Think he is referring to the tournament where the majority of games where Ostruppen vs Mechanized.
Wasn't this AE's Chaos Krieg tournament with 250 VPs? In this case it's not very surprising that players go for strong early game strategies.
Although Osttruppen have dominated at least one other, "normal" tournament iirc. |
ah yes that makes sense. i'll try that, thanks!
i've probably asked you before but how did you get to your estimate regarding the percentage of scatter hits again?
I tested a modded Panther, SU85, I think a StuG and something else to shoot at a T34 or P4, respectively and counted some shots. Can't fully recall the range though, maybe I also tested two distances.
But those 0.5-0.6 is really just a rule of thumb, nothing more. It was not the most thorough testing I have ever done, but I think it is reasonably close to what I have seen so far. |
Note that these assume every shot hits as I haven't wrapped my head around how to properly add hit chance into the pen binary distribution yet.
As long as there is no deflection damage there is no functional difference between a miss and a bounce. You can just multiply pen chance with hit chance.
Scatter hits are a different topic and depend on what you want to 'simulate'. For standing targets, 50-60% of scatter shots still hit on max range as a rule of thumb. |
Just because there is RNG involved that does not mean that there is no skill involved. Coh2 is not like playing the lottery and knowing which risk are worth taking and which are not, is part of that Skill.
When it comes to tank combat, one will probably lose as many games as one will win due to RNG and that number will be significantly lower to number of games he will lose or win due to skill level.
RNG is there to make players adapt to the tactical situation else it will become more about the economic skill and less about tactical skill. If one does not like RNG one can play RTS games with little to no RNG factors.
I never said otherwise, so I am not sure which point you are trying to make here.
Fact is, you can make the correct play and use your unit well, yet get no reward at all. This happens regularly. Not all of these events are game deciding, but they enough to notice. These are not one-in-a-thousand occurrences, by far not. Adding deflection damage does not transform CoH2 into chess, not even if it were introduced on every single unit.
As you say, RNG should constantly force you to adapt to and re-evaluate the situation, but it should not decide games on its own.
To come somewhat back to the topic, or at least a previous topic since this is getting out of hand:
Deflection damage on some units can mitigate "unfair" RNG and help them back into meta builds. The existence of deflection damage does not make armor useless, armor still has a great role of reducing damage even against those units. And this was the original point where I quoted you. |
Yes there is. If a person plays enough game he get both "good" and "bad" RNGs. Problem is perception one since many that people tend to remember only the "bad" RNG that "cost" the game they had won by playing "better" and the good RNG that give them victory when they actually played worse.
This is completely missing the point. Both of these are stupid and should be diminished as much as possible. Your good RNG is your opponent's bad RNG. Either way, the game has been decided by RNG and not by skill.
Anyway, my point is that there rarely are enough "RNG checks" in a single game to even out. You're not going to have 10 Panthers with each of them having 10 engagements so that one or two dying by RNG won't matter as much. You're going to have 1-2. If you lose one of them because every shot is penetrating (insert Hans meme here), that is game changing.
...
No one in this thread seriously suggested otherwise. |
On the flip side when someone pays for armor one should expect to get something in return and deflection damage can negate that.
You still get something for it: only a fraction of the full damage. Obviously armor is not AS important as before then, but deflection damage does not fully invalidate it.
The fact that armor provide a hit roll might seem important in some cases and might look odd on extreme RNG rolls but in the long run over all the shot fired it works as intended since when enough number of are the odd even out.
The problem is that there rarely is a "over the long run" in CoH2. Single units are highly valuable, losing or keeping one due to some low probability RNG decides games regularly.
Making all tanks one-shottable and just differ in their armor value would also even out in the long run, but not in a single game.
That's why people flock towards higher reliability units. Panther instead of JP4 or StuG. This is why AoE profiles have been broadened on so many units, and also why in general units rather got HP and lost armor than the other way around.
Deflection damage would be another step into that direction. Is it desirable? Debatable, but it surely would make the game more reliable to play. |
I also think it is sometimes a bit odd how all those sand backs just fall off and everything is back to normal, but that's more a visual thing.
Gameplay wise, I think a tiny nerf after getting out of hull down would be beneficial. It is just strange that this tank can instantly pounce on you once your tank got hit once or twice. However, I don't like those delays very much that prohibit your unit from movement. Maybe those can be implemented in different ways, but for example the USF ambulance has a small window of time where it won't accept orders. I have often forgotten to move it because I ordered the move command too quickly after ending the AoE heal ability.
My suggestion for hull down would be an accerelation nerf for the first 1-3 seconds. This would also simulate that these tanks have been dug in below ground level (not sure about the visuals in CoH2 apart from sandbags, but at least in reality this was the case) so they have to move slightly uphill when getting out of their position. |
Ostheer hull down gives a firing range bonus, giving the Panther 62.5 range, allowing it to fire back at Allied TDs at their max range.
Which can be useful, especially because with the added durability it can out-DPM up to two Allied TDs with a bit of luck, but it's not that practical because a stationary Panther usually just attracts a bunch of ATGs or artillery and is then forced to move.
Panther hull down can come in handy sometimes, in scenarios like having to defend a victory point to stall out the last few VPs, but most of the time mobility is more valuable than being stationary with a bunch of bonuses. It's definitely not a no brainer ability, which is good.
The post you quoted was under the assumption that both hull down abilities are made the same, since this was the suggestion of this thread.
The first part described making both like the KV1 ability, therefore removing the range buff for Ostheer with the example of the Panther.
Second part shortly touches on giving the KV1 the Ostheer hull down and thereby increasing its range.
As I stated earlier, I am fine with both abilities being different. Giving them different names would help signalizing to more casual players that those abilities are not the same, because both name and visuals suggest they are. |
I do think you only get this complete package at 1vs1 with a KV-1 and double Zis. Very hard to dislodge if there is a point that is worth defending. Higher RoF will make sure that KV-1 will kill or chase off infantry and deal damage to advancing mediums.
In 4vs4 this is different. The high count of Panthers in this game mode makes hull down for KV-1 obsolete. You will always be picked off by Panthers which vet themselves at your hulled down KV-1. It is similar to a hulled down Panther without range bonus vs allied TDs. The high number of indirect firing units in this game mode leads to more vulnerable AT-Guns in addition.
I agree to this. The point I was trying to make was the effect of immobilizing your tank between Panther (assuming it did not get a range bonus) and the KV1:
An immobilized Panther is being outranged by Allied TDs and ATGs. ATGs can be countered by indirect or retreating from the position, but there is nothing really stopping an Allied TD from pot shotting a hulled down 50 range Panther. Therefore you need to park a PaK next to your Panther, which already ties up 25 population while you are still vulnerable to infantry pushes.
A hulled down KV-1 is currently also being outranged by enemy ATGs and Axis TDs. As above, if the enemy comes with ATGs, you either retreat or have to use indirect fire. Against TDs, you need to use a ZiS yourself. In contrast to the hulled down Panther, the ZiS will fully counter Axis TDs, you "only" use up 21 population and the KV1 gives some protection vs infantry pushes.
I am not saying the KV1+ZiS counter is stronger in all situations, but it needs less preparation and effort to get something out of it.
50 range would be a lot more useful here for KV-1 to deal some damage versus Panthers and support other AT weaponary that wasn't decrewed by indirect fire.
The KV1 has a far penetration of 80. It would not be very useful to let it shoot at a Panther (30% pen chance and probably 70-80% hit chance including scatter hits), probably not even a StuG (57% and 65-75%). It would help more against infantry, that is true. But so does the reload bonus, while keeping the combo a bit more vulnerable for longer ranged units. |
As much as the current system promotes overreliance on high tier TDs, a deflection damage system would just promote spamming low tier units instead of teching, which would be bad too. I'm sure we don't want to go back to people spamming 4-8 SU-76s or in the case of vCoH an M10 train and just out DPM-ing everything. If the opponent invests in a (super)heavy tank, which comes with a lot of tech costs nowadays, you should be forced to invest in higher tier units yourself too. We've purposefully raised the costs of superheavy vehicles, so spamming low tier crap to counter these late game units rightfully shouldn't work.
Imo deflection damage would be a bad solution. Hopefully side armor in CoH3 will help. Then low tier units can still deal damage, but it would still take effort to position them to get to the side armor, rather than just relying on sheer DPM to cause damage on frontal deflections. And high tier TDs wouldn't need such ridiculous pen values.
Adding deflection damage without any further changes is a buff to all vehicles who get this treatment. Obviously there would need to be other adjustments, for the most part probably regarding cost and population.
I'd personally find it a good thing if multiple SU76s could fend of heavier units more reliably. The question is just how effective they should be. Should two SU76s replace a SU85 (assuming the same stats)? Surely not. Cost would be similar and SU76s already have the advantage over mediums, they should not perform equally against heavier tanks. But 3-4? Maybe yes. Building 3-4 SU76s costs more both in resources and pop than an SU85. At this point you have the choice: Invest your resources into lighter units to be able to deal with mediums well and heavies somewhat acceptably if positioned well, or invest into a heavy TD to deal well with heavies but only mediocre with mediums.
I don't think you should be forced into higher tier units when your opponent buys a heavy, but you should be forced to invest more resources.
To repeat myself: All this is theoretical. I don't think it should be implemented for CoH2 at this stage anymore, nor am I so naive to assume that just slapping deflection damage on top of some unit will magically fix them without causing issues. In the above example, the SU76 might need a cost increase, maybe even Soviet teching could or should be changed. If both TDs are equal late game choices with different focuses, they might both belong into T4. We might even need to change heavier units because of that.
The current system, along with many other issues that LVs have, reduces the benefit of light vehicles in the late game. Building two of them is usually not worth it outside of some 1v1 engagements, because you invest too much into the current spike and fall down heavily afterwards. At the same time it is not feasible and also not desirable to have both a light and heavy version of something. This eats too much pop cap in a game with very restricted population for units. And that's a shame because this way the game forces you into similar, optimal builds and units every game. The stock rosters of Coh2 factions give you only a hand full of vehicles, and about half of those are discarded for the late game for various reasons. Deflection damage would be a step for some of them towards more usefulness.
EDIT:
In the end side armor should solve a lot of these issues. I don't think Coh3 will have as severe armor balancing issues as CoH2 just because of this small change. |