I think a big issue with OST is that OKW overshadows it in almost every way. With the exception of support weapons and the brummbar and pwefer, OKW is better at everything. OKW has better LV, better medium, better infantry. And even OKW's support weapons (mg34 and Raken) do their function perfectly fine and have a much better mainline to protect them.
Also while every unit is pretty solid in OKW roster, units like the Ostwind are complete garbage and have no role in OST's roster.
OST is better in teamgames also because its strongest units (Brummbar, Pwefer, Support Weapons) are much stronger in teamgames than 1v1. Which is a big reason for the difference in performance of OST in 1v1 compared to teamgames.
I don't think OST is anywhere near the trash state USF and UKF were before the patch and likely don't need sweeping changes like those two factions did. But a few small unit buffs and changes could go a long way in making OST feel better to play imo.
I hear the new patches have made western allies op?
7 Apr 2019, 19:45 PM
#61
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
bg /l
7 Apr 2019, 20:43 PM
#62
Posts: 808
I think a big issue with OST is that OKW overshadows it in almost every way. With the exception of support weapons and the brummbar and pwefer, OKW is better at everything. OKW has better LV, better medium, better infantry. And even OKW's support weapons (mg34 and Raken) do their function perfectly fine and have a much better mainline to protect them.
Also while every unit is pretty solid in OKW roster, units like the Ostwind are complete garbage and have no role in OST's roster.
OST is better in teamgames also because its strongest units (Brummbar, Pwefer, Support Weapons) are much stronger in teamgames than 1v1. Which is a big reason for the difference in performance of OST in 1v1 compared to teamgames.
I don't think OST is anywhere near the trash state USF and UKF were before the patch and likely don't need sweeping changes like those two factions did. But a few small unit buffs and changes could go a long way in making OST feel better to play imo.
why do ppl keep comparing okw to ost for balance, those 2 factions are always on the same side, yea okw rn is better then ost, now compare ost to usf,ukf, and sov and those factions are drastically superior to ost. before the patch USF and Ukf were not trash at all, (ukf defo had a major weakness without snares). Most changes were very good in fixing problems in those factions like usf tech, however what they failed to do was touch any of the cheese( dual equipping units, terminator vet, OP jacksons, scotts etc), while they were happy to nerf the cheese on axis side like brumbar. which is why you have ost and axis overall struggling more
7 Apr 2019, 21:03 PM
#63
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
Say what you may, my arguments are based upon facts proven as time has gone on, however your "benchmark" is now entirely your own opinion and one could even say that it's biased since I haven't noticed your explanation on it, why not have the Conscripts as a benchmark, why the Grenadiers? Why can't we have the WFA Armies' 5 man squads as a benchmark instead since they seem to be a bit easier to balance?
The Ostheer's 4 man Grenadier squads have low survivability and only lead to balance and design headaches where you're giving them 25% of their firepower in the form of the MG42 upgrade to mimic the 5 rifles shooting at them on the other side and giving them slightly more HP for each model to again mimic the survivability of the other guy's mainline unit, why? Why go through the cheesy and gimmicky route and not instead make them a 5 man squad and balance them another way.
The conscripts on the other hand represent the other extreme of being a 6 man squad but having low utility, scalability and usefulness without a doctrine (Conscript repairs, PPSh packages, etc.). People replaced them with the Maxim MG squads before, now they're being replaced by the Panels, why not just make them a 5 man squad with non-doctrinal upgrade(s) and be done with it, why the need to constantly have a non-doc replacement for them when they're meant to be your mainline infantry unit and not a support such?
It's these reasons that I deem why the EFA are so unpopular compared to the WFA and how their designs are also very flawed, so having them as "your benchmark" means that you're only going to ruin everyone else and get rid of any pleasable gameplay experience.
In the end the EFA are as gimmicky if not more than the WFA relying on unreliable mainline infantry units, no alternative repair methods non-doctrinally, no forward retreat points non-doctrinally, heavily relying on strong commander choices or risk losing the match 90% of the time in the Soviets' case and having to heavily rely on call in infantry units in the case of the Ostheer, why do you think Osttruppen are so popular, or why Ass grens dominated back when they aren't so shit?
This system of seemingly crippling an Army forcing the player to choose the same commander over and over again to plug a huge gap seems to be very detrimental for everybody.
Actually no. This is not my idea this is how Relic balanced the game.
I have provided the documentation for it and but since you miss it I will do it again.
Which unit you will choose is irrelevant but Ostheer where chosen because they are the most "complete" faction.
But ask yourself how can you determine if a units is balanced or not if you do not have something to compare it with?
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeterQumsieh/20150115/233644/Balancing_Multiplayer_Games__Intuition_Iteration_and_Numbers.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeterQumsieh/20150414/240950/Balancing_Multiplayer_Games__Opportunity_Power_and_Relativity.php
7 Apr 2019, 21:08 PM
#64
Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8
I don't think listing a balance philosophy of a balance developer that doesn't work at relic for years is doing much good for your point.
PQs balancing philosophy was discontinuted after he left the ship.
Clinging to the past and rejecting reality of current time isn't healthy.
PQs balancing philosophy was discontinuted after he left the ship.
Clinging to the past and rejecting reality of current time isn't healthy.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
7 Apr 2019, 21:09 PM
#65
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Even if it wasn't, there's nothing in PQ's theory that states "And also the balancing benchmark is the unit of OST Grenadiers, forever, eternally, because only it is pure and good."
I'd rather use riflemen, personally.
I'd rather use riflemen, personally.
7 Apr 2019, 21:09 PM
#66
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
If there is a new philosophy I would love to hear about.
Great Idea only riflemen come after Grenadiers...
In addition riflemen where designed to be OP since the faction was designed to be "incomplete".
Finally changing benchmark means that one to redesign the whole game.
In the end of the day I does not really matter which units is the "benchmark" as long as that unit is used as the benchmark consistently.
Even if it wasn't, there's nothing in PQ's theory that states "And also the balancing benchmark is the unit of OST Grenadiers, forever, eternally, because only it is pure and good."
I'd rather use riflemen, personally.
Great Idea only riflemen come after Grenadiers...
In addition riflemen where designed to be OP since the faction was designed to be "incomplete".
Finally changing benchmark means that one to redesign the whole game.
In the end of the day I does not really matter which units is the "benchmark" as long as that unit is used as the benchmark consistently.
7 Apr 2019, 21:14 PM
#67
Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8
If there is a new philosophy I would love to hear about.
Then feel free to ask any of the balance modders, because there is no head balance designer at relic working at CoH2 anymore for what? 3 years now?
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
7 Apr 2019, 21:16 PM
#68
10 Posts: 871
Wasn't it PQ that suggested Shocks in an M3 as a counter. I'm not sure hes the ideal person to follow for balance advice with suggestions like that.
7 Apr 2019, 21:17 PM
#69
Posts: 17884 | Subs: 8
Wasn't it PQ that suggested Shocks in an M3 as a counter. I'm not sure hes the ideal person to follow for balance advice with suggestions like that.
Don't know, ullumulu apparently uses it this way and even complained recently how op it is.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
7 Apr 2019, 21:17 PM
#70
10 Posts: 871
In addition riflemen where designed to be OP since the faction was designed to be "incomplete".
Would you mind quoting where relic said riflemen were designed to be overpowered?
7 Apr 2019, 21:18 PM
#71
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
Would you mind quoting where relic said riflemen were designed to be overpowered?
I can not say much more I have singed an NDA.
I am sure you find information about the original desinge of the USF faction from the twitch videos during release.
7 Apr 2019, 21:20 PM
#72
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
I can not say much more I have singed an NDA.
None of the NDAs put out for CoH2 ran any further than the alphas/betas they pertained to. The game's nearly a decade old.
7 Apr 2019, 21:21 PM
#73
Posts: 378
Soviets are facing the same problems against OKW, and they are totally weak because of it.
I don't know if Ostheer is shit or if the WFA are just mad OP right now with their Light vehicle rush, I would really think more about it, so far nobody seems to understand why Ostheer is weak and they all blame it on locking puma behind tech.
Is this is how you want ostheer to be played?
The thing is, the game has enough of this one meta bullshit, where a whole faction depends on that one single unit to take advantage of a game plan.
Soviets have the same problem, and it sucks.
Actually the Soviet / Ostheer match-up seems rather balanced as we witnessed it today on KOTH.
The game balance right now is too focused on WFA and their LV meta.
I don't know if Ostheer is shit or if the WFA are just mad OP right now with their Light vehicle rush, I would really think more about it, so far nobody seems to understand why Ostheer is weak and they all blame it on locking puma behind tech.
Is this is how you want ostheer to be played?
The thing is, the game has enough of this one meta bullshit, where a whole faction depends on that one single unit to take advantage of a game plan.
Soviets have the same problem, and it sucks.
Actually the Soviet / Ostheer match-up seems rather balanced as we witnessed it today on KOTH.
The game balance right now is too focused on WFA and their LV meta.
T34 85 needs to have slightly less AI. It's shells are basically on par with Sherman HE yet it does everything.
7 Apr 2019, 21:25 PM
#74
Posts: 607
Considering how many bloody balance patches and overhauls and reworks this game has gone through, I think it's silly to quote conceptual balance thoughts from 2015 as being pertinent in 2019.
Oh well.
Oh well.
7 Apr 2019, 21:27 PM
#75
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
None of the NDAs put out for CoH2 ran any further than the alphas/betas they pertained to. The game's nearly a decade old.
I singed a NDA in 2014 but the agreement includes the information of the agreement itself so I can not say any more. And this is quite off topic and nonconstructive.
Considering how many bloody balance patches and overhauls and reworks this game has gone through, I think it's silly to quote conceptual balance thoughts from 2015 as being pertinent in 2019.
Oh well.
The details are in fact pointless, the principals are as relevant as ever.
Simply try answering the question, how do you know if a unit is balanced if you do not have a "benchmark" to compare it with?
7 Apr 2019, 21:30 PM
#76
Posts: 2260 | Subs: 1
Stop talking about the elefant and don't bring it into this discussion with it being in anyway useful. It's bullshit and got nerfed in ground.
doesn't hit jackshit and even shittier range. also, even less maneuverable than your mom
doesn't hit jackshit and even shittier range. also, even less maneuverable than your mom
7 Apr 2019, 21:30 PM
#77
Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13
The main issue I see with is a number of their units aren’t that viable/need tuning to help diversify what the faction can do. WFA only needs slight nerfs with USF only really needing some tuning on the Jackson and M8 Scott in terms of the core. Things like the Pack Howie are stronger than mortars due to price, tech and having to fulfill the role of pseudo heavy artillery aka medium artillery. From what I play as USF, double bars might be strong but it’s also counteracted by cost and it’s best range is to fight at mid-short which is harder to achieve.
Boosting Ostwinds, PGs and a simple target size on the stug G would give them more options to fight.
Boosting Ostwinds, PGs and a simple target size on the stug G would give them more options to fight.
7 Apr 2019, 21:35 PM
#78
Posts: 607
The details are in fact pointless, the principals are as relevant as ever.
Simply try answering the question, how do you know if a unit is balanced if you do not have a "benchmark" to compare it with?
This is a much bigger topic than this thread's and my views regarding game balance probably don't coincide with yours -- let's just leave it at "we probably won't agree".
7 Apr 2019, 21:41 PM
#79
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The main issue I see with is a number of their units aren’t that viable/need tuning to help diversify what the faction can do. WFA only needs slight nerfs with USF only really needing some tuning on the Jackson and M8 Scott in terms of the core. Things like the Pack Howie are stronger than mortars due to price, tech and having to fulfill the role of pseudo heavy artillery aka medium artillery. From what I play as USF, double bars might be strong but it’s also counteracted by cost and it’s best range is to fight at mid-short which is harder to achieve.
Boosting Ostwinds, PGs and a simple target size on the stug G would give them more options to fight.
I'd agree this is the best way to help out Ostheer, because it won't impact team games as much as, say, buffing Grenadiers. Ostheer in team games is still very strong because using their strongest units (HMG 42, Pak 40, mortars, Panther, Brummbar, etc) is much easier there.
What would also help indirectly is indeed some slight tuning of UKF and USF now that their new tech / snares have settled down, and remove some of the excessive things that they had to compensate for these weaknesses (such as the accuracy bonus vs lights for the 6 Pounder).
7 Apr 2019, 22:12 PM
#80
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
The main issue I see with is a number of their units aren’t that viable/need tuning to help diversify what the faction can do. WFA only needs slight nerfs with USF only really needing some tuning on the Jackson and M8 Scott in terms of the core. Things like the Pack Howie are stronger than mortars due to price, tech and having to fulfill the role of pseudo heavy artillery aka medium artillery. From what I play as USF, double bars might be strong but it’s also counteracted by cost and it’s best range is to fight at mid-short which is harder to achieve.
Boosting Ostwinds, PGs and a simple target size on the stug G would give them more options to fight.
A combination of small nerf and small buffs is probably the way to go.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
64 | ||
 |
|
|
44 | ||
 |
|
|
160 | ||
|
|
|
|
38 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.275110.714+13
- 5.259143.644+3
- 6.250150.625+11
- 7.22491.711+11
- 8.19265.747+5
- 9.670423.613+6
- 10.5611.836+3
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
742