Profile of Doomlord52

The SU-85 does have slightly better DPM (TTK vs Panther is ~28s from the first shot, disregarding accuracy and penetrations) but it has the obvious weakness of not having a turret against a diving Panther or other vehicles.

For what it's worth I think the Firefly is balanced (hits hard but slow reload and mediocre mobility), the SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad because it goes against the combined arms principle of the game, even if it has a significant drawback) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming on purpose because it's the only real reliable late game AT for USF.

Obviously the SU-85's and Jackson's situation isn't ideal but tinkering with them will be very complex and have significant ripple effects, and that's not really something we want to touch at this point.

I'm going to be honest; this isn't the response I was expecting. I'm aware that the problem is complicated, but it's the balance teams responsibility to work through complexity, not step away. Furthermore, "Over-performing on purpose" has never been an acceptable answer - it's at best a temporary solution, but it should never be the solution.

For the sake of discussion, let's ignore the FF, since it's rarely brought up in these discussions: it's generally M36/Su85/Panther. Also, I agree that the FF is pretty much balanced, for the reasons you listed.

Regarding the SU85, you've said that its self-spotting is bad game design, and that its high pen (especially with vet) is also unbalanced; so why aren't these things being addressed? I concede that changing unit base stats can be complicated, but I don't see how nerfing the SU85's Vet 2 "+30% penetration" and/or its vet 3 "+20% reload speed" would cause issues.

At vet 0, the SU85's 220 far pen (60 range) gives it an 85% chance to pen panthers, and once it hits vet 2, it'll pen a Panther 100% of the time. Then, once it hits vet 3, its reload time drops to 4.53 sec.

If we use the Panther to compare, it only gains a +10% armor bonus at vet 2. This means that once the SU85 hits vet 2, the Panther's armor becomes irrelevant (260 -> 286). At both vet 0 and vet 3, the SU85 will pen it 100% of the time. Ideally, the increase in armor should match the increase in pen, so that losing a unit becomes impactful, rather than the current state, where it's a "race to vet". Finally, if we assume a pair of vet 3 SU85s (this seems common), that means a TTK vs. a vet 3 panther is 9.06 seconds - which is far, far too fast.

Dropping the SU85's vet 2 pen bonus to +10% would remedy this problem, as would reducing the Vet 3 reload bonus (the JP4's vet 4 bonus is +15%).

As for the M36, as you pointed out, its USF's only source of late-game AT. Why not change this? It's been suggested several times (there are other threads, but I'm linking my own) that giving USF a "medium TD" (for example, a massively adjusted non-doc M10) would fix several problems at once:

• it would allow the M36 to specialize into an "anti-heavy" role
  
• it would give USF access to an early TD (similar to the STUG)
  
• it would give mediums more room to breath.
  
• it would fix the M36's "scaling" issue, where it ends up countering everything exceptionally well

ATGs are too vulnerable in 3v3s and 4v4s late game because of an abundance of rocket and howitzer artillery. Bazookas barely scratch the paint of Panthers and heavies (except doctrinal Rangers). These are not reliable options to fight the heavier Axis armor, some of which are stock.

As ShadowLinkx37 asked; then why is arty being buffed this patch (pop from 15 to 13)? If ATGs are too vulnerable, resulting in the constant TD vs TD spam we've seen (especially in team-games), why aren't ATGs being made more viable in late-game (likely by nerfing arty)?

Howitzers might be cancerous, but an equal or higher pop requirement compared to the Calliope, Priest and Sexton (15, 15, 14 respectively) is hard to justify for a unit that's quite easily countered with the right doctrine.

Then those units should have their pop increased instead.

Aaaand
/thread

As I have said, there comes a time, where "balance" problem becomes "L2P" problem and 60range TDs are the latter now.

Sander's has literally just said that they're over performing.

SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad [...]) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming

I'm not sure how you construe this as "it's balanced, L2P". It's more "it's a bit OP, but very, very complicated to change", which isn't even close to similar.

See the issue is you keep trying to stop it when it has already begun. Try stopping it BEFORE. You can do this by spotting for your tank (as in not having it the front line unit) and having literally any for of AT nearby and a snare nearby. These are super simply things you should be doing ANYWAYS but doing these now will help prevent ram. You only need 1 hit to get the t34 in snare levels.

This is an incredibly dangerous argument to make, as it opens the door to a lot of overpowered nonsense.

Back when the JT 2-shot most mediums? Just scout ahead and make sure not to approach it from the front.

Back when the OST mortar's barrage fired in full auto with laser precision? Just scout ahead and don't put weapon teams in range.

Back when Partisans/Falls/etc. could pop out of any building and use abilities instantly? Just put wire/mines on every door, and don't build your arty near buildings.


Balance arguments needs to be made around the ability, not the presence of the unit. Otherwise the counter to 99% of the things in the game turn into "just don't let your opponent get the unit".

Well said. It's a toxic combination, but an effective one. OKW has non doctrinal heavies and soviets, unless they take a heavy tank commander, have no heavies or anything that can reliably win vs a heavy. This combination is a good one (and is commander specific). Don't complain about it.

Su-85s deal with heaviest just fine.

You must have missed the target size buff for medium generalists to decrease TD effectiveness, as well as the heavy nerfs to decrease TD necessity.

The vast majority of the community doesn't base their discussion around balance previews; they base it on the 'live' version. The upcoming changes do look interesting, but I'm not going to jump to a conclusion until I've played with them for a week or so in multiple game-modes - something I haven't done in the preview.

I'm guessing OP is referring to the live version, as the question is "[will] There will be any kind of nerfs in the 60 range TD", rather than referring to changes in a possible v1.4 preview.

The fact that despite all the REEEE nothing was done for multiple patches indicates that too many players are unrecoverable noobs who will blame anything and everything before admitting THEY are the problem at the end.

Balanced units DO get this much attention if they are inconvenient to fight against and require putting some thought or effort to countering them.
ISU being prime example of that, followed by halftruck shenanigans, loitering planes vs people who refuse to build AA, years if people screaming about performance of grens and nothing being done about that performance and so on.

Firstly, you really need to stop insulting players - it's not a good argument to make. Any player can make a valid suggestion or critique, regardless of skill level. If you disagree with their perspective based on their skill level, you can make helpful suggestions, rather than referring to them as "Reee", "noobs", or suggesting that the "balance team would love to slap players with a fish about and scream L2P at them".

Secondly, balanced units don't get this level of attention. I can't recall a single thread (within the last year or two) with 100+ replies regarding the STUG, mediums, ATGs, or even mortars, specifically - whereas I could probably find at least 5 from this year regarding 60 range TDs.

If you were reading forums, you would actually remember Sander explaining that the reason for med tanks target size reduction was NOT TDs, but ATGs being too effective against them.

If you were reading what you've quoted really well, you would see the changes are meant to make meds more "resilient" to ALL forms of AT, not TDs specifically.

Not only are these two lines contradictory ('the changes were only to improve against ATGs, not TDs' compared to 'the changes were to all forms of AT, including TDs'), but the first one is also wrong. Sander's quote is:

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

The changes are meant to impact the Medium vs. TD matchup.

Both options are consistent (no RNG), it's not reliable.

I'll say it again, the only reason this is brought now is because IL2 rocket strafe is too cheap and too reliable.

It's probably a mix of both; neither being consistent or reliable.

As pointed out by 'SweetrollNearTheDoor', what the ram actually does is somewhat RNG-based; ram still has a 5% chance of heavy engine damage and 3% chance of immobilization. Furthermore, once the ram is actually triggered, consistency is also pretty bad, since snaring the T34 doesn't actually snare it (this would be a good option for counter-play).

That said, specifically regarding "you can block or out run the ram", you are correct - they are consistent, just unreliable (and hard to actually do, in game).

The problem in how you bring "counter play" into discussion is by the delimitation you put up. Snare can't be dodge up. Single strafe can't be destroyed realistically before they delivered their payload. A single squad of infantry can't deal with a sniper kitting constantly back, etc.

This part I'll disagree with.

Firstly, snare can be countered. Once the animation starts (i.e. once 'clicked'), if the model doing the animation is killed, the snare is "countered" (it doesn't fire, wastes the ammo, and puts it on cooldown). While this does technically open up the comparison of "just destroy the T34 before the ram hits", destroying a single infantry model is much easier.

Secondly, single-strafe can also be countered. Once the ability is clicked, there's the red smoke, as well as the actual plane entering the map. Both of these give the receiving player the option to do something after the ability is used.

Snipers, I will admit, fall into a "grey" area between good and bad game design. On the one hand, "basic attacks" are usually ignored when discussing counter-play; no one complains that there's no way to dodge small arms, for example. On the other hand, the "basic attack" for snipers is very powerful, to the point where it's hard to compare it to other infantry. Then we must also consider sight ranges, HP, and supporting units; in a vacuum, where it's only a sniper and an infantry squad, the sniper can't consistently kit the infantry squad, since it must stay still to aim, and it needs to turn 180 degrees to fire at the approaching squad. Additionally, there's a very, very long history of threads complaining about "sniper wars" and the lack of counter-play available.

The perspective and tools when talking of counter play between a MOBA and an RTS is different. Counter-play in an RTS doesn't start when the action takes place in the screen.

This, too, I'll disagree with. If you take a close look at all of the 'balanced' units and abilities in CoH2, they all follow the "Ability -> Counter-play Opportunity -> Effect" pattern. Yes, part of countering a unit does occur before the use of its abilities, but the counter-play surrounding an ability is consistently there.

Mortar Barrage? Click -> Sound/Travel time -> Effect
Rockets/Arty? Click -> Sound/Travel time -> Effect
Off map? Smoke -> Delay/Plane Travel time -> Effect
Non-smoke off map? Click -> Noticeable sound/Very long delay -> Effect
Sturmtiger/AVRE? Click -> Long animation wind-up -> Effect
Infantry Grenades? Click -> Animation/Travel time/Timer -> Effect

There simply aren't any balanced abilities in the game that don't follow this pattern. In fact, when abilities are found that don't follow this pattern, they are almost always quickly patched to offer (or increase) a counter-play opportunity (OST Clusters, for example).

Furthermore, it's important to note the size of the counter-play opportunity is proportionate to the abilities strength. Weaker abilities generally offer a very short counter-play opportunity, in terms of reaction time window, whereas very powerful abilities almost invariably have very large windows to react in. A good example of this would be the difference between the Brummbar's "Bunker Buster Barrage" ability, and the Stuka Dive Bomb.

While hard, you can block or out run the ram.

Unfortunately, it's not consistent. It's also extremely unlikely with very slow 'ultra-heavy' vehicles, such as the JT.

The ram ability is no less bound by effective range than the Teller mine is. It simply isn't correct to start your argument at the point of clicking "Ram" because the T-34 has to get there in the first place. Ignoring those steps does not make them go away - if the counterplay is lost on you it is because you have ignored the steps that are necessarily part of the play itself.

Then you have a different definition of counter-play. For me, and from what I've seen, most game designers, it's Ability -> Counter-play -> Event. Abilities follow that pattern consistently in CoH2 as well.

It also begs the question of where the 'chain' of events can be allowed to start, regarding counter-play. Can it be said to start at the creation of the unit, or even further back, as the player needs to gain those resources?