DBP Balance Feedback

1212224262734

Comments

  • #692
    3 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited December 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Hope everyone sees the rationale behind these addressed items above.

    All I see is you looking for buffs to 20+ axis units/abilities with zero tolerance for any nerfs to them whatsoever. I still see no logical reason as too how you think the ZiS outperforms the Pak 40. Its crew size is its only real advantage, everything about dealing damage to tanks the 40 is better at or equal to.

    You go off about "relic's bias to the allies" and yet I haven't once seen you say anything off the script of "axis is too weak". Every post its something about axis not being strong enough.

    While I don't agree with everything Reichgarde's post, he does make some valid points. Highly hypocritical for you to call him an axis fanboy when you almost never agree to nerfing allies. At least in the DBP I would have to agree with Reichgarde that BOTH Axis factions are being overnerfed/not getting buffed. However, I don't agree to the extent of the buffs that he is pushing for. Live game OKW is op and Ost is trash. But we're talking about the DBP.

    The ZiS penetration is very very small. The 6 man crew makes up for that. Also the two abilities compared to one give it an advantage over the pak. I don't see how Reichsgarde is wrong there. And TWP on the pak is getting nerfed. Quite sad since that is the only thing that make the pak special since the 6 pdr gets better veterancy bonuses (they never miss a shot with the accuracy bonus) and its vet ability is free and far easier to use.

  • #694
    3 years ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121

    First of all, thank you @1ncendiary_Rounds. It feels quite annoying to have my words fall on deaf ears.

    Second of all, correct me if I am wrong here. I know that Zis 3 has 200/190/180 (close/med/long) penetration whereas the PaK 40 has 210/200/190 (close/med/long). Now tell me. Does the PaK 40 has a clear advantage here? A meagre 10 extra penetration?! I would gladly sacrifice this paltry figure to get HE barrage, Tracking, and 2 more squad members.

    OKW and WM sincerely need buffs to ensure that this gross imbalance is taken care of.

    On top of the suggestions that I made earlier, I have to add these:

    • OKW Raketenwerfer 43: Vet bonuses need to be restored.
    • OKW Kubelwagen: Needs more abilities and other forms of utility as it is super fragile and lacks utility overall.
    • WM StuG III G: Needs better fire/sight range at Vet 3 as WM has no long-range self-propelled AT gun.
  • #695
    3 years ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121
    edited December 2017

    I sincerely hope that Mr. Smith and other DBP people read these comments and seriously think about what they're doing here. Soon, you will find UKF/USF/SU players waiting many more minutes for Axis players to show up in ranked matches. I have said this many times before, as someone who truly loves CoH franchise games, I want to prevent WM and OKW becoming like the Panzer Elite in CoH 1.

    If you are reading these comments, I would really like to know what the DBP people have to say about my proposed changes. (removed)

  • #696
    3 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @Katitof said:
    Yeah, centaur is so OP that it was decided to buff it this patch, because of how OP it was.

    Have you even played with current ostwind? It lacks absolutely nothing and is as murderous as centaur used to be.

    As the centaur used to be? The centaur used to clear garrisons in 1-2 second flat. It used to be utterly broken.

    Yes, "used to", past tense, exactly how I have written it - you know what is being buffed with centaur now?
    Its garrison clearing capability, because it has none atm compared to ostwind.

  • #697
    3 years ago

    Pro,s for the pak has over the zis imo.

    The pak rof is higher. The pen however slightly is higher. While it mostly faces units with lower armour the the zis faces. That is a big pro for the pak imo. Its able to stun lock a tank with vet in live. Its speed is not effected by terrian/craters etc. Both definetly pro,s.

    The 4 men crew. And being less versital. Are its only cons imo. The above compensates these cons fully.

    The zis pro,s over the pak imo.

    6 men crew. A regular ability and a vet ability, making it more versital then the pak. With those it can shell targets and get extra sight/inf detection on minimap.

    Its rof and having lower pen while facing units with better armour then the pak does. Are cons. That terrain affect its moving speed is also a con. Again the above compensates these cons fully.

    (I remember they wanted to patch the moving penalty on terrain but i dont know if it was ever implemented. Can any one help me with that?)

    All in all in terms of AT the pak is just a plain better gun. If you want a more versital gun the zis is the better field gun. Specialized vs multy role.

  • #698
    3 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681
    edited December 2017

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Second of all, correct me if I am wrong here. I know that Zis 3 has 200/190/180 (close/med/long) penetration whereas the PaK 40 has 210/200/190 (close/med/long). Now tell me. Does the PaK 40 has a clear advantage here? A meagre 10 extra penetration?! I would gladly sacrifice this paltry figure to get HE barrage, Tracking, and 2 more squad members.

    Alright, so I'll correct you, because you are wrong.

    You got base values right, however the guns are not shooting at exact same targets.

    Highest stock allied tank got 300 armor. Meds have around 160.
    Highest stock axis tank got 375 armor. Meds have 180-232.

    That means you do NOT have 10 penetration difference.
    That means you have 30 penetration difference against medium tanks only.

    Comet vs KT and suddenly you have 85 penetration difference.
    OKW P4 vs any allied med and you have 72 penetration advantage.

    Raw stats are utterly useless if you don't take into account what the guns are shooting at.
    For PaK to have low penetration enough to deserve any alternative ability, it would need to have at BEST 180 penetration up close.

  • #699
    3 years ago
    AresOfThraceAresOfThr… Posts: 6
    edited December 2017

    @Katitof said:

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Second of all, correct me if I am wrong here. I know that Zis 3 has 200/190/180 (close/med/long) penetration whereas the PaK 40 has 210/200/190 (close/med/long). Now tell me. Does the PaK 40 has a clear advantage here? A meagre 10 extra penetration?! I would gladly sacrifice this paltry figure to get HE barrage, Tracking, and 2 more squad members.

    Alright, so I'll correct you, because you are wrong.

    You got base values right, however the guns are not shooting at exact same targets.

    Highest stock allied tank got 300 armor. Meds have around 160.
    Highest stock axis tank got 375 armor. Meds have 180-232.

    That means you do NOT have 10 penetration difference.
    That means you have 30 penetration difference against medium tanks only.

    Comet vs KT and suddenly you have 85 penetration difference.
    OKW P4 vs any allied med and you have 82 penetration advantage.

    Raw stats are utterly useless if you don't take into account what the guns are shooting at.
    For PaK to have low penetration enough to deserve any alternative ability, it would need to have at BEST 180 penetration up close.

    What you forget about is, that Wehr does not have any other reliable AT except the StuG, which is very vulnerable for its cost and useless against infantry, while Soviet players can just build cheap and versatile SU-76s, which can penetrate the armor of any Axis tank in the game easily while also providing cheap artillery support. Also, PTRS blobs make short work of any Axis medium tank.

    And btw, TWP has not been working properly for last two years, especially not on PaKs. With their defenseless 4 man crews they get overrun so easily by a flanking unit, while it is quite hard to take down the 6 men of the Fieldgun with anything but the best assault troops.

  • #700
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,333 mod
    edited December 2017

    Personally, I'd be against mirroring of the stats or abilities of both allies and axis units. Both sides have their own unit flair which have their own advantages and disadvantages. The units that are being discussed about both shine to complete their respective tasks. Mirroring would merely remove the originality of the faction. I'd rather keep the asymmetrical design pattern.

  • #701
    3 years ago

    Where is the patch notes for DBP 2.0?

  • #702
    3 years ago
    @AresOfThrace
    The stug has armour of 140/70 vs 70/35 of the su76. thats double the amount. stug has 560 hp vs 400 on the su76. the stug has slightly less pen then the su76 but does more damage per shot 160 vs 120. wich also mean since the rof is nealry the same, the stug has more dps. but the su76 has more 10 more range to compensate for its low armour.

    both are 280 mp. the stug is 90 fuel and the su76 is 75 fuel. thats a 15 fuel difference. so with doulbe the armour and better dps plus a stun ability on it the 15 fuel price difference is justified. the stug is not to vunerable for its price.

    and twp not working properly for 2 years is a god send. being able to completly stun lock any tank in front of a pak or other at such as the stug is really strong. bordering on being op if you aske me.
  • #703
    3 years ago

    @Katitof said:

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Second of all, correct me if I am wrong here. I know that Zis 3 has 200/190/180 (close/med/long) penetration whereas the PaK 40 has 210/200/190 (close/med/long). Now tell me. Does the PaK 40 has a clear advantage here? A meagre 10 extra penetration?! I would gladly sacrifice this paltry figure to get HE barrage, Tracking, and 2 more squad members.

    Alright, so I'll correct you, because you are wrong.

    You got base values right, however the guns are not shooting at exact same targets.

    Highest stock allied tank got 300 armor. Meds have around 160.
    Highest stock axis tank got 375 armor. Meds have 180-232.

    That means you do NOT have 10 penetration difference.
    That means you have 30 penetration difference against medium tanks only.

    Comet vs KT and suddenly you have 85 penetration difference.
    OKW P4 vs any allied med and you have 72 penetration advantage.

    Raw stats are utterly useless if you don't take into account what the guns are shooting at.
    For PaK to have low penetration enough to deserve any alternative ability, it would need to have at BEST 180 penetration up close.

    Yeah thanks for pointing out the obvious. Axis armor is just A LITTLE better late game. And you want to argue that ZiS is inferior to pak because it fails to negate THE ONLY GODDAMN ADVANTAGE AXIS NOW HAVE IN THE ENTIRE GAME. You know what really ticks me off? Everyone complaining that the KT was op back then and then all allied TDs were massively buffed in pen to take on the KT while the rest of axis armor gets penetrated like swiss cheese. And people STILL have the notion that Axis armor is superior. While Axis late game is constantly getting nerfed, it is getting nothing in return for its early game as only USF got very very slightly weaker due to smoke nerf. UKF got a straight buff and SU early game strength is still just as good as before due to the reliability of cons and hence they are no longer forced into one pathetic penal lend lease build order which will make them less predictable and therefore harder to beat.

  • #704
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,333 mod
    edited December 2017

    You can't argue that KT was fun to play against in the months that followed the release of WFA. There was no need to give the KT something in return for removing its armor value over the months that followed the balancing act of WFA; OKW was on release most frustrating to play against. From Volks-blobs to instant suppression Kuebels, to as good as impenetrable KT, there were too many things there were without the shadow of a doubt, massively overpowered, and terribly un-fun to play against, or even play with.

  • #705
    3 years ago

    @TheLeveler83 said:

    and twp not working properly for 2 years is a god send. being able to completly stun lock any tank in front of a pak or other at such as the stug is really strong. bordering on being op if you aske me.

    Because the pak only has one ability compared to 2 abilities from zis and usf 6pdr. Take aim and tracking can be just as op. You don't need infantry in the area to scout for the at gun which many times needs to get one more shot off to kill a tank, but doesn't have the vision which allows the tank to escape. With take aim/tracking, the at gun can get off that last shot for the kill. In fact take aim is even more op because it EXTENDS the range AND sight to 70.

    TWP will not kill a tank if there is ONLY one at gun. You need other at weapons in range too. So if you charged in a tank blindly into an area with 2 major at weapons, that is your fault. pak + stug or double pak will finish off a medium WITHOUT TWP. TWP actually allows another at weapons some time to get to the stunned tank to finish it off. And it sometimes allows an extra hit from the pak crew. You do NOT need TWP if there are 2 at weapons already perfectly positioned at the scene.

  • #706
    3 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited December 2017

    @le12ro said:

    You can't argue that KT was fun to play against in the months that followed the release of WFA. There was no need to give the KT something in return for removing its armor value over the months that followed the balancing act of WFA; OKW was on release most frustrating to play against. From Volks-blobs to instant suppression Kuebels, to as good as impenetrable KT, there were too many things there were without the shadow of a doubt, massively overpowered.

    We're not asking for anything in return from the armor nerf. However, the most recent nerf to the KT is uncalled for and it seems to be a theme for many OKW units. The balance team took excessive liberties in nerfing the KT, rak, fusiliers, and panther while the only problems of OKW were simply to nerf volk, kubel and luchs which they already did. What is the only piece of armor that is not being nerfed for OKW: the p4. And plenty of early game nerfs. Hence it's hard to argue against the fact that OKW is being overnerfed.

    AND WHERE IS MR. SMITH? THAT MAN HAS A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • #707
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,333 mod
    edited December 2017

    Well, in that case, the balance team has requested countless times to give them valid reasons why you believe the units in question are improperly balanced. This could be achieved, for instance, with interesting replays, or videos of interesting DBP games, or interesting posts. They will not achieve anything with supposition and theory-crafting.

    You must keep in mind that the DBP goes through countless iterations of design changes and balance refinements. Sometimes things work, some times they don't - they do have the liberty to try things out. As long as people provide valid reasons, supported by non passive- aggressive arguments based on qualitative and quantitative grounds why something should or shouldn't be changed whilst keeping in mind balance game-play aims and objectives, I am sure you will be listened to. Otherwise, they will consider that everything is in order.

  • #708
    3 years ago

    What do people think about the guards ptrs damage to infantry now from 20 to 27? We've heard the opinions of Katitof and SkysTheLimit on this however I want to hear from everyone else. My opinion is that guards are NOT elite infantry. They are CRACK infantry and therefore should have their price lowered to around 330 and the guards anti-inf capabilities reverted to live patch. A few weeks back I posted a cast from Imperial Dane's channel of a game with frequent matchups between dp guards and stg volks. This was a live patch game. And the max vet nerfed guards still beat max vet op volks every time. Needless to say, they easily beat lmg grens. But the moderator took the post down because the truth hurts. Now with the volk nerf, there is no need to further buff guards or else they risk becoming double bar riflemen with a zook and buttoning allowing SU to spam them as cons replacement.

    Also, imo live centaur is in a good spot. It's easily better than live ostwind in every way except speed. And that is only on paper. The ostwind actually cannot use its speed advantage much of the time due to its non-existent accuracy on the move where the centaur still does decent damage when moving. The only time Ostwind can use its speed is when escaping medium armor. Ironically the extra speed is not enough because you can't name an allied medium that lacks the speed to catch up to the ostwind and run it down before you can intercept the allied tank. Once you see the allied tank, it's too late for your Ostwind if it's operating alone. So to hear that the centaur is getting a speed buff will once again allow the Centaur to completely overshadow the still mediocre Ostwind.

    I've already stated I think overall the Ostwind's damage is good. Accuracy profile needs to be shifted so that max range accuracy is higher and close range acc is lower. This will make the Ostwind on par with centaur.

  • #709
    3 years ago

    @le12ro said:
    Well, in that case, the balance team has requested countless times to give them valid reasons why you believe the units in question are improperly balanced. This could be achieved, for instance, with interesting replays, or videos of interesting DBP games, or interesting posts.

    You must keep in mind that the DBP goes through countless iterations of design changes and balance refinements. Sometimes things work, some times they don't - they do have the liberty to try things out. As long as people provide valid reasons, supported by non passive- aggressive arguments based on qualitative and quantitative grounds why something should or shouldn't be changed whilst keeping in mind balance game-play aims and objectives, I am sure you will be listened to. Otherwise, they will consider that everything is in order.

    I can say the same thing to you. Why did the balance team decide it was neccessary to nerf KT? The forums have actually seen little in the way of complaints against the KT after having its armor nerf and all allied TDs buffed. I'd like to know who was complaining about KT. The only complaint on this thread was downright hilarious as SkysTheLimit said that KT has no problems vs at guns. If comments like that is enough to get the balance team to try nerfing the KT, then what about Reichsgarde and his constant demands to buff virtually everything on the Axis roster. Shouldn't that catch the eye of the balance team? Or who's idea was it to try buffing the Sherman HE rounds. Absolutely nobody said that Sherman HE wasn't good enough. Thank god they reverted that immediately.

  • #710
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,333 mod
    edited December 2017
    The balance team has access to more data than counting the number of posts about a subject. If they wouldn't value the input from this community this whole iterative open process wouldn't exist. I've given a few hints above on how to best help the balance team.

    Additionally, and as mentioned above in my previous post, the balance team has also got their own internal balance aims and objectives, and they do like to explore experimental approaches. Furthermore, there's also countless feedback and games played, from public levels to tournament settings. Its really up to you guys to make the most of what is being offered.

    You may create a thread to discuss this community driven iterative process if you wish to. Feedback about the whole process should be separate than feedback about the balancing.

    Keep in mind that moderation has been trying to steer this thread in the right direction countless times with mild success.

    (moderator input) let's return to giving feedback about the changes, shall we?
  • #711
    3 years ago

    The problem is that it seems that the axis is getting overnerfed. So many nerfs together can wipe out any fun.

    The infantry and the armor nerf in major ways in the same patch is gonna hurt.

  • #712
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,333 mod
    edited December 2017
    The keyword there are 'seem' and 'can'. These are just suppositions. Having a long list of changes doesn't automatically mean it's not going to be fun. Why not post replays and games as suggested above?
  • #713
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited December 2017

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    While I don't agree with everything Reichgarde's post, he does make some valid points. Highly hypocritical for you to call him an axis fanboy when you almost never agree to nerfing allies.

    1st I was careful not to use the words "axis fanboy". 2nd what are you talking about? I've been on these forums wayy longer than you and I've been asking for allied and axis nerfs for quite some time. I definitely spend more time asking for OKW to get nerfed than anything else, but saying I never agree to allied nerfs is way off.

    I've asked for everything from the Pershing to get removed (or not added when it was leaked they were considering it) to having penals nerfed. I do play US the most but then Sovs and Ost evenly. I almost never play Brits or OKW, if I have any bias its against those two (really not a fan of how much buildings do for them).

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    The ZiS penetration is very very small. The 6 man crew makes up for that. Also the two abilities compared to one give it an advantage over the pak. I don't see how Reichsgarde is wrong there.

    Because I'd take TWP in a second over either one those abilities. Best case scenario for a Zis Barrage is wiping a squad if you get some lucky RNG. Best case scenario for TWP is that you just stunned an IS2 in front of your Anti-Tank.

    Best case scenario for tracking? I get one more shot off, which tends to happen when a tank is stunned too. Except now it's also at a high risk of being fausted for a dead engine. Even with the change to a speed/rotation debuff, that'll still be true.

  • #714
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited December 2017

    @Reichsgarde said:
    Second of all, correct me if I am wrong here. I know that Zis 3 has 200/190/180 (close/med/long) penetration whereas the PaK 40 has 210/200/190 (close/med/long). Now tell me. Does the PaK 40 has a clear advantage here? A meagre 10 extra penetration?!

    How about the full 1 second faster reload? How about the faster first shot on a newly acquired target? You refuse to address either of those throughout this comparison. And as several others have said, the armor advantage to Axis tanks makes that penetration difference far more significant than a "meagre 10".

  • #715
    3 years ago

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    @AresOfThrace
    The stug has armour of 140/70 vs 70/35 of the su76. thats double the amount. stug has 560 hp vs 400 on the su76. the stug has slightly less pen then the su76 but does more damage per shot 160 vs 120. wich also mean since the rof is nealry the same, the stug has more dps. but the su76 has more 10 more range to compensate for its low armour.

    both are 280 mp. the stug is 90 fuel and the su76 is 75 fuel. thats a 15 fuel difference. so with doulbe the armour and better dps plus a stun ability on it the 15 fuel price difference is justified. the stug is not to vunerable for its price.

    and twp not working properly for 2 years is a god send. being able to completly stun lock any tank in front of a pak or other at such as the stug is really strong. bordering on being op if you aske me.

    Have you ever tried to get off TWP as an axis player? It's completely bugged. Plus you forgot about the free artillery of the SU that can one-shot 4-man axis squads

  • #718
    3 years ago
    @1ncendiary_Rounds he didnt say any of that. He pointed out an objective fact. The guns themselves have similar pen on paper but in practice the difference is more substantial because of the differences in armour they shoot at, a 10 pen difference leads to a 30 pen difference in practice. It all compounds.

    Interesting enough the pak is more useful in the hands of the soviet and the zis in the hands of wehr BECAUSE of that difference, the barrage complementing the ass awful AI of a p4 and the paks pen helping reduce the armour advantage of the p4
  • #719
    3 years ago

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    > Because the pak only has one ability compared to 2 abilities from zis and usf 6pdr. Take aim and tracking can be just as op. You don't need infantry in the area to scout for the at gun which many times needs to get one more shot off to kill a tank, but doesn't have the vision which allows the tank to escape. With take aim/tracking, the at gun can get off that last shot for the kill. In fact take aim is even more op because it EXTENDS the range AND sight to 70.
    >
    > TWP will not kill a tank if there is ONLY one at gun. You need other at weapons in range too. So if you charged in a tank blindly into an area with 2 major at weapons, that is your fault. pak + stug or double pak will finish off a medium WITHOUT TWP. TWP actually allows another at weapons some time to get to the stunned tank to finish it off. And it sometimes allows an extra hit from the pak crew. You do NOT need TWP if there are 2 at weapons already perfectly positioned at the scene.

    A garanteed complete stun is somthing else then extra sight and or range wich may or may not grant another hit. You can micro your tank behind shot blockers at full speed to counter this. Good luck doing that with a stun locked tank. so to quote @SkysTheLimit i,d take twp in a heart beat over sight/range or arty. not that those are bad, they are just not as good. As for the sight from a screening infantry unit, pios have extra sight range from the start they dont need to go as far forward as others do.

    I do agree with you that just one pack or stug its not so devestating. But as soon as other at joins in the allied tank is as good as dead.
    so its not an op ability its just a really good one wich can very effectively turn a tank engagement in your favor in an instant. the fact that the pak only has 4 men compensates this. But i understand that they are looking into changing it to being a moving penalty rather then complete stun.

    I just said that TWP is UNNECESSARY if there are 2 at weapons already lined up. 2 volleys will take it out unless the allied player is EXTREMELY quick to get it out of there. TWP is used when the second at weapons needs time to re position. In summary I think the zis and pak are equal in utility after looking at pros and cons of each unit. And still Relic thinks that the pak TWP should be nerfed which I think is uncalled for as the pak should be AT LEAST as good as zis as Ost was built on better support weapons because its infantry are crap and the late game for 1v1 will continue to be non-existant since Jackson and Firefly buff completely negated panther buffs.

  • #720
    3 years ago

    Luchs

    -Build time increased from 40 seconds to 85 seconds

    At this point you should just remove Luchs.... More than double, it is an overkill, 60 would be fine but not 85... I assume we will be getting more OKW nerfs later on? Because you can still win with OKW.

  • #721
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited December 2017

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    I just said that TWP is UNNECESSARY if there are 2 at weapons already lined up. 2 volleys will take it out unless the allied player is EXTREMELY quick to get it out of there.

    Unless it's literally anything greater than a medium tank? Comet, 34/85, IS-2 etc. all worth stunning if given the opportunity.

    And if your point is that the Paks will kill tanks fast enough that they don't even need the ability to stun them, then that would seem to suggest its really fucking good at its job. The window for getting away before that second volley is certainly shorter.

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