GCS Balance Preview Feedback

123457

Comments

  • #182
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    full heartedly agree with @eonfigure
  • #183
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited April 2017

    @eonfigure said:

    >

    "You must be choose between the Cpanther and King Tiger, also if you choose CPanther, your ally basically will NOT benefit from it." Why in the hell would i get the CPanther then?? I'll just buy a normal panther and get a KT. At this point the aura is garbage anyway.

    Your assumptions are incorrect.

    Your allies will still benefit from the Mark Target ability. Your allies vehicles will also benefit from the following aura effects:

    • Speed increase
    • Accuracy increase
    • Reload improvement

    The only thing that changed in the aura is that it no longer applies sight/range bonuses to your allies (which were beyond broken, given the radius of the aura).

    Your own vehicles still benefit from the entirety of the original bonuses on the aura. The only thing that changed is that Vet5 is no longer stupidly broken.

    The reason why you can't get both Command Panther and a King Tiger anymore is because both vehicles take significantly less popcap than their actual footprint on the field.

    In the future, once popcap values become sanitised, we will probably lift the Command Panther/King Tiger restriction. It would be silly to lift that restriction before both vehicles' popcap can be adjusted. This is consistent with the rule that JT is mutually exclusive with the KT.

  • #184
    3 years ago
    When sanitising of popcap values please keep in mind OKW in particular rarely has more vehicles on field than allies. The individual armour advantage is not very pronounced and reliance on rakettens is high.

    I'd personally prefer the lowering of all popcap values as 100 doesn't feel big enough!
  • #186
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    The popcap changes make alot of sense, as it not only helps balance the impact of powerful units like the KT for example, mainly by limiting their support and giving them a larger upkeep, but it also reflects the rarity of it and other like panthers or comets that really weren't that common a tank during the war.

    Mrsmith did say that with the p4 as the benchmark at 12 pop, units like the JT would have a footprint three times that to represent its impact on the game. So you could still theoretically field five-six tanks and a fair force of infantry if you set aside units like superheavies.

  • #187
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited April 2017

    (removed)
    In game Comet is main battle tank able to engage all type of target while Panther is a TD. Comet should have a higher pop than specialized vehicle.

  • #188
    3 years ago

    @Farra13 said:
    The popcap changes make alot of sense, as it not only helps balance the impact of powerful units like the KT for example, mainly by limiting their support and giving them a larger upkeep, but it also reflects the rarity of it and other like panthers or comets that really weren't that common a tank during the war.

    Mrsmith did say that with the p4 as the benchmark at 12 pop, units like the JT would have a footprint three times that to represent its impact on the game. So you could still theoretically field five-six tanks and a fair force of infantry if you set aside units like superheavies.

    I do not think people will build tigers if they get a pop cap increase. I think it would be better to focus on other areas. The Ostheer tiger, KV2, and is-2 should be left alone.

  • #189
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited April 2017

    @company14u2 said:

    I do not think people will build tigers if they get a pop cap increase. I think it would be better to focus on other areas. The Ostheer tiger, KV2, and is-2 should be left alone.

    Depends on where the tiger, is-2 and kv-2 end up. Currently they are good tanks (KV-2 incredibly situational), not overly cost efficient, but currently sit of the top of either OST and SOV factions vehicle roster. Though it depends on a persons viewpoint on whether that is because the OST and SOV tanks are lacking, or that the western factions equivalents are still currently overpowered.

    In my opinion the IS-2 and Tiger both need a slight mobility buff, some vet changes, a new vet ability and some accuracy and scatter buffs, as neither is comes close to the KT or the offensive power of the pershing. For cost they aren't great, but SOV has nothing comparable vehicle wise to the IS-2 in terms of durability unless they lock in t-85's (the KV-1 is just deadweight currently), and OST t4 is currently unviable and underpowered meaning the Tiger is the only logical "next step" in the OST roster.

    A units popcap should be a representation of what it brings to the field, for example a KT that is only currently 21 pop easily handles a pair of shermans who are 24 pop, it can even fight three in the hands of a good player, so you would expect that level of performance to sit at about 28-30. A JT somewhere further towards 34-36.

    However a current tiger 1 can handle a single sherman but will likely lose to a pair, being only 19 pop, that's only two less than a KT who will dominate such a situation.

    Population changes would have a massive impact on teamgames, as units like the super-heavies would seriously hamper a players ability to field a full army to protect them, meaning SOV and USF would find themesleves in alot better position late game through numbers as one would expect. Overall it would be a good set of changes.

  • #190
    3 years ago

    If any of the heavies get the pop cap increases I've seen thrown around in this thread using logic akin to "it should be this because it equals 3 mediums" I will never build a heavy again and just get the equivalent mediums :s . I watched a stream of RedForce OKW v Jove UKF and Red only had two vehicles at any one time. The best OKW has to offer for the latter half - KT and Panther. This was barely, and I mean barely holding back the waves of comets, up to 3 at a time, with a firefly mixed in here and there. Just based on that I hesitate for any drastic changes. This included a PAK43 towards the end too...

    @Vipper Reinstate the very valid historical argument in your most recent post. I demand it!

    @Katitof I know I know, kinda wish it was "Battalion" though now that you mention it. I'm not asking for "Brigade"! Because there are other ww2 rts' that do that.

    OK maybe just a little tinsy bit more then - 10% or so. Nothing has to change with maps or balance etc etc B)

  • #192
    3 years ago
    newshatterhandnewshatte… Posts: 278
    edited April 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Heavies should be more pop efficient than their equivalent in mediums imo, sure a kt fights like an armful of mediums, but it only does so in one place, it trades tactical flexibility for raw performance. The KT ESPECIALLY should be more efficient simply because of the teching required, let alone the huge cost. If its pop gets increased i think it needa its old armour back, with the TD buffs and rear armour nerf i do not feel that is unreasonable by any means

    Not to disagree, but I have 2 remarks for nuance.

    -The size of coh2 maps and limited amount of victory/cut off points limits the advantage of mediums tactical flexibility by quite a bit, especially in 1v1s.

    -The higher tech cost --> more efficient argument, is only fair if some units coming before the KT are at a disadvantage compared to those of other factions or at least OKW should be at a disadvantage when saving for the KT enough that other factions can reasonably win the game. Having to tech a lot is not a bad thing if you already have a good army to use while working on reaching higher tech levels.

  • #193
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @newshatterhand no worries, thats what these forums are for, if i may provide a rebuttal..

    1. Even if lacking the overall flanking room additional tanks give you the ability to keep up the pressure (always having one on the front while the other(s) are repairing) and the ability to do something risky like a dive. Even if extensive flanking isnt availible generally dives are possible or focus fire.

    2.i dont think a faction has to be disadvantaged in order to field a cost efficent unit, all factions should have equal chances at all points in the game (edges here or there but no "disadvantage" per say)
    That said, with the rak nerf okw are imo in a bit weaker of a state to skip over armour to try and hold out for a full tech and then the KT. A small nerf to volks some smoke on the leig and maybe sturms and then a big ole buff to obers and i think things would be mostly aight.
  • #194
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Heavies should be more pop efficient than their equivalent in mediums imo, sure a kt fights like an armful of mediums, but it only doea so in one place, it trades tactical flexibility for raw performance.

    Normally I'd agree dark, but as alot of people are beginning to realise, maps do contribute alot towards balance. Most coh 2 maps in the current roster are on the small size, even in the larger game-modes; with some exceptions. Having a unit like the KT in mid not only allows it to hold the center, but easily place pressure on either side of the map from that position, not too mention allowing it to easily push a single side in a matter of moments. If maps were bigger in general, then i'd agree as split pushing and outmaneuvering would be more common, but currently it isn't hard for a unit like a JT for example, to have such a massive impact on the game by ranging most of the map from the centre.

    28-30 for a KT and 32-34 for a JT would seem appropriate, enough so not to completely hamstring a player, but at least force them to consider how their upkeep would be affected, and how much support for such a unit would be available.

    Though it does beg the question, if FRP were available to all factions and maps were considerably bigger, how would the games balance be affected, and would the overall gameplay be better?

  • #195
    3 years ago

    I solely made an account to comment here and express the feeling i have about the current state of the game.

    I've been playing Coh 1 and Coh 2 both from start now and played thousands of games. I've been ranked 100+ now and then, depending on the moment. I play mostly 2v2 with friends and fun about in 3v3.

    When i read the patchnotes here i feel like the vast majority of testers is OKW or OST oriënted. They always give the impression the allied faction slaughters the rest.

    When we look at http://coh2chart.com/ we see quite a bit of a problem going on there. You try to balance the game for top 20 1v1 and are destroying the rest. The game is favoring axis faction big time now.

    Last 10 games i had was every single time: OKW going infantery heavy, setting up base, bunkering, making few LeIG, shooting half the map from the base, reinforcing near base constantly and waiting for KT. On 2v2 it might be doable ( even hard ) but on 3v3 once you get endgame with 3 KT it is over, whatever happens.

    Bleed doens't seem to work, LeIG counters mortars and mortar pit ( calliope comes alot later ) LeIG bleeds us, shreks tear tanks apart.

    Then in this forum all it comes down to is:

    Learn to play
    Flank their tanks
    Bleed them
    Don't allow them to build a forward stronghold

    which is bullcrap all the way. A good okw player supports his tanks, impossible to flank a king tiger with support, panthers bounce comet shots, bleed is both ways.

  • #196
    3 years ago
    Hesky85Hesky85 Posts: 52
    edited April 2017

    I have massive problems to deal with penals as Ostheer. I've played on Bryansk Forrest vs a soviet who has build 5 penal squads. The impact of these squads was insane. The penals were winning every engagement vs my grenadiers (even if they stand in green cover) and i had to retreat. Retreat sucks so bad on this big map, i couldnt archive any map control. T2 was completey useless because penals countered my 222 and Flamer HT with their PTRS. After 14 minutes unsuccsessfully trying hard to gain any map control, i faced two T34/76... than i left the game.

    I'm not sure if the PTRS upgrade for Penals was a good idea. Now soviet has a elite squad which can counter all Ostheer stuff till T3...

  • #197
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    Grenadiers are not meant to be the solution vs unupgraded Penals. Use snipers or mortars to bleed them, use MGs to stop them from walking all over you.

    If you don't like retreating - don't upgrade your half track. Use it to reinforce instead.

  • #198
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @Hesky85 you need a different approach vs penals, mgs and snipers works VERY well because they also lack a FRP as well as any ability to do anything but brute force the tits off something (lacking a grenade to otherwise burst damage or any form of combat utility) Bleed em out and push them off.
    (Also the ptrs doesnt counter t3, but if it DID its worth pointing out that ost has an elite squad that can counter soviet t3 and soviet t4 very effectively)
  • #199
    3 years ago

    Forgot to mention Brit trenches should not be allowed in enemy territory. It is already crazy op.

  • #200
    3 years ago
    B1scu1TB1scu1T Posts: 11

    @Tlanimass said:
    I solely made an account to comment here and express the feeling i have about the current state of the game.

    I've been playing Coh 1 and Coh 2 both from start now and played thousands of games. I've been ranked 100+ now and then, depending on the moment. I play mostly 2v2 with friends and fun about in 3v3.

    When i read the patchnotes here i feel like the vast majority of testers is OKW or OST oriënted. They always give the impression the allied faction slaughters the rest.

    When we look at http://coh2chart.com/ we see quite a bit of a problem going on there. You try to balance the game for top 20 1v1 and are destroying the rest. The game is favoring axis faction big time now.

    Last 10 games i had was every single time: OKW going infantery heavy, setting up base, bunkering, making few LeIG, shooting half the map from the base, reinforcing near base constantly and waiting for KT. On 2v2 it might be doable ( even hard ) but on 3v3 once you get endgame with 3 KT it is over, whatever happens.

    Bleed doens't seem to work, LeIG counters mortars and mortar pit ( calliope comes alot later ) LeIG bleeds us, shreks tear tanks apart.

    Then in this forum all it comes down to is:

    Learn to play
    Flank their tanks
    Bleed them
    Don't allow them to build a forward stronghold

    which is bullcrap all the way. A good okw player supports his tanks, impossible to flank a king tiger with support, panthers bounce comet shots, bleed is both ways.

    I have to agree with this TBH.

    I enjoy 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 more than anything else, but at the moment these game modes as allied have become almost impossible unless everything goes exactly to plan. It could be due to the experienced players all going Axis due to the allied Nerfs, or perhaps the nerfs have tipped the game balance when there's a higher volume of units.

    I know I'm not good at the game, I'm below average, but I enjoy it anyway and try to learn and improve. Unfortunately, this last patch has pretty much taken all the enjoyment away when playing allies as its just axis MG bunkers, MP44 troops and artillery/mortar. I've tried to learn the way the units all works together now, but it feels like as soon as you get a counter ready to deal with whatever is thrown at you, they already have the next step prepared.

    The game might be better balanced for the competitive play now, I wouldn't know, but for casual gamer who like big battles, it feels like there is a real heavy Axis bias now.

  • #201
    3 years ago

    How does the new maxim perform in buildings? Because all mg's get the mg42 level of arc.

  • #202
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @SquishyMuffin from my testing like hot trash.... If we took cons, made them an MG but took away anything remotely useful we would have the current maxim's preformance
  • #203
    3 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @SquishyMuffin from my testing like hot trash.... If we took cons, made them an MG but took away anything remotely useful we would have the current maxim's preformance

    Hot trash hey, well then. Do you prefer wider arc with nerfed stats (to be buffed I assume) or live maxim design with nerfs to reinforce costs or something etc etc Is that even debatable still or do most soviet players want more of a support weapon akin to 50 cal (without the damage I pray!).

  • #204
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @SquishyMuffin i think out of those options i would sooner have it with the bleed nerfs over the absolute trash performance.

    But i think it needs an overhaul and complete redesign not just a super nerf
  • #205
    3 years ago
    PastulioPastulio Posts: 2,060

    I still can't understand what Maxim supposed to be.

  • #206
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343

    Note that v1.3 is intended to be the final version of the GCS mod -- unless we did something wrong of course.

    We would appreciate timely feedback on the new Maxim, and how it plays out in your games.

  • #207
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    New maxim is definitely much better than the last attempt, i only played a single match with the new one, and against bots at that but i was pmeased to see the enemies on the business end were indeed suppressed.
  • #208
    3 years ago
    capiquacapiqua Posts: 270
    edited April 2017

    @Kyle_RE Already the topics demanded of the players are ended.
    When emplacements?
    When overall early-game?
    When overall last-game?
    When overall Commanders?

  • #209
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    "GENERAL
    Wreck Values Normalized

    We are adjusting the amount of resources players can attain from vehicles using doctrinal salvage abilities. Previously, certain wrecks would award large amount of munitions/manpower, which wouldn’t correspond to their class. We are now changing salvage so that only fuel and munitions are awarded from salvaging a wreck. Moreover we are normalizing wreck values so that the amount of resources gained now depend on the worth of the vehicle.

    (Values are given in Munitions/Fuel)

    Ultra Lights 10/5
    Lights 15/10
    Mediums 20/25
    Advanced Mediums 35/30
    Heavies 50/40
    Super Heavies 60/45
    

    The changes to salvage affect both Tank Hunter Doctrine (Soviets) and Tactical Support Regiment (UKF) salvage abilities."

    Imo further Changes needed for the normalization:
    Since the return is currently related to the health of the wreck many wrecks seems to return no resources. I salvaged 2 m5 wrecks and got nothing in return.

    Imo something like half recourse should be return regardless of wreck health and the other half according to wreck health.

    In addition OKW trucks should also be salvageable by allies.

  • #210
    3 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343

    @Vipper said:
    "GENERAL
    Wreck Values Normalized

    Imo further Changes needed for the normalization:
    Since the return is currently related to the health of the wreck many wrecks seems to return no resources. I salvaged 2 m5 wrecks and got nothing in return.

    Note that the popup that you get (fuel canister etc) is not always accurate. You should be watching the resource counter to see how many resources you really get. Sometimes the popup might indicate that you get 0 resources, whereas in-fact you're getting more.

  • #211
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited April 2017

    @Mr_Smith said:
    Note that the popup that you get (fuel canister etc) is not always accurate. You should be watching the resource counter to see how many resources you really get. Sometimes the popup might indicate that you get 0 resources, whereas in-fact you're getting more.

    OK but still the reward for risking an infantry to salvage a low health wreck should be there. Maybe have a minimum of 1/3?

    In addition the time for "thorough salvage" should be brought down or work similar to allied one with the return during the operation since unlike allied salvage one has to complete the ability to get the return and takes far too long.

    Actually "thorough salvage" could become a complete copy of the allied one.

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.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский