I'm making this post give a glimpse about how we (the balance team) feel teamgame dominant meta could be changed to be more fun and more diverse.
Part of the reason I'm making this post is to openly declare our intentions to the community and get some feedback.Preface
Highest priority changes
High priority cheese
1v1-affecting cheese
Good-to-have stuff
Teamgame dominant meta
4 May 2017, 22:56 PM
#281
Posts: 2
4 May 2017, 23:04 PM
#282
Posts: 2
You have ruin this game. I played for the team focus not 1v1. A lot of these patches turn 4v4 into a gay butt fest. "However, we carry out changes to suit 1v1 meta" is a slap in the face to anybody that only plays this shit game for 2v2's and up.
4 May 2017, 23:06 PM
#283
Posts: 935
I do not see a problem with ELe and Jagd.
1) Jagd - remove speed upgrade.
Decrease armor so Tank destroyers (AT Guns) may penetrate it upfront much more often
2) Decrease armor so Tank destroyers (AT Guns) may penetrate it upfront much more often
Both - remove veterancy that that gives extra speed.
No need to change range or damage.
1) Jagd - remove speed upgrade.
Decrease armor so Tank destroyers (AT Guns) may penetrate it upfront much more often
2) Decrease armor so Tank destroyers (AT Guns) may penetrate it upfront much more often
Both - remove veterancy that that gives extra speed.
No need to change range or damage.
4 May 2017, 23:41 PM
#284
Posts: 967
I do not see a problem with ELe and Jagd.
1) Jagd - remove speed upgrade.
Decrease armor so Tank destroyers (AT Guns) may penetrate it upfront much more often
2) Decrease armor so Tank destroyers (AT Guns) may penetrate it upfront much more often
Both - remove veterancy that that gives extra speed.
No need to change range or damage.
That is a good enough solution for me.
***Both - remove veterancy that that gives extra speed.***
VoltarDark
Long live to COH2, the king of all team RTS !
Long live to COH2, the king of all team RTS !
5 May 2017, 00:07 AM
#285
Posts: 2742
Actual team game dominant meta is AFK vs AI.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
5 May 2017, 03:42 AM
#286
Posts: 3053
That is a good enough solution for me.
***Both - remove veterancy that that gives extra speed.***
That is actually a pretty big one. Have fun trying to outflank a vet3 elefant or vet3+ jagd without massive losses.
 | Playercard of LoopDloop | |||||||||||||||||||
|
5 May 2017, 03:43 AM
#287
Posts: 3053
Actual team game dominant meta is AFK vs AI.
+1,000,000,000,000,000 Kappa
| Playercard of LoopDloop | |||||||||||||||||||
|
5 May 2017, 03:48 AM
#288
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Some thougts:
- Turn Binos into an ability that has to be toggled on and off.
- Reduce damage, rof and range (60-65) of heavy tank destroyers.
- Buff pen of allied TD while normalizing dmg to 160.
- Tulips no longer stun anything that's not a heavy.
- Nerf Stuka bomb.
- Aura buffs and mark target only apply to own units.
- Remove OKW benefitting from caches.
- heavy artillery can cause criticals on heavies (wound loader etc.)
- give jacksons more health
- don't let Raketen move while concealed
- Nerf auto attack range of Mortar Pitt and Leig
- What's a "Binos"? Is that short for binoculars? And by that you mean spotting scopes? Unsure.
- Definitely not
- Definitely not, however I could definitely see an armor reduction on the JT. 525 is a bit much.
- this is fine IF the above 2 were not in place. Otherwise, definitely not.
- Yes.
- I think you mean like you want only the person who cast the abilities army to have the bonuses. Maybe. This will discourage teamplay a bit. If theres a problem with mark target/coordinated fire nerf the ability.
- Definitely not. If anything remove scavenge, place on scavenge docs and give caches.
- Don't really know why they'd add this. Heavy artillery is a counter to static targets and infantry, not tanks.
- good change, if 2 and 3 are not in play.
- Raketen is just a gimmicky unit. It's bugged, it cloaks at reduced speed and then full speed + range buff pen blah blah. Just remove it, give OKW pak 40 and no TWP instead rapid maneuvers from brit AT gun or something. TWP is annoying enough as it is.
- Agreed
5 May 2017, 08:39 AM
#289
Posts: 935
USF has poor design, yes i agreed, but
1) USF needs reliable AT gun, for them to fix their late game. AT gun must have good speed and good penetration from the begining. I dont care about vet bonuses if its useless.
2)U20 ans aa ht cost a lot of MP .Its important coz faction is in deep starvation of MP currently.
1) USF needs reliable AT gun, for them to fix their late game. AT gun must have good speed and good penetration from the begining. I dont care about vet bonuses if its useless.
2)U20 ans aa ht cost a lot of MP .Its important coz faction is in deep starvation of MP currently.
5 May 2017, 08:40 AM
#290
Posts: 935
USF has poor design, yes i agreed, but
1) USF needs reliable AT gun, for them to fix their late game. AT gun must have good speed and good penetration from the begining. I dont care about vet bonuses if its useless.
2)U20 ans aa ht cost a lot of MP .Its important coz faction is in deep starvation of MP currently.
1) USF needs reliable AT gun, for them to fix their late game. AT gun must have good speed and good penetration from the begining. I dont care about vet bonuses if its useless.
2)U20 ans aa ht cost a lot of MP .Its important coz faction is in deep starvation of MP currently.
5 May 2017, 10:07 AM
#291
Posts: 935
Another important thing is
that OKW units as Fusi and Volks (+20% sight) get increased vision with veterany - it should be removed.
Only spec inf as JGLI should have it. May be Falls should have but not main line inf and spammaple inf as Fusi. (also overpowered with vet)
Many ppl understend that ELe and JgdT need vision to shoot but very few understends WHO provide that vision...
that OKW units as Fusi and Volks (+20% sight) get increased vision with veterany - it should be removed.
Only spec inf as JGLI should have it. May be Falls should have but not main line inf and spammaple inf as Fusi. (also overpowered with vet)
Many ppl understend that ELe and JgdT need vision to shoot but very few understends WHO provide that vision...
5 May 2017, 12:45 PM
#292
Posts: 935
About Major
Please remove passive Sprint from him. THis vet bonus just put him in front of infantry which is not wise. It forces any player to pay additional control which as absolutly unesssesery.
Better give Him discount for recon pass as He hit vet 3.
Please remove passive Sprint from him. THis vet bonus just put him in front of infantry which is not wise. It forces any player to pay additional control which as absolutly unesssesery.
Better give Him discount for recon pass as He hit vet 3.
5 May 2017, 13:38 PM
#293
Posts: 25
Mostly agree with Heavy_Gamer.
The only thing that needs immediate fix is brace/mortar pit. I'd agree that Demo's are also a pretty lame mechanic that should be fixed.
You can't nerf Stuka DB without also nerfing the allied equivalents.
Cant nerf Ele or JT without nerfing T34/85 and Mark Target.
Calli and ST can both be dealt with, both are powerful but don't need to be messed with. Especially st considering the rest of the doc is trash.
Sure, fix repair rate inconsistencies, but honestly most of these definitely seem to be a personal opinion.
I further agree with the point that Changes this drastic at this point of the games Lifecycle are wrong.
+9001
5 May 2017, 17:52 PM
#295
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 35
Invisibled 1 thread
5 May 2017, 18:01 PM
#296
Posts: 1
I recognize that mortar pit is likely OP in 1v1 and 2v2 due to map/army size but I am worried that changing brace would completely break british in 3v3 and 4v4.
The british have no other option for indirect fire and it's very common for the axis to counter with multiple indirect weapons. I think mortar pits would die way too quickly without brace. It's already difficult to flank in 3v3 and 4v4 + AEC does very little damage against infantry/support weapons.
I'm guessing this is not possible since Relic has moved on but I think it would be interesting to give the British a normal mortar that could be garrisoned/ungarrisoned in a trench to create a mortar pit. I think you could then remove brace since the mortar could be retreated/moved out of indirect fire.
The british have no other option for indirect fire and it's very common for the axis to counter with multiple indirect weapons. I think mortar pits would die way too quickly without brace. It's already difficult to flank in 3v3 and 4v4 + AEC does very little damage against infantry/support weapons.
I'm guessing this is not possible since Relic has moved on but I think it would be interesting to give the British a normal mortar that could be garrisoned/ungarrisoned in a trench to create a mortar pit. I think you could then remove brace since the mortar could be retreated/moved out of indirect fire.
5 May 2017, 18:40 PM
#297
Posts: 23
Mr. Smith is missing a major conceptual issue here. The 4v4 meta (assuming roughly equal teams) boils down to Late-game Axis Heavy Tank/TD play vs. Allied Heavy Artillery/Off-map Artillery play.
Tankfest vs. Artyfest--one illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4HLnIvKIBg
I actually have no major issue with this--Germans are known for their tanks, Allies are known for their arty (and, full disclosure, I am playing Allied in that above link, but I play German quite a lot and really have no preference for either side).
Actually, I think in the long run, Artyfest will win out over Tankfest more often than not. This is because Artyfest is on average better at killing infantry veterancy, and in VP matches, better infantry assets equate to more VPs held.
Nerfing Late-game Axis Heavy Tanks/TDs (either through damage or adding constraints) actually cuts AGAINST balance in my view, as a result of this--given the meta described above.
I am not opposed to "toning down" Tankfest--but only if Artyfest is toned down in turn. The proposed changes, however, tone down Tankfest far more than they tone down Artyfest. There are some changes to Calliopes and Priests, but Sextons are buffed, and all other Allied artillery--Katys, B4s, ML20s, Land Mattresses, and doctrinal call-ins--remain untouched.
Mr. Smith's stated objective is diversifying play, but this is why I think he misses the point: the changes proposed will make the Axis dominant meta less attractive (Tankfest) but it will make the Allied dominant meta MORE attractive (Artyfest) (which it does by nerfing Stuka, thus removing a risk for entrenched/indirect play). Best way to diversify play, in my opinion, is to leave TDs the way they are or perhaps make some small changes, but instead make German artillery/emplacement play more attractive, so they choose those doctrines over those that focus on TDs. Right now, it is lunacy to spend 600 MP on an LefH that can be one-shot by a comparatively cheap Allied artillery or airstrike call-in. At a minimum, LeFH needs to survive IL-2 bombing run or white phosphorus at least once, which right now it cannot reliably do. Same for Pak-43. I would even recommend making the OKW 2 cm flak emplacement not-useless to further promote the Axis artillery/emplacement doctrines.
Similarly, I think diversifying Allied away from artillery play and toward other doctrines (Mr. Smith's goal, or so he says) can be best accomplished by increasing the attractiveness/survivability of Allied tanks in the late-game RATHER than nerfing what, right now, are the biggest advantages of Axis play. The British are already fine in this regard and should be untouched (Comet). IS-2 needs to be buffed. KV-2 needs to be buffed. KV-1 needs to be buffed. Pershing needs to be buffed slightly, but is already fairly decent. So the Allies choose these doctrines instead of artillery spam.
These changes would succeed in diversifying play while maintaining balance AND maintaining an overall meta that makes sense and I think should be preserved because of the character of each faction. Right now, the changes as proposed miss the mark and actually not only will lead to greater imbalance (in favor of Allies, where Brits are already very dominant), but will also lead to even less diverse play than there is right now by entrenching Allies in an artillery/call-in focused meta.
Tankfest vs. Artyfest--one illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4HLnIvKIBg
I actually have no major issue with this--Germans are known for their tanks, Allies are known for their arty (and, full disclosure, I am playing Allied in that above link, but I play German quite a lot and really have no preference for either side).
Actually, I think in the long run, Artyfest will win out over Tankfest more often than not. This is because Artyfest is on average better at killing infantry veterancy, and in VP matches, better infantry assets equate to more VPs held.
Nerfing Late-game Axis Heavy Tanks/TDs (either through damage or adding constraints) actually cuts AGAINST balance in my view, as a result of this--given the meta described above.
I am not opposed to "toning down" Tankfest--but only if Artyfest is toned down in turn. The proposed changes, however, tone down Tankfest far more than they tone down Artyfest. There are some changes to Calliopes and Priests, but Sextons are buffed, and all other Allied artillery--Katys, B4s, ML20s, Land Mattresses, and doctrinal call-ins--remain untouched.
Mr. Smith's stated objective is diversifying play, but this is why I think he misses the point: the changes proposed will make the Axis dominant meta less attractive (Tankfest) but it will make the Allied dominant meta MORE attractive (Artyfest) (which it does by nerfing Stuka, thus removing a risk for entrenched/indirect play). Best way to diversify play, in my opinion, is to leave TDs the way they are or perhaps make some small changes, but instead make German artillery/emplacement play more attractive, so they choose those doctrines over those that focus on TDs. Right now, it is lunacy to spend 600 MP on an LefH that can be one-shot by a comparatively cheap Allied artillery or airstrike call-in. At a minimum, LeFH needs to survive IL-2 bombing run or white phosphorus at least once, which right now it cannot reliably do. Same for Pak-43. I would even recommend making the OKW 2 cm flak emplacement not-useless to further promote the Axis artillery/emplacement doctrines.
Similarly, I think diversifying Allied away from artillery play and toward other doctrines (Mr. Smith's goal, or so he says) can be best accomplished by increasing the attractiveness/survivability of Allied tanks in the late-game RATHER than nerfing what, right now, are the biggest advantages of Axis play. The British are already fine in this regard and should be untouched (Comet). IS-2 needs to be buffed. KV-2 needs to be buffed. KV-1 needs to be buffed. Pershing needs to be buffed slightly, but is already fairly decent. So the Allies choose these doctrines instead of artillery spam.
These changes would succeed in diversifying play while maintaining balance AND maintaining an overall meta that makes sense and I think should be preserved because of the character of each faction. Right now, the changes as proposed miss the mark and actually not only will lead to greater imbalance (in favor of Allies, where Brits are already very dominant), but will also lead to even less diverse play than there is right now by entrenching Allies in an artillery/call-in focused meta.
5 May 2017, 18:55 PM
#298
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
snip
I think what you are missing out here is how Axis can get rid of their vulnerability to artillery in the lategame due to dedicated anti-tank destroyers (Elefant, Jagdtiger, JP4) and their excellent synergy with anti-infantry vehicles (Brummbär, OKW P4, KingTiger, Tiger).
OKW infantry also becomes exceptionally strong in the lategame. It is easy to dodge artillery barrages when just having to micro 2 squads of Obersoldaten who terminate everything within reach.
This eventually causes massive attrition and eventually loss of experienced units for the allies, followed by a complete collapse of the frontline.
Btw, buffs should usually be apllied to units that have a strong underperformance and not because they are out of meta.
A general good approach to balance is: If you use the same unit over and over again - nerf it.
| Playercard of RedT3rror | |||||||||||||||
|
5 May 2017, 19:01 PM
#299
Posts: 15
I think what you are missing out here is how Axis can get rid of their vulnerability to artillery in the lategame due to dedicated anti-tank destroyers (Elefant, Jagdtiger, JP4) and their excellent synergy with anti-infantry vehicles (Brummbär, OKW P4, KingTiger, Tiger).
OKW infantry also becomes exceptionally strong in the lategame. It is easy to dodge artillery barrages when just having to micro 2 squads of Obersoldaten who terminate everything within reach.
This eventually causes massive attrition and eventually loss of experienced units for the allies, followed by a complete collapse of the frontline.
If you are losing to OKW infantry in lategame, may I suggest:
- Rocket artillery
- double-upgraded infantry
- off-map artillery
- on-map artillery
- snipers + micro (hard, i know)
- Medium tanks (used defensively)
- strafing runs
- shock troops + for the motherland
- Rangers + use of truesight
- learning to play
5 May 2017, 19:03 PM
#300
Posts: 23
I think what you are missing out here is how Axis can get rid of their vulnerability to artillery in the lategame due to dedicated anti-tank destroyers (Elefant, Jagdtiger, JP4) and their excellent synergy with anti-infantry vehicles (Brummbär, OKW P4, KingTiger, Tiger).
I allude to this above, but I think it is fine that Axis have excellent late-game vehicle synergy. That is not actually the issue. The issue is that they have no real other alternative to that style of play. Thus, nerfing one or both halves of that synergy only really serves to nerf the faction as a whole, creating imbalance. Allied, likewise, don't really opt for armor because their heavy tanks are too weak comparatively (IS-2s, KV-2s, and especially KV-1s are very rare sights on the battlefield these days). As I said above, the better course is to create viable alternatives to these dominant playstyles, rather than nerf them directly. I think doing so will simply create frustrating experiences for players, particularly those on the Axis side.
EDIT: Example--I know, for sure, that if peoples' Jagdtiger 120 mm cannons fail to destroy an M20 scout car, they will be completely livid. Talk about unrealistic/breaking immersion!
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
166 | ||
 |
|
|
33 | ||
 |
|
|
33 | ||
|
|
|
|
33 | ||
|
|
|
|
29 | ||
 |
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
43 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.276110.715+14
- 5.259143.644+3
- 6.250150.625+11
- 7.22491.711+11
- 8.250135.649+1
- 9.19265.747+5
- 10.6111.847+8
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
752
Board Info
578 users are online:
578 guests
9 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
154 posts in the last month
39 posts in the last week
154 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45059
Welcome our newest member, mickreyt42
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, mickreyt42
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM