Interacting with armor is neither inconsistent nor random...It like saying ATG are random and inconsistent because they have different penetration values.
Not causing engine damage at 75% or dying at 0 HP is an inconstancy and should be fixed.
Nobody said anything against the 75% mark.
But what is the reason then that Axis (Grens have some limited trade off, Volks none at all) get in general better snares than Allies for the same price and for the same units (i.e. mainline infantry) |
I disagree, the reason the panther was used was sheer survivability. You could lose a StuG III twice before you'd lose a Panther in the same situation (70% more health and 90% more armor plus turbo switch). People used the Panther because it could either be sat on the frontlines or used to bullrush the enemy with little fear of it being easily destroyed. Consistency certainly isn't the main concern because the Panther's inability to hit targets consistently was long considered it's main detractor alongside cost, until the recent patch buffed it.
I didn't say the Panther's penetration was the only thing it has going for it. It was a more general point that players tend to prefer a reliable unit over an RNG one (which we can see when looking at the patches over the last years across all types of units and in general the changes have been perceived positively).
A single StuG has actually slightly better (calculated, so theoretically expected) damage output than a Panther, even against an IS2, and you can buy two of them for a similar price. And if we consider that there will be a TD and ATGs pushing as support, even the Panthers armor and health advantage is not as big anymore. Now don't get me wrong: I am not saying the Panther does not have any advantages, what I am saying is that with a bit of micro, you can organize a defense against an IS2 just as effectively with StuGs. However, every now and then, the first shots will just bounce or miss, and if one of your StuGs will have to retreat at that point your defense is quite weak. The Panther is WAY more reliable in that regard.
I have defended with StuGs against heavies already. It works. Sometimes you can miraculously delete a heavy tank within the blink of an eye almost. But sometimes your whole defense breaks due to RNG and you can do nothing about it. |
All snare have penetration values and deflection damage. They are simply different values and there design reason for some of those difference.
To me it like saying all ATG should have the same penetration, range and ROF values. They simply do not at least imo.
The only inconsistency imo are:
the kill at 0 HP which is a inconsistency in the mechanism and imo it should be fixed
the smoke/shot blocker behavior which is very annoying
and maybe
the penetration values/damage on deflection damage of fausts
I would consider improving the Ro.E. AT grenade and possibly fix the aim times of AT rifles grenades (Riflemen/PF can't remember if they fixed that one)
I do see where you are coming from, but in my opinion these snares are utility abilities that cover a core mechanic of the game: immobilizing vehicles. They should work reliably. The difference of doing 20 damage more or less is virtually invisible, the (double) snare still works if they bounce in basically all other occasions except for what basically boils down to the Brummbar and Comet (so the player fully expects a vehicle to be snared), but yet if it does not work the game is just perceived as buggy. None of these differences are noted down anywhere, and from a gameplay POV they don't make much sense either.
Overall it is a rather minor issue though, but still an issue.
I agree with the bottom points. |
I don't see as an issue.
Higher HP/armor vehicles have a chance to avoid being snare so they actually benefit from their armor vs low tech mainline infantries.
The only issue I see is not dying when reaching 0 HP.
Because it is highly inconsistent and not properly communicated to the player.
Such important game mechanics that are shared across all factions could be somewhat standardized. |
Yes there is 800 HP vehicles will not get snared unless 2 snare penetrate.
Good point. But this should really get fixed. |
|
Just came to my mind:
Is there any realistic reason that snares do 20 extra damage upon penetration?
I mean, yes, LVs like T70, Puma etc can be killed with 4 instead of 5 snares. The chances of this happening are very low though. 222 and 251 might be slightly easier to finish off with small arms fire.
But for all other units? Mediums upwards there is no way those 20 additional damage will have any meaning. The only scenario I see is a vet3 firefly shooting one shot and both tulips at a medium tank, which can then be finished off by two HEAT grenades. But to be honest this already stretches the imagination very, VERY far. |
Then how about increasing it's damage only slightly, to a number that would give a little extra punch vs vehicles like puma/luchs. I say 200. Then the rof wouldn't need a change for the most part, tank would work the same against regular mediums. The price and pop could be slightly increased accordingly to make even it out.
The IS-2 would stand out from the 160 rule, but not so much that it would greatly affect the game. There would be no need to make it more RNG based.
Current IS-2 rate of fire combined with small damage per shot make the tank laughtable. That's my biggest concern
I mean this needs to be tested.
I'd say though that the main benefit of this would not be vs Luchs and Puma (at the time the IS2 comes out those units are dead for the most part, and if not the IS2 needed two shots at them which might not happen due to their speed and the IS2's ROF). The biggest impact would probably be on Panthers and other heavies, plus some minor effect of killing medium tanks with a single snare (although this implies three shots on the medium + snare = 3*200 + 80 = 680 damage).
Second, depending if you want to adjust the AoE values or not, the damage increase would also improve AoE. By how much I can't say without plotting it out.
Realistically, I don't think any heavy will see further changes since the balance team will focus their efforts elsewhere (at least judging by Sander's posts, I don't have any insider knowledge). |
It make armor matter.
Yes, but on the other hand there are a lot of other (stun) abilities where armor does not matter at all.
They're all thematically named to excuse this, but gameplay-wise it does not make any more sense than snares.
Actually the system is ok, different get different vet bonuses. The only AT greande that need to be look at is RoE since it has sort range and long CD.
Here I'd say it depends. Do we want all factions to have the ability to snare similarly often? If so, RoE should get the fastest CD of all. If not, we need to apply different cool downs depending on the faction.
But at the moment I don't see much sense in units needing to earn fast CD with vet while others have it by default.
On the other hand the CD of snares rarely matters anyway. Or at least the difference of those couple of seconds that Allies can get via veterancy. |
Panther's armour with some other means of AT have very big potential to fully destroy the IS-2, that's what i meant. I understand your point of view, but the changes I suggested to the IS-2 would also increase it's cost, and by that I also mean popcap. It would still be a worthy trade to defeat the soviet superheavy.
Lower rof and higher damage for the IS-2 would also mean that it's micro potential would be higher, as you could reverse after every shot, but it would preform not so well while fighting straight face to face. I don't want the IS-2 to wreck everything, I just think that it should be an investment having impact on the game, while also feeling unique, and not falling into the category of "welp i guess my commander has it so i might just as well try to use it".
Do you mean with higher damage that it should be buffed in AT, AI or both?
I mean, I see your point as well. However I am not sure if your design idea would work. The IS2 is currently a brawler, meant to stand in the middle of the fight. You can't pop in and out with it, it is just not quick enough to do so, neither has it the range to make it viable.
Giving it it even lower ROF while retaining the generalist status would mean it must deal more AoE damage vs infantry as well. It's AoE stats are already decent, and AoE damage is tricky to get right vs Axis squads to not wipe them out too quickly. However it might probably be doable.
Then again, ROF is probably more important vs armored targets than some slightly higher damage increment. Lowering this would make the IS2 very vulnerable if it misses the first shot.
To sum it up:
Lowering the ROF even further would mean increasing the wipe potential while decreasing reliability. Players though use to prefer a reliable unit over an RNG one (hence why Panthers I are preferred by most instead of StuGs, despite those having similar to better DPS per population/cost - health etc aside). I doubt that those changes would really make the IS2 special, it would probably just push it even further into a niche corner. |
Okay I should have said almost equal, I agree with you.
But this does not change the fact, that IS-2 costs 50 fuel more, requires 12 CP and is present in only 2 commanders.
At the same time Tiger and IS-2 cost the same but the fights are one sided. Also the tiger is present in more doctrines and they can be very versitile.
The Panther is an AT unit, the IS2 is not. That's why it costs extra.
From what I know the fights between Tiger and IS2 favor the Tiger. However it is not the only thing to consider. Allies pay less to get a reliable counter. If Allies go for heavy tanks, Axis is almost forced into a Panther (I know JP4/Stug CAN work, but they are not reliable).
I don't think that the balance between Panther and Allied heavies is far off. The Panther usually cannot kill them in a 1v1, but it is good enough to block any kind of break through attempts and punish/kill them if they have been mispositioned.
If you think the Panther should not be sufficient to retain an IS2, why should Axis be forced to invest more resources and pop into counters that can be used for AT only (you previously talked about Panther + StuG/JP4, so about 30 pop), while the Soviet player should only invest 21 pop into an allrounder? That would be actual misbalance.
As Axis you currently invest less resources and pop into a unit that will be mostly busy with pushing back vs the IS2. If you manage to cancel the IS2's effectiveness (which the Panther definitely can), you've gained a small pop and resource advantage to invest somewhere else. If not, the Soviet player can rightfully gain an advantage which is fair because his investment is higher.
And to make it clear: I am not saying that everything about the IS2/heavies in general is perfect, but overall the matchup Panther/Allied heavy is not far from the optimum. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
