[OST][ALL] Grenadiers and You: a Forum Balance Think-Tank/Poll

135

Comments

  • #62
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,991
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles
    Conscripts don't need the same amount of DPS because they generally fight Squads with smaller HP pools, a fact you seem to have conveniently forgotten. Grens for example only have 2/3 as much HP. If Conscripts had as much DPS as Grenadiers while having more HP they would win every engagement. To qoute you "open calculator [...] pick jaw off the floor" this is another fact conveniently forgotten by many.

    And stop pretending like you care about numbers or facts. You handle the truth like Kellyanne Conway does.
  • #63
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    this is a thread about grenadier not conscripts and they have been allot about conscript. If is one's opinion conscripts are UP start thread about them.

    Although the fact that high level players like vonivan use them all the time indicates that they are not as UP as people think.

  • #64
    2 years ago
    Grenadiers requires additional HP per model

    Ok for the top doesnt mean ok for all. Something like a core infantry squad shouldnt require high level play to be able to use, its the base the faction is built on, its the kinda unit that even a newer player should be able to lean on but a high level player can make shine.

  • #65
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,641
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine

    @Vipper said:
    this is a thread about grenadier not conscripts and they have been allot about conscript. If is one's opinion conscripts are UP start thread about them.

    Although the fact that high level players like vonivan use them all the time indicates that they are not as UP as people think.

    This thread is about grenadiers and balance.
    If you think unit performance can be talked in the void, without considering its performance and implications of alterations against the units it actually goes against, then we can cross the "balance" part and insert "dreamland" part in its place.

    On the same principle you try to present here we could open a new thread, brainstorming how can we buff maxims and penals even further, because they are bad when tanks shoot at them, disregarding completely units they go up against, like you try to do now.

    High level players can use every unit effectively, but it does not make that unit efficient, if it was the case-penals wouldn't be buffed, 222 wouldn't got any of its long list of buffs, M15 quad wouldn't be improved, SU-76 would still be trash tier unit, T34 would probably get buffed anyway because no one could use it efficiently, partisans wouldn't be buffed, PGs and AGs wouldn't get their adjustments and so on and so forth.

    One top player using hipster out of meta build order does not translate to units he uses being fine you know.
    There is even NKVD disruption doctrine guide on how to use it efficiently-it still doesn't make it even remotely competitive doctrine.

  • #66
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    @Katitof said:

    @Vipper said:
    this is a thread about grenadier not conscripts and they have been allot about conscript. If is one's opinion conscripts are UP start thread about them.

    Although the fact that high level players like vonivan use them all the time indicates that they are not as UP as people think.

    This thread is about grenadiers and balance.
    If you think unit performance can be talked in the void, without considering its performance and implications of alterations against the units it actually goes against, then we can cross the "balance" part and insert "dreamland" part in its place.

    On the same principle you try to present here we could open a new thread, brainstorming how can we buff maxims and penals even further, because they are bad when tanks shoot at them, disregarding completely units they go up against, like you try to do now.

    High level players can use every unit effectively, but it does not make that unit efficient, if it was the case-penals wouldn't be buffed, 222 wouldn't got any of its long list of buffs, M15 quad wouldn't be improved, SU-76 would still be trash tier unit, T34 would probably get buffed anyway because no one could use it efficiently, partisans wouldn't be buffed, PGs and AGs wouldn't get their adjustments and so on and so forth.

    One top player using hipster out of meta build order does not translate to units he uses being fine you know.
    There is even NKVD disruption doctrine guide on how to use it efficiently-it still doesn't make it even remotely competitive doctrine.

    And did you actually contributed anything about grenadier so far or are you still rumbling about conscripts?

  • #67
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    My question is why are you arguingabout cons? The mod team are pushing them into utility/defensive infantry by what Mrsmith says, Penals have taken the role of mainlines and seem to be becoming some sort of SOV quasi-riflemen. I can't really understand why your using an obselete argument in the form of grens balance relationship with Cons? Surely it should be their matchup to penals that define their stats in the SOV/Ost games?

  • #68
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,641
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine

    @Vipper said:

    @Katitof said:

    @Vipper said:
    this is a thread about grenadier not conscripts and they have been allot about conscript. If is one's opinion conscripts are UP start thread about them.

    Although the fact that high level players like vonivan use them all the time indicates that they are not as UP as people think.

    This thread is about grenadiers and balance.
    If you think unit performance can be talked in the void, without considering its performance and implications of alterations against the units it actually goes against, then we can cross the "balance" part and insert "dreamland" part in its place.

    On the same principle you try to present here we could open a new thread, brainstorming how can we buff maxims and penals even further, because they are bad when tanks shoot at them, disregarding completely units they go up against, like you try to do now.

    High level players can use every unit effectively, but it does not make that unit efficient, if it was the case-penals wouldn't be buffed, 222 wouldn't got any of its long list of buffs, M15 quad wouldn't be improved, SU-76 would still be trash tier unit, T34 would probably get buffed anyway because no one could use it efficiently, partisans wouldn't be buffed, PGs and AGs wouldn't get their adjustments and so on and so forth.

    One top player using hipster out of meta build order does not translate to units he uses being fine you know.
    There is even NKVD disruption doctrine guide on how to use it efficiently-it still doesn't make it even remotely competitive doctrine.

    And did you actually contributed anything about grenadier so far or are you still rumbling about conscripts?

    Yes, on the first page, I've pointed out how new squad spacing fixes majority of concerns(aka random squad wipes) which was ignored by the crowd who isn't able to even properly identify the issues.

    People want grens to be self sufficient infantry.
    That's not going to happen.

  • #69
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588
    edited February 2017

    @Katitof said:

    Open calculator.
    Input current value multiplied by their existing rec acc modifier.
    Input values you've suggested.
    Pick the jaw off the floor.

    You make no sense at all. What calculator you are talking about? DPS?
    What do you want me to multiply? the target size?
    It would be easier if you could just toss in the number in your mind, you want me to multiply, if there is any... or a link for your calculator... whatever it calculates.

    Do conscripts have 20 DPS at vet3 at long range?
    And they are pretty damn durable at vet3, yes.
    Only reason why that durability does not translate to overpowered squad is because they fight with clubs, which don't even hit that hard.

    Durability has nothing to do with DPS. These are just random things your pull in to this conversation. If conscripts 40% rec.acc would be too much, they would be OP with the PPSH upgrades.

    Btw... Rifleman receives 23% rec.acc bonus on vet2, paratroopers receive 30% on vet3, assault grenediers receive 29% on vet2... not to mention Penals and Guards... Shocks have armors BUT sure... Grenadiers would became immortal and OP.

  • #70
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    @Katitof said:
    Yes, on the first page, I've pointed out how new squad spacing fixes majority of concerns(aka random squad wipes) which was ignored by the crowd who isn't able to even properly identify the issues.

    People want grens to be self sufficient infantry.
    That's not going to happen.

    Says the person that predicted that USF will not get Pershing or Calliope.

    And you are mistaken people simply want grenadiers to be an effective and efficient unit and they making suggestions on how to achieve this.

  • #71
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 693
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine
    Grens have great dps plus high acc but low hp/models also a great non doc lmg. With proper support the they are hard to force off. The spacing buffed them enough and will save them from one shots wipes more often then not.

    Cons are balanced against them and any of these buffs will ruin that balance greatly. Even if the cons are to be put in utility and penals become main line cons combat stats cant realy be much lower then now. The 40% rec acc at vet 3 is needed cus cons cant do anyting in the late game other wise.
  • #72
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    @RiCE said:
    Durability has nothing to do with DPS. These are just random things your pull in to this conversation. If conscripts 40% rec.acc would be too much, they would be OP with the PPSH upgrades.

    Well it does in that Cons need higher durability because they can't do good damage outside of mid-short range. Riflemen pre-upgrades are in the same boat. They are forced to close the gap to do damage whereas grens are not. That said, I still think Katitof is wrong to suggest they can't receive any veterancy buffs.

    @Katitof Most people here are acknowledging that both cons and grens need something to make them less dumpster fire when compared to WFA. This thread is about grens, so we're talking about how to implement that. When compared to western squads, buffing grens veterancy is not a tall order. Yes cons need something, but that's for another thread.

  • #74
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @Grittle said:
    @Vipper. Not that many people would, or could for that matter, have predicted the Pershing after Relic specifically said no Pershing at launch.

    I'm also someone that thought that Commanders in general would never be reworked or drastically changed right up until Irregulars were replaced with AT partisans and Soviet Industry became "100 munitions to crash a plane V2.0".

    Well at least you do not post prediction as facts...

  • #75
    2 years ago
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    @Katitof said:

    One top player using hipster out of meta build order does not translate to units he uses being fine you know.
    There is even NKVD disruption doctrine guide on how to use it efficiently-it still doesn't make it even remotely competitive doctrine.

    And yet you were supporting people who wanted to nerf flame HT cuz you said HelpingHans was doing very well with it. Just cuz an expert is showing off his skills with the unit doesn't mean it's OP.

  • #76
    2 years ago
    Grenadiers requires additional HP per model
    Well seeing as it was from the people who were developing the game i think its fair to of assumed it was true, it wasnt speculation it was stated by relic. If they said the were giving up on coh tomorrow it wouldnt be a prediction, it WOULD be fact up to the point they say/ do otherwise.
  • #77
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,641
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @Katitof said:

    One top player using hipster out of meta build order does not translate to units he uses being fine you know.
    There is even NKVD disruption doctrine guide on how to use it efficiently-it still doesn't make it even remotely competitive doctrine.

    And yet you were supporting people who wanted to nerf flame HT cuz you said HelpingHans was doing very well with it. Just cuz an expert is showing off his skills with the unit doesn't mean it's OP.

    Did you ever seen what FHT did to garrisons vs what other flamers did?

    Not even croc killed garrisoned units that fast and it wasn't me wanting to nerf good unit, it was you, zealously defending OP AF unit, disregarding the fact that it killed everything garrisoned in literally 1 and a half second.

    Plus, you're getting personal here and twisting the facts.

  • #78
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    So much about the topic of this thread...

  • #79
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,311 mod
    Grenadiers need reduced price/reinforcement cost

    [Moderator Input] Please stick to the topic instead of waving torches and hayforks around because someone wrongly predicted Pershings.

  • #80
    2 years ago
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine
    Its because grens are balanced against cons, any buff to either of them will effect the other in a negative way.
    For the most part they are balanced fine now.

    The spacing buff did what it whas supposed to do greatly reduce one shot wipes on grens. No more buffs needed imo.
  • #81
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    Its because grens are balanced against cons, any buff to either of them will effect the other in a negative way.
    For the most part they are balanced fine now.

    The spacing buff did what it whas supposed to do greatly reduce one shot wipes on grens. No more buffs needed imo.

    You are entitled to your opinion, more 75% of people who voted think they are not fine.

    The might be balanced against conscripts but they are fighting Penal IS and Riflemen and have little use in late game where they still melt against up-guned allied infantry, tanks and artillery, so they are not balanced.

    All the infantry that is available before minute 1 should re-balanced with WFA units and Penal being toned down closer grenadiers level, and they should have better chance to survive in the late battlefield against weapons like calliope and land mattress.

  • #82
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 693
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine
    The majority doesnt mean being right by default.

    Grens fight with better backup, their team weapons are better if not the best in the game. And they at least scale. Cons fight volks sturms obers pgrens and all of them butcher cons.

    After the space buff the wfa inf vet needs toning down. The problem is the late game in early game the matchup is fine.
  • #84
    2 years ago
    Grenadiers are perfectly fine
    That why i am saying to tone down vet on wfa inf. They are to durable for the dps they can get.

    I havent had much trouble with my support weapons as ost but somehow i only match againt sov when i go ost.
  • #85
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    @TheLeveler83 said:

    I havent had much trouble with my support weapons as ost but somehow i only match againt sov when i go ost.

    Lucky you... SOV vs OST matchup is much more baalnced, especially since SOV indirect forces OST to displace their weapon teams or die under sustained barrage, the WFA just wipes them out with Calliope of LM saturation in moments, support weapon play isn't viable against them.

  • #86
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,991
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    Yeah, I also dont know why they dont hotfix the Land Matress and Calliope until they got an inkling how to adjust them properly. Assault Grenadiers where nerfed to crap shortly after they came out by slapping a big fat munitions cost on calling them in because they overperformed... But I guess the time for such rash decisions is long over.

  • #87
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    @Hingie said:
    Yeah, I also dont know why they dont hotfix the Land Matress and Calliope until they got an inkling how to adjust them properly. Assault Grenadiers where nerfed to crap shortly after they came out by slapping a big fat munitions cost on calling them in because they overperformed... But I guess the time for such rash decisions is long over.

    Both of those are nowhere near as egregious as the old-ass grens, (the calliope might of been when it still had 3 salvos). Those nerfs came back when were still in Wher vs Sovs, it was far more easy to see the ripple effect of changes back then. Seeing how godlike close-range squads were making the game impossible for the soviets is not hard to see. Sovs are way behind the infantry power of the other two allied factions we have now.

    But that's the problem with all of these situations. It's a dropoff between east and west more than allies and axis. How its gone on this long is really kinda pathetic, and qualifies as a variant of pay-to-win, which this game has been moving towards ever since the old Elite Troops and Windustry days.

  • #90
    2 years ago
    Grenadiers requires additional HP per model
    I think i agree more with farra here. Game over in 10 min losing every step of the way because of an OP unit is not as bad as playing a competitive match, maybe winning to lose everything to a single unit firing from the fog of war. Even the mighty reign of the B4 gave you ample time to prepare because it needed vet to actually be reliable meaning you knew it was there long before it reached its full powereful potential and even that could be avoided by being mobile. Mattress and calliope cover a large area with potentail game winning squad wipes and it does do for awhile.

    If i lose in the first 10 min ive only lost 10 min and can get into another one, if i lose after30 min of kicking ass im done for the day.
  • #91
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited February 2017
    Grenadiers need more DPS on their rifles

    @SkysTheLimit Totally agree bud, Grens I feel is more small adjustments to things like early dps and vet, that, when coupled with other changes (nerfs to the potency of WFA indirect potency and buffs to the Wehr tank roster) should hopefully be enough to balance them against the other factions without pushing them overboard. Hence why I am against the whole 5th man concept, as after those other critical changes; not too mention nerfs to things like tommies, grens would suddenly be too powerful and would have to be reworked again.

    The WFA rocket artillery all need looking at, the problem being that all the USF/UKF indirect is simply too efficient at killing units, especially when deployed against a faction that relies on static weapon teams. As for the Stuka, its too accurate, a skilled player can abuse the thing to swing wipes left and right just by knowing that it will land exactly where he aims.

    As for poor old cons... well I guess its a case of wait and see what the balance team decides to do for them, as a full rework is probably their best option if penals continue to be pushed into Russian quasi-riflemen. I believe mrsmith said that they want to push them into utility/defensive infantry, and too keep non-doc weapon upgrades out of their hands. Personally i'd like to see them sort of a combination of ostruppen (cannon fodder, screening troops) with some utility in the form of snares and light anti garrison. That seems both fitting in their historical theme and a good place for them in the SOV lineup.

This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.