Login

russian armor

December Balance Preview

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (85)down
12 Dec 2017, 16:38 PM
#1501
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2633 | Subs: 17


I want to help clear up a few misconceptions. People realize that Piats don't actually have the range normal anti-tank weapons have right? So a squad has to run out in the open in a vain attempt to hit a light vehicle. Additionally the Luches comes in a faction that has an incredibly oppressive early game. That's the reason why it's timing needs to change. If it was on say, Wermacht then it's current timing would be fine. Since OKW can shut you off your fuel near the very start of the game, then seal the deal with the luches, that needs to be changed.


PIAT range has been increased from 30 to 35. However they will be pretty inaccurate at range 30-35 compared to other handheld AT. That, combined with RE nerfs and Tommy nerfs means that getting an AEC out as the brits every time vs Luchs will be a staple.


I can agree that USF light vehicles force a response, just like luches forces a response. The difference is USF banks on the fact they win early, cuz if they don't they aren't going to win at all. OKW still has an amazing late game to fall back on compared to USF. The Luches also just ruins any sort of diversity in build orders for USF and UKF. There can be an argument that Wermacht is forced to respond to threats with little in the ways of build orders but that's a separate problem then the Luches build time.


Hopefully DBP addresses late-game disparity. OKW still has infantry advantage with Volks and STGs very early on. As Volks performance starts to diminish, light vehicles. Eventually, in the lategame OKW will have to transition from a Volks-mostly army and pepper tanks and Obers as appropriate.

The main issue with USF is the rigidity of their tier structure. This would be trivially fixed by swapping Stuart with the M15.
12 Dec 2017, 16:38 PM
#1502
avatar of BIH_kirov_QC

Posts: 356



You should probably explain target size and RA to people, or at least use consistent descriptions then.

You describe RA changes and target size changes synonymously, which is confusing to those who don't spend hours in the attribute editor.


dont you think that mr smith is doing already enough for this game?

doing this for free, while getting attacked here every day by the same damn FUCKING NOOBS

and now you ask him even more? why dont you ask these noobs to learn something?
12 Dec 2017, 16:42 PM
#1503
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2633 | Subs: 17



You should probably explain target size and RA to people, or at least use consistent descriptions then.

You describe RA changes and target size changes synonymously, which is confusing to those who don't spend hours in the attribute editor.


Said player could have figured the changes out for themselves by launching the game and playing DBP. The difference in performance a day-to-night difference. Unfortunately the ignorant ones turn out to be the ones that have the loudest of mouths. That's a global phenomenon, which I am not qualified to treat.

Ideally I would like to have infinite time to rewrite the patchnotes completely with consistent notation, etc. However, with the 1580-ish files that this patch modifies/introduces that's out of the question.
12 Dec 2017, 16:44 PM
#1504
avatar of BIH_kirov_QC

Posts: 356



Said player could have figured the changes out for themselves by launching the game and playing DBP. The difference in performance a day-to-night difference. Unfortunately the ignorant ones turn out to be the ones that have the loudest of mouths. That's a global phenomenon, which I am not qualified to treat.

Ideally I would like to have infinite time to rewrite the patchnotes completely with consistent notation, etc. However, with the 1580-ish files that this patch modifies/introduces that's out of the question.


did you just asked that player to play the actuel game? noo nooo that to much work to do. IT SO more easier to come here and post shit 24/7 with other noobs like him support the shit he post.

it isnt his fault that he is rank 700, it is mr smith fault, and the game fault. not him nooo.. he is such a good player, with such good skils.

the pro players like luvnest that sugested the luch time nerfs, dont know nothing.

12 Dec 2017, 17:01 PM
#1505
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2719 | Subs: 1


Ideally I would like to have infinite time to rewrite the patchnotes completely with consistent notation, etc. However, with the 1580-ish files that this patch modifies/introduces that's out of the question.


Ouch.
12 Dec 2017, 17:02 PM
#1507
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2633 | Subs: 17


Where did I say it was improved over live version ?

Lol you are trying so hard...so:


So...? Improved in everything but doesn't get a situational RA cover bonus


The earlier patch: was reducing the normal target size, and consequentially their veterancy target size, both way better than any other mainline including same cost rifles.

The lastest version, that you claim being the "big muh nerf" was actually an improvement, with less situational cover bonus, but retaining the much better dps.

After that, I listed all improvement/nerfs from LIVE to 2.0
Better moving accuracy, better bren reload, better pop to avoid low mp income with pop.

This pretty much DESTROY your claim that IS are worse, those aren't worse at all.

Since turning others post over to put stuff people have never said in their mouth seems meta more than luchs, i'll be more specific so you can stop playing dumb:
NO CHANGE MADE NO BREN IS WORSE.

-Moving accuracy bonus ? Blessed manna for IS rifles, especially in early game
-Veterancy nerf in RA ? Late game RA was broken anyway, but it doesn't even matter if we speak about early game.
-RA in cover ? Maybe, but...
-kubel armor was nerfed, hardly will have the same combat role as before
-flame grenade can be avoided, that pretty much outweight alone the additional cover RA.

And still, your pathetic attempt to put stuff in my mouth and strawman about "worse spot" IS continue..




> Implying that Infantry Sections were OP outside cover in live version.

Just for the record:


"Nerfs" means better out of cover performances for a minimal durability nerf of 0.9 RA ?



Where did I say it was improved over live version ?


By the late-game, yellow cover is everywhere. Thus, unless the Brit player is completely brain-dead, they will always find a source of cover to get that performance boost.

Now, can you please stop wasting everybody's time in this thread?
12 Dec 2017, 17:04 PM
#1508
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1179



> Implying that Infantry Sections were OP outside cover in live version.


No, they were in cover with vet 3 RA, they challenged pre nerf vet 4 obers in 1vs1 and parity of cover, this is why it ultimately got removed, but saying that IS are worse is simply not true, and facts are all against you, from kubel/flame nerf to IS dps buffs.

I don't know if it is more funny that you are twisting once more words for your own purpose (kinda remembers me of changelog) or that you are claiming something factually (and easily provable) incorrect.
12 Dec 2017, 17:07 PM
#1509
avatar of Fantomasas

Posts: 42



> Implying that Infantry Sections were OP outside cover in live version.


At some point, you just have to accept the fact that it is impossible to make everyone happy and stop wasting your time.

Most people see the patch as a big net benefit and there is no need to spend 90% of your forum time arguing with a single low-rank user. Thank you for the work that you are doing.
12 Dec 2017, 17:18 PM
#1510
avatar of BIH_kirov_QC

Posts: 356



At some point, you just have to accept the fact that it is impossible to make everyone happy and stop wasting your time.

Most people see the patch as a big net benefit and there is no need to spend 90% of your forum time arguing with a single low-rank user. Thank you for the work that you are doing.


+1

but we need to take time sometimes to respond to these noobs since the spread false informations, rumors, and everthing that is toxic for this game.
12 Dec 2017, 17:25 PM
#1511
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2719 | Subs: 1



dont you think that mr smith is doing already enough for this game?


Like I've said being dragged through all their patches, if they just stuck to QOL changes and Bug fixes, they'd be unassailable in having produced excellent patches improving the game.

But once the Jr. Game Dev hats get put on, we start running into endless issues.

You can't balance, fix, or (re)design this game without either improving the game engine, or opening up what is available to the mod tools. (Or what relic is willing to do.)

doing this for free


A lot of people would give a lot for the opportunity to do what they're doing. But more than that many of the people involved with this patch find it very important how this will go on their CVS/resumes. This is still technically a AAA game. This is one of the most worrying aspects of this process to me.
12 Dec 2017, 17:28 PM
#1512
avatar of BIH_kirov_QC

Posts: 356



Like I've said being dragged through all their patches, if they just stuck to QOL changes and Bug fixes, they'd be unassailable in having produced excellent patches improving the game.

But once the Jr. Game Dev hats get put on, we start running into endless issues.

You can't balance, fix, or (re)design this game without either improving the game engine, or opening up what is available to the mod tools. (Or what relic is willing to do.)


A lot of people would give a lot for the opportunity to do what they're doing. But more than that many of the people involved with this patch find it very important how this will go on their CVS/resumes. This is still technically a AAA game. This is one of the most worrying aspects of this process to me.


these people can still do it. im sure they can ask mr smith how to help, to test stuff and give their non biased oppinion. but maybe some people got to much pride to do it or they realise they really need to work.

they maybe can't fix the game, but they can improve things, or atleast test stuff for maybe coh3.

and when mr smirth and mirage started to doing balance stuff, the game just got better.
12 Dec 2017, 17:28 PM
#1513
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2722 | Subs: 1

Invissed three posts, two for excessive flame and disrespect, one for quoting one of them.
12 Dec 2017, 17:32 PM
#1515
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 2077

leaving asisde the luch issue ,mr smith can you please respond about the ppsh cons perfromance ? they seems a bit too strong even without hurra
12 Dec 2017, 17:35 PM
#1516
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1179

leaving asisde the luch issue ,mr smith can you please respond about the ppsh cons perfromance ? they seems a bit too strong even without hurra


You mean the clip when they rush green covered fallschirmjager elite troops without hourra and win the engagement ?
Working as intended.
12 Dec 2017, 17:36 PM
#1517
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2633 | Subs: 17

leaving asisde the luch issue ,mr smith can you please respond about the ppsh cons perfromance ? they seems a bit too strong even without hurra


We're looking into it (and also hit-the-dirt performance). Perhaps, we'll reintroduce the 10% accuracy nerf to PPSh.

However, while that nerf was in-place PPSh performance seemed extremely underwhelming.

What we do know however is that Fallschirmagers aren't the right benchmark to measure PPSh cons performance (due to falls flat DPS), and neither are Conscript PPSh are a good benchmark to evaluate Falls performance (for the same reasons).

If PPSh Cons and Falls behave well with respect to all other units in the game, the only way to address this is to tweak DPS curves. However, tweaking DPS curves requires us to evaluate them over a sequence of months, which we can't currently afford.

12 Dec 2017, 17:37 PM
#1518
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 2077



We're looking into it (and also hit-the-dirt performance). Perhaps, we'll reintroduce the 10% accuracy nerf to PPSh.

However, while that nerf was in-place PPSh performance seemed extremely underwhelming.

What we do know however is that Fallschirmagers aren't the right benchmark to measure PPSh cons performance (due to falls flat DPS), and neither are Conscript PPSh are a good benchmark to evaluate Falls performance (for the same reasons).
in the video there's not only falls he didi it for all units ober too
maybe leave close damage the same and lower the mid one ?
12 Dec 2017, 17:39 PM
#1519
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2719 | Subs: 1

they maybe can't fix the game, but they can improve things, or atleast test stuff for maybe coh3.

and when mr smirth and mirage started to doing balance stuff, the game just got better.


Maybe so. Most of my friends quit playing almost altogether after brits, and none of them have come back. None of the patches since have been enough to convince any of them to come back beyond a game or two.
And in most cases those games have reinforced their decision to not bother with coh2.

This is the perspective I have. I'm the weird guy who never left and I'm particularly aware of the survivor bias in these balance forums and patches.
12 Dec 2017, 17:42 PM
#1520
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 2077

Guys please don't jump on the bandwagon train of the overnerf the patch is still not live if you want to bash the mod team wait for the first tournament if there is a disparity in win rate you can bash the all you want (both sides), always remember that they risk their credibility in this forum and relic by doing this patch show some respect, you can disagree politely and by bringing replay or stats comparison, no meme, spam or trolls :banned::banned:
PAGES (85)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

Board Info

62 users are online: 5 members and 57 guests
Marcus2389, Farlion, WeX, Yukiko, Farlon
133 posts in the last 24h
955 posts in the last week
6256 posts in the last month
Registered members: 35148
Welcome our newest member, Frayeraq9
Most online: 805 users on 28 Oct 2018, 01:04 AM