-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.278110.716+16
- 2.270144.652+2
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.558230.708+2
- 5.253150.628+14
- 6.968566.631-4
- 7.402.952+10
- 8.22491.711+11
- 9.8120.802-1
- 10.19078.709+4
Posts: 3111 | Subs: 2
Thread: New Content Commander Idea22 Feb 2021, 13:41 PM
/moved to the lobby In: Lobby |
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] OST Feedback20 Feb 2021, 09:07 AM
Is there any news on when the patch is planned to be out? In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: USF recon plane OP20 Feb 2021, 09:05 AM
OKW already has the single pass smoke plane that is also good for recon. I think what Etheral was referring to is that Axis can get cheap okayish AA even without buulding a dedicated unit, whilr Allies are usually forced to build one. In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: MG34 is OP18 Feb 2021, 14:43 PM
If for some reason you want damage, then yes. In all other cases: no In: COH2 Gameplay |
Thread: Let's talk pop cap16 Feb 2021, 10:50 AM
I fully agree on value density, however you have defined value density as purchase cost per pop over multiple posts. And with that I fully disagree. Balance team has done a good job so far. You still have not shown in any way that your approach has any merits. Your only try was a theoretical Ober vs Penal comparison (based again solely on purchase cost) assuming they are already perfectly balanced pep population but not per purchase cost. But they likely are not, at least you have not shown so other than 'after 5 years of balancing I assume thiese units are balanced'. Which they are not, which is why there will be at least two more balance patches. I have then asked you to explain how your ratio of purchase cost/pop (which was the only definition you gave gor value density up to the DPS post) can make predictions and how this value changes when you try to balance out units. I provided reasoning that it does not change with actual unit balance with both units as in the live game as well as a hypothetical scenario. You have ignored responding to all of that and finally said that one needs to look at DPS. Which was, among other things, exactly what I argued for in the first place. I am done with wasting my time on this. Have a good one though. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Let's talk pop cap16 Feb 2021, 10:15 AM
So the actual metric is suddenly DPS and not purchase cost? Look what I said here:
You're the only one making this personal. And you're also the only one completely ignoring what others and I have posted. But fine by me, less time wasted. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Let's talk pop cap16 Feb 2021, 08:53 AM
Lots. And Penals and Osttruppen are hard to rebuild and inefficient in the late game, while e.g. Conscripts being decently rebuildable despite having lower cost/pop. IS have weaknesses early and are one of the best infantry units late game. 5 men upgrade is a big plus despite lowering cost/pop, same goes for the VSL meta we are still having. All this should not be the case in your theory, yet I do not see players actively not bolstering because they achieve higher cost/pop. But all do. Because what they achieve is higher DPS/pop and higher survivability/pop with their squads, which is what matters way more than purchase costs. Relic and balance team have consistently chosen option1, do you really think they are all stupid and don't see the easy option?
Exactly. M3 and WC are decent/meta because you can load a bursting unit into them, UC is decent due to good upgrades. And none of them get build in the late game despite having an abnormously high resource density. Why? They should make a perfect addition to the late game army due to this if what you say were true. (And off note: Sturms are 300 MP)
Nope, I want you explain how your claim can hold up if there are so many contrary examples. Your approach neglects strength in different phases of the game. If Osttruppen are too efficient early and bad late game, no amount of interfering with pop and purchase cost will change that. Yes, better units are more expensive, but the purchase cost is not good enough to describe the quality alone. Your approach only makes sense if we assume we had perfect balance AND everything is balanced to purchase costs (something you still have not shown, you've just said that stronger units are more expensive, therefore your metric is accurate), which we don't have. Imagine Grens being actually UP to Conscripts, despite having the same "cost density". How would your approach guide to the right direction? Decreasing cost? This would lead to a worse metric for them and actually make Grens less desirable according to the metric, despite being one way to solve it. Increasing cost? Would improve the metric but make them even weaker. Lower pop? Could be the right choice, but what if they are only 5-10% weaker but decreasing the population from 7 to 6 results in a ~15% change? Can't match that. Nevertheless, it would make them appear better than Conscripts despite them being now equal. How do we deal with them making decent damage, but just dying too quickly? Just lowering the population will create issues since a spam of them could potentially delete other squads quickly due to insanely high DPS that you can field. It might still be a balanced, but not a fun game. Again, all this neglects faction features, vet and multiple other things I mentioned. Looking at stats like damage and health however allows you to identify the issues.
You did not answer the question: Why is it not built in the late game anymore? Why do Soviets use their T4 units when their most cost-dense units are actually in T3 and should be therefore - your claim - much more desirable? And before you resort to claiming I was cherry picking: This is actually the case for most units: Luchs and Puma cost more per pop than a KT (~46% favor for them in MP and only 22% favor for KT in fuel). And literally ALL artillery vehicles have a horrible cost/pop ratio. Yet if you do not build them you have already lost the match in 2v2 upwards. Do you think an 8-10 population Katyusha/PWerfer/Stuka would be better balanced than the current one? Or that those need cost reduction? Because that is what your metric is suggesting. We simply do not have perfect balance, and not all units are priced to their vet0 late game potential, since this would screw up early game balance. Balancing is difficult, and if you're not willing to make a decent comparison ("write 1000 pages") that is totally fine. But you should accept that your easy short cut comes with severe drawbacks regarding the conclusions you get.
Which meant you got outplayed. If your Panther drives on a base entrance mine in front of two ATGs, nothing is gonna save that either. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Let's talk pop cap16 Feb 2021, 00:56 AM
Go quote me on that, because I never said that build costs hold no value to balancing. I said that looking at build costs alone and neglecting everything else is bullshit.
If that's the quality of discussion you're aiming for, we can end this right now because I am really not interested in shit-throwing.
Apparently balancing by combat stats is the preferred way, although the effects are much more indirect than changing purchase costs. Should make you think why, because I am sure that balance team is not interested in creating more work than necessary.
No they would not. Kubels get two-shot (or even shot+snare or shot+small arms). Building them mid and late game is simply throwing resources away since there is a medium and an ATG available. Also suddenly there are interdependencies? Why is there no interdependency between IS and REs? Grens and MG42s? Penals and the lack of any team weapon? Obers and the otherwise lack of a cost late game AI option for OKW? That's what I am talking about: You cannot completely neglect the environment your comparison operates in.
You just said literally this: Pop-cap prevents you from capitalizing on a temporary power burst from low value density units. You even gave the example of medium tanks in the mid game, where you usually just reach about 60-65 pop. At this point you can still fit any unit you like, so population is still not a concern. Maybe let's take a short cut: Why do you think that the purchase cost is such a better measurement of performance than any actual performance stat like DPS or health?
Again, I never said that even if you're trying to insinuate so. I'll bounce this question right back since you are convinced of the purchase cost theory: Why are T70s not built in the late game when they have way higher cost density than T34/76s? Heck, even the IS2 cannot cope with this cost density.
You pick the most cost efficient units. But again, cost efficiency is not determined by purchase cost alone, also not by pop cap alone. Actual performance stats is what matters.
The worst thing you can do in a winning position is not keeping the pressure. If you keep playing at the same army strengths you allow your opponent to punish a misplay of yours and wipe squads/steal weapons etc. If you have an additional 1-2 units on the field (the advantage you gained previously), the chance of him doing so is much lower, because he needs to fight an uphill battle. You on the other hand bleed less, put more pressure, more map control, more income. If you don't believe me, then believe any of the other pro or non-pro players that have said exactly the same in this very thread. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Let's talk pop cap15 Feb 2021, 23:03 PM
Sure thing, it's in the point you ignored. ...while neglecting other factors such as abilities and general faction balance/features or simply basic stats of the respective unit. DPS, EHP, reinforcement cost, camo, abilities, snares etc. None of this is covered at all. Any of these could be quadrupled and your metric would not see it. You don't need a late game AI terminator squad if your have a Brummbar, similarly, IS need to fill more roles in a faction that has glaring holes. Even a simple thing as starting resources throws most of your calculation off. And then there is veterancy, how does this go into the equation? The initial cost is highly balanced to how quickly you can pump them out and how much resources the faction needs for teching at a given time. For your calculation to be meaningful, you must first show how all factions bleed the same, have the same costs at any given time and how all metrics are the same (or conversely, how all of this does not matter). If all the surrounding factors are similar, then you can draw a conclusion from comparing the purchase cost only.
What you describe is literally normal balancing issues. If any unit does not give enough bang for the buck, it is UP (low value density), nothing else. Or OP the other way around. If what you say were true, why do we see so many meta changes while the prices of units are either barely touched or (most cases) not touched at all? Why is 95% of balancing done via combat stats and not via the purchase cost? With your purchase cost = combat value theory, OKW should spam Kubels all game (70 MP/pop). And even if they did not, Volks outperform Obersoldaten at any given moment in the game and Obers are similar to Sturms. Even more so, Pfusiliere should outperform Volks at any given moment. Yet, a viable Pfusi build starts with two Volks. We should also see Tigers, IS2 and Pershing all day long, also Elefant and JTs should appear in 1v1s (much higher cost density than Panther). Yet, we don't see that many heavies and literally 0 Elefants in 1v1. Yes, in general specialists are strong and expensive. But a Grenadier in a 3x PGren build (assuming this was viable to begin with) has waaaay more value than a fourth PGren, for the simple reason that it provides a snare alone. It has nothing to do with purchase costs. I also don't know why you throw numbers such as "2 min" and "10 min" around with no back up. No one gets pop capped in the mid game, because at the time you can get pop capped the game is at least 25-30 min old (unless there have been no proper fights and bleed). Having no pop cap means you are forced to remove any bleed if you want to go that high. It forces you to build vehicles and best case beefy vehicles that you will not lose and replace. This will force heavy units even more, the exact thing that you critisize. Again, show how initial squad cost is the main factor behind unit balance from early to late game. So far, you have stated this as a fact and not backed it up ever. And from this point, you need to show how removing pop cap would solve these value issues better than normal balancing could. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Let's talk pop cap15 Feb 2021, 21:54 PM
I already answered that
Why? Ost T3 spam is real, medium spams are viable strats, heavies have actually lost their place in the meta. Low pop -> higher MP income -> more sustained bleed High pop -> low income -> low sustainable bleed. So how does keeping the population artificially "low" (read, keep the bleed more sustainable) increase the need for low-bleed units? Especially since in your opening post you complained about floating MP while being pop capped?
See quote 2. In: COH2 Balance |
60 | |||||
44 | |||||
40 | |||||
5 | |||||
15 | |||||
7 | |||||
3 | |||||
3 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 |