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. |
Again I don't disagree with your statements in a 1v1 setting. But for teamgames, VP camping is king, and you don't have to wait long for Allied tanks to try to attack if you set up by a VP or fuel point. Being able to spank Allied tanks at Allied TD range is pretty sexy. I played a round or two with hulldown, to put my money where my mouth is, and in a campy, laney map, the allies didn't have much options to deal with my panther.
I got outnumbered 2:1 by T34:85s a few times, but I was able to break out and back up pretty quickly, panzer tac if it was really close. Other than that, it was just a world of pain for the allies, constantly taking damage at a range they couldn't retaliate at. And don't even get me started on the Elephant. A few times I set it up and watched as Fireflies got bullied away from my friend's lane. Of course that's only going to be one commander though.
I suppose that the price of the ability is that one of them is in a kinda mediocre commander (though still useful in 4v4 for the artillery-destroying offmap) but for the other one, I think the commander is just really good period.
The issue is that we're basically talking almost exclusively about the Panther here, and on laney maps like Angermunde the Elephant, too. The ability does little in 1v1 in general since mobility is worth much more in this mode. Even in larger modes, it is rather useless for mediums and other tanks (although I could imagine the Brummbar on certain maps, but have not tried to abuse this myself).
The ability can be very strong on some maps and useless on others. One question though: If you'd want to steamline them to the same ability, what would your solution be? The OST one, the KV1 one, or something different?
Again, talking only about the Panther and assuming it did not get any range benefit: I think the hulldown were pretty trash if you make your expensive tank a sitting duck that is being outranged by basically all Allied TD. Why immobilize your high end AT specialist Panther if all it achieves is taking damage without retaliating, albeit taking the damage at a slower rate. This would force you to get an ATG close by, which already binds a quarter of your army, all being AT specialists, to this single position. Which in turn is vulnerable to infantry pushes.
The KV1 situation is different. The KV1 is shit at AT anyway. Hulling down a KV1 and supporting it by an ATG already gives a more or less "complete" package. |
...
There is still a, I believe, 10 second delay between being dug in and getting the hull down buffs.
Also, the fact that it originally needed infantry does not work out. The ability was shitty before, therefore it needed a clear buff and not a rework at the same power level. CoH2 just turned out to be a too fast game for even temporarily immobilizing so much of your army (even a medium plus a Grenadier or squad already make up 20% of your maximum army). This is just not economic use of your force, considering that this digging in might need to wait another minute for the enemy to push until it pays off. Or it might not happen at all.
I agree with Vipper regarding the faction context: Axis units need the range, because Allies field more 60 range AT options. That's why hull down is mostly used on the Panther: P4s are still sitting ducks even despite getting 50 range.
Is the ability too strong on the Panther? Personally, I'd say no, but I see why it can be a debate. I should also add that I rarely saw it being used or used it myself, so I don't have much in game experience with this ability.
|
Now if in you agree with Porygon that all shots fired by vehicle should hit and damage other vehicles pls explain why.
Imo having Luch do damage to IS-2 with every shot fired would be a very bad change.
Please go back an reread what people have written. No one suggested that all vehicles must have deflection damage. Take the suggestion for what makes sense, not for a super extreme case that has not been fully excluded by someone. Also, please don't state suggestive things about what I have written or intended, if that has not been the case.
As is, deflection damage is generally deleted from CoH2. The all or nothing coin flip has caused lighter units to disappear in the late game since they can barely contribute to the foght anymore. They become pop cost inefficient compared to higher tier units. The existance of heavy armor then forces all factions to have access to high penetration units, otherwise heavies become a game ender. Those high pen units (TDs and ATGs) in turn shit on medium armor, which is why from 2v2 upwards you'll always see a Panther and Comet spam. Due to similar reasons, other units such as the StuG, JP4 and SU76 disappear from the late game: Because they might be unreliable when they need to perform against heavier armor.
Have a look at the current KV2: Its penetration values are actually laughably bad for such an expensive unit. But the deflection damage allows it to at least supplement and support against heavy armor, being a decent threat to medium armor while dominating none of it. Even a OST P4 can bounce a KV2 shell. The chance of the KV2 triple shotting a P4 is about 35%, so it is there, but more often than not you'll need 4 shots, making the KV2 a deterrent, but not dominating any armor.
The option would be to delete deflection damage, which would in turn force higher penetration to a level that mediums are surely or very reliably penetrated. This decreases the value of lighter units and we loop back to what I wrote above |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
