Login

russian armor

Command p4

PAGES (7)down
16 Jul 2019, 17:43 PM
#21
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 6014 | Subs: 1

Ok up until someone pointed out that the change never applied no one said a word about this unit, the moment u found out , it’s a problem? If this is not confirmation bias I don’t know what it is


This has been brought up in the past, but since there are more pressing issues, they are just put back in the "To do" list.
Same with Rangers. Once they found themselves been part of a rework, they were changed.

Now comes a matter of philosophy: do you fix something which is wrong even though the unit is fine/bad? T3476 had a ninja applied RoF buff and they were still crap. A patch fix the situation making it more worthless till they actually buff the unit to it's current state.

Damage modifiers, specially passive, are always gonna be strong. It's more a matter of them been on the right meta or common commanders whether you will see them more often than not.
ddd
16 Jul 2019, 18:02 PM
#22
avatar of ddd

Posts: 458 | Subs: 1

Ok up until someone pointed out that the change never applied no one said a word about this unit, the moment u found out , it’s a problem? If this is not confirmation bias I don’t know what it is


Wow just like with rangers! Nobody had any problem with their damage reduction but then balance team found out that rangers have it and decided to remove it instead of adding "has damage reduction" to unit description. Im looking forward to similar treatment with command p4!
16 Jul 2019, 18:09 PM
#23
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3004

I don't see the comparison of rangers vs command p4. Yeah they both have(had) damage reduction, but rangers were also buffed AND compensated for the damage reduction removal. Here you're just talking about nerfing the damage reduction on the p4 which would make a not so prominent unit even less prominent.

The unit isn't bad, but isn't meta breaking like it was with mobile defense.

Also the command p4 is an AI tank and with it now competing with the new and improved ostwind it's not a very large surprise it went further down the meta ladder.
16 Jul 2019, 18:40 PM
#24
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 2877 | Subs: 1

I don't see the comparison of rangers vs command p4. Yeah they both have(had) damage reduction, but rangers were also buffed AND compensated for the damage reduction removal. Here you're just talking about nerfing the damage reduction on the p4 which would make a not so prominent unit even less prominent.

The unit isn't bad, but isn't meta breaking like it was with mobile defense.

Also the command p4 is an AI tank and with it now competing with the new and improved ostwind it's not a very large surprise it went further down the meta ladder.

The comparison is just to highlight that even a "worthless" 10% reduction is a powerful ability. Rangers themselves had it but the CP provides it to "insert any ostheer unit here"
The CP is competing with the Ostwind, but is CP locked and can't be rushed while the Ostwind can. The new pgrens combined with a rushed CP could be a really fun combo, but we won't know unless the timing of the CP can be made attractive as well
One could simply make the damage reduction a timed ability and tie the CP to t3/BP3 and built in T0 to ensure it can always find a place without being too OP.
16 Jul 2019, 18:59 PM
#25
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2019, 18:02 PMddd


Wow just like with rangers! Nobody had any problem with their damage reduction but then balance team found out that rangers have it and decided to remove it instead of adding "has damage reduction" to unit description. Im looking forward to similar treatment with command p4!
i fully knew ranged had damage reduction in fact I was against utility buff against If they kept the damage reduction

And surprise they removed the damage reduction for better zook and cheaper cost (+even more RA reduction)
16 Jul 2019, 19:00 PM
#26
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576

I don't see the comparison of rangers vs command p4. Yeah they both have(had) damage reduction, but rangers were also buffed AND compensated for the damage reduction removal. Here you're just talking about nerfing the damage reduction on the p4 which would make a not so prominent unit even less prominent.

The unit isn't bad, but isn't meta breaking like it was with mobile defense.

Also the command p4 is an AI tank and with it now competing with the new and improved ostwind it's not a very large surprise it went further down the meta ladder.
actually the p4 ai is better than the command p4 ai even with the faster fire rate
16 Jul 2019, 19:02 PM
#27
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 1300

Ok up until someone pointed out that the change never applied no one said a word about this unit, the moment u found out , it’s a problem? If this is not confirmation bias I don’t know what it is


Your logic here is pretty terrible. If it was getting nerfed in the first place then someone was most certainly "saying a word" about the unit....

It also ignores the entire argument about the unit itself and is completely irrelevant, but it's also just flat out wrong.
______

The aura is most certainly OP. That doesn't mean we can't buff other aspects of the unit and make it better so losing the aura doesn't render the unit unusable
16 Jul 2019, 19:11 PM
#28
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 1300

Here you're just talking about nerfing the damage reduction on the p4 which would make a not so prominent unit even less prominent.


By "you", you mean Relic. Because this change is listed in the actual log. Personally i think there should be no aura at all and you give it command abilities and better combat performance.

Basically a commissar except in medium tank form. Auras just encourage blobbing
16 Jul 2019, 19:20 PM
#29
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3004

actually the p4 ai is better than the command p4 ai even with the faster fire rate


IIRC the scatter on the OST p4 is way worse than the command p4, which makes it worse in AI.
16 Jul 2019, 19:20 PM
#30
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576



Your logic here is pretty terrible. If it was getting nerfed in the first place then someone was most certainly "saying a word" about the unit....

It also ignores the entire argument about the unit itself and is completely irrelevant, but it's also just flat out wrong.
______

The aura is most certainly OP. That doesn't mean we can't buff other aspects of the unit and make it better so losing the aura doesn't render the unit unusable
then make it same as command tiger, on use long duration without the munition cost, then either buff the damage to 160 or reduce the fuel cost
16 Jul 2019, 19:21 PM
#31
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576



IIRC the scatter on the OST p4 is way worse than the command p4, which makes it worse in AI.
it only has 80 damage but same damage profile for aoe so it's a bit worse
commad
AOE Radius
2.5
Distance near
0.75
Distance mid
1.25
Distance far
1.875
Damage near
80
Damage mid
28
Damage far
4
normal
AOE Radius
2.5
Distance near
0.75
Distance mid
1.25
Distance far
1.875
Damage near
160
Damage mid
56
Damage far
8

the scatter and reload are better but even if it hits it rarely kill a model
16 Jul 2019, 20:06 PM
#32
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 2877 | Subs: 1

it only has 80 damage but same damage profile for aoe so it's a bit worse
commad
AOE Radius
2.5
Distance near
0.75
Distance mid
1.25
Distance far
1.875
Damage near
80
Damage mid
28
Damage far
4
normal
AOE Radius
2.5
Distance near
0.75
Distance mid
1.25
Distance far
1.875
Damage near
160
Damage mid
56
Damage far
8

the scatter and reload are better but even if it hits it rarely kill a model

How does it stack up against the derp stug?
Iirc the StuG is decent enough so maybe making the CP a turreted one of then with some abilities could make it attractive. A little turret goes a long way
16 Jul 2019, 21:03 PM
#34
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576

Wow, all the usual axis posters are defending balance team for not fixing the unit, what a surprise. ShadowAxis here doesnt even understand the comparison of a damage reduction passive to a....damage reduction passive! clearly this is more allies crybaby and we should all L2P. #alliesOP
well i said the same for m4c Sherman of the soviet having radio net, it's a bug but it does not make it broken and it's still not spammed

if the change is not applied and people son't even know about until someone reads or test the files than i don't see the problem, it just means that it was not needed to change, same for m4c shreman, radio net is fine even if it's for the soviet, cause it does not make it op
16 Jul 2019, 21:18 PM
#35
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576

Here some old thread from after the balance pathc
just search for command p4, people already realized it, but it was never changed cause it's not op, it was a problem with the old puma doctrine but that was nerfed to the ground so i think they reverted the changes to the C p4
btw nobody was complaining about the p4 after the changes in the threads
https://www.coh2.org/topic/85687/what-exactly-does-the-panzer-iv-command-tank-do


and again to people saying permanent aura is op, the ukf command aura exist with no problem, and it gives even a plane
16 Jul 2019, 21:29 PM
#36
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 2877 | Subs: 1

Here some old thread from after the balance pathc
just search for command p4, people already realized it, but it was never changed cause it's not op, it was a problem with the old puma doctrine but that was nerfed to the ground so i think they reverted the changes to the C p4
btw nobody was complaining about the p4 after the changes in the threads
https://www.coh2.org/topic/85687/what-exactly-does-the-panzer-iv-command-tank-do


and again to people saying permanent aura is op, the ukf command aura exist with no problem, and it gives even a plane

Combat buffs and durability buffs are vastly different animals.
For example there used to be bulletins that reduced damage by a percentage but were removed because it was decided that a passive "increases shots to kill" is quite strong.
Even then I would argue that the command vehicle shouldn't be an aura, nor the sturmoffizer. Active abilities are much more befitting a competitive tactical game. And passive, should they exist, should be weak and earned akin to vet.
16 Jul 2019, 21:37 PM
#37
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 1300

snip


Can you stop with the straw men argument about what other people are saying? And actually talk about the unit?

Tell me why it needs to effect allies units in team games. It massively increases the value of the unit while still costing the same

I think all aura abilities should be reworked. That one single sentence just invalidated your entire argument about "this is only the command p4"
16 Jul 2019, 21:51 PM
#38
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576



Can you stop with the straw men argument about what other people are saying? And actually talk about the unit?

Tell me why it needs to effect allies units in team games. It massively increases the value of the unit while still costing the same

I think all aura abilities should be reworked. That one single sentence just invalidated your entire argument about "this is only the command p4"
tell me why it should not ? Cause nobody told me anything about why ? Other than "I don't like it", does it make units too durable ? Any way to show it ?

i already explained why it fine as it is, the aura is not so powerful, before it was 25 or 30 and that was op (as it was 2 more shoots) now it's just 1

if u feel that it's too op at 20 then give it something else, not a straight nerf, either buff the unit itself (it could even affect itself like it used to be), better weapon, or give other buffs like range, rate of fire , etc

people are just asking for nerf to a rarely seen unit
16 Jul 2019, 21:56 PM
#39
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 1300

tell me why it should not ? Cause nobody told me anything about why ? Other than "I don't like it", does it make units too durable ? Any way to show it


I just said why are you blind? Read the post again. Unit costs the same but it's value is much much more

Opel trucks used to work for allies. That was removed. It's too much synergy. Similar issue here

I've also already said that auras promote blobbing, hence why they should ALL go.
16 Jul 2019, 22:00 PM
#40
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3576



I just said why are you blind? Read the post again. Unit costs the same but it's value is much much more

Opel trucks used to work for allies. That was removed. It's too much synergy. Similar issue here

I've also already said that auras promote blobbing, hence why they should ALL go.
well this applies to all auras tho, when all aura are removed im ok with it
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 54
unknown 4
unknown 44

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag T.R. Seeking
  • U.S. Forces flag T.R. Thoton
  • Oberkommando West flag BlackWolf
  • Ostheer flag Hurin
uploaded by Hurin

Board Info

138 users are online: 2 members and 136 guests
Crecer13, Stark
244 posts in the last 24h
1942 posts in the last week
8623 posts in the last month
Registered members: 54740
Welcome our newest member, nguyenvantrung
Most online: 805 users on 28 Oct 2018, 01:04 AM