf late game without ppsh, they had no stock ai upgrade. Their one and only job late game became snaring, while being eradicated during the attempt and using more muni then other factions cuz oorah was needed on the shorter range snare.
The supossed strength of their utility didnt scale as well. Nothing for merge sandbags or oorah just the basic molly and at nade vet buffs wich you need to tech to.

The 7th man allows them to scale. They get the hp to outlast the enemy now wich has been their design since release while also doing a tiny bit more damage (the rof buff is getting dropped) Merge doesnt cost you the squad as much and you can fully crew on the field without loosing the squad.
10 Mar 2020, 23:50 PM
#4
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15221 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2020, 23:08 PMLeo251
Why was the 7th model Conscript upgraded introduced a few patches ago?
What event made that "improvement" come true? Who requested it?

Reading patch notes too hard?
Here, let me help you:
To improve the performance of Conscripts, while retaining their role as utility infantry that excel at defense and supporting other units, we have added an upgrade to help them scale into the late game. The extra man and reduced reinforce cost will allow them to more effectively trade against opposing infantry while the veterancy bonus will allow fresh Conscript squads to gain veterancy.


What event made that come true?
The 5 years of literally no one using conscripts for any other reason then memes coupled with firm denial to give them stock weapon upgrade, so they actually keep being useful after 5 minutes of the game.
11 Mar 2020, 09:37 AM
#5
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8289 | Subs: 1

Imo the 7 men upgrade is badly designed.

I currently "competes" with other doctrinal upgrades since it mutually exclusive.

I would test removing the extra model and reduce cost to 10-20MU (or make it passive), remove the cover bonus and leave XP gain and reinforcement reduction.

In addition PPsh now take a weapons slot, "hit the dirt" becomes a separate ability, Weapon Drop is simply completely redesigning or removed.
11 Mar 2020, 09:41 AM
#6
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 889

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 09:37 AMVipper
Imo the 7 men upgrade is badly designed.

I currently "competes" with other doctrinal upgrades since it mutually exclusive.

I would test removing the extra model and reduce cost to 10-20MU (or make it passive), remove the cover bonus and leave XP gain and reinforcement reduction.

In addition PPsh now take a weapons slot, "hit the dirt" becomes a separate ability, Weapon Drop is simply completely redesigning or removed.


Only if cons gain non-doctrinal LMG upgrade after T4.
11 Mar 2020, 10:02 AM
#7
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 09:41 AMAradan


Only if cons gain non-doctrinal LMG upgrade after T4.


I find the 7th person unnecessary for me, I would initially prefer the DP-27 or another weapon upgrade for Conscripts. Therefore, I dont use the 7th person and prefer the dropped machine gun / grenade launcher. I find Conscripts with with picked up from the ground weaponry much more useful as a combat unit especially Conscripts + MG-34 make them wonderful. Maybe the 7th person is relevant in 1v1 alone but in 3v3 and higher, all this also needs only one squad for throwing an AT grenade. For Soviets 3v3 and above, you obviously need the Shock Troops as the main troops so that you would not be rolled out.
11 Mar 2020, 10:07 AM
#8
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8289 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 09:41 AMAradan


Only if cons gain non-doctrinal LMG upgrade after T4.

Giving access to LMGs in squad that have high number of entities is not a good "design" imo.

The reason for it is that if the DPS of a squad is highly concentrate in a single weapon the DPS drop off when losing model is diminished.

In the case of conscripts it would further create issues vs grenadiers and it would diminish "relative positioning", since both unit would be better off fighting at long distance. Thus it would create static play.

To make thing even worse it would make "ourah" even more powerful since conscripts could use to reduce causalities while moving into heavy cover.

Imo Relic is right to resist call for giving conscripts access to LMGs and imo giving LMGs to osttruppen was also a step in the wrong direction (although Ostt low EHP makes it less of an issue).

Finally Soviet seem to be a very strong faction and I see no real reason to received major buffs as access to LMG for conscripts.

If conscripts are not attractive enough other solution inside the faction need to be found (and there are) instead of turning a diversity issue into a balance issue.
11 Mar 2020, 10:21 AM
#9
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 1939

cons are very good actually. Every guy which say cons are bad..its a l2p issue. not more. There so many games castet where everybody can see: they are wow. with or without upgrade...they are super cheap, hard to lose, have many abiltys to use...and have enough firepower to hold the line (yes..not alone vs 4 obers)
11 Mar 2020, 10:50 AM
#10
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 197



Because the lack of non-doctrinal weapon upgrades for Conscripts resulted in abhorrent late game scaling, as well as the inability to purchase and upgrade a vet 0 Conscript squad in the late game because it would get absolutely nuked by veteran Axis infantry (especially elite infantry) with weapons upgrades, resulting in very unfair and one-sided situations were late game wipes on veteran conscripts were game deciding. Thus the balance team had 2 options, either to give them a weapon upgrade such as a double/single DP28 LMG, or to increase the squad size to 7 and provide rate of fire bonuses. They went with the later, as well as reload and veterancy gain bonuses to allow the Soviet player to purchase Conscripts in the late game and not be unfairly punished for it.

The same thing could apply to Grens, but here we are, still with 4men.


It wasn't really a single event, more of an issue with players constantly going T1 for Penals and choosing not to bother with conscripts. The Soviet faction did not have usable mainline infantry, and to the balance team's credit they identified and fixed the issue.

So, the problem was Penals. Instead of nerfing penals, patch team buff cons. :loco:


About 90% of the playerbase and about 99% of the elite 1v1 players. The general consensus before the May 2019 Balance patch was that Conscripts were in dire need of late game scaling and some kind of upgrade was necessary. Feel free to read up on that: https://www.coh2.org/topic/89485/soviet-general-faction-changes-new-cmdr-mod-5-0

The same thing could apply to Grens. 90% of player base has problems with 4men Gren squads.
11 Mar 2020, 10:54 AM
#11
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 571

Cons are indeed good early on. Fast durable but not cheap and only strong up close in most scenario,s. They drop many models and have 2 side tech abilities wich require specfic tech only for them.

When upgrades and vet kick in, cons without ppsh or 7th man fall short greatly imo. The vet recc acc of cons is nothing exceptional anymore. It doesnt counteract vet acc and ai upgrades of enemy inf nearly enough.

Volks can do most thing cons can do and just beat them at every range esp close range with stg,s completly invalidating cons in a 1v1 scenario. and every job they both can do volks do better for minimal investments.

Grens while fragile have a ai upgrade at least a actual nade and lots of healing and reinforcing options.

I for one am happy they didnt go lmg or svt stock for cons. Now its either go 7th man or pick a doctrinal upgrade wich excludes the 7th man and vice versa. 7th man allow merge to scale as well.
11 Mar 2020, 11:01 AM
#12
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 430

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 10:50 AMLeo251

The same thing could apply to Grens, but here we are, still with 4men.


So, the problem was Penals. Instead of nerfing penals, patch team buff cons. :loco:


The same thing could apply to Grens. 90% of player base has problems with 4men Gren squads.
diffirence is that even vet 0 grens could still work out when you refurbished them with mg 42s. They werent gonna go against vet 3 paras sure but lmg did give them chance against opposing mainlines.

Cons on the otherhand had only their shitty basic nagants, which dps would be largely mitigated by recieved accuracy bonuses enemies would have gathered.

As for penals, they start out with better rifles, which also gave them chance later on without vet.

11 Mar 2020, 11:17 AM
#13
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 197

Cons are indeed good early on. Fast durable but not cheap and only strong up close in most scenario,s. They drop many models and have 2 side tech abilities wich require specfic tech only for them.

When upgrades and vet kick in, cons without ppsh or 7th man fall short greatly imo. The vet recc acc of cons is nothing exceptional anymore. It doesnt counteract vet acc and ai upgrades of enemy inf nearly enough.

Volks can do most thing cons can do and just beat them at every range esp close range with stg,s completly invalidating cons in a 1v1 scenario. and every job they both can do volks do better for minimal investments.

Grens while fragile have a ai upgrade at least a actual nade and lots of healing and reinforcing options.

I for one am happy they didnt go lmg or svt stock for cons. Now its either go 7th man or pick a doctrinal upgrade wich excludes the 7th man and vice versa. 7th man allow merge to scale as well.

In late game stages, just like Soviets, Ost doesnt need good AI infantry. Ost needs durable inf, just to cap points (even without any gun :D)
11 Mar 2020, 11:45 AM
#14
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 418

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Mar 2020, 23:50 PMKatitof

What event made that come true?
The 5 years of literally no one using conscripts for any other reason then memes coupled with firm denial to give them stock weapon upgrade, so they actually keep being useful after 5 minutes of the game.


PPSH cons have always been viable and prior to wfa, 4 con molo builds were not uncommon. And yeah If you meant that cons without upgrades and after WFA release were rarely spammed effectively then sure, but that's not what was stated.



I find the 7th person unnecessary for me, I would initially prefer the DP-27 or another weapon upgrade for Conscripts. Therefore, I dont use the 7th person and prefer the dropped machine gun / grenade launcher. I find Conscripts with with picked up from the ground weaponry much more useful as a combat unit especially Conscripts + MG-34 make them wonderful. Maybe the 7th person is relevant in 1v1 alone but in 3v3 and higher, all this also needs only one squad for throwing an AT grenade. For Soviets 3v3 and above, you obviously need the Shock Troops as the main troops so that you would not be rolled out.


Pre nerf, 7man conscripts would outperform a DP28 con at any range in almost any circumstance. This is of course not even factoring in the utility of being able to recrew then merge to full health weapons teams or more cost efficient trades with reduced reinforce costs. It's hard for me to conceive why you would avoid 7 man con upgrade when it was-and still is- such a powerful upgrade REGARDLESS of mode.

The Mg-34 example is borderline hyperbolic since that is the most powerful lmg in the game and would make any unit equipped with it retardedly strong.

Cons are indeed good early on. Fast durable but not cheap and only strong up close in most scenario,s. They drop many models and have 2 side tech abilities wich require specfic tech only for them.q


Cons are weak in the early game and without ppsh or svt, even weaker in the mid game.
11 Mar 2020, 11:48 AM
#15
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 571

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 11:17 AMLeo251

In late game stages, just like Soviets, Ost doesnt need good AI infantry. Ost needs durable inf, just to cap points (even without any gun :D)


So you dont want to protect your at guns mortars stugs pwerfers etc from infantry assaults and snaring? The ostwind p4 and brum will do fine when facing 60 range td wich are supporting their inf push?
Cuz for quite a while soviets could not defend against any push because their inf dropped like flies and did little damage in return with the exception of shocks. Soviets where a meme faction back then, only in support role in team games tops.

I think capping for ost in the late game got better when they nerfed the demo out of the game. Now with the cap and decap speed at t4 it will be better as well. I like the smaller chances they are making. A 5th man is doctrinal for ost as an ai upgrade and nades is for soviet. Nothing wrong or imbalanced here imo.
11 Mar 2020, 12:08 PM
#16
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15221 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 11:45 AMSerrith


PPSH cons have always been viable and prior to wfa, 4 con molo builds were not uncommon. And yeah If you meant that cons without upgrades and after WFA release were rarely spammed effectively then sure, but that's not what was stated.

You know a unit is broken up if it can be used exclusively with doctrine.
Ppsh cons were never problem, stock ones were.
That is why stock cons got upgrade.
11 Mar 2020, 12:10 PM
#17
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 11:45 AMSerrith




Pre nerf, 7man conscripts would outperform a DP28 con at any range in almost any circumstance. This is of course not even factoring in the utility of being able to recrew then merge to full health weapons teams or more cost efficient trades with reduced reinforce costs. It's hard for me to conceive why you would avoid 7 man con upgrade when it was-and still is- such a powerful upgrade REGARDLESS of mode.

The Mg-34 example is borderline hyperbolic since that is the most powerful lmg in the game and would make any unit equipped with it retardedly strong.


MG-42, Bren, Vickers, Schreck, Bazooka with any of these weapons. Conscripts will be better than the 7th person. I prefer an aggressive style of play with significant microcontrol. So a weapon upgrade is more useful to me than a bonus of accuracy from a static state. I do not need this illusory merger bonus. I need a normal basic infantry, and this right is called basic infantry, it goes from patch to patch from Conscripts to Penal and vice versa, because it is impossible to make two starting infantry units equally useful (no faction has such a stupid design), because of this we come to the strange concepts of the 7th person inventing strange roles for them. And I continue to think that we should remove one infantry unit and make the remaining unit competitive for the starting infantry of the remaining factions.
11 Mar 2020, 12:13 PM
#18
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 571

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Mar 2020, 11:45 AMSerrith


Cons are weak in the early game and without ppsh or svt, even weaker in the mid game.


Early on cons are fine. They are faster and more durable then anything they face. When upgrades come out then indeed they are weak. Their durability advantidge becomes rather obsolete at that point, without ai upgrades to cover this they just suck mostly.
The 7th man corrects this and gives them the durability advantidge again.
11 Mar 2020, 12:17 PM
#19
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 889



MG-42, Bren, Vickers, Schreck, Bazooka with any of these weapons. Conscripts will be better than the 7th person. I prefer an aggressive style of play with significant microcontrol. So a weapon upgrade is more useful to me than a bonus of accuracy from a static state. I do not need this illusory merger bonus. I need a normal basic infantry, and this right is called basic infantry, it goes from patch to patch from Conscripts to Penal and vice versa, because it is impossible to make two starting infantry units equally useful (no faction has such a stupid design), because of this we come to the strange concepts of the 7th person inventing strange roles for them. And I continue to think that we should remove one infantry unit and make the remaining unit competitive for the starting infantry of the remaining factions.


+1
11 Mar 2020, 12:29 PM
#20
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8289 | Subs: 1


MG-42, Bren, Vickers, Schreck, Bazooka with any of these weapons. Conscripts will be better than the 7th person. I prefer an aggressive style of play with significant microcontrol. So a weapon upgrade is more useful to me than a bonus of accuracy from a static state.

That makes little sense. All the weapon you mention require the conscripts to be stationary to fire them, actually 7 men conscript on the move would have more DPS on the move than 5 men conscript on the move +1 weapon that does not fire.


I do not need this illusory merger bonus. I need a normal basic infantry, and this right is called basic infantry, it goes from patch to patch from Conscripts to Penal and vice versa, because it is impossible to make two starting infantry units equally useful (no faction has such a stupid design), because of this we come to the strange concepts of the 7th person inventing strange roles for them. And I continue to think that we should remove one infantry unit and make the remaining unit competitive for the starting infantry of the remaining factions.

I do agree that Penal is design is problematic.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
UTT2 Main Event
Event in Progress

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

138 users are online: 3 members and 135 guests
bulatcr, ExYUIIBenjamin, Baba
71 posts in the last 24h
907 posts in the last week
4564 posts in the last month
Registered members: 22821
Welcome our newest member, 4gabriellae8522gc0
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM