Login

russian armor

Winter Balance Preview Changelog

PAGES (23)down
28 Nov 2016, 02:32 AM
#221
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Nov 2016, 01:11 AMMedster


Right, 2-3 months of potentially broken balance and worse yet, what if the second patch never comes? I don't understand limiting the scope to certain factions. If you have to take more time on the patch to look at all the factions, I'm sure the game would be better off for it.


Nobody knows for certain what kind of changes to meta this patch will bring. The smaller the part of the game that is being changed is, the easiest it is to track couses and effects. Changing everything just bring chaos and in fact, a completely random state of ballance.
28 Nov 2016, 05:20 AM
#222
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

There was a bit of a miscommunication in some of the patch notes explanations. Kyle edited our notes to be more concise, and we didn't pick up the discrepancies before it was posted and we got peoples responses. So I'll clear some of these up.

It also sounds like you haven't played the mod, I encourage you to do so and I'm sure you'll see for yourself it plays out much better than you realise.

Light Tanks/Vehicles

Squad Formations & Clumping

Functionally unaddressed.



It's partially addressed; squads have much better formations in the open and shouldn't clump as much when walking through things such as craters. But unfortunately we are unable to fix the issue of clumping behind cover. This is hard coded in and would require a programmer at Relic to fix, something very unlikely to happen. We have some other ideas of how we can fix the problem resulting from clumping. But discussion for another time.



USF Mortar

Less range is one way of handling things I guess. Thing is just as lethal and now is a bit more mobile. If the mortar has trouble invalidating MGs so rifles can't freeroam onto any and all PAK positions then I'd consider it fixed.



There's actually a lot more changes to the USF Mortar than the notes display. Due to a few issues with the USF Mortar, we started again from scratch with a new unit which is a clone of the Wehrmacht Mortar. Fromt he Wehrmacht Mortar, it then has the changes noted in the patch notes. This means that on top of what is listed, the USF Mortar has a slower barrage speed and it doesn't get the scatter bonus at vet 1, which was probably the strongest thing about it.



Penals & Guards

Removing flamethrowers is not a bad move, but it kinda leaves a void. I like that it opens up conscript molotovs more for anti-garrisons, but I feel that Penals need some kind of upgrade to put them into either into a long range (DP-28) role or short range (PPsh) role. Of all the changes this seemed the most appropriate, if not the most negligible.



We actually experimented with the PPSH change at first but decided not to go with it. Firstly Relic didn't like this change as it was cut from the May Balance Preview as it overlapped with Shock Troops. But secondly it was a liability for close quarters combat maps, of which there is now a lot. PPSH upgrade would have either been a thing worthless in most maps and then overpowered in some such as Rustwork Essen, Caen, Bryansk Forest etc. It was a risk we didn't want to go with. DP's would probably make penals even stronger, and would overlap with Guards. You have to remember that Penal Rifles are incredibly powerful, it's not like Conscripts where you're upgrading from weak rifles, so by giving them a munitions upgrade, it would have to make them even stronger which is the opposite of our intention.



Wehrmacht Infantry Scaling

... Accomplished by making medkits heal for longer?



There's a lot more to it than just that, as many of the other changes in the mod directly help this. Penals are Guards will no longer be outscaling Grenadiers and the Light Tank nerfs will greatly help Wehrmacht infantry stay alive into the late game so Wehrmacht aren't behind on squads. Riflemen are also losing double M1919's, and they are also getting a nerf to their vet 3 Received accuracy bonus. This one accidentally wasn't documented in the change notes (my bad) but it's definitely in there. So Grenadiers and Panzer Grenadiers will definitely be scaling a bit better.

Regarding British, we had some changes in mind to do with Double Brens, but to prevent double Brens it required some other changes to compensate which were out of scope and cut by Relic. We are working on ways to try and include this in a more concise way so we can get this through.

But ultimately there is lots of other underlying causes as to why Wehrmacht infantry are weak, but they were lots of other issues that requires some big changes which were out of scope for this small-scale and limited patch. This includes things like Demos, Rocket Arty, HE SHermans, Pershings, Cromwells, Comets etc.
28 Nov 2016, 06:16 AM
#223
avatar of Immoraliste

Posts: 50

SU-76 (LIGHT VEHICLES)

Barrage now costs 15 munitions

BARRAGE NOW COSTS 15 MUNITIONS
28 Nov 2016, 06:40 AM
#224
avatar of IA3 - HH

Posts: 289

Wait, no more double 1919 from racks, but still double bren?


is Good question
28 Nov 2016, 06:48 AM
#225
avatar of jorsg
Patrion 14

Posts: 20

I have hardly made any post on this forums but this new patch sounds terribly one sided. There are tons of nerfs to Soviet and USF light vehicle and Infantry and axis hardly has anything touched. I love this thought and I'm paraphrasing here from the patch notes but we nerfed the Stuart and because then people might start using the tier 2 half track so we nerfed that too....can't give those allied players a fighting chance now can we...

There is also this urban myth, OKW has an issue dealing with garrisoned units, So all of those flame names I see flying around just about every time a squad is in a building or green cover is just a figment of my imagination. The Vickers firing and not suppressing the volks charging head on and then getting flame faded never happens, etc, etc.

The poor conscripts can't face off with folks now upgraded or not, much less any other OKW Infantry.....So lets nerf any Infantry the Soviets have that can. Wow nice job guys.

There so much that sounds like crap in this patch it isn't even funny.

Hey I know lets improve this game by taking any chance of competitive play out of it, nobody enjoys playing as the allies anyway.
28 Nov 2016, 06:50 AM
#226
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

Wait, no more double 1919 from racks, but still double bren?




is Good question



Regarding British, we had some changes in mind to do with Double Brens, but to prevent double Brens it required some other changes to compensate which were out of scope and cut by Relic. We are working on ways to try and include this in a more concise way so we can get this through.



Right, 2-3 months of potentially broken balance and worse yet, what if the second patch never comes? I don't understand limiting the scope to certain factions. If you have to take more time on the patch to look at all the factions, I'm sure the game would be better off for it.


The scope was limited by Relic, not us. We did the best we can given the circumstances. But the way I see it, even if we are creating some more issues, we are fixing a vastly larger amount of issues. So either way, it's a big net positive.
28 Nov 2016, 07:27 AM
#227
avatar of Bob Pontes

Posts: 42


The scope was limited by Relic, not us. We did the best we can given the circumstances. But the way I see it, even if we are creating some more issues, we are fixing a vastly larger amount of issues. So either way, it's a big net positive.


Can you share anything on why the scope was limited, or what exactly the scope was?

EDIT: and just to be clear, +1 million for all of you who are working on this. Thanks a ton for working hard to keep this game alive.
28 Nov 2016, 07:29 AM
#228
avatar of TickTack

Posts: 578

Why does the T70 need such nerfs (justified as its too strong against clumped units) when there are already changes made to unit clumping? That's a double nerf. The nerf to scatter is way too harsh guys, what the F are you smoking

AssGren
'Veterancy 1 now Grants -10% received accuracy'
This is too much defensive power too early; rather split it between Vet1 and Vet3

Pgren
You say they are strong but then A) make them more durable AND B) Buff their long range DPS. Rather just pick A or B - dont do both, it'll make them the new meta

M5 could do with an acceleration buff because it can't escape from any attack whatsoever and now units can more easily close on it

Guards: this is not a 'infantry scaling' problem, as you tried to make it. Making them cost more and take more damage won't make people choose Guard Motor any less. The real problem is inflexible soviet tiering - all you're doing here is reducing the options the faction has.
The better solution would be to halve the time to research conscript AT nade, or add small AT gun to T1 - and THEN nerf guards as above.

'Prioritise Vehicle now only affects the main gun of the affected tank, but not the MGs. Thus, vehicles with the Prioritise Vehicles ability active will continue to engage infantry with their MGs.'
Best change in the patch, well done
28 Nov 2016, 08:34 AM
#229
avatar of slother

Posts: 145

Good changes, keep up the hard work.

I'm not sure if it was mentioned before but i'm bit concern about OKW ISG. New infantry spacing and ISG small splash damage wont make it even more weaker?
28 Nov 2016, 09:00 AM
#230
avatar of Siphon X.
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1138 | Subs: 2

Looks good, guys.

I have few questions, though:

M15AA: Well, there was a time when the Stuart was generally considered not worthwhile. But even then the AAHT wasn't built much if at all. It was mostly M20 => Sherman. Why do you fear it would become the meta now if kept in it's current state?

US mortar: I thought the original idea behind the addition of the mortar was to give USF some early smoke and a way to deal with garrisons, but ended up with a lethal uber mortar. Now, with this change you made the mortar more tricky to use but otherwise kept the lethality on the OH level. Why not instead, dunno, slash the damage in half (while keeping the damage vs. garrisons), potentially while also decreasing the price?

DP's would probably make penals even stronger, and would overlap with Guards.


How would you think that "overlap" would play out? Like, would it increase or decrease their synergy?
28 Nov 2016, 09:04 AM
#231
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



US mortar: I thought the original idea behind the addition of the mortar was to give USF some early smoke and a way to deal with garrisons, but ended up with a lethal uber mortar. Now, with this change you made the mortar more tricky to use but otherwise kept the lethality on the OH level. Why not instead, dunno, slash the damage in half (while keeping the damage vs. garrisons), potentially while also decreasing the price?


The lethality of the USF mortar on the live version is above and beyond the OST version. It is completely out of this universe.

Although this is not listed explicitly in the patch notes, the USF mortar has been brought down into line with the OST version.
28 Nov 2016, 09:09 AM
#232
avatar of Siphon X.
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1138 | Subs: 2



The lethality of the USF mortar on the live version is above and beyond the OST version. It is completely out of this universe.

Although this is not listed explicitly in the patch notes, the USF mortar has been brought down into line with the OST version.


Yeah, well, my lines of thought were more like the original intention was not to give the USF an effective mortar but rather a mobile smoke dispenser, right? So, why not decrease the lethality vs. units outside of garrisons significantly below the OST mortar (while obviously making it cheaper)?
28 Nov 2016, 09:13 AM
#233
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



Yeah, well, my lines of thought were more like the original intention was not to give the USF an effective mortar but rather a mobile smoke dispenser, right? So, why not decrease the lethality vs. units outside of garrisons significantly below the OST mortar (while obviously making it cheaper)?


We tried some fancy variations, like higher speed, lower range for less damage, etc.

In the end, we decided that since the USF mortar has been causing issues for so long, we should go for a super-conservative design. Thus, we mirrored a mortar design that works and nerfed it down from there.

We did try some fancy variations (e.g., lower damage, lower range, but higher reload). In the end, we decided that this wouldn't stop the community from seeing ghosts and pointing the finger, as they have already been doing with Miragefla all those months. Stuff like "Oh, the USF mortar is still OP/better than the OST mortar", or "Now the USF mortar is crap. Back to 3-rifles, guys".
28 Nov 2016, 09:18 AM
#234
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

Why does the T70 need such nerfs (justified as its too strong against clumped units) when there are already changes made to unit clumping? That's a double nerf. The nerf to scatter is way too harsh guys, what the F are you smoking

The T70 is the most brutal light tank currently in the game. It may keep that spot, but when you are retreating it can still hit you hyper accurace, Mostly of the time I lose the squad, even when I retreat them with 3/4/5 members in it. The T-70 is the one unit in this game where I let my infantry retreat from in a quick way.

AssGren
'Veterancy 1 now Grants -10% received accuracy'
This is too much defensive power too early; rather split it between Vet1 and Vet3

AssGrens are in my own opinion crap and only effective on short range. I think the -10% received accuracy let them be more viable in the game in the longer run.

Pgren
You say they are strong but then A) make them more durable AND B) Buff their long range DPS. Rather just pick A or B - dont do both, it'll make them the new meta
Since it's the only elite infantry that the Ostheer has in this game I think it's well deserved. Charging in with this unit on others is a bad and stupid idea, since you'll drop models fast and lose your dps. They're really delicate to handle.

M5 could do with an acceleration buff because it can't escape from any attack whatsoever and now units can more easily close on it
Agree on this one

Guards: this is not a 'infantry scaling' problem, as you tried to make it. Making them cost more and take more damage won't make people choose Guard Motor any less. The real problem is inflexible soviet tiering - all you're doing here is reducing the options the faction has.
The better solution would be to halve the time to research conscript AT nade, or add small AT gun to T1 - and THEN nerf guards as above.
Although I agree with your inflexible soviet tiering, I do think the guards got a deserved nerf. Perhaps the incresed mp is a bit too much, but surely it's survivability was insane. Yesterday I had 2 retreating squads of guards with both 2/6 members in it running through 2x volks with STG, 1 sturm and even when my infantry was standing still I didn't killed them. Also it's really hard to deal with them just because they scale so damn well.

'Prioritise Vehicle now only affects the main gun of the affected tank, but not the MGs. Thus, vehicles with the Prioritise Vehicles ability active will continue to engage infantry with their MGs.'
Best change in the patch, well done
28 Nov 2016, 09:30 AM
#235
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6



Can you share anything on why the scope was limited, or what exactly the scope was?

EDIT: and just to be clear, +1 million for all of you who are working on this. Thanks a ton for working hard to keep this game alive.


"The scope of this patch has been focused to a subset of priority balance concerns sourced from community feedback and balance data. These concern areas include Light Tanks/Vehicles, Squad Formations & Clumping, USF Mortar, Penals & Guards, and Wehrmacht Infantry Scaling."

The scope was limited in order to prevent lots of sweeping changes which would have unforeseen consequences. The problem is, most of the issues are foreseen consequences.
28 Nov 2016, 09:31 AM
#236
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

Looks good, guys.

I have few questions, though:

M15AA: Well, there was a time when the Stuart was generally considered not worthwhile. But even then the AAHT wasn't built much if at all. It was mostly M20 => Sherman. Why do you fear it would become the meta now if kept in it's current state?


The M15's damage nerf was only against infantry. Not only does it still have incredible suppression, it still shreds the 222 and OKW Flak Half Track just as fast, regardless of the 222 now costing 250mp and 30 fuel, as well as the M15 costing less manpower.

28 Nov 2016, 09:52 AM
#237
avatar of le_saucisson_masque

Posts: 485 | Subs: 1



We tried some fancy variations, like higher speed, lower range for less damage, etc.

In the end, we decided that since the USF mortar has been causing issues for so long, we should go for a super-conservative design. Thus, we mirrored a mortar design that works and nerfed it down from there.

We did try some fancy variations (e.g., lower damage, lower range, but higher reload). In the end, we decided that this wouldn't stop the community from seeing ghosts and pointing the finger, as they have already been doing with Miragefla all those months. Stuff like "Oh, the USF mortar is still OP/better than the OST mortar", or "Now the USF mortar is crap. Back to 3-rifles, guys".


I'm mainly playing osther during this patch and was very happy to see the usf mortar finally nerfed.
So i decided to play some 2 vs 2 as USF against 2 osther player who started each one by building 2 mg42 followed by a wehrmacht mortar.

Well, because of the range nerf, ennemy mg42 could almost fire on my mortar when i was using it to counter the mg42 and the damage were .. bad. (at least against garizoned mg42).

I guess you tried to make a mobile mortar to allow usf to put smoke barrage there, flank then moove again the mortar and repeat .. but against double MG42 covering each other, you can't only use flank and smoke.

The problem is that the usf mortar damage was low, easily countered by grenadier rifle grenade because of the low range and VERY HEAVILY countered by osther mortar, especially at vet1 when it got its ability.

sadly, i didn't save the replay.
But you might maybe consider buffing a bit usf mortar range in order to make it viable.

i felt like it would be easier to upgrade smoke grenade & rush pak howitzer, just like in the old days.

no need to thanks you again for the time spent on this balance mod.
28 Nov 2016, 09:53 AM
#238
avatar of Siphon X.
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1138 | Subs: 2


We did try some fancy variations (e.g., lower damage, lower range, but higher reload). In the end, we decided that this wouldn't stop the community from seeing ghosts and pointing the finger, as they have already been doing with Miragefla all those months. Stuff like "Oh, the USF mortar is still OP/better than the OST mortar", or "Now the USF mortar is crap. Back to 3-rifles, guys".


Thanks for the replies, I see your point. However, I guess even if the lethality is brought down to the levels of the OH mortar, you probably still get complaints like in this thread which come down to OH units being more static and thus suffer more vs. a mortar.



The M15's damage nerf was only against infantry. Not only does it still have incredible suppression it still shreds the 222 and OKW Flak Half Track just as fast, regardless of the 222 now costing 250mp and 30 fuel, as well as the M15 costing less manpower.



Ok, I forgot the price decrease in manpower, thanks. Let's see if that's enough to make it attractive... Ever considered switching it with the M1 ATG? This ways both Lt. and Cpt. would have a suppression and AT option and AB would suddenly look significantly more attractive, no?
28 Nov 2016, 10:30 AM
#239
avatar of Hater

Posts: 493

Could you give penals some upgrade instead of flamer then? And instead of nerfing them and guards you should try to buff something else so players start to use that 'something' ;) By now you forcing old maxim spam meta and next patch - what? - 300 mp maxims?
28 Nov 2016, 10:31 AM
#240
avatar of aerafield

Posts: 2977 | Subs: 3

Wow all these BabyRaging allies mains in this thread it's so delicious :thumb:
PAGES (23)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

294 users are online: 1 member and 293 guests
Kronosaur0s
16 posts in the last 24h
42 posts in the last week
96 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44643
Welcome our newest member, Leiliqu96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM