Profile of Hannibal

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3119 | Subs: 2

General Information


Thread: Shock grenade1 Aug 2020, 12:47 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2020, 11:42 AMKatitof Mostly Hans, he is pretty damn adept at retreat wiping with rnades. Yes, he is the (almost?) only player known to pull it off somewhat reliably but even he fails regularly. But this just reinforces the point that your statement was wrong. Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2020, 11:42 AMKatitof Regarding the other point, I'm perfectly fine with bundle nades, I'm simply saying that just because something is different or not "in line" with imaginary "benchmark" does not mean its wrong or imbalanced. Bundle nades are fine and so are shock nades. I see nothing wrong with 2cp+ elite CQC squad having better nades, especially if it has lowest CQC DPS in comparison to other CQC elites. You just made two posts about saying bundle nade were not fine on stock units without further reasoning, just after saying that different factions and units have different abilities to then state that Shock grenade is fine. I don't agree with Vipper's conclusion or actually ShadowLinks initial assessment of Shock nade being OP, but I can see the point that if two abilities cost the same and are functionally the same, but one is straight up better than the other, then this ability deserves a closer look. It might not always be the best option design wise, but standardizing it to some form of benchmark makes balancing the whole game much easier (and the game more dull unfortunately). CoH2 has seen other approaches as well, but turns out that this creates a monstrosity to balance, more than this community can handle with the few people working on it and the few patches we get every once in a while. Benchmarking stuff is the most effective way for CoH2 to make the game balanced, so a deviation from that should have a good reason. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: No compensation for deleting the Ost T4 cap buff?1 Aug 2020, 10:42 AM From my perpective that patch and the last one made OST T4 meta again. I think the whole faction scales overall nicely into the late game. Not sure why they'd need any buffs right now for that phase. Also the Gren damage reduction helped a lot with late game wipability of units In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tiger VI Overnerfed?1 Aug 2020, 08:49 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2020, 08:47 AMProtos Angelus Basically what I said in a couple of posts upward, don't understand how some people can't grasp that. Pershing has 960HP: Taken from the last pershing patch in the official forum. Armor was nerfed to 270 and HP increased to 960. Perfect, thanks. Didn't update that yet, already had the feeling that something was off. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tiger VI Overnerfed?1 Aug 2020, 08:43 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2020, 00:30 AMZzoner tiger_sdkfz_181_mp 1: tiger_kwk36_88mm_mp: Penetration near 240 Penetration mid 220 Penetration far 200 AOE Radius 3.5 Distance near 0 Distance mid 1 Distance far 3 Damage near 120 Damage mid 40 Damage far 24 Reload duration 4.7 - 5.3 m26_pershing_mp 1: m26_m3_90mm_gun_mp Penetration near 260 Penetration mid 240 Penetration far 220 AOE Radius 4 Distance near 0 Distance mid 1 Distance far 3.25 Damage near 120 Damage mid 64 Damage far 28 Reload duration 5.5 So basically, Pershing is still (arguably) way better than tiger in AI and AT bar the range advantage of tiger, plus the Pershing is being supported by Jacksons. I would agree that all heavies were hit hard, but that's very healthy for the infantry and strategic, in general, gameplay (just look how many infantry based commanders resurfaced after the nerfs). To get things straight: - Pershing has a total reload time of 7 seconds at vet0 and 5,35 sec at vet 3 (because you neglected 1 sec of wind down an the delay between phases) while Tiger has an (average) total reload of 5,375 at vet 0 and 3,875 at vet 3. Sometimes I have seen that the formula is still not 100% correct, maybe because the stat data might be off by a tick or so, but for the most part it has been pretty trustworthy. This makes the Tiger better by 30/38%. - Penetration values are usually useless for direct comparison between Axis and Allies, because both sides have generally higher/lower armor values. 100 pen for an Axis vehicle is more than for an Allied vehicle. The same way, 100 armor for Axis is worth less than for Allies, generally speaking. The Tiger has enough pen to deal with all Allied stock vehicles except for Comet/Churchill. And while the Pershing is for the most part reliable against Axis stock heavy armor (Panther, Brummbär), it can still bounce with about 10% chance. - (edited) And the most important part: Pershing can take 1 shot less. This makes the (unsnared) Tiger 20% better. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Shock grenade31 Jul 2020, 21:34 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2020, 21:04 PMKatitof 1) I'm basing that on what I see people on streams do with nades. 2) I didn't mean that squad that fights the other squad is the same one that retreat wipes it, in fact, that almost never happens, its always squad on retreat behind them. I don't know what streams you watch, but I recommend to probably look a little closer next time. Even at high level, not all players manage to pull off those long delay wipes, especially with the rifle grenade. But regardless of that, the statement is still objectively wrong. Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2020, 21:04 PMKatitof Yes, they used to be even stronger. There is little to no reason why such a powerful nade should be available stock to non limited troops. The availability of Obers and PGrens is effectively limited by their high costs and bleed. I am also not sure what the train of thought here is because for the last page you argued that squads with less DPS are fine with stronger nades, but I think this whole discussion would lead too far off this thread because it would involve the complete design of Obers/PGrens. So back to topic: I think Shocks are probably fine with their nade. It does not hit you out of the blue since it usually is very obvious when they throw it and it fits their theme as breachers. If I had problems with Shocks it was actually never their grenade but that they just chew threw everything if you fail to stop them as soon as you unveil them. But overall they are fine, it's just that they are crazy good on urban areas where Axis lack proper counters at the time Shocks show up. Maybe they could do with a 1 sec fuse, but overall Shock balance is probably more depending on the weapon profile and RA than on the grenade. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Calliope balancing31 Jul 2020, 21:04 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2020, 19:29 PMKatitof Neither can priest nor sexton. 100% of doctrinal mobile arty can't be one-shotted or killed by small arms. That's a straw man argument. Does not change anything about the points made in this thread. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Shock grenade31 Jul 2020, 20:02 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2020, 19:26 PMKatitof You can wipe on retreat just as easily with rifle nade as you can with satchel charge if you know all the above. I think the rest of your post would be way more impactful if that part weren't just a straight up lie. Also bundle nades are already standardized - to light gammon bombs. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Calliope balancing31 Jul 2020, 09:20 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Jul 2020, 21:17 PMSander93 It was changed to 400 when its rockets were buffed, so that it will now at least get oneshot by a Stuka Dive Bomb. Wait, this is even considered a counter? In total I find the unit to be too durable. It should be at least two-shot by normal tanks, so I'd suggest 320 HP for it. Jump back to quoted post30 Jul 2020, 19:47 PMKatitof Its a TANK, not cardboard box on tracks, like pwerfer. For all intents and purposes it's rocket artillery and even priced similar to other rocket artillery. Balance wise there is not much reason to treat it as a tank. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Calliope balancing31 Jul 2020, 09:04 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Jul 2020, 22:18 PMProtos Angelus Isn't weapon range tied to cast range? What's the point of the existance of that attribute then? I didn't know weapon range means s*** Without having looked at the AE for this myself, I assume that the weapon range is tied to the actual weapon, eg the rocket. Since the barrage is cast via an ability and not via autofire, the stat is absolutely meaningless and probably just exists because it has to. I assume every stat has to have some value in the stat sheets, otherwise scripts might error. That's how you end up with 1000 penetration values although the highest armor in the game is not even 400 and even the T34 ram weapon (the weapon is activated after the ram ability was cast and the T34 hits a target) has a reload of a second or so. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KV1's and KV8's main gun penetration 30 Jul 2020, 18:09 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Jul 2020, 17:38 PMVipper Well if one argues about overlap between a flame tank and main battle, I have to poin out the diffidences. Actually I was the one that pointed that OKW and Soviet do not have similar units... Not it would not but it would make KV-8 less of investment, so less of risk and thus a better choice on certain map. I do not see how KV-8 overlap with soviet light tanks but even if it would I do not think it would a bad thing especially after reading again and again, how much soviet are depended on the T-70. On the other hand KV-8 was fine for a long time before it was patched and there is little indication that the proposed changed would cause problems. On the contrary one might actually have more reason to built SU-76 and support his KV-8s And if we accept that if it become cheaper it will overlap with t-34/76 we have to accept that now it overlaps with KV-1. My suggestion for hezter (and other specialized units) is to become call-in and thus increase built diversity. You are self contradicting yourself: You complained that the KV8 and Hetzer got different treatments, which made sense if OKW and SOV had similar roosters. Now you stress that it was you pointing out that they don't. So why complain that the two flame tanks got positioned differently in different factions? Flame tanks are mostly chosen on more narrow and urban maps, regardless of their position. It would also make the KV8 a worse choice on slightly more open maps where it still functions at the moment, because some of that armor/health would need to go as well, and TDs are better in open spaces. The unit will still stay map dependent. If you make it cheaper to more LV level SOV has the choice of two AI specialists. Usually only one of those will be build, therefore they are in competition with each other and this also decreases unit diversity. SU76 is not seen because of lacking synergy, but because SOV has better options at every stage of the game. Otherwise we would see more T70 SU76 combos, but we don't. Even at my rank people understand that you throw a game like that. If you put it closer to T4 vehicles, overlap with the T34 is not as hard as with the T70, but still you get a T34 mostly because you want some form of AI capability, because the tank is quite efficient in that regard. Regarding you KV1 argument: That is nonsense. You compare a stock vehicle with a doctrinal one that can never be built together with a KV8. You will never have the choice of "do I build a KV8 or a KV1", so unit diversity will not decrease. Yes, both units are beefy, but that's about it. And what does call in have to do with build diversity? Because you want to make them independent of OKW T1/2? In: COH2 Balance