Sigh. This isn't true.
Volks at Vet 5 will still be be beat out by Vet 3 Cons, Riflemen, and IS.
Actually it depends what range. At far range, volks have a DPS advantage over vet 3 cons even when you take in account all the vet bonuses including received accuracy.
I don't know why you want to give volks STGs when you already have an infantry squad that has them, STURMS and OBERS.
|
OP stated that the stats would be similar to the PPSH on cons not the Pgs mp44
so what? If you want close range DPS, you have sturms in the early game, and they wreck cons in CQC. You don't need Volks to be pros at CQC.
I agree with your other post, why change the role of the squad with vet? You already have squads that can fill this role. |
Volks just need better vet period. Vet 5 just gives them no appreciable advantage at the moment.
how is .7 cooldown and reload at vet5 not good? |
In lategame Volks serve no purpose except capping, crewing, and AT. Lategame OKW has no assault units, making them A-move focused, poor in close quarters, and exaberating their MP float problem. Having Volks transition from early game line that is supported by Sturms to lategame assault that supports Obers makes perfect sense. (Lategame Sturms are repairing/engineering, thus not ready for combat duty.)
I figure at vet 3 2 MP44 with stats similar to Con PPSH, maybe a tad better. At vet 5 they would get two more, meaning with Shrek upgrade entire squad would have assault rifles.
How would this make volks less A-move? You basically want volks to turn into cheaper pgrens when they vet. If you want pgrens, you should play Wehr.
Idea could use tweaking but is good in principle, OKW has NO dedicated CQC assault units and currently Volks are overshadowed by call-in troops.
OKW has CQC units, they are called sturmpios, obers with stg44, falls are good at all ranges, including up close.
|
While gameplay to post ratio is skew towards the latter, we have seen his replays and playercard. Yours remain unknown.
Can we go back OT ?
Can someone tell me what was wrong with this unit on this date:
Did anyone found it OP at this point?
So IMO this is where it went all wrong:
With any other AoE change there might appear.
I actually found this in a thead that was started on sept 10th. I couldn't find it anywhere in the changelog so maybe it was a ninja buff. I think it was about the balance preview they did, so whenever those went live I think.
AOE Damage Profile was change from 1 /0.35 / 0.05 to 1/0.5/0.25
But its radius was reduced from 4 to 3.
Just throwing out some numbers
This is a pretty significant buff to the AOE damage profile. The damage is a lot more consistent across it's radius.
|
Well, that would make a large amount of sense if the damage from Molotovs and Flame nades was concentrated in the explosion (it's not) and yknow not the DoT. Both are for pushing enemies out of buildings and providing ways to keep them out of cover. The whole point is it creates a no go area for a large amount of time.
In this, they are exactly the same and it makes very little sense for OKW (an already munitions strangled faction) to be reliant totally on expensive flame nades for garrison clearing. Basically at the moment totally forgoing Shrek upgrades is often the reality of man 1v1 and 2v2 matches because you need to be constantly using flame nades to get people out of builds due to how many Urban maps there are now, or just maps in general that have buildings covering important points and cut offs.
Iv already suggested literally mirroring the molotov and flame nade in totality and making them cost exactly the same (15 munitions) since they are both for clearing garrisons and cover not just throwing around open maps.
Nobody has really put forward any substantial logic in their posts about why it should cost twice as much as the molotov beside "It feels better" but you can't balance around feelings.
No it actually makes plenty of sense here too, completely dodging the molotov vs not dodging the incendiary in time means the difference between taking 0 damage and taking at least 60 ( 10 per model, assuming scripts ) actually maybe even more because of bonus flame damage to units in cover, and maybe even a tick or two of dot damage. It makes a big difference in battle, that's why people are screaming about this grenade and not the molotov. I've had to tell people numerous times that their damage is exactly the same, but incendiary hurts a lot more because it's harder to dodge. |
So your justification for the outright false statement that it would need it's damage nerfed if it costs less in that it's more powerful because of the faction it's in? What in the Christ.
3 things are different from the Molotov to the Flame Nade
Projectile speed: Molotov > Flame nade
Throw time: Flame Nade > Molotov
Range: Flame Nade > Molotov
In all other respects they are exactly the same. When it comes to building clearance the molotov is better because it's cheaper and throw time doesn't matter when hitting a station target.
Yeah I don't think you need to lecture me on how to play OKW or the ability to win with OKW either.
Except throw time and range are not trivial stats for a grenade. The ability to dodge a grenade makes a big difference in its effectiveness. That's why it's more expensive. It's much easier to avoid the damage from a molotov than an incendiary grenade, so it's combat effectiveness is much higher, regardless if the damage is the same.
If anything, molotovs should probably be more expensive. For how good they are now, 15 munitions might be too low. But that's off topic. |
I didn't ignore them at all though? Because the argument that grens are designed to function only with support weapon help, then why do other factions get to skip on using combined arms themselves?
It makes no logical sense why basic infantry should just be "better" for the same or similar cost for no reason when options are equally available to both sides. Nothing is stopping USF players from supporting their riflemen with .50 cal's, nothing is stopping a Soviet player from supporting Conscripts with Maxims.
The price increase on the HMG42 and nerf to the Ostheer mortars ROF seem to point that Relic cares more about things being appropriately balanced based on price rather than faction exclusivity. The Soviet and Ost mortars are about equal now, and the maxim has it's place as the most dirt cheap non-doc HMG.
Really this entire argument that Grens are fine totally hinges on the idea that A. They are very easy to just a-move and always win or B. That they aren't mean to not be able to fight enemy infantry alone.
A is incorrect as I previously demonstrated and B is incorrect because every other faction has just as much opportunity to support their units just like Ostheer does.
In and so far the logical conclusion we can draw from this is either Cons and Rifles need their new premium vet scaled down, or Grens need a boost up.
Firstly, people have replied about your numbers, including me. Secondly, just because OST win rates are low, doesn't mean it's because grens are bad. People aren't arguing that OST isn't bad, they are arguing that grens aren't bad.
You're derailing the thread here a bit. This is about make grens more resilient to explosives by giving them an extra man. Not about OST underperforming, or 1v1 matchups against other infantry. |
You guys seems to lose point that wehr is designed to use combined arms, not lol 6 lmg grens builds. While wehr may need buffs, those buffs are certainly not gren buffs.
Speaking of ease of use, grens are absolutely easiest-to use infantry in the game. They dont need to close on enemy to deal damage, thy dont need to take any risks, they require to stay on safe distance and riflenade everything.
And, excuse me, dodging nades is pure l2p. I am chuckle when i play games where people try to toss grenades on me after first 3 or 4 dodges. On the other hand, dodging rifle grenades, as already been said, much harder.
LMGS can use close-range dps buff, and g43 need buff overall, but nothing too crazy.
I think only possible options for grens to have 5 man is t4 tech similar to british to increase squad sizes. Comes late enough, helps ostheer in late game.
I tend to agree with this. Their strength comes from their versatility and how well they play with all the other units in the Wehr arsenal.
I would say that if anything, G43s need looking at. Especially the G43 upgrade for pgrens, but that's a seperate topic. |
This is exactly what I'm posing to the community.
Personally, I'm a bit torn on it. I think because Wehr is defensive by nature, they need some kind of weakness to explosives in that sense, in order to be able to break their lines. On the other hand, having a mortar wipe your squad sucks, but I guess that's the peril of standing in green cover with lmgs? Not sure. It's an interesting debate. Look forward to reading other opinions about it. |