everyone asked for commanders to be more unique and not just recycle old abilities. relic listened and now people complain...
I don't think anyone would ever complain about unique commanders with new abilities. That's not what the complaint is. The complaint is that you pay for them and what that means to game balance. They want to make the new commanders attractive so people will purchase them - and intentionally or not, there is great potential for this to disrupt game balance for a loooong time. There are plenty of examples of other games where this is exactly what has happened. Maybe it is unreasonable to expect new commanders like these to be free. Maps are free. The ToW commanders are free. I don't know what the answer is but I don't know why a $6o+ game has to be milked like this so soon with balance disruptions on the horizon for a long time if this is the game plan. I much prefer seeing new paid content to come as expansion packs each year, which allows a nice long period for game balance and a meta game to evolve and improve. Hopefully I'm overreacting but I don't have a good feeling about this for the long term. At the very least, it will keep the balance team very busy... |
These commanders are going to completely change the whole game.
Yes, I think so too. It's obvious from looking at how many new mechanics and units are packed into them. I don't think it bodes well for competitive MP balance that these 4 commanders are only available by purchasing them. At least for the CE exclusive commanders so far that some didn't have, they only had re-arrangements of existing things in the game, not entirely new ways of playing. Things that change the game balance that much should not be for sale imo. It's a slippery slope towards pay-to-win as soon as you include non-cosmetics. |
Trenches, forward HQs, booby traps, are all straight out of vCoH. These commanders will definitely shake the current metagame up. I'm a little fearful for balance with all of this tbh. Just when last patch had fixed most existing problems. Still, going to be interesting to see how it plays out...
What role would assault grenadiers play that panzergrenadiers don't already cover? |
This thread is a perfect example of why people should just generally ignore most of Nullist's comments. He obviously didn't learn anything through self-reflection during his "time out" of not being allowed to post in balance threads. |
Maxim just gets riflenaded in the face. Its ok as support but when you're facing 3 grens with LMGs you can't rely on a Maxim. Lucky molotovs and snipers (with Guard doctrine to follow) or lucky molotovs and Shock (with T2) seems best but Shock are fairly easy to counter (pio flamer even) and you're only going to be able to afford one squad. |
I can sort of agree with that. My issue stems mostly from the fact that presuming that it needs to be a flanker, it needs a turret and speed. Okay, no problem - it has those. That could be neat and balanced with the SU85 - one is designed to be a stonewall, one is designed to be a flanker.
Except the panther still costs twice as much and requires teching into another tier. Its upsides (slightly better survivability) I believe are terribly outnumbered by its downsides compared to the Soviet counterpart. It still requires being risky with it. Nullist is correct in that it is not about using it correct, it is about its impact if both players are playing equally well. It is my belief based on statistical and personal experience that its impact is not sufficient, doubly backed up by its total lack of use in high level play.
Stug could be considered SU85 counterpart, maybe, though that's a whole different ballgame.
The Panther does not cost twice as much as the SU-85. It's 600/130 vs. 350/115 (I think). The MP cost might be a little high but the fuel cost is cheap for what you get. It is definitely used in high level play - maybe not as much before this patch, but players are definitely using it now. I don't recall seeing it in the recent tournament but many of those games are effectively over before T4 is needed. Here is a really entertaining one as an example though: http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes2/replays.php?s=8a0986bac8da2e0dc3ae5c039ae863d8&game=83&show=details&id=287570
|
My point was that using a unit designed to flank is not inherently riskier than sitting defensively, as you said. Sometimes sitting defensively is the riskier move. |
There are numerous inherently greater risks in having to "hunt" enemy armor by aggressively pushing into his territory, than there is in hanging back and shooting away from a distance.
This are not an element of "using the unit well". They are a fundamental warfare element, and one in which spotting in particular has a very serious affect.
And greater rewards...the only thing you are going to use a panther to flank deep and hunt for is an SU-85 (or those rare instances of an ISU-152) - other armour the Panther can just take out frontally at range. So, once you are even just beside an SU-85, it is dead. Choosing the moment to make the flank is what separates good players from bad. The Panther's speed, turret rotation, doctrinal smoke, and Blitz vet ability all help mitigate risk. Proper scouting for AT guns helps you choose the moment. An unlucky mine shouldn't be part of a balance discussion. This is what I mean by using the unit well and playing well. |
And things like mines, button, bad pathing, whatever can all seriously ruin your day.
The turret and armor I don't lend that much to because, as you mentioned, it needs to push. If it's circling a tank or behind enemy lines, assuming the forces are supporting eachother and other player is decent, chances are it's going to take rear armor hits. It's going to hit a mine or catch an ATnade. And it's going to die. You might take out something too, but it takes a lot to make up that cost of teching and the panther itself. I find it much easier, safer, and consistently rewarding to push or creep while playing Soviets.
If you do break through and manage to not have any of that happen, yeah, it works pretty well. I'm not trying to contest that at all. But that doesn't seem to be the case most of the time.
To break this down, your concerns are purely about using the unit well, not the unit itself. Hitting mines, catching an AT nade (which have a greater chance now of not doing any engine damage vs. heavy tanks), etc. don't have anything to do with how good/bad the Panther is. They're just part of playing the game and judging risks properly based on the flow of the game. You can't balance a unit based on whether it is likely to hit a mine or not. Like I said above, use smoke and you've instantly reduced the risk of flanking attacks a lot already. |
I don't really understand people's issue with it being "bad". Cost quibbles aside, purely how the unit performs in its role is amazing. Before the SU-85 changes, we could not say this as it was much harder to flank them. Now, it's just a L2P issue in flanking with them. Because other than SU-85s, there is no other armour threat to them. If they had much anti-infantry capability too they'd be OP. |