As usual, you seem to be willfully oblivious to the fact that despite the hefty nerf to the AoE the Scott received major buffs to barrage scatter, reload and shell count to make up for the loss in raw damage. The problem with the revised AoE back then was that the shells were no longer able to one-shot full-health models, which arguable made the barrage less valuable overall. However, the "small for nothing" buff in the beta aims to fix exactly this by giving the Scott at least some OHK potential back. That may not look like much but is actually a significant performance boost, even though I personally think the unit deserves better than TD-level OHK radius (maybe at least 0.5 to 0.75 m). If that alone will be enough to make the Scott viable remains to be seen I guess.
The more I look at it, the more the changes failed.
The scatter was the only thing out of this list ending up to be a real buff. The other buff was the barrage CD, but that was traded for autofire reload.
The barrage reload buff is about 90% of the previous reload, which is decent. But what does it do? AoE has been changed from 'one hit does very good damage' to 'one hit barely matters' (at least for healthy squads). This means you absolutely need a second hit to get something out of it. The scatter buff increases the chances to do so, the reload as well but overall very little. You have about 4.5 seconds to move out of the barrage, so I assume in most cases the second shot will have a chance to hit the team weapon again. The 4.5 s delay is obviously better than a 5 s delay, but overall not THAT much. To repeat myself, especially since the second shot changed from 'bonus damage' to almost mandatory to achieve actual damage.
This leaves us with the shell count buff. The barrage got a 5th shell instead of previously 4. Against infantry, this does not matter since they will be long gone when the fifth shell is fired anyway. It also does not contribute much to area denial since it comes only about 2 seconds later than old barrage due to the reload buff. The fifth shell is only good against static emplacements. However, damage got nerfed at the same time, giving both new and old barrage a max damage of 400 if all shells hit. With the better scatter, I'd say it is a minor buff against emplacements, but nothing more.
This 90% moving DPS is simply myth, a G43 PF unit simply does not have 90% moving DPS.
Calling it a myth is wrong. If I calculated correctly, in the late game the G43 retains about 84% DPS at short range and 90% long range. Although the close DPS is more important, still the G43 retains a crazy ratio when moving.
A PF squad moving DPS is similar to that of Penal battalion as far as I can remember.
Again, if my calcs are correct, late game Fusies perform between 44% short and 6% long range better on the move than Penals, with way better damage retention.
But I don't know why you mention Penals in the first place. They have nothing to do with the topic. and also work very differently in their faction.
That unit need rework because right now Sherman is better against blobs and if you pick Scott only for Arty it will only force pak wall to move. That unit should lose defensive smoke but barrage range should be set on 100 and vet1 should have phosphor shell or something similar that actually will counter teamweapons...
I agree. Both Scott and PaK Howitzer were changed to focus on the barrages only. While in general it is good that input should be rewarded instead of just parking a unit in the backline, it makes them somewhat redundant. And the Scott especially is just too expensive for that purpose. To drop smoke, or making a single unit move or maybe even retreat, the Scott is not cost effective. The PaK Howie will do, even the normal T0 will do for the purpose of pushing that MG/ATG away and dropping smoke occasionally. The M21 mortar is cheap and accessible, the PaK Howie has a decent boom and additional abilities once it vets up. The Scott has okay-ish damage, but no other goodies. Mobility? Yes. Is it worth paying that much fuel for mobility? Probably not.
If the original issue was that two of them annihilate infantry too quickly, nerf the far AoE damage and acceleration so that chasing is more difficult and dangerous. Even the turret rotation could do the trick. Currently USF is left without that late game capability to wipe units by artillery, and that's what we are seeing with their commander choices.
The main issue with scott is it ability to survive.
Long range, good HP, good mobility, barrage on the move and defensive smoke make the unit difficult to counter.
If one want to balance the unit one should probably first start with making easier to counter and then increase its lethality.
But wasn't the auto fire range already nerfed to 50? That means it must stay in range of all ATGs and JP4, while being on the edge of range for all TDs.
In general I agree though, the survivability or other usability should have been targeted more than the auto attack.
I am confused myself what the current stats are. I assumed the 1m is true because it is mote in line with the text of the new changes.
Regarding your suggestion: This can only go with a larger increase to POP and price. at this performance you should not be ble to build two Scotts without leaving a gap somewhere else, since it comes near Brummbar performance.
It is a buff. The AOE curve is better now, with 0.25m OHK radius. I did a drawing on the piece of paper, but imgur is trash on mobile, so can't upload it properly nvm. Did it on PC
Your drawing is slightly wrong.
Old AoE goes up to 80 while it should be capped at 0.75*80=60. Also, you set the old AoE near distance to 0.75 instead of 1m.
To sum it up: old and new Scott do about 60 damage at 1m. Old Scott is pretty much capped at that point, new Scott gets an mini OHK radius and damage increases forther for shorter distances. Profile for >1m is pretty much identical.
The game should be balanced across all modes. Having that said one has to keep in mind that the complexity of balancing a system increases exponentially.
The problem with OP is that claim that game was balanced for 1vs1 at expense of balance in 4vs4 is simply unfounded.
There is very little to indicate that increasing the balance decreases the balance in 4vs4
I wouldn't say it is unfounded. Balance in 1v1 for the competitive scene had precedence in the first patches iirc. It doesn't mean that every change to 1v1 were bad or even affected 4v4 in the first place, but if those two modes were colliding then 1v1 was usually considered more important.
The point were OP's argumentation also falls a bit short is his comparison to one year ago. The balance was also community made back then. I don't know how many people have been exchanged within the balance team since then, but some have been there since Relic handed over. I vaguely remember a message about some new people replacing old ones, but I had the impression that many have stayed. so OP seems to not trust the team because the mostly same team did a better job back then? In this case it should be more a distrust in recent decisions.
Overall I found the becoming game more reliable to play over the last years. In some points a bit more boring, in others way mote interesting. At least for most modes and factions, we're away from 'abuse this one strat like hell and win' (ST not included).
4v4 balance was not that bad a year ago. Axis had a slight lead in win rate but was not over 55%(top 200), same as the Allies did in 1v1, which instead had an advantage. The patch released earlier this year has already brought the win rate for the Axis around 60%(in 4v4). I was hoping the June patch could fix some of the issues, but it only worsened the situation. And then Relic is telling me they are hiring people from the community, which I assume are those belonging to the current CoH 2 balance team, to assist the balance in CoH3. Oh boy, I can't imagine how bad it will become.
Where do you find this info? To my knowledge there was no stats site a year ago. The earliest of pagep's data is march this year.
However, to the point:
I agree that 4v4 balance is bad and that it probably worsened since march (from about 55 to 58-59% axis wins), I am reluctant though to blame only the balance team for it. If you look at the chosen commanders, you see a clear pattern: Ost, OKW and Soviets have a decent selection of commanders. UKF and USF however choose commanders with artillery or strong offmaps. This however is mostly Relics fault. They designed those factions shittily and probably did not allow core changes is that regard. Arty is crucial especially in 4v4. Both Axis factions have them stock, allowing them to get commanders to what they need. 2 out of 3 Allied factions don't, you pick the commander to cover your bare necessities rather than getting an actual strength.
I am not saying that the balance team did not make mistakes. Scott changes in my eyes were bad, the Scott should have been the late game arty replacement. USF AT changes were not fundamental enough either, leaving the faction not in any broken state, but just a boring one regarding AT.
Brita were... Well, to be honest I think without adding units this faction is beyond repair. In my eyes, the team did well with what they had, even if it is still unsatisfactory
My point is not Rangers vs Obers. My point is:
Rangers are doctrinal (2 doctrines)
Similarly priced Obers are stock.
Obers need less muni investing, have 2 types of nades, cost less, have suppressing fire and booby trap.
Comparing the combat is not the point. I used the combat to just give a general insight how two elite squads duel it out in possible teamgame scenarios. One point could be that obers with IR are OP in close to medium range but that's not something I'd want to argue now because I don't think they are (maybe, really don't know or care).
Rangers cost more MP, pop whilst having poorer combat and utility skills. Only real use for them is on CQC maps with lots of sight blockers because tommy rangers need to run in.
So I'm arguing that rangers need something. Anything. The DMG reduction would be preferable, as some say, but won't bother analyzing potential problems as I don't care enough. Just pointed out how Obers win most of the engagements (and how the IR obers are the strongest ones in any scenario, but they are also doctrinal so it's fine).
If something is stock or doctrinal does not matter for overall balance decisions.
Ranger's 'utility' are the weapon racks. CQC specialist? Check. Mid specialist? Check. AT specialist? Check. Other factions get these as upgrade buttons. PGrens also have next to no utility stock while having even poorer damage retention. But in the end, if you use these unit by unit comparisons to support your argument (which you obviously try to do), you can't neglect faction context.
I am fully with you regarding the pop cap decrease since this one has always been a bit too much. I also agree that Rangers are just a boring squad overall. Beefed up Rifles, but not interesting? UP? I personally don't think so.
To be honest, after this post I don't get why you really started this thread in the first place if you 'don't bother analyzing potential problems' with your most favourite solution. Why discuss a balance topic if your stance in the first place is that you want that buff and don't care about potential issues?
But as I said: I agree on POP reduction, would prefer a squad rework as well although this won't come anymore, and slightly pff topic regarding Obers, I'd like to have theor booby trap stripped away as well.
Don't IR Obers ignore most of the RA cover bonusses?
If that is the case: why do you base half your argument on that? IR Obers are doing their job as intended: Shred infantry in cover and close range. Almost every unit would lose against them when moving in. That's not an issue with rangers, but the general abundancy of cover in team games due to late game arty. Alternatively, that's an issue with the IR StGs, but I'd highly doubt that.
Can someone from the balance team elaborate why they think these changes are necessary? If what UKF really lacks is artillery, then why are all changes not touching artillery? Add +5-10 range on the arty flares at vet3 or something, and suddenly UKF has some decent form of late game arty.
Medical Supplies Upgrade (healing) – Blocks Pyro upgrade
Bolster (+1 model)
Build Sandbags
Build Fuel/Muni Caches
Additional abilities from doctrines
New: Stealth detection (+15 range with pyro)
And now, on top of all that utility being available on one unit, most of it is being made even cheaper, with the bonus of making the AEC arrive earlier. This isn't the right move - IS' need to be doing less things, and those things need to be moved to other units. Then we'll see some interesting build diversity instead of 5x double-upgraded IS every game.
I agree with the conclusion, but not some of the points you list. No one is going to build another IS because they can be equipped with PIATS or build a cache. Bolster is also not really a "utility", it is a way of scaling UKF infantry into the mid game which other units do by veterancy.
The fact that UKF build orders almost always go into 4xIS is a testimony of how shittily Relic designed UKF in the first place. They don't have any options. Moving RE to T0 was indeed a help to slightly diversify. Unlike other factions, there is no alternative to main line infantry, no non-doc elite infantry (and even with commandos you'd only get one of them), not even really a light vehicle to carry you. From minute 0 to the Cromwell, everything is IS by design.
But even if we want to move some utilities from that list to other units: Where to? REs? UKF is one of the few factions that can play without pioneers until the mid game. The officer could take the smoke arty, but this leaves UKF with a huge gap in artillery and smoke. This ability replaces the missing mortar in the line up. Other factions can get fairly early mortars with very decent range for smoke and barrages, restricting UKF to only one unit with less range to call it in would need compensation by making this ability stronger. Same thing goes for the sniper.
Point is: Smoke is a crucial mechanic. Restricting it to a unit where you can only get one of, would induce more balance changes. Also, if this ability is so crucial, you won't get more diverse builds. UKF players are now forces to build 3xIS into officer instead of 4x IS. Better unit diversity? Yes. Better build diversity? Nope.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
