DBP Balance Feedback

1679111234

Comments

  • #242
    2 years ago
    > @Boris_yeltsin said:
    > I really hope that the revamping of the Lend-lease doc won't be just based on nerfs of the DshK and the M4C, but will also feature some some buffs of the Shock Guards ability. It used to be useful when a Soviet player did T1/T2->T3/T4, but it's current state makes it's usability really bad

    I think, with the nerfs to lemd lease, a buff to the guards would be ideal- allow them to upgrade with a BAR or zook (maybe a pair of each?)
    OR allow the HT to supply 2 slot weapons (BAR/ ZOOK) like the brit HT does (which idk why it does, seeing as for a small fee brits can arm up anywhere as it is)
  • #243
    2 years ago
    > @Boris_yeltsin said:
    > I really hope that the revamping of the Lend-lease doc won't be just based on nerfs of the DshK and the M4C, but will also feature some some buffs of the Shock Guards ability. It used to be useful when a Soviet player did T1/T2->T3/T4, but it's current state makes it's usability really bad

    I think, with the nerfs to lemd lease, a buff to the guards would be ideal- allow them to upgrade with a BAR or zook (maybe a pair of each?)
    OR allow the HT to supply 2 slot weapons (BAR/ ZOOK) like the brit HT does (which idk why it does, seeing as for a small fee brits can arm up anywhere as it is)
  • #244
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    @oRi0n said:
    I'm happy to see the last update changed the FRP penalty from a manpower cost to a time delay. That is a definite improvement, but I have to reiterate that locking the FRP tech for the OKW Battlegroup HQ behind a 2nd truck basically renders the ability useless for the vast majority of games, ESPECIALLY teamgames where you can easily end up heavily outnumbered trying to defend not just your retreat point, but your TECH BUILDING.

    If USF can do fine with FRP coming up on T3, then so will OKW with theirs coming up 3 minutes later then usual.

  • #245
    2 years ago
    To add to what @Katitof just said, if you are needing to lean on a fast FRP you are (sorry) probably playing very poorly and using it as a crutch, which is actually the problem with FRPs in the whole of things- it lessens the impact of proper positioning and promotes wave blob to victory.

    Also, the battle group offers a huge advantage in just being able to reinforce there, usf are the only one to get something like that as early, but it delays tech (instead of BEING it) and costs fuel. If you feel you cant defend a strong point without being able to panic retreat to it, again, its a L2P issue unfortunately
  • #246
    2 years ago
    Buff the German fire mortar shell, it is really useless. It makes so less damage versus garrisons or emplacements that it is more effective to shoot normal rounds instead. Also the fire-bombingstrike doesnt worth its price too. Give it same stats as Soviet fire-bombingstrike.
  • #247
    2 years ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63
    edited November 2017

    You guys are totally missing the point. My objection to the combination of FRP changes for OKW is not about having fast FRP. It's about having a very-difficult-to-defend tech building placed in a forward location for an extended period. After the Battlegroup HQ is deployed, assuming you skip Mechanized and go to Schwerer (b/c doing T1>T2 is usually a bad idea - need tanks faster than that), you're looking at roughly 6 minutes (140ish fuel) before the Schwerer is deployed IF you aren't delayed at ALL getting it placed. In this period of time, if anyone pulls a decent attack on your Battlegroup HQ, and you DON'T have FRP, it's probably going to die.

    I'm talking about NOT having all your forces clumped up, which I hate. I want to have my guys running all over the battlefield attacking at different points, not having to keep them circled around the Battlegroup HQ for an extra 6+ minutes til I can get the FRP researched, and knowing that for the first 2 minutes of that time (until I can get an MG34 to the front) even keeping them there won't be enough defense b/c OKW auto-loses FIXED POSITIONS to a well-used HMG (no counter suppression, no ability to break suppression without retreating to base).

    In every other situation OKW not starting with a Tier-0 HMG is generally ok because you can just change your point of attack if you encounter an enemy HMG. But it makes defending a fixed position (e.g. Battlegroup HQ that can't research FRP for 6+ minutes) against opponents that DO have Tier-0 HMGs virtually impossible.

    As I said in my previous post I think the BEST solution is to GO AHEAD AND DELAY THE FRP TECH, but allow the Battlegroup HQ to be relocated after it's available. You could even say we have to re-research FRP everytime the Battlegroup HQ is deployed (or at least have a cooldown equal to the research time if it's already researched but has been relocated). That would be fine.

    What I DON'T want to be doing is defending a very-difficult-to-defend forward position that offers very minimal benefits for an extended period of time.

    Basically, this is going to heavily incentivize players going Mechanized HQ into fast Luchs or Stuka even more than they already do. You're going to see T2>T3>T1 almost all the time. Do we REALLY want to make that the almost universally-dominant meta? Seriously? I don't think ANYBODY wants that. We want more varied gameplay, not less. And you know I'm right - let's be honest, the infantry support gun is pretty much the only unit worth buying early game in the Battlegroup HQ, and it's very slow with no retreat function. If you have to build that thing in your base instead of at the foward HQ, walk it to the front, then walk it all the way back and forth every time you need to reinforce for the whole game... nobody's going to fool with that on anything other than a tiny map. Most people will save the Battlegroup HQ for last when they can build it forward for the FRP and actually defend it. The people who do build it first will rarely actually build any of its units until much later if at all - they'll just do it to get the MG34 and Schwerer HQ faster than spending the extra fuel on Mechanized.

    To the guy who wants the FRP removed entirely - you'd have to rebalance OKW for larger maps in that case. OKW is very ill-equipped for large maps without FRP because they have NO troop transport and high pop requirements for their squads/tanks. When you have fewer squads/vehicles on the field it's a heck of a lot harder to maintain field presence, especially with no troop transport - hence the FRP. The whole concept of the OKW faction design was to replicate a historical reality of using fewer units/vehicles by enhancing their combat capabilities and logistical support - e.g. the forward half tracks.

  • #248
    2 years ago
    And looking at the comments I have a bad feeling that cons are over buffed. As I predicted. I'm not surprised at all. Relic has a history of over buffing allied units. Penal , usf mortar, now cons. Where ostheer buffs are mostly very modest. And ostwind was over nerfed and now needs a buff again lol.
  • #249
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    @oRi0n said:
    You guys are totally missing the point. My objection to the combination of FRP changes for OKW is not about having fast FRP. It's about having a very-difficult-to-defend tech building placed in a forward location for an extended period.

    You're not really forced to place it in forward position for years+its not that expensive.
    If you're afraid of losing it, build it in base sector, like all the players who play it safe.

  • #250
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 696
    edited November 2017
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > And looking at the comments I have a bad feeling that cons are over buffed. As I predicted. I'm not surprised at all. Relic has a history of over buffing allied units. Penal , usf mortar, now cons. Where ostheer buffs are mostly very modest. And ostwind was over nerfed and now needs a buff again lol.

    Its because ost units are pretty straight forward imo. Most ost units are specialized so what needs to be done is pretty clear. Allied units are more generalists/multy role so there are more unintended consquences then with ost units.
  • #251
    2 years ago
    @oRi0n risk v reward. If you cant defend it place it where you can. Why should you be able to reap the benifits without so much as the ability to protect it? Okw doesn't have halftracks, no but they DO have healing from the word go, keeping your infantry topped up means less retreating to begin with. You cant have it all
  • #252
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951
    edited November 2017

    Panther V
    Now in an even better spot.

    You cheecky SoBs you ;)

    Holy shit this patch though, Christmas came early boys :D

    That said, a few things:

    • Jackson's dead for that price and 160 damage. I get the idea, but 140 fuel for such lackluster DPS is going to hurt badly.
    • T34 fuel increase seems punishing as hell without an MP decrease considering the Axis mediums are getting their own buffs.
    • Mother Russia's problem is honestly the speed boost more than anything else.

    Pretty much everything else makes sense or I can see the big picture for it.

  • #253
    2 years ago
    moremegamoremega REDWOOD CITY CA USAPosts: 229

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > @Boris_yeltsin said:
    > I really hope that the revamping of the Lend-lease doc won't be just based on nerfs of the DshK and the M4C, but will also feature some some buffs of the Shock Guards ability. It used to be useful when a Soviet player did T1/T2->T3/T4, but it's current state makes it's usability really bad

    I think, with the nerfs to lemd lease, a buff to the guards would be ideal- allow them to upgrade with a BAR or zook (maybe a pair of each?)
    OR allow the HT to supply 2 slot weapons (BAR/ ZOOK) like the brit HT does (which idk why it does, seeing as for a small fee brits can arm up anywhere as it is)

    I thought the revamp is supposed to be an all around buff and improvements. lend lease is fine the way it is no changes needed.

  • #254
    2 years ago
    moremegamoremega REDWOOD CITY CA USAPosts: 229

    @Katitof said:

    @raulmagana121707 said:

    @Kurkin said:
    1. I propose to arm additional Conscripts or Penal Battalion one machine-gun DP or PTRS to choose from, but to tie this possibility to T2.
    2. Replace the Molotov cocktail at RGD 33.
    3. Guards Riflemen initially equip SVT rifles, and not Mosin rifles.
    4. Anti-tank grenade RPG 43 make accessible to all doctrine infantry squads (guardsmen, shock troopers), if it is open in the field headquarters. Or make guards and shocks cheaper, 320 and 360 respectively.

    no way. Russian inf is supposed to be poorly equipped.

    And OKW army is supposed to be fuel starved.
    Ost is supposed to be weak early game.
    Your point?

    okw is fuel starved. high cost vehicles and no caches. Wehrmacht sucks early mid and late game. your point?

  • #255
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited November 2017

    @oRi0n said:
    You guys are totally missing the point. My objection to the combination of FRP changes for OKW is not about having fast FRP. It's about having a very-difficult-to-defend tech building placed in a forward location for an extended period.

    So don't put it in a forward location then? Put it right outside your base sector or even right into it. Respectfully, I think you are missing the point of the change. The whole point is to completely discourage placing the building as aggressively as OKW players currently can, it's simply too much of an edge.

    There is no real reason you cannot survive as OKW with your BG very near your HQ building. Heck you can save the 300mp for the FRP upgrade if you go that route.

  • #256
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited November 2017

    Aqua said:

    • Jackson's dead for that price and 160 damage. I get the idea, but 140 fuel for such lackluster DPS is going to hurt badly.

    I'm not so sure about that, it's penetration going up means it will be more reliable. And it still has 240 with HVAP, which hopefully has the clunkiness ironed out in this patch. 140fu is only 10 more than an Su85, and when you combine its mobility and new health with the rotating turret and HVAP I'd say that's worth it.

    Going from 200 to 160 doesn't change the # of shots to kill a medium. And when you factor in the fewer deflections, it could very well be fewer shots to kill a heavy.

  • #257
    2 years ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 93

    Update 1.3v is out.

    Many interesting and good changes like nerfed Soviet forward HQ, but one thing that stands out from all others is that both ost and OKW Panzer IV gets penetration buff which is not good at all. No one complained anything about Panzer IVs in the community, so why this change Relic?? Now there will be a blob of panzer IVs in almost every game. This is not healthy Relic! Atleast increase the pop cap of panzer IV to match this effectiveness.

  • #258
    2 years ago
    Update 1.3 is just what the doctor ordered. Finally noticeable buffs for ostheer. Thank you Relic. And nerfs for volks. Great that cons are being scrutinized and not allowing for another over buffing fiasco.

    I think zis pak and Brit 6pdr should all be set to 8 cap and the other two can remain 7
  • #259
    2 years ago
    moremegamoremega REDWOOD CITY CA USAPosts: 229
    edited November 2017

    On a serious note, these balance changes are ruining the game and Mid tier axis players are the ones who are being hit the hardest by all these nerfs.

    Allied faction players should also be concerned b/c the quality of axis opponents you face will either be complete garbage or out of your league (bigger skill gap = even more rage quits and premature surrendering).

    If you care enough to still be reading, this balance patch needs to lower the scope of its changes.

  • #260
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    I love the changes to OKW AA, no more free, uncounterable AA just because you picked certain faction.

    Volk nerfs are also spot on, now OKW players will remind themselves they have 7 infantry types and not one.

    When reading about LEIG changes, I already knew what comes for mortar pit, I am NOT going to miss either of the two as both had monstrous range for not being doctrinal and while pit was at least stationary, it could hide weeeeeeel to far behind.

    Love PIAT changes, that thing was a decoration at best vs light vehicles, if only PTRS would get similar treatment as, while soviets do have snares, the PTRS itself isn't the best AT weapon around. Maybe all PTRS using units could get vet2 range increase to allow it to be decent AT in late game, without imbalancing its performance vs early game lights?

    I'm content with P4 changes, but don't understand at the same time why T34 got nerfed cost-wise.
    P4 changes alone already diminish T34 performance here and I don't see the need for increased cost.

    Jackson, I guess I preferred it when it was long range glass cannon instead of current panther lite you guys are trying desperately to shape it in.

    StuG-long overdue, such incredibly OP ability should never end up on such cheap and vetting like mad TD.

    251 flamer - long overdue as well, it left no time to react at all once it started flaming garrisons, not even Churchill croc did that.

    Sov FHQ - I never like to see niche stuff like that to get nerfed even harder, but I guess in this case we have 4v4 crowd to blame, where apparently it wasn't that niche.

    ZiS-3 - surprised to see the barrage cost and pop changes, but the barrage was a bad meme before, so its very just.

    Disappointed to see For Mother Russia getting nerfed so hard, while other problems of the doctrine were ignored completely. It was a bad doctrine with that one saving grace allowing cons to go up against upgraded infantry.

    Demo - what its supposed to do now? What is its role now? Why anyone would ever use it for any other purpose then blowing up extremely extended and exposed OKW truck?

    Luchs - that's great, that thing was monstrous, it reminded me of old T-70. I've seen that thing eat through vetted guards with single burst way too often.

  • #261
    2 years ago

    I love to chance to the zis and soviet mortar.

    Zis being a bit lower in pop the pak and 6 pounder is a good thing. both pak and 6 pounder are better at AT but the zis has the barrage wich finaly got the ridiculous price of 60 muni buffed to 30 muni. you mostly only pay for the first two rounds and the rest is a flashy decoration.

    the soviet mortar being more utility seems great to me. but what about its vet ability? does the range of the flare increase with vet?? or something done with smoke maybe. That would be nice though.

  • #262
    2 years ago

    I find the t34 price nerf not warented. the p4 being buffed is a indirect nerf to the t34 already.

  • #263
    2 years ago
    KurkinKurkin РоссияPosts: 30

    If you plan to improve Urban Defense Tactics

    0CP Forward Headquarters
    2CP M-42 45mm Light AT Gun
    4CP Armored Vehicle Detection
    6CP Booby Traps
    7CP Incendiary Artillery Barrage

    Since the tactics are connected with the city battle, these are close quarters battles (CQB). There are such proposals.

    0CP Forward Headquarters
    2CP M-42 45mm Light AT Gun
    2CP Shock Troops
    6CP Booby Traps
    7CP Incendiary Artillery Barrage

    or

    0CP Forward Headquarters
    2CP M-42 45mm Light AT Gun
    2CP Shock troops
    3CP PPSh kit
    6CP Booby Traps

  • #264
    2 years ago
    Demo change is awful, and it now has no use at all. At the VERY least it should have ots damage GREATLY boosted and be able to take out bridges in one again, else remove it all together for all the use it will get.

    P4 buff is a nice change, being the most expensive standard medium its performance should now reflect that.

    The t34 change is not so good considerimg the p4 buff, however that can be mitigated by relieving the manpower cost slightly.
  • #265
    2 years ago
    skipzskipz Posts: 2

    HI,

    Have you go study the questions about the MG34 at start for the OKW ?

    Thanks you,

  • #266
    2 years ago

    Demo Charges
    To give players an opportunity to react to activated demo charges and to reduce mass squads wipes of this weapon, the >following changes have been made:
    Demo Charges now have a 3s timer once activated (timer is visible to all players; similar to satchel)
    Cost reduced from 90MU to 65MU

    I think this does not solve the demo issue at all. Now you just combine the demo (65) with a regular mine (30) and get an extremely powerful at mine (it destroys a P4 and almost destoys a P5) and a self detonating demo against infantry for a similar cost.

  • #267
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited November 2017

    About the Panthers. Just give the unit switchable munition similar to ISU-152 either AI or AT (different range) adjust mgs and get it over with.

    Then you can call it Tank.

  • #268
    2 years ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63
    edited November 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @oRi0n said:
    You guys are totally missing the point. My objection to the combination of FRP changes for OKW is not about having fast FRP. It's about having a very-difficult-to-defend tech building placed in a forward location for an extended period.

    So don't put it in a forward location then? Put it right outside your base sector or even right into it. Respectfully, I think you are missing the point of the change. The whole point is to completely discourage placing the building as aggressively as OKW players currently can, it's simply too much of an edge.

    There is no real reason you cannot survive as OKW with your BG very near your HQ building. Heck you can save the 300mp for the FRP upgrade if you go that route.

    Again, missed the point. You ran to "put it close to the base and save the FRP manpower," at which point WHY HAVE THE ABILITY IN THE GAME AT ALL?????

    If I'm playing 1v1, I'm probably not worrying about the FRP for a while if at all because the MAPS ARE SMALL. It's not a problem there. It's a problem on the larger team maps, where it takes FOREVER to run just from the base to the middle of the map. Again, this isn't a super early game problem either. It's a problem in mid-late game on large maps.

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @oRi0n risk v reward. If you cant defend it place it where you can. Why should you be able to reap the benifits without so much as the ability to protect it? Okw doesn't have halftracks, no but they DO have healing from the word go, keeping your infantry topped up means less retreating to begin with. You cant have it all

    Um, again, not really my point. What I said was I don't want to be having to defend it (especially when it's extra-vulnerable because no FRP ability to call back forces and break suppression) when I'm not getting any benefits. Not the other way around. I don't want to spend 6+ minutes having to defend the thing with little to no benefit to even have the choice of using FRP at any point later in the game. No other faction has to do this. Yes USA gets theirs later in the game, but it's MOBILE.

    I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH DELAYING THE FRP IN GENERAL. What I don't like is having it tied to an immobile Tier 1 tech structure AND having it delayed. That's the problem. The only problem.

  • #269
    2 years ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63
    edited November 2017

    I REALLY like the 1.3 changes. Pretty much all of them actually. My few concerns are as follows:

    1. The AA changes for OKW are quite substantial. Needed, but very substantial. It's going to put a lot more emphasis on the AA halftrack, which most players never get. The problems here are (a) players don't get it because it's otherwise pretty terrible for the cost - too much fuel for its impact (not so much that it's not useful, but that the opportunity cost in terms of potential earlier/more tanks is too high), and (b) getting an additional vehicle most players don't currently get is going to put a further pinch on the pop cap, which I don't think is really the intent of the AA change. I suggest reducing the pop cap and the fuel cost of the AA halftrack to encourage its use. The pop cap thing (really only a late game issue) probably never would have come up without the AA changes (cause losing it by late game didn't matter much with the other OKW AA available), but the reduced fuel cost was probably needed anyway. I'll leave it up to the experts to determine exactly what the reduced fuel cost should be.

    2. I worry that the 60s delay on the Schwerer Panzer HQ being able to attack ANY target after using its AA ability is overkill. For one thing, there's pretty much no rational/realistic reason for that mechanic to exist. It's 100% a balance mechanic and in no way representative of any real world limitation, which I don't particularly like. The bigger deal though is that now you have a TECH STRUCTURE that's suddenly MUCH more vulnerable. Again, not just a defensive structure that's more vulnerable, but a TECH STRUCTURE, and the most expensive and most critical one at that. In otherwise pretty evenly matched games, losing the Schwerer HQ is often gg. 60 seconds is a LONG time in the flow of the game. I'd rather see the balance team start small rather than making such a huge change all at once. Maybe reduce the AA damage instead so it doesn't shoot things down so quickly (like the fall balance patch proposed)? That being said, if the AA halftrack becomes more accessible maybe this isn't such a big deal.

    3. Similar to number 2, I think the 3 second countdown on the demo charge is just unrealistic. I get it from a balance perspective, but it's unrealistic. It also ironically makes demo charges much more unreliable when used actively, and makes no difference if they're used passively (paired with mines, which as Gowno pointed out is now EVEN EASIER with the cost reduction). I think unreliable mechanics are frustrating for everyone. I'd much rather see the delay removed, AOE range reduced and cost reverted. They'd still be just as effective against stationary targets, and they'd be reliable in terms of doing damage, but much less likely to get full squad wipes. You could really say the same thing about mortar shells. It's just not fun having things that sometimes do basically nothing, then occasionally get a complete squad wipe pretty much out of the blue. I think anyone who's randomly experienced 2-3 full squad wipes from lucky mortar hits in say a 20-30 second period can attest to that. I'd rather see the lucky/unlucky factor reduced.

  • #270
    2 years ago
    capiquacapiqua Posts: 270

    This patch is very complete, there are few units left to balance

    1. Tommies. Inconsistency in price/performance.
    2. HTinfrared/Valentine. There must be some limitation in these abilities that reveal FOW nonsense.
    Even valentine needs to block the movement and HT does not:
    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160221/zh5oe5nw.jpg
    3. Sturmpioneers. In teams games two SPs are combined and they a short range are a kill machine. Something very difficult to counteract in the early game.
    4. Allied anti-infantry tanks, they are gardening or null, because the velocity of the centaur can not chase units in retreat and the centaur is easily flanked by any tank of the axis, due to its speed. Bought with the Brummar who is a god in the field, which is the best AI tank of the entire game.

    I have assembled the commanders of 1.3 so it is easier to know what changes are necessary:

    IMO add these things and some more that I do not remember would make the patch very complete. A couple of other things and we will have the best patch of all times.

  • #271
    2 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited November 2017

    (removed)

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.