Login

russian armor

Zis-3 as an AT gun

PAGES (8)down
10 Feb 2021, 13:26 PM
#85
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3596 | Subs: 1


Neither ZiS nor SU76 have anything to do with the Brummbar. Such is mentioning the SU76 being an assault gun as a response to Esxile's claim. It simply has nothing to do with the discussion.



There are multiple ways to balance abilities, but tying them to cost alone creates heavy differences between modes.
Making abilities powerful and expensive will lead to strange cheese tactics, making them weak and cheap might make them feel useless and not worth the micro effort.
The damage the ZiS barrage does is in order for 35-ish munition in my opinion. I would not screw around with that too much since it feels in line with other abilities. If the issue is spamability, CD might be the way to go.


The same way you can spam grenades on late game when floating on munition or whatever other ability in fact.
One Zis can't spam its barrage everywhere in the map because its still a clunky unit to move that also need to be available to counter tanks. I maintain what I said the problem occurs when you got two of them as per meta and then: or you got a windows frame to use both of them on a single location for a devastating effect, or one of them while de second is kept a bit further to protect it from tanks flanking it.

IMO if you start nerfing the CD you'll basically make it way worst to use as single unit and enforce people to build two of them to overcome the CD nerf.

On a side note, isn't possible for the moderation to speak with Vipper about his semantic pedantic attitude. Honeslty should we always lose so much time and effort to bear with its semantic arguments on every topic like him making the SU-76 the equivalent of the Brumbar because they both have somewho the denomitation of assault gun IRL but are completely different in game.
Pip
10 Feb 2021, 15:33 PM
#86
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2021, 08:22 AMTygrys


Well done, you just contradicted yourself. You yourself say it relies on luck and no, it doesn't do "fantastic damage". When was the last time you played Soviets and used the ZiS? Because I have a feeling like you haven't at all if you're saying what you're saying.


No, I didnt. It relies on luck to get outright wipes, as with any non-grenade explosive weapon. The Brummbar also relies on luck to get wipes (Unless you are attack grounding, at which point its much more deterministic), Mortars rely on luck to get wipes, all tanks rely on luck to get wipes, artillery relies on luck to get wipes.

It does not rely on luck to do its job, however, which is to do AI damage at range, and force the relocation of units and team weapons. It does this while obviating the Soviet's need for a regular mortar in most cases.

I, like everyone else, make use of the ZiS in practically any soviet game, due to its strength and versatility.
10 Feb 2021, 20:59 PM
#88
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Feb 2021, 21:09 PMPip


I mean, this is taken into consideration, isnt it? Conscripts are an utility squad that trades favourably with axis infantry, particularly once it gets the 7-man upgrade, and vets up. They're not intended as a burst damage/focus fire squad, they're there to take points and make the enemy bleed hard trying to get them back.

which falls off dramatically when the enemy gets weapon upgrades, like 3 min into the game from their first techs while the soviet counterpart comes with their final tier. even then, you cant simply utility youre enemy to death- this idea that you can has been the bane of conscripts from days old. their utility has to be coupled with killing power elsewhere, in this case, the zis.

Centralised DPS is less an issue for SOV due to merge, and they even already have units (Guards, who are admittedly doctrinal) to fulfil that function. In any case, Conscripts are an exceedingly good infantry squad, with a lot going for it.
centralized dps is king in this gameis huge and bursting down models is what makes and breaks engagements, for example, if tommies do not kill 2 models of a sturm squad before they close, tommies lose to sturms with no cover attacking into tommies with green. when you start adding vet durability to both sides and then concentrated dps to one, the side without loses out.

and killing isnt the thing they have going for them, they have other units to do that. take away the ability for other units to do that and there is nothing to do that. cons are there to be a present enough threat to tar pit enemies while other units deal actual damage. eneough of a threat they cant be ignored but forced off easy enough if focused.



The zis is marginally worse at AT, sure, but it is also more survivable and has the incredibly valuable Barrage. Making the Barrage less effective than it is now is unlikely to make the unit useless or overpriced, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

the barrage is getting) nerfed. the follow up shells come much slower than they did before. im not overstating the ability at all, i simply understand why its necessary and dont think making the zis into a shittier pak is a good idea for the faction that doesn't even have a grenade in their core lineup. the barrage serves a purpose within the faction and removing it requires adjustments elsewhere

I'm pretty sure the ISU-152 is an anti-tank vehicle, and the HE shells are the thing that people complain about... not the AP shells. Reminds me of another unit, actually.

the isu is not and never ever in its entire existence in game or real life been an AT unit. it has ALWAYS been an AI unit first and foremost. the fact that it could engage tanks IRL was a reult of the huge caliber of gun and in game it serves to keep its performance and price in line because there is no way to have a ~250 fuel only AI unit remotely balanced. by having AT it eats up some of the "points" that go into cost effeciency and keeps its price high enough and its AI low enough that its palpable


I'm pretty sure it hasn't been suggested that the Barrage is being "gotten rid of", at least not meaningfully by anyone with the ability to make that so.
locking it behind vet is as good as and would throw off the balance in place and certainly require buffs to the zis and elsewhere in the faction.
What's being suggested (and being implemented in the Balance Patch) is a nerf to the Barrage to make it less oppressive. It doesn't need to be oppressive to be an useful unit or ability.

exactly, there is already a nerf in place, ive been operating under the assumption that people feel that that is not enough (thus a new thread complaining about something that is already being addressed)
11 Feb 2021, 11:41 AM
#89
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3104 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2021, 13:26 PMEsxile


The same way you can spam grenades on late game when floating on munition or whatever other ability in fact.
One Zis can't spam its barrage everywhere in the map because its still a clunky unit to move that also need to be available to counter tanks. I maintain what I said the problem occurs when you got two of them as per meta and then: or you got a windows frame to use both of them on a single location for a devastating effect, or one of them while de second is kept a bit further to protect it from tanks flanking it.

IMO if you start nerfing the CD you'll basically make it way worst to use as single unit and enforce people to build two of them to overcome the CD nerf.

That's a fair point. A CD reduction however would also prohibit excessive use. Question though: Do you think then that the current barrage is underpriced?

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2021, 13:26 PMEsxile

On a side note, isn't possible for the moderation to speak with Vipper about his semantic pedantic attitude. Honeslty should we always lose so much time and effort to bear with its semantic arguments on every topic like him making the SU-76 the equivalent of the Brumbar because they both have somewho the denomitation of assault gun IRL but are completely different in game.

I won't publicly comment on the behaviour of single users.
11 Feb 2021, 12:29 PM
#90
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3596 | Subs: 1


That's a fair point. A CD reduction however would also prohibit excessive use. Question though: Do you think then that the current barrage is underpriced?



No I don't think its underpriced. For a cheaper munition cost other factions get access to grenade able to simply wipe a full healed squad. Zis barrage isn't likely to do so but it compensated with a longer range. Imo the barrage on itself is balanced, problem comes when you add a second Zis gun or in team game when multiple players are Soviet.

What make it prevalent is the need and low risk atm to build 2 atguns. I think its more a problem of game economy and popcap than Zis Barrage.

That a consequence of balance team's previous decision to make atgun more prevalent coming from the push given to medium tanks that are more reliable and less countered by TDs along side with this idea during many previous patches to constantly reduce units popcap and manpower cost leading players into litterally flotting in manpower and increasing army size.

I mean if the solution to that is to nerf the Zis barrage to the point where players will overcome it by building two of them, that's imo a really bad solution that only enable previous bad decision making.
11 Feb 2021, 13:06 PM
#91
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3104 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2021, 12:29 PMEsxile


No I don't think its underpriced. For a cheaper munition cost other factions get access to grenade able to simply wipe a full healed squad. Zis barrage isn't likely to do so but it compensated with a longer range. Imo the barrage on itself is balanced, problem comes when you add a second Zis gun or in team game when multiple players are Soviet.

What make it prevalent is the need and low risk atm to build 2 atguns. I think its more a problem of game economy and popcap than Zis Barrage.

That a consequence of balance team's previous decision to make atgun more prevalent coming from the push given to medium tanks that are more reliable and less countered by TDs along side with this idea during many previous patches to constantly reduce units popcap and manpower cost leading players into litterally flotting in manpower and increasing army size.

I mean if the solution to that is to nerf the Zis barrage to the point where players will overcome it by building two of them, that's imo a really bad solution that only enable previous bad decision making.

I fully agree on the economy part. This is also why I suggested the CD rework, because if the ability itself is priced correctly, screwing will likely not be the right answer.
Reworking the economy is not worth it for a single utility ability.

It might happen that people get pushed towards using 2 ATGs even further. On the other hand it might make mortars more attractive as well in case of the rest of the AT build being sufficient. But it's impossible to tell this from a theoretical POV.
11 Feb 2021, 14:09 PM
#92
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

Do i understand that correctly, by nerfing the zis barrage players are pushed towards using more zis guns? that does not makes sense... like at all. would you overcome the ostruppen nerf by spamming more ostruppen?

people use double at guns with every single faction, with every build, with every single commander.

try to find a single top player who thinks the zis barrage in the live version is fine, good luck with that
11 Feb 2021, 14:33 PM
#93
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3596 | Subs: 1

Do i understand that correctly, by nerfing the zis barrage players are pushed towards using more zis guns? that does not makes sense... like at all. would you overcome the ostruppen nerf by spamming more ostruppen?

people use double at guns with every single faction, with every build, with every single commander.

try to find a single top player who thinks the zis barrage in the live version is fine, good luck with that


Where were you when the balance team started to nerf Maxim or the SU-76 barrage? And probably many other examples I haven't in mind. People simply built them more.

@hannibal I persist to think that nerfing the CD or increasing will impact much more the player that single use a Zis that someone who use two. I'm pretty much against increasing the munition cost as following the same reason, someone who can spend 120 munition in barrage can probably spend 140 so then what, 80 or 90 munitions for a barrage only to make sure you can't really spam it?

Imo a shared cd for all Zis controled by a player is the best option. It doesn't impact the player that only have 1 Zis or at least the player that doesn't spam the barrage.
11 Feb 2021, 15:01 PM
#94
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2021, 14:33 PMEsxile


Where were you when the balance team started to nerf Maxim or the SU-76 barrage? And probably many other examples I haven't in mind. People simply built them more.



I dont know about which universe you are talking about, do you even play 1v1? maxim nerf was necessary and pretty much killed the strat, same with su76. I havent seen a single competetive game spamming either since then.

Even if you find a few examples where a nerf lead to more use (and i cant think of a single one), what about the countless counter examples? like 222 cost increase, jli nerf, m20 nerf, heavy/call in tank meta, falls faust change etc

Arguing that you cant nerf a unit in a meaningfull way cause people are "forced" to use more of them just does not make sense... this logic is mind boggling

The global cooldown is worth a try
11 Feb 2021, 15:25 PM
#95
avatar of Tygrys

Posts: 103

I couldn't care less about 1v1 since the game has always been balanced around that despite most of the players playing team games. And if you want a global cooldown on the ability it will have to kill more efficiently. Nerfing units without giving them anything in return is how this game ended up in this sorry state.
11 Feb 2021, 15:35 PM
#96
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

And i could not care less about about 4v4. Every single game ever is balanced around the competetive aspect (which is usually 1v1) and not the casual rank 1k teamgame experience, thats just how it works.
You cant balance the game around people who dont know what they a doing
11 Feb 2021, 15:46 PM
#97
avatar of Tygrys

Posts: 103

I'm sure the laughable "competetive" scene is what keeps the game alive.
11 Feb 2021, 16:15 PM
#98
avatar of LMAO

Posts: 163

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2021, 15:46 PMTygrys
I'm sure the laughable "competetive" scene is what keeps the game alive.
ouch man spitting facts, if only they focus more on team games not on 1v1 scene this game will be more alive. The only notable game with competitive 1v1 is starcraft...

I mean war isn't meant to be orderly like the 1v1 to begin with anyways. I pretty much feel playing 1v1 like a kid playing house(male version)
Pip
11 Feb 2021, 16:22 PM
#99
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Feb 2021, 15:46 PMTygrys
I'm sure the laughable "competetive" scene is what keeps the game alive.


It sort of is, yes. Tournaments, no matter how small, provide a significant avenue to broadcast CoH2 to a wider audience, which provides: Funding for future tournaments (through advertisement revenue etc), more players for the game itself, and also shows lelic that the game is still played/has potential. This last point is the reason (I believe) that we are still getting any sort of balance changes, and is definitely the reason we might get a CoH3.

Regardless, all (good) games are balanced around the "competitive" modes and players, as they are the ones in which players use units and factions in the most effective and efficient manner. This is how you determine which units, factions, and strategies are over-performing, so as to balance them to be more fair.

It does not make sense to try and "balance" around the lowest common denominator of players, who simply are unable to make use of units/factions/strategies to their full effectiveness, which makes "balancing" around them a futile effort.

That said: Larger team modes in CoH2 do need some sort of "separate" balance pass done, not through unit statistics, but through unit caps/population changes, or resource changes. Their problems stem from critical mass issues/abundance of resources, not due to the strength/weakness of certain units/factions/strategies, generally.

(Some doctrines do need changing based on teamgames, however. Some, such as Jaeger Armour, or the ISU doctrine, are simply not used in 1v1s, but cause issues in the modes in which they ARE used. This is the exception.)

TL:DR; Yes, the "Competitive" scene is what's keeping the game alive, even if it isnt large.
11 Feb 2021, 16:26 PM
#100
avatar of Tygrys

Posts: 103

I don't think the same 10 people playing the same tournaments doing the same 3 things and screeching about broken things that got broken thanks to them are doing the game any good.
There also won't be a team games balance pass because even then relic was still alive they didn't care about team games and this has been the case since CoH1.
The previous point also goes for this one - there won't be a CoH3 because there isn't a relic anymore.
PAGES (8)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
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

345 users are online: 1 member and 344 guests
Farlon
13 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
93 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44643
Welcome our newest member, Leiliqu96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM