Login

russian armor

Ambient building

5 Oct 2020, 10:17 AM
#1
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1

Ambient buildings can be pivotal in game. Yet their current counter are inconstant. Certain weapons do allot of damage an can take certain buildings down with a couple of shot while either weapon do very little.

My suggestions would be:

1) Reduce the damage that certain weapons do like the Pak howitzer,zis/Su-76 barrage..., there weapons simply cause too much damage to ambient building.

2) Add the ability to flamer (both vehicle and hand held) to burn building. (The ability is already exist in campaign). For Soviet/Ostheer it can become a doctrinal ability for engineer's flamers.
5 Oct 2020, 10:23 AM
#2
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

1) Why? That is exactly what hardcounters are supposed to do.

2) It already exists in mp, attack order building and it'll eventually be set on fire.
5 Oct 2020, 10:33 AM
#3
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1

1) Why? That is exactly what hardcounters are supposed to do.

Not sure what give you the idea that zis is designed as hard counter to Ambient buildings, but it is not.


2) It already exists in mp, attack order building and it'll eventually be set on fire.

I suggest you try to set on fire a building using hand held flamer and record how much time it will take you.
5 Oct 2020, 10:38 AM
#4
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 10:33 AMVipper

Not sure what give you the idea that zis is designed as hard counter to Ambient buildings, but it is not.

Artillery counters static defence.
Sorry, I can't put a more clear picture for you.


I suggest you try to set on fire a building using hand held flamer and record how much time it will take you.

I never said its fast, I said it works already.
If it was effortless as you want it to make, it would make quite a few units from quite a few doctrines across all 5 factions much less relevant.
5 Oct 2020, 10:42 AM
#5
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1


Artillery counters static defence.
Sorry, I can't put a more clear picture for you.

Sory I have no intention of explaining to you the difference between an ambient building and static defenses.

On the other hand if your theory was true other artillery weapons should brought up to the same level in taking out ambient buildings.


I never said its fast, I said it works already.

Only it does not.


If it was effortless as you want it to make, it would make quite a few units from quite a few doctrines across all 5 factions much less relevant.

Not really and I have not suggest it should be effortless.

But I see you in trolling mode again so I will leave to it.
5 Oct 2020, 10:46 AM
#6
avatar of SneakEye
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 771 | Subs: 5

Ambient buildings are not as straight forward as other buildable entities. These ambient buildings partially ignore health and use a panel system. For example, it will collapse when you drive a vehicle through all four walls. High explosive weapons hit more panels and therefor have more effect. Flame weapons cause a critical which interacts with the panels. To edit their durability, one needs to fully understand how this system works (I don't).
5 Oct 2020, 10:47 AM
#7
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

Oh, I see you do not want to discuss anything, but again force your perspective on everyone and run away from any kind of opinion that isn't 100% aligned with yours.
5 Oct 2020, 11:00 AM
#8
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1

Ambient buildings are not as straight forward as other buildable entities. These ambient buildings partially ignore health and use a panel system. For example, it will collapse when you drive a vehicle through all four walls. High explosive weapons hit more panels and therefor have more effect. Flame weapons cause a critical which interacts with the panels. To edit their durability, one needs to fully understand how this system works (I don't).

I am aware of that and that is why these weapons become too good vs ambient building when their AOE profile changed. Actually there was an older patch that fixed ambient building of the time.

An fast solution would be to turn these weapons into "small explosion" from big explosion and then they would less damage to ambient buildings.

Hope this helps:

"Ambient Buildings


AOE Weapons


According to this adjusting specific weapons like the pack howitzer, zis/su-76 barrage, M-42 canister,...to do less damage to building should be a simply change.
5 Oct 2020, 11:03 AM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1

Oh, I see you do not want to discuss anything, but again force your perspective on everyone and run away from any kind of opinion that isn't 100% aligned with yours.

Actually even members of the MOD team agree that flamers performance vs ambient buildings is not satisfactory, so this not just "my opinion".

The problem is not but you that you do not want discuss anything and you simply want to prove that "smarter" than others.

I guess one has to play the game like me and others do, instead of theory crafting to be aware of certain issues.
5 Oct 2020, 11:54 AM
#10
avatar of Letzte Bataillon

Posts: 195

This is an interesting thread. I was very reluctant to post about this matter. I haven't delved into the mod tools enough nor is my knowledge of COH2's inner workings near enough to be able to provide objective evidence, but I've lately been observing that certain units did way too much damage to ambient buildings. Apparently, even those that have, such as SneakEye, aren't sure themselves.


1) Why? That is exactly what hardcounters are supposed to do.


To give an example, ZiS Anti-Tank Guns with their 'Barrage' ability are very effective at taking out garrisoned MGs by collapsing the building on top of them. Something that Mortars, the actual hardcounter to this kind of play, never come close to doing. There's a hidden numerical value somewhere that has been completely overlooked, not unlike its former attribute of ignoring heavy cover.

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 11:00 AMVipper

Hope this helps:

"Ambient Buildings

According to this adjusting specific weapons like the pack howitzer, zis/su-76 barrage, M-42 canister,...to do less damage to building should be a simply change.


I've also been playing Age of Empires lately and its mechanics feel like a playground compared to what Relic has created with CoH2.
5 Oct 2020, 12:53 PM
#11
avatar of Flying Dustbin

Posts: 267 | Subs: 1

To give an example, ZiS Anti-Tank Guns with their 'Barrage' ability are very effective at taking out garrisoned MGs


It's not just an anti-tank gun.


5 Oct 2020, 13:07 PM
#12
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

I don't really see too much added value in adding a separate ability, along with some possible issues with converting an SP ability to MP or UI issues or questions like what about other units that pick up a flamer. The manual targeting works just fine.

But as seen in my personal patch notes I do agree that the time to set stone buildings on fire is currently way too long to be practical and should be reduced.
5 Oct 2020, 13:18 PM
#13
avatar of Letzte Bataillon

Posts: 195



It's not just an anti-tank gun.




Indeed, technically and historically they double as light artillery but this is a strategy game and when the actual specialized light artillery units, mortars, cannot match their performance versus ambient buildings (which is a secondary, "off-brand" role for ZiS guns in COH), they are clearly broken.
5 Oct 2020, 13:23 PM
#14
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1

I don't really see too much added value in adding a separate ability, along with some possible issues with converting an SP ability to MP or UI issues or questions like what about other units that pick up a flamer. The manual targeting works just fine.


There is a number of reason why a separate abilities is better solution:

1) Only 2 faction have access to stock flamers by making a separate ability one can limit the access to such utility for soviet and ostheer making more inline with other faction. (For instance the ability can become available with breakthrough equipment for Ostheer)

2) By using an ability one can better fine tune the time to set each building on fire and how often such an ability can be used. Easy access to destruction of ambient buildings can result in making infiltration units obsolete.

3) one can add a mu cost to it


But as seen in my personal patch notes I do agree that the time to set stone buildings on fire is currently way too long to be practical and should be reduced.

Glad to see confirmation that flamer interaction with Ambient buildings is not just "Vipper's perspective" as someone claimed.
5 Oct 2020, 13:25 PM
#15
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1



It's not just an anti-tank gun.



well it not just an ATG but other hand it not a hard counter to ambient buildings either as someone suggested.

(by the way the photo does not work...)
5 Oct 2020, 13:43 PM
#16
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2743 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 13:23 PMVipper


There is a number of reason why a separate abilities is better solution:

1) Only 2 faction have access to stock flamers by making a separate ability one can limit the access to such utility for soviet and ostheer making more inline with other faction. (For instance the ability can become available with breakthrough equipment for Ostheer)

2) By using an ability one can better fine tune the time to set each building on fire and how often such an ability can be used. Easy access to destruction of ambient buildings can result in making infiltration units obsolete.

3) one can add a mu cost to it


Glad to see confirmation that flamer interaction with Ambient buildings is not just "Vipper's perspective" as someone claimed.


Those suggestions would make the ability almost pointless.
1) Ostheer would get only one (two?) instances of this then-doctrinal ability.
Soviets get it how? Standard? This would just lead to confusion about flamer units and would also be a bit off if other units pick up a flame thrower. And other factions? Get it on top of their flame pio doctrine or not? If so, OST would be the only faction to not have it on their flame pios.
2) I don't think there are enough important buildings on most maps that would actually require gating the ability somehow. Usually it is enough to take out 1, maybe 2 buildings at most. Especially on large modes. Also, there are not many infiltrations units anymore that spawn from buildings. I probably forgot one, but I the ones I currently remember are Stormtroopers and Partisans (that no one plays anyway).
3) Depending on how costly it is, this might only make sense for Ostheer. But this faction needs their munitions early on (where taking out buildings is the most important) for upgrades, so there is not much space for spending mun on destroying a building. Soviets - again, depending on the price - are often just better of then building a demo charge. If I already pay (probably 20-40 mun) for destroying the building, I can just add another ~30 on top for a potential squad wipe or damage.


I agree that setting buildings on fire more easily would be good, but adding yet another ability would just cause more issues, potentially bugs and quirks than necessary.
Make it inherent to flame weapons, only pios get them anyway. And if another unit picks up the flamer by god let them have the passive "ability" too. It's a rather rare case and would probably not cause issues. But active abilities that need potential doctrinal activation will just cause issues and more oversights should we ever see semi regular patches again.
5 Oct 2020, 13:55 PM
#17
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12979 | Subs: 1

...

I disagree that Soviet and Ostheer should be able to destroy all ambient buildings in map with a T0 unit with a 60 mu investment. Might as well veto all urban map when playing EFA or forcing specific doctrines since these faction will be able to decide which building is gets destroyed.

As for doctrines there around 7 of them with infiltration units and I do not thing they need to nerfed.

Finally as for partisans I have seen effective use of them in urban maps in 3vs3 at rank around 150.
5 Oct 2020, 14:47 PM
#18
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2743 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 13:55 PMVipper

I disagree that Soviet and Ostheer should be able to destroy all ambient buildings in map with a T0 unit with a 60 mu investment. Might as well veto all urban map when playing EFA or forcing specific doctrines since these faction will be able to decide which building is gets destroyed.

As for doctrines there around 7 of them with infiltration units and I do not thing they need to nerfed.

Finally as for partisans I have seen effective use of them in urban maps in 3vs3 at rank around 150.


Unless that ability cooldown will be 5 min or so it will not matter much. As I said, most maps do not have more than 2 important buildings in a player's lane if at all. We just need a better timer until the building starts burning by it own. You pay with a lot of field presence if your pio is off flaming buildings on it's own (unless you want long cast time plus long CD which might be). No one is going to spend time flaming unimportant buildings, so there will also be enough space for Stormtroopers (I don't want to open pandora's box of Partisans again, so I'll leave it at a quick comment: My experience was very different. I have not seen them in high rank Twitch 1v1 and neither in my shite rank 2v2 and 3v3 which I play primarily).

I am not saying an ability per se is bad, but it just adds additional burden on maintainance and bug fixing that is really not worth the problem we are dealing with.
5 Oct 2020, 15:48 PM
#19
avatar of Flying Dustbin

Posts: 267 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 13:25 PMVipper

(by the way the photo does not work...)


Shame, it was a cool photo I took at a war museum in Ukraine with some history about the ZiS
5 Oct 2020, 16:03 PM
#20
avatar of Kieselberg

Posts: 256

This "problem" can/got solved by intelligent map design on most maps . Wodden houses are no real threat to any faction, since they can collapse quite easy, no matter the advaning faction.
Stone houses can prove to be troublesome, especially with certain doctrines (urban defence which got its needed nerf).
In this case some factions have more trouble clearing them (OKW, UKF, USF). Ost and Sov can easily CLEAR them with flame pios or flame ht.

Considering stone houses are a problem, id like to see the flamer crit threshold lowered. At some point in time it was increased by a large margin, since the german mortar ht were way to effeicent to deal with them. As a side effect, pioners suffered as well

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
GCS3: Quarter Finals

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

97 users are online: 2 members and 95 guests
Kurobane, Protos Angelus
16 posts in the last 24h
141 posts in the last week
954 posts in the last month
Registered members: 32070
Welcome our newest member, molly_cooper_62
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM