[SOV] Is the DShK balanced?

#1
2 years ago
SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
edited April 2017 in Balance Feedback

So I've pondered this long before it, and the doctrine it's in, became the hardcore replacement meta for the Maxims. OKW's struggles are the same as before - against heavy MG play - no smoke, no super effective infantry fed in-direct fire, *no flamer, no sniper.

I like that the DShK remains distinct from the Maxim in that it is a Heavy Machine Gun that kills infantry effectively, can damage vehicles and keeps the narrow firing arc. I think the price is fair. It's advantagous in that you can skip the Maxim tech all together. 6 man squads. I think the reinforcement costs are high right?

I do not like that is has the benefits of the above, yet suppresses and most annoyingly PINS all units instantly. It does a better job than the MG42 hands down in that regard. Given that the drum fed magazine has fewer rounds, and has a far lower rate of fire it is a bit off in terms of that dreaded word: Authenticity. Why go Maxim?

I'd prefer if its intended role of being a vehicle shredder was more defined like how the USF 50cal was revitalised for the better. Do that and give it the pinning values of the old maxim?

Thoughts?

«13

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited April 2017

    The DSHK is fine. Maybe smaller angle, so it become a real offensive MG, with high micro needed.

    It is only a question of time OKW get's a kind of redesign. You sad it, no smoke, no sniper, no flamer. This fraction is horrible.

    I know, you asked for DSHK changes, but I think it would be better if they change OKW instead. ^^

    Like:
    Sturmpioniere Vet0 Smoke-grenade and geballte Ladung. (remove Vet3 grenade) etc.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,650

    Why wouldn't it be?

    Its in whooping two doctrines, one being garbage, one being moderate at best post recent nerfs.
    Its a 2CP call-in.
    It costs as much as AT gun.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 418
    edited April 2017

    Well it's a maxim 2.0 and maxim 1.0 just got nerfed so i guess it is. 2.0 have all the things that made maxim 1.0 op like sprint that allow you to escape infantry flanks, the combo insta suppression + quick setup time + 6 man squad.
    Imo it was a bit weird to see maxim being changed and not dshk at the same time so i guess relic veto it.

    That said it's armor piecing ability really sucks and there is no point to use it so i wouldn't mind a rebalance between the main mg and it's ability while, as you've said, keep it different from maxim.

  • #5
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    The cost alone imo permits it to be the way it is. Its unique but not really spamable.
  • #6
    2 years ago

    Take it with Osttruppen -> GG ^^

  • #7
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Can't really say I have ever found it a problem. OKW's lack of smoke can make it a hassle to handle, but overall their problem with the maxim stemmed partially from timing, at 2cp, players can easily have a leig, luchs or flaktrak ready to counter it.

    Its an expensive unit, not really spammable, it should perform (as it does) for price.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited April 2017

    I guess its high initial cost negates any of its perceived odd'ness in the role it's suppose to have. Because currently it is an expensive, but twice as effective maxim 1.0. @Widerstreit You're right basically. Losing one and then having it stolen is more often than not a big game changing moment. I guess that's balanced - but in a contrived way imo.

    Like I said, I'd like it to have more of a proper role than the A-moving unit it is, aka - Maxim 1.0's higher risk, higher reward spiritual successor...lol...

    Without going completely off topic - what are people's thoughts on the current MG42 performance? Just as balanced for its price and T0 status?

    I dunno, no-one else seems to be kept awake at night by its superior stats to the MG42. I'd gladly pay more for that kinda performance.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,066
    edited April 2017

    It comes at 2CP and costs an arm and a leg for a support crew. If you don't have some kind of lead AND the Soviet has enough MP banked up at 2CP to start spamming them while still maintaining map control you've dropped the ball so hard you might just be Italy

    With regards to the MG42 - if you price hike the MG42 and give it similar stats you will run in to one of three problems.

    1: its performance will match its price, which will be too expensive to realistically field in Osts early game army
    2: its performance will not be good enough for the price you pay, making people skip it completely
    3: its performance will be too good for the price you pay, making it spammable

  • #10
    2 years ago

    @Lazarus said:
    you've dropped the ball so hard you might just be Italy

    No one in this game could accomplish such a fail :D

    But we are all aware this is the strat all Sov players are using right? I don't think their opponents are failing as hard as Italy because the Sov player can get them out very easily and in numbers. Be it with cheap con spam or penals.

  • #11
    2 years ago
    BaálthazorBaálthazor The shoreline by the river Styx.Posts: 1,092
    Imho, the dushka is pretty much spot on. Vs Ost you can nullify it with a flank of pgrens while it hammers away at some grens.

    The problem however lies with OKW's atrocious garrison clearing ability. But then again, OKW still struggles vs maxim spam even after the patch, so yeah...
  • #12
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434

    People still sticking to this story then? With the dominant meta that top tier players cannot do anything against? It comes out too early. If they want an MG - get a Maxim.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 694
    edited May 2017
    Duska cost quite a lot and doesnt come at minute one. They are good and not op imo. Not everthing that works for soviets is op.

    The maxims new role will take some time to get adjusted to it. And its price needs to drop to 240. I feel the maxim takes to long to supress blobs they can frontaly damage it quite a bit before getting surpressed.
  • #14
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    Maxim is good as it is now.

    DSHK is also fine as it is. Can't see the OP-ness.

    Better make Molotov non-tech and reduce Conscripts price at T3 to 230 and T4 to 220.
  • #15
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    Dshk is to cheap to reinforce. Reinforcement cost for HMG needs to normalized. Currently the most expensive HMG (Dshk)is cheaper to reinforce than the cheapest one (Mg34).

    The weapon also has very high close to mid DPS.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,650

    @Vipper said:
    Dshk is to cheap to reinforce. Reinforcement cost for HMG needs to normalized. Currently the most expensive HMG (Dshk)is cheaper to reinforce than the cheapest one (Mg34).

    The weapon also has very high close to mid DPS.

    You are here long enough to know that reinforce cost is based on base cost of unit AND crew size, stop pretending to not.
    Reinforcing 5 models costs more then reinforcing 3, that's fine.

    You can't have any model reinforce normalization if you don't have equal base cost or number count.

    Maxim got changes(probably they overdid it with reinforcement) because they really wanted to take it out of meta for good.
    HNG42 got cost increase in the past, but its reinforce cost was unchanged as well.

  • #17
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    @Katitof said:

    @Vipper said:
    Dshk is to cheap to reinforce. Reinforcement cost for HMG needs to normalized. Currently the most expensive HMG (Dshk)is cheaper to reinforce than the cheapest one (Mg34).

    The weapon also has very high close to mid DPS.

    You are here long enough to know that reinforce cost is based on base cost of unit AND crew size, stop pretending to not.
    Reinforcing 5 models costs more then reinforcing 3, that's fine.

    You can't have any model reinforce normalization if you don't have equal base cost or number count.

    Maxim got changes(probably they overdid it with reinforcement) because they really wanted to take it out of meta for good.
    HNG42 got cost increase in the past, but its reinforce cost was unchanged as well.

    PLS Check your facts before posting.
    Reinforcement cost for HMG is not normalized, maxim (260) is more expensive to reinforce than Dhsk (300) and mg34 (230) more expensive to reinforce than mg42 (260)

    In addition check the reinforcement difference between mg34 and Dshk and the number of entities, it does not add up.

  • #18
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,314 mod
    edited May 2017

    @Vipper: Can you please post the detailed numbers instead of telling us "to go check them out yourselves". I asked you to do that ages ago...

  • #19
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,650
    edited May 2017

    @Vipper said:

    @Katitof said:

    @Vipper said:
    Dshk is to cheap to reinforce. Reinforcement cost for HMG needs to normalized. Currently the most expensive HMG (Dshk)is cheaper to reinforce than the cheapest one (Mg34).

    The weapon also has very high close to mid DPS.

    You are here long enough to know that reinforce cost is based on base cost of unit AND crew size, stop pretending to not.
    Reinforcing 5 models costs more then reinforcing 3, that's fine.

    You can't have any model reinforce normalization if you don't have equal base cost or number count.

    Maxim got changes(probably they overdid it with reinforcement) because they really wanted to take it out of meta for good.
    HNG42 got cost increase in the past, but its reinforce cost was unchanged as well.

    PLS Check your facts before posting.
    Reinforcement cost for HMG is not normalized, maxim (260) is more expensive to reinforce than Dhsk (300) and mg34 (230) more expensive to reinforce than mg42 (260)

    In addition check the reinforcement difference between mg34 and Dshk and the number of entities, it does not add up.

    I've just told you in the very post you've quoted why maxim is more expensive, for details you can read latest patch notes instead of me re-writing the reasoning behind it.
    All other HMGs are consistent.

    HMG34 reinforces for 25 times 3 which is 33% of total squad cost.
    HMG42 reinforces for 69mp which is 24% of total squad cost.
    DSHK reinforces for 15 times 5, 23% of total squad cost.
    .50 cal reinforces for 23 times 3, 69mp which is 24% of total squad cost.
    Vicers reinforces for 23 times 3, 69mp which is 24% of total squad cost.
    And then we got maxim, which reinforces for 20 times 4, 100mp which is 38% of total squad cost.

    Now, one of these values is slightly off and one is seriously off here.
    Can you guess which ones?

    Additional info:
    ALL HMG crews have pathetic DPS with exception of HMG34, which has regular volks as a crew with regular volks DPS, which warranties greater reinforce cost as that's the only HMG in which actual crew contributes to its DPS as well, which is consistent with combat capabilities of volks in relation to other HMG crews and justifies higher reinforcement for 34.

    Maxim despite higher reinforce cost as well does not use standard cons, but much weaker weapon crew with weaker/less accurate weapons.

    There, you wanted differences, I've put them out for you.

  • #20
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    I think the soviet machine gun meta would have been more easily addressed by treating reinforcing them like they were a 4 man squad. Losing models hurts but can be mitigated by the underused merge.

    That said i still think the DSHK is fine.
  • #21
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    @Katitof said:

    I've just told you in the very post you've quoted why maxim is more expensive, for details you can read latest patch notes instead of me re-writing the reasoning behind it.

    And the same reasons that apply to maxim for increasing reinforcement cost apply to Dshk.

    All other HMGs are consistent.

    HMG34 reinforces for 25 times 3 which is 33% of total squad cost.
    HMG42 reinforces for 69mp which is 24% of total squad cost.
    DSHK reinforces for 15 times 5, 23% of total squad cost.
    .50 cal reinforces for 23 times 3, 69mp which is 24% of total squad cost.
    Vicers reinforces for 23 times 3, 69mp which is 24% of total squad cost.
    And then we got maxim, which reinforces for 20 times 4, 100mp which is 38% of total squad cost.
    Now, one of these values is slightly off and one is seriously off here.
    Can you guess which ones?

    The reinforcement cost for HMG are
    MG34 25
    25/(230/4) = 43% of cost original cost per entity
    MG42 22.5 (not 69)
    22.5/(260/4) = 34% of cost original cost per entity
    Maxim 20
    20/(260/6) = 46% of cost original cost per entity
    Dshk 15
    15/(300/6) = 30% of cost original cost per entity
    0.50/vickers 22.5
    22.5/(280/4) 32% of cost original cost per entity

    In other word the prices are inconstant.

    That because the reinforcement cost for hmg uses a completely different formula than you you think.

    @Katitof said:
    You are here long enough to know that reinforce cost is based on base cost of unit AND crew size, stop pretending to not.

    /////

    Additional info:
    ALL HMG crews have pathetic DPS with exception of HMG34, which has regular volks as a crew with regular volks DPS, which warranties greater reinforce cost as that's the only HMG in which actual crew contributes to its DPS as well, which is consistent with combat capabilities of volks in relation to other HMG crews and justifies higher reinforcement for 34.

    Maxim despite higher reinforce cost as well does not use standard cons, but much weaker weapon crew with weaker/less accurate weapons.

    There, you wanted differences, I've put them out for you.

    hmg34 crew might have better dps but the gun itself has pathetic DPS so the whole squad still has less DPS than other HMG and thus not warranties greater reinforcement cost.

    Maxim's crew dps in no different than any other hmg (accept mg34)

  • #22
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,314 mod
    edited May 2017

    @Vipper: You argue that you are using a completely different formula than what Katitof thinks is right. Are you aware that you used exactly the very same formula as @Katitof but with different values? One can furthermore argue that reinforcing an empty squad is not possible (thus max_reinforce = crewsize - 1;)

    On the topic: Personally, I do not mind different reinforce costs. Reinforce cost should reflect the overall strength of the unit in the context of their faction. Which is imho what is being attempted with the Maxim. There's no need to constantly having to iron out number inequalities between HMGs or other units - we'll end up having four exact factions in the end.

  • #23
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    @le12ro said:
    @Vipper: You argue that you are using a completely different formula than what Katitof thinks is right. Are you aware that you used exactly the very same formula as @Katitof but with different values? One can furthermore argue that reinforcing an empty squad is not possible (thus max_reinforce = crewsize - 1;)

    I have counted for different crew size. Katitof both method and numbers is simply wrong. For instance he has calculated the same % for
    Hmg42 and vickers+0.50 when it is not the same.
    Using Katitof wrong method

    Hmg34 25X3 =75/230 = 32%
    HMG42 reinforcement cost is 22.5X3= 67.5/260 = 26%
    Viecker/0.5 reinforcement cost is 22.5X3= 67.5/280 = 24%
    Dshk 15X5=75/300 = 25%
    maxim 20X5 = 100/260 = 38%

    No matter how you look at reinforcement cost are inconsistent.

    In addition the game does not uses the formal suggested by Katitof but a different one.

  • #24
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,314 mod
    edited May 2017

    @Vipper: Nevertheless the wrong math, do you really believe it is that important that inconsistent reinforcement costs of HMGs are the main source of balancing suppression platforms?

  • #25
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    Regardless of what I think the moders and Relic considered maxim reinforcement cost of 15 a balance issue and moved up to 20. The same applies to DSHK which was out of scope.

    I also mentioned that very high close DPS of the weapon as a balance issue.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,314 mod
    edited May 2017

    You know, you argue that HMG reinforcement costs are inconsistent, whilst you discuss that they should not be consistent to keep things balanced...

  • #27
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    They should be consistent not equal. The most expensive HMG (DShk) should not cost less to reinforce per entity from the cheapest HMG (HMG34).

    Dhsk should bring allot in the table and should not bleed less.

  • #28
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    edited May 2017
    I agree with that vipper is saying, but not the reasoning. The dshk could get a reinforcment bump because being cheaper than "dirt cheap, good for dick all but dying" conscripts is straight up stupid. Not because they did it to the maxim.
  • #29
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,314 mod
    edited May 2017

    Yeah, I also kind of disagree to iron out cost inconsistencies between HMG reinforcements as well. It's not the best approach at all.

    Using cost of unit and crew size is great to create a baseline idea of an units' reinforce cost (which is what Katitof points at). This value can then be increased/decreased based on the overall strength of the unit in the context of their faction and doctrine availability. Arguing that there's HMGs reinforce inconsistencies isn't the way to go at all, and would just motivate having every HMG being more or less the same.

  • #30
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited May 2017

    Inconsistency go beyond squad size.

    mg34, mg42, vicker and 0.5 all have the same crew size, hm34 should cheaper to reinforce.

    Maxim and Dshk have the same crew size maxim should at least equal if not cheaper to reinforce.

    Fact remains Dhsk is too cheap to reinforce and has too much DPS close.

  • #31
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Something went wrong if you are eating close DPS... Its not like it has a 90 or 120 or higher arc here...
Sign In or Register to comment.

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.