You're only adjusting for accuracy, but your near range change is also improving conscript aim time and cooldown times.
That was unintended. We'll fix that. thx.
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
Thread: Conscript's DPS in the new patch. 3 Nov 2017, 13:36 PM
That was unintended. We'll fix that. thx. In: Lobby |
Thread: Conscript's DPS in the new patch. 3 Nov 2017, 13:32 PM
Yeah, but accuracy was also adjusted. We always meant to buff accuracy at close range by a small amount (iirc 5%) to allow the relative Kar98 and Mosin DPS curves to finally make sense when you compare the one relative to another. The original intended values for Conscripts, that we had been testing for months were: - Damage from 16 to 10 - Accuracy changed from 0.541/0.495/0.334 to 0.9086803/0.7918258/0.6678531 However that made Conscripts look silly since they would always hit. It would also cause issues where vetted conscripts wouldn't do so well vs unvetted infantry (due to accuracy capping). When I transposed the values from a 10-damage mosin to a 12-damage model, I saw that vetted G43 grenadiers were getting murdered at all ranges by vetted Conscripts. Therefore, I thought it was wise to limit 0-10 damage. If you transpose revamp stats to patch stats, relative DPS at ranges 0-10 is lower than Revamp stats. PS: What I am disputing is the relative difference in DPS at range 10, not the fact that the DPS remains flat between ranges 0 and 10. The figure looks misleading (though I understand it's meant to show the shape, rather than precise values). In: Lobby |
Thread: Conscript's DPS in the new patch. 3 Nov 2017, 13:24 PM
The idea was to give Conscripts a slight boost at the 10-25 range. However, if your graph is accurate, then our numbers are wrong, and we should adjust them. Relative DPS at range 0 should be lower for newer conscripts (by a negligible amount) At range 10, accuracy for old conscripts was: 0.5226 (unless I miscalculated something) The accuracy for new conscripts at range 10 is: 0.7182821 So, yeah. At range 10 there indeed is a 3.3% DPS increase, which is on par with the accuracy bulletin. I wouldn't call that "massively" buffed, though. In: Lobby |
Thread: Conscript's DPS in the new patch. 3 Nov 2017, 12:43 PM
Yes it has been adjusted, and no it's not an anomaly. The reason near range has been moved to 10 was to lower conscript DPS at ranges 0 and 10, so as to not make G43 a completely useless upgrade. In: Lobby |
Thread: December Balance Preview3 Nov 2017, 12:42 PM
I'll have to watch the games myself, to get a better picture. However here is our intention with changes.
I agree. a cooldown on Conscripts laying down tripwire flares would solve this.
Something needs to be done with demos, and this would be a good patch to do that.
The idea is that Conscripts, when they reach Vet3, they should be really good defenders to hold down territory. I haven't really experienced that in my games vs Miragefla, because he always goes mortar, and that ends up blowing the sandbags, etc.
At lower vet, this should be fine. However at higher Vet, sandbag Cons should have the advantage against lower-cover grens. That's because sandbags can't A-move as efficiently as LMGs. I'll have to watch the replays to tell you.
Damage should go up, or should it go down, in your opinion; also, which range? Close? mid? Far?
JU87 will still overperform, since its main cannon hasn't been touched. At least with critical hits being removed, your tanks have a snowball's chance in hell to move out of the killzone.
OST Panther is cheaper than OKW Panther, though. OST needs Panther mostly for its AT capability, whereas OKW has JP4 that can cover that role pretty well, already.
Thee will never be DP-28's handles to Conscripts. They do well vs OST, as you've probably seen. To fix Conscript performance vs OKW, we have to look at OKW overperforming infantry.
Tanks need to have a downtime. Otherwise infantry play becomes unimportant in the lategame (see every game vs live-version OKW). If you are having trouble attaining veterancy, slap some flamers on your pioneers. Lategame isn't meant to be tank spam & minesweepers.
That's already a lot of heavy armour. Maybe swap out the brummbar for another Panther? I don't see the gain in having both the brummbar and the tiger out at the same time. If you're planning on having both Brummbar and Tiger out, maybe supplement with Stugs? As you said earlier, allies will have to have more tanks to deal with high armoured Panther. Those lighter low-armour tanks will take a lot of damage and will also have to be repaired too.
Early game you're probably better off with a smoke mortar. Later game infantry-play should be a little more involved given that you're probably always going to be building a jackson. Also, RE will play a lot better with Paratroopers now, without murdering your popcap.
That will be fixed. That's part of the double-shot countermeasures. Forced waiting time works better for vehicle TWP, since they can now use TWP while moving. However that doesn't seem to be working well for Pak40.
SMG troops with grenades have always been derp. I don't know how to underp them.
Maybe it would help if the M7 mine wasn't triggered by infantry? Or deal slightly more damage? (currently it's 80). You are practically throwing 15 munitions into the ground for a temporary debuff, and if an infantry model steps over it, they receive no bleed. In: Lobby |
Thread: 20% reinforce cost increase3 Nov 2017, 12:08 PM
It affects all FRP factions; UKF, USF and OKW. You are right, though, that this isn't phrased properly at the notes and that can lead to wrong conclusions. how about a sector one where all but base sector are affected ? There is no way to implement area-restricted penalties properly. That is, unless you don't care whether me or CptPrice start abusing the system to gain infinite manpower. I do not get why there is increased reinforcement cost in the first place. The only thing it does is increasing bleed. Bleed is not a problem, the fact that units you have forced to retreat return to the field too fast, negating tactical play. The trade-off we want players to decide on is whether they want to have: - Have higher bleed - Or, turn off their FRP from time to time You can completely avoid the MP bleed aspect of FRP by cancelling your FRP after every retreat. You're just going to have a long cooldown until you can do a bleed-free retreat.
That might actually work. I guess reinforcement-time trade-off makes more sense, since it affects the main "resource" (aka, downtime). Thanks. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: 20% reinforce cost increase3 Nov 2017, 10:00 AM
Global maybe too much. Perhaps an Aura effect around the HQ in order to prevent base reinforcements for receiving this effect as well? This wont work. People will just put their ambulance a bit further from their major amd it will change nothing. To avoid the penalty, just deactivate the frp once your army has finished retreating, and the penalty is gone. The cooldown is so that you can't do this non-stop. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: DBP Commander Rework3 Nov 2017, 00:25 AM
How is Soviet counterattack a "least played"? Arugeably the 2nd strongest doctrine for soviets. Add penal nerfs, and Mother russia nerfs, and see if anybody ever picks that commander again. In: Lobby |
Thread: December Balance Preview v1.1 "T-pose" bug2 Nov 2017, 21:43 PM
Let me know if you encounter this problem with non-rifle-wielding troops too (e.g., SMGs). In: COH2 Bugs |
Thread: December Balance Preview v1.1 "T-pose" bug2 Nov 2017, 19:44 PM
All squads have a separate squad AI reaction animation. The reaction animation triggers when the squad is hit with explosives or flames, or various AoE effects (triggers at most once per 30 seconds). The mod normalized the behaviour for all squads to "drop to the ground and crawl for cover". Perhaps the falling-down-to-the-ground part cannot be supported by certain models, and I'm asking to see whether this is the case. In: COH2 Bugs |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
350 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
120 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
6 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
5 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 |