Login

russian armor

Spring Update - Balance thread

PAGES (23)down
18 Apr 2018, 15:53 PM
#121
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

The IS-2, the KV-2, the King Tiger, Shock Troops and the Stuart are all units that'd be nice to see buffs or reworks for. Not sure we will this patch though.
18 Apr 2018, 15:58 PM
#122
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8



Can't wait for my vet2 Tiger 21 pop Tigers to counter it's own (16 pop) counter.

apart from that... so many vehicles are getting pop cap updates... but not for the Calliope :foreveralone:

Inb4 tiger will lose its "new" range buff from previous patch.

OKW having also nades delayed is a mistake. Its the only way to deal with early mgs. Without it okw will be stomped early game, since you can just garrison mgs on maps that has houses on fuel points or cutoffs

Or maybe now OKW will counter them just like literally all allied factions in early game? By flanking them.
18 Apr 2018, 16:15 PM
#123
avatar of siddolio

Posts: 471 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2018, 14:57 PMLuciano


Vickers K is supossed to have the same changes as the bren gun, maybe they forgot to write them on the list.

For those who mention no panzer werfer changes, they were planned but they are out of the scope for now.


The vickers k has mirrored bren changes, cost and dps
18 Apr 2018, 16:15 PM
#124
avatar of steffenbk1

Posts: 139

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2018, 15:58 PMKatitof

Inb4 tiger will lose its "new" range buff from previous patch.


Or maybe now OKW will counter them just like literally all allied factions in early game? By flanking them.


you gotta be kidding me. both soviets and brits can have mgs in the early game, and usf can have a morter. They all have either someways of counter it or get mgs of their own. Okw is the only faction that cant have support weapons early in the game.
18 Apr 2018, 16:16 PM
#125
avatar of Rocket

Posts: 728

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2018, 15:21 PMLuciano


Because the patch has certain focus, it is aimed to fix certain things from the current meta and we need to attach to the times, if this patch is meant to be released in spring we cant really change too much things, because that would take more time to test.


THEN WHY IS P. WERFER NOT GETTING NERFED. In current meta its huge and rape/wipe city, katy getting slight nerf, stuka nerfed last patch and calliope, LM heavy nerfed. This should be a top priority. Also no g43 nerfs either but we have time to nerf katy and ppsh??? wow.
18 Apr 2018, 16:16 PM
#126
avatar of SweetrollNearTheDoor

Posts: 170 | Subs: 1

I've noticed quite a bit of concerned people saying that the factions are starting to look too much like carbon copies. I'd argue that some mechanics have to be shared and be accessible to all factions or they will become seriously hindered in some vital gameplay areas. One of these is the access of reliable and more or less cost effective garrison clearing. (I'd say the same applies to snares at least.)

The one man sniper squads change at least should lessen the impact of sniper A-move cheese and retreat path flanks should hopefully yield better results for every faction. With the mortar changes I hope the need for snipers for every faction goes down and one can rely on other tools to displace team weapons, clear garrisons and whatnot.

Now back to the asymmetrical design. Unit diversity can still be achieved even if factions share similarities with units in the same category. For example the OKW and Ost P4s act very differently. Other has very good reliable anti inf damage on it's main gun alone and has the Hull and pintle mgs as well and armor skirts while having a higher cost associated to it. Ost one is cheaper but is also less effective and has to earn its armor skirts. T34s can dish out damage with their hull MGs but that requires smart facing and they still have a decent main gun and the ram as a utility. Shermans have the shell switch to adapt better to several situations and have a unique radio net ability.

All of these medium tanks have unique characteristics that make using them pretty different from one another and I don't think it's bad for gameplay design that every faction has access to such somewhat identical units. (Imagine if the T34 was still on its pre-anything Buff when it was in T3 and Soviet players would be stuck using SU85s as the only good non-doc medium armor while Axis would have superior medium tanks. Try that scenario on a CQC map like Trois Pont and try to have an enjoyable game.)

The maps also play a vital role in diverse build orders. Very few build orders can be applied effectively "As is" to every map and strats need to be changed on the fly depending on the map automatch gave you. Even some niche units like the vanilla Churchill can be surprisingly effective on some map specific circumstances. One example would be the city part of Lienne Forest where Churchills can pretty easily dominate the CQC armor battles from behind buildings. Also factions often excel at certain type of maps:

Vaux Farmlands favors light vehicle oriented Allies more in the early game especially but I think it is fair for Axis to have some good tools to hold such a considerably larger front even if it was not ideal. Then again Allies need some reliable tools to play on Crossing in the woods without Axis locking the entire map with few well placed bunkers and MGs. This is why I think it is so important to have some basic mechanics and units accessible to every faction to adapt to the large map variety the automatch provides. Large map pool variety can of course be a double edged sword. While it enables much bigger BO flexibility and different playstyles keeping games interesting and more unpredictable it will of course make the effort to balance factions to work on every map type a living hell.

Tl;dr It should be ok to sacrifice asymmetrical faction design on some key areas to keep factions viable on every map type and to have tools to have an enjoyable experience on them. Variety just because of variety is irrelevant unless there are objective arguments to justify the unit differences.

(P.S. does anyone know what the actual Scope tm is this time? The patch seems to tackle a wide spectrum of issues and it's not as easy to pinpoint the main focus as before.)
18 Apr 2018, 16:24 PM
#127
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
Really, what scope list are now in game ?
18 Apr 2018, 17:05 PM
#128
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

If panther armour is getting nerfed so that even mediums can pen it from the front, its price needs to drastically go down. Best possible spot my arse, its gotten even worse.

Stug rate of fire was the only thing good going on it, so yh lets nerf that too cuz apparently it has good armour LOL

SU76 needed its 60 range, as it has little armour and very low health. all it needed was to have its barrage behind vet with a munition cost to it.
18 Apr 2018, 17:12 PM
#129
avatar of mondeogaming1

Posts: 464



you gotta be kidding me. both soviets and brits can have mgs in the early game, and usf can have a morter. They all have either someways of counter it or get mgs of their own. Okw is the only faction that cant have support weapons early in the game.
They got kuble wagen and Tier 0 reken warfer with really cheap mg and that got buffed so yeah no need for any buffs
18 Apr 2018, 17:14 PM
#130
avatar of mondeogaming1

Posts: 464

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2018, 17:05 PMAlphrum
If panther armour is getting nerfed so that even mediums can pen it from the front, its price needs to drastically go down. Best possible spot my arse, its gotten even worse.

Stug rate of fire was the only thing good going on it, so yh lets nerf that too cuz apparently it has good armour LOL

SU76 needed its 60 range, as it has little armour and very low health. all it needed was to have its barrage behind vet with a munition cost to it.
I hate stug spam they just kill everything expensive another vs spam they will just always win
18 Apr 2018, 17:15 PM
#131
avatar of Luciano

Posts: 712

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2018, 16:16 PMRocket


THEN WHY IS P. WERFER NOT GETTING NERFED. In current meta its huge and rape/wipe city, katy getting slight nerf, stuka nerfed last patch and calliope, LM heavy nerfed. This should be a top priority. Also no g43 nerfs either but we have time to nerf katy and ppsh??? wow.


Because it wasnt on scope, altough these are not the final changes, is a preview
18 Apr 2018, 17:15 PM
#132
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Apr 2018, 17:05 PMAlphrum
If panther armour is getting nerfed so that even mediums can pen it from the front, its price needs to drastically go down. Best possible spot my arse, its gotten even worse.

Stug rate of fire was the only thing good going on it, so yh lets nerf that too cuz apparently it has good armour LOL

SU76 needed its 60 range, as it has little armour and very low health. all it needed was to have its barrage behind vet with a munition cost to it.

KV-1 got exact same 270 armor and it doesn't seem to struggle when taking shots from axis meds with superior penetration.

Plus, Panther was made more durable against TDs, that's the thing axis crowd was crying for last Quartal.

Stug rate of fire is THE overpowered thing about it and it'll be back to what it was at vet1, so don't cry, I'd expect further nerfs as this one might not be enough for such potent TD, given the fact it did not got pop increase as all other TDs with 160 dmg nor a hard pen nerf like SU76.

Also, didn't SU-76 had 140 far pen back when it was utterly useless?
18 Apr 2018, 17:19 PM
#133
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

Con ppsh-41
Con after winter patch have ok to long range now
3 ppsh Change to mediocre Close range unit
but now reduce to 2 for now petty close range
and reduce long range DPS
I think should change to SVT-40 package or Dp-28 ?
18 Apr 2018, 17:23 PM
#134
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

Con ppsh-41
Con after winter patch have ok to long range now
3 ppsh Change to mediocre Close range unit
but now reduce to 2 for now petty close range
and reduce long range DPS
I think should change to SVT-40 package or Dp-28 ?


If you have ever managed to pick up a dp-28 or other mg on a con then u know how ridiculously strong they are with them.

I think they could have kept the ppsh41s at 3 if they removed Oorah from those upgraded with it.
18 Apr 2018, 17:28 PM
#135
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353



If you have ever managed to pick up a dp-28 or other mg on a con then u know how ridiculously strong they are with them.

I think they could have kept the ppsh41s at 3 if they removed Oorah from those upgraded with it.


ok deny DP-28

about SVT-40 ?
18 Apr 2018, 17:28 PM
#136
avatar of NoktDraz

Posts: 47

Impressions from someone who mostly plays 4v4s as OKW


SOV

Lots of changes, that on the surface seem reasonable... When viewed separately. Taken as a whole, there are just too many nerfs, imo. (An IL-2 nerf is the only change that definitely has to happen)
I feel that the sniper should remain a 2-person squad, balance it through other changes.

OKW

Don't agree with the flame nade change.

UKF

Nerf Brens or Tommies, not both at the same time.
Tank Hunter nerfs feel unnecessary, except for the arty/medic change.
Don't know if the 6-pounder really needed that change?

USF

Rarely see M8s in 4v4s, seems like an unnecessary change.
18 Apr 2018, 17:28 PM
#137
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Con ppsh-41
Con after winter patch have ok to long range now
3 ppsh Change to mediocre Close range unit
but now reduce to 2 for now petty close range
and reduce long range DPS
I think should change to SVT-40 package or Dp-28 ?

Another ridiculous idea is to unite the PPSh and hit the dirt. Consolidate two
opportunities of ability, why? So I agree that the PPSh should be replaced with a DP or SVT.
18 Apr 2018, 17:33 PM
#138
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8



If you have ever managed to pick up a dp-28 or other mg on a con then u know how ridiculously strong they are with them.

I think they could have kept the ppsh41s at 3 if they removed Oorah from those upgraded with it.


DP-28 is pathetically weak compared to any other LMG.
There is a reason why 2 of them cost 75 instead of 120 on guards.
But cons should never get any long range upgrade, it would lead to gren/volk like blobbing.
18 Apr 2018, 17:41 PM
#139
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353


Another ridiculous idea is to unite the PPSh and hit the dirt. Consolidate two
opportunities of ability, why? So I agree that the PPSh should be replaced with a DP or SVT.


Because Con Role should Long-mid Range unit after Rework Con Mosin profile
2 ppsh is useful ? for rebel Assault unit like AssaultGren PGren StrumPio and Volk w Mp40 package
and They are Hard to Assault long range like Gren Ober and Volk w/stg

I deny Dp-28 choice and last choice SVT-40 is ok?

18 Apr 2018, 17:45 PM
#140
avatar of Stein Grenadier

Posts: 69

Hull Down
To increase the usability of this ability, the following changes have been made
• Cast time from 15 secs to 7.5 secs
• Offensive bonuses removed (defensive bonuses remain)


Keep the offensive bonuses, or leave it as it is. If you remove the offensive bonuses, anyone can just park an AT gun in front of the tank just outside its range and destroy it.


Elite Troops Doctrine
Damage is being greatly reduced on stun grenades to solidify their role as a stun platform.
• Model 24 stun grenade damage from 40 to 5


As it should be.


MORTAR CHANGES
• Damage to garrisons increased from 0.25 to 0.5


Less merit to use/rely on incendiary/WP abilities to deal with garrisons.


120mm Mortar
The 120mm is losing a member of its crew to make it more vulnerable to assaults and to compensate for its ability to operate at one man.
• Squad size reduced from 6 to 5
• Vet 2 20% increase to barrage accuracy removed
• Vet 3 range bonus replaced by 20% increase to barrage accuracy
• Smoke barrage ranged changed to 120


Alternatively, rather than making a 5-man squad in a mostly 6-man faction, you could just increase the minimum crew members to 2. It would serve the same purpose.


Snipers are being adjusted across the board to be more vulnerable to flanks from infantry; the aim time changes will reduce their ability to snap off a shot and soft retreat against incoming threats. To improve anti-garrison tactics, all snipers now benefit from 100% accuracy vs garrisons.
• Retreat received accuracy modifier from 0.4 to 0.65
• Ready aim time increased from 1 to 1.5
• Fixed an issue where the Soviet sniper would be able to return to stealth fast
• Anti-garrison accuracy standardized to 100% for all snipers


Snipers are already fragile when put in any bad spot. Aim time increase does not reflect the cost needed to field a sniper in the first place. I do not agree with the garrison accuracy bonus. If a sniper is firing on a garrison prior to this change, it's already painting itself as a target by being stationary, while having the chance to not deal any damage, prolonging this state, and allowing it to be countered by a mortar.


A number of units have been given additional boosts to their MGs against snipers, increasing the number of mobile counters to these units.The following units’ hull MGs now have a 1.5 accuracy multiplier vs snipers
• USF: Stuart and Greyhound
• British: AEC
• Soviet: T-70
• Wehrmacht: Puma, 222 Armored Car
• OKW: Puma, Panzer II


Unnecessary. These units can already chase the fragile snipers as-is. If they get up-close, the sniper is likely to already be dead before it can retreat.


222 Armored Car
The 222 is receiving a cost and armor adjustment to make it more viable early-mid game and easier to replace in the later stages should it be destroyed.
• Manpower cost reduced from 250 to 200
• Front armour increased from 9 to 14
• Rear armour increased from 4.5 to 7


222s already have shock value by having an autocannon and machinegun. Adding more armor gives it a role overlap with the OKW Luchs, while having better sight range. It also allows it to extend into areas where it would normally be forced away from using rifles. The cheapness makes it spammable, and the intended armor buffs will make it hellish to fight against as UKF.


Panzergrenadiers
Panzergrenadiers are being given increased versatility; cheaper and more accurate panzerschreck will allow an alternative to the Pak40 that can support assaults with smoke grenades.
• Now have access to the Model 24 Smoke Grenade
• Panzerschreck upgrade munitions cost reduced from 120 to 100
• Panzerschreck far accuracy increased from 0.028 to 0.032


Let's make a non-doctrinal, Ost Shock Troops that, while already having a very wide range of utilities via doctrine choice, will also get accuracy buffs to its already potent AT upgrade1!!!1

It's silly to put the shreks that have superior AT performance to most allied handheld AT at the same cost as them.


Brummbar
The Brummbar is having its scatter increased to reduce its squad wiping potential and allow it to better push back multiple squads grouped together.
• Scatter from 2.5/6 to 4.8/7.5
• Bunker buster (vet1 ability) scatter from 2.5/6 to 6.4/7.5


Scatter won't push back multiple squads grouped together. It's the fear of losing a squad. Doubling/tripling its scatter without increasing either its range or rate of fire would just make it underwhelming for the investment needed to field it.

In the first place, a Brummbar will only be built to counter infantry blobs. Increasing scatter would be detrimental in this regard.


Sniper
The Soviet sniper is becoming a 1-man/woman squad similar to the Wehrmacht and British snipers to allow more counter-sniper play from Wehrmacht players and reduce frustrating misses from the Soviet sniper.
• Squad size reduced from 2 to 1
• Camouflage combat reset time from 16 to 10
• Camouflage revert time from 3 to 6
• Hitpoints increased from 64 to 82
• Population increased from 8 to 9
• Ready aim time changed to 1.5
• Cooldown changed to 3.5 (min) - 4 (max)
• Reload duration decreased from 5 to 4.5
• Reload frequency increased from 4 to 9
• Population from 8 to 9
• Out of cover camouflage decloak time increased by 2 seconds


Alternatively, you can choose to increase the price tag of the squad to 400MP OR increase the reinforce cost to 110MP. Losing the 2nd man is equivalent to paying for almost half of a new squad, so this prevents reckless play and spam.

This would keep its identity as the only 2-man sniper squad without changing how it's played.


Katyusha
Reload time between salvos have been increased to give more time for players to react to Katuysha volleys.
• Reload time increased from 2.5 to 3 (delay between each volley in the barrage)


Already the slowest rocket arty to finish its salvo. Dies to a single tank shell, too. This change makes it even more vulnerable to tank dives and counter-artillery mid salvo.


Conscript PPSh
Conscripts are now only upgraded with 2 PPsh’s per squad to reduce their close range lethality, improve counter play and increase reaction time for the opposing player.
• Number of PPSh slot items awarded from 3 to 2


And comparatively make them worse than a Volksgrenadier squad that costs the same amount of munitions and a similar amount of MP for a far better close-medium weapon? To get into CQC range, they already have to approach and take damage. During this, they're vulnerable to machineguns and any CQC weapons Axis has.


PTRS (all variants)
We are lowering the PTRS’ deflection damage to reduce their impact against heavy armoured vehicles when attacking from the front.
• Deflection damage reduced from 20 to 10


PTRS rifles already cost 70 munitions to unlock, unless they're Guards and take up both weapon slots they're purchased for. They hardly do any damage to anything that isn't a light vehicle, too.

Even when spammed, they aren't as efficient as other handheld AT.


Penal Battalions
Given that the AT Satchel no longer cancels when units exit its range, we are reducing its range of activation.
• Targeted satchel charge range reduced from 10 to 5


AT satchels only really work to punish bad tank micro. They're already easily countered by backpedaling any tank. Halving its range is silly when you consider that you have to first unlock the ability for 70 munitions, then pay another 45 munitions to use it.

And, assuming it does land, a smart tank player can just stay close to the squad that threw it and kill some members or wipe the squad out entirely, because it can damage friendly units. Halving the throw range makes using it plain suicidal and anything but economic.

Literally every other faction has far more efficient and far less risky handheld AT options for the same munition price. Just leave it alone.


IL-2 Loiter
The IL-2 Attack Loiter is having its damage reduced to lessen its ability to wipe infantry squads at full health.
• Damage from 5 to 3
• Loiter time for each plane reduced by 3 seconds


One or the other. Alternatively, increase the muni price by 30-50 and retain as-is.


P47 Rocket Attack (Loiter)
We felt the P47 rocket attack was causing too much damage for its cost.
• Damage from 80 to 65


Or just increase the cost.
PAGES (23)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Russian Federation 24
Peru 7
unknown 7
United States 2

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

459 users are online: 459 guests
1 post in the last 24h
38 posts in the last week
146 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44938
Welcome our newest member, unicomposite
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM