Spring Update Balance Discussion

145791016

Comments

  • #182
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    @Hingie said:

    @Katitof said:
    It simply means that equal resource investment of same type of infantry should not be overpowering one way or another.

    Right, thats why Grenadiers are completely outclassed from the word go by Rifles and Sectoids for a mere 16% difference in base cost. Upgrades only aggravate this problem. Totally justified by the immense ressource difference.

    But thats currently irrelevant. Whatver the ultimate goal of Mr_Smith and his balance cronies might be, judging by the patch notes the future of the Wehrmacht looks bleak indeed. For 3 Patches now I am waiting for considerable change in favour of Wehr, none which has appeared. T4 is getting even less appealing (if that was in any way possible) and the crutch that is the Stug is going to get nerfed by the picture of it. Nihil novi sub sole et felix qui rerum causas cognoscere potuit.

    This.

    There is little point of going for T4. The Panther, given the time and cost it takes for it to hit the field is simply not worth it. It lacks any sort of impact, especially with recent nerfs and the buff to Allied AT.

    The Brummbär is getting nerfed, for whatever reason. And the Panzerwerfer is a meme compared to the Katyusha. That's why you don't see people bother with T4. And this patch is doing nothing to change that

    If you want to make T4 appealing, stop nerfing the Panther. Allow Grens to be 5-man squads upon reaching T4. Anything to make it worthwhile, because right now it is just plain useless.

  • #183
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited April 2018
    I disagree about 5-man squad upgrade for Grens. Grenadiers received a high evasion bonus(9% on 0 vet), cheap squad price(same as conscripts), and a high accuracy because of the disadvantages of a four-man squad.
    And Wehr also has good support weapon team for early game(ex: 0 tier mg42, 81mm mortar). 4-man squad penalty is just concept of this faction. Think brits. They also has 4 man squad in basic, but they didn't have snare skills and high cost basic infantry (280 manpower).
    If grens have a 5-man squad upgrade, need to adjust all of this stats again.

    One surprising fact is that the evasion rate of the 240 manpower grenades is higher than the airborne of 380 manpower + commander in all vet sections.
  • #184
    1 year ago
    DarjeelingMK7Darjeelin… Posts: 244
    edited April 2018
    > @Sander93 said:
    > @DarjeelingMK7 said:

    > The game really does not need yet another cheesy clown car. The armor nerf is nice because it gives infantry actually a fair chance to damage it. Cost nerf might be a bit over the top tho.

    I think the infantry alway have fair chance to damage an UC with fauzt and it still very fragile again MG.
    Focus fire from 2 os more squad deal damage to UC, too. So i dont think armour neft is good because it will die even faster.

    Also, UKF will lose their 125% rate cap, so make uc capable will help alot and fit its new price.

    About chessy clown car, i agree with you.
  • #185
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    edited April 2018
    > @Hingie said:
    > Mr Smith also said that Grenadiers are the Gold standart of Infantry Squads

    "Alright guys, THIS is what balance looks like! Right here. Clear advantages and disadvantages right here. We need a mainline for the new faction any ideas?"

    What if we take that gold standard, but instead of making them squishy all the time (people hate that) we make a token upgrade that lets ALL future squads be 25% better? And we cant do bunkers for healing so what if theres like a 1 time super cheap upgrade thats like osts vet one, but instead of casting on a single squad its AOE heal and instead of requiring to be stationary like most other heals, its on the move! And lets also give them the same target size of pamzergrens. Ooooo weapon racks was a cool unique thing for usf, lets do that! But like... Players hated running to base so lets make it so players can do it on the field.

    " i like the way you think. They will be the PLATINUM standard! Like the gold standard, but better in every conceivable way! People will pay for that!... Now how else can we go over the top..."

    What about cheaper reinforcment than the gokd standard

    "But wont they be better than the gold standard?

    Yea but...$$$$$$$. i mean balance. Its balanced. I swear its balanced

    "Hmmm then when the money stops pouring in we can rent the game to some of the mod community so they can make cluster fuck changes that have no rhyme or reason to them including changes the entire community hates just because!"

    I love it!
  • #186
    1 year ago
    TimmehZATimmehZA Posts: 3

    Mostly good changes.

    The one thing that really doesn't make sense to me though is the change to the Hull Down ability.
    Removing the damage output gives even less incentive to use it.

    Right now the major problem with Hull Down is that a stationary tank is too vulnerable to encroaching AT infantry, AT guns or artillary, so it cannot be left stationary for very long.

    Reducing the setup time is a good start, but it won't make using it more desirable if the effects are reduced.

    In my opinion the way to fix that is to rather increase it's defensive bonus towards indirect fire and AT weapons, and maybe provide more sight / weapons range, in addition to keeping it's offensive boost.

    Using this ability so far, I have tried to push the enemy back and then Hull Down a Panzer IV, or Ostwind to defend against infantry, or perhaps a Panther against tanks, but this hasn't really worked for me, since the vehicle will either get rushed by AT infantry, sniped by AT guns, or hammered by heavy artillary, so there is no point to make it immobile for a defensive bonus if it just ends up more vulnerable while not moving without at least a higher damage output.

    That said, it also doesn't help "the usability" of the Hull Down ability that it is combined with commanders that generally aren't very attractive in the first place - mostly due to lack of fire support abilities. An example is the two doctrines with Elefants... why should I get an Elefant that I can Hull Down, when it really needs the sight range of the scopes?

    I think you have to either drastically boost the bonuses gained by using Hull Down, making it a more worthwhile ability - or you should consider collapsing it into another skill, such as the entrenching tools and then use the free'd slots to balance out some of the undesirable commanders.

    On that note it might also be nice to have it available on a commander that can call in a Tiger.

  • #187
    1 year ago
    TimmehZATimmehZA Posts: 3
    edited April 2018

    As for the Mortar changes:

    In my opinion no fix is needed - but if you must change things:

    I don't think accuracy bonus is a good replacement for range bonus, as the player who levels his mortar up quickest will be able to wipe any new mortar squads that contest it.

    Overall I'm unsure what the effects of slowing down the rate of fire will be.
    At first it sounds like it would slow down the indirect fire battle, but on second thought I think players will just build more mortars to achieve a fire density more akin to the pre-patch state.

    So in theory it rather serves to increase the much complained about "mortar spam".

    Perhaps you should make only the rate of fire increase as vet is gained and make vet 0 the new speed and vet3 the old speed - that way you don't get complains about mortar spam early game and you don't need 3 or 4 mortar teams late game to keep up a good fire density.

    Currently I really don't mind the range differences.

    I think the players that complain about this are usually USF players because they are worst off, even though Wehrmacht mortars first need to vet up to be superior, and in the end the game is dominated by Soviet mortars.

    Considering that allied heavy artillary is completely dominating late game, I think Axis should be allowed their current superior early game indirect fire.

  • #188
    1 year ago
    I think ukf suffer the most from mortar and Leig spam. Since motar pit cant stand again 2 wher's mortar or leig and it required alot of force to protect from infantry or light vehicle rush.
  • #189
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    I agree with the mortar fix is bad. Imagine USF mortar now hits at the same range, it will negate all axis mg and bunker. Even for the live game, i have little trouble to move my usf mortar closer to destroy mg nest, you guys are making my job easier

    While soviets have the additional men to survive the shoot out.

    There is a reason for axis mortar to exist and not another community modder 'balance' act.
  • #190
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,586
    edited April 2018

    @mrgame2 said:
    I agree with the mortar fix is bad. Imagine USF mortar now hits at the same range, it will negate all axis mg and bunker. Even for the live game, i have little trouble to move my usf mortar closer to destroy mg nest, you guys are making my job easier

    It already does. Absolutely nothing will change here. Moving it close is not a problem at all in 1v1 and 2v2, where balance actually matters.

    While soviets have the additional men to survive the shoot out.

    1) Mortars are not exactly made to shoot at each other.
    2) You have counter barrage ability, which got longer range then default barrage, maybe its high time to use it now.

    There is a reason for axis mortar to exist and not another community modder 'balance' act.

    Its still going to exist.
    It simply won't have 21st century mortar auto loader anymore, just like the USF mortar won't.
    Turbomortars are biggest culprits in game since forever, I am actually amazed it took so long to nerf them after pit nerf which was op because exact same reasons.

  • #191
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Katitof said:

    Its still going to exist.
    It simply won't have 21st century mortar auto loader anymore, just like the USF mortar won't.
    Turbomortars are biggest culprits in game since forever, I am actually amazed it took so long to nerf them after pit nerf which was op because exact same reasons.

    Turbo mortars are absolutely bullshit and I'm glad they're being nerfed - but isn't the whole "Wehrs mediocre infantry is propped up by its support weapons" kinda counter to homogenizing the mortars?

  • #192
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    @Loren said:
    I disagree about 5-man squad upgrade for Grens. Grenadiers received a high evasion bonus(9% on 0 vet), cheap squad price(same as conscripts), and a high accuracy because of the disadvantages of a four-man squad.
    And Wehr also has good support weapon team for early game(ex: 0 tier mg42, 81mm mortar). 4-man squad penalty is just concept of this faction. Think brits. They also has 4 man squad in basic, but they didn't have snare skills and high cost basic infantry (280 manpower).
    If grens have a 5-man squad upgrade, need to adjust all of this stats again.

    One surprising fact is that the evasion rate of the 240 manpower grenades is higher than the airborne of 380 manpower + commander in all vet sections.

    Yes, and it's somewhat fine the early game. The problem is the late game where they get wiped by pretty much everything, be that artillery or vetted Allied LMG/BAR infantry.

    Hence why I suggest to make it tied to T4.

  • #193
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,586

    @Lazarus said:

    @Katitof said:

    Its still going to exist.
    It simply won't have 21st century mortar auto loader anymore, just like the USF mortar won't.
    Turbomortars are biggest culprits in game since forever, I am actually amazed it took so long to nerf them after pit nerf which was op because exact same reasons.

    Turbo mortars are absolutely bullshit and I'm glad they're being nerfed - but isn't the whole "Wehrs mediocre infantry is propped up by its support weapons" kinda counter to homogenizing the mortars?

    That was the case pre allied infantry nerfs.

    Rifles were nerfed ages ago, recently lost smoke, but still need to be more potent to compensate lack of access to support weapons.

    Tommies are being nerfed this patch.

    Cons always lost to grens despite costing the same.

  • #194
    1 year ago

    Dear developers of CoH 2, please don't reduce allies, they are very weak, especially the ISU-152 is not necessary Merpati her, sappers OKW is very strong early in the game they need to play nervate so very difficult, please take action

  • #195
    1 year ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    @Lazarus said:

    Turbo mortars are absolutely bullshit and I'm glad they're being nerfed - but isn't the whole "Wehrs mediocre infantry is propped up by its support weapons" kinda counter to homogenizing the mortars?

    It is, especially since the design philosophy behind each mortar isn't the issue with them.

  • #196
    1 year ago
    EeereEeere Posts: 18

    What if Command P4 aura kept its 20% but it was a timed ability that cost muni? Could up its sight range to compensate, the commander sticking his head out just to have default vision range is odd and inconsistent with things like the standard Brit vision upgrade and the Tiger Ace.

  • #197
    1 year ago

    @Eeere said:
    What if Command P4 aura kept its 20% but it was a timed ability that cost muni? Could up its sight range to compensate, the commander sticking his head out just to have default vision range is odd and inconsistent with things like the standard Brit vision upgrade and the Tiger Ace.

    Already suggested that.Giving the command tank the weak aura or none at all and supplementing it with an array of interesting support abilities. Could be all manner of artillary call-ins,buffs and enemy nerfs or something like that.

  • #198
    1 year ago

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    Wanna know what I'm tired of? You going into a "allies ______" rant everytime somebody posts something that isn't 100% in favor of Axis. I am not an "ally", nor am I "afraid of axis lights". I am a coh2 player who is talking about the 222 and the M20. The m20 has been overpriced and underused for ages (you'd think people who complain about rifle spam would want alternatives buffed) while the double 222 used to be a very real and serious problem.

    The "armored lights" you're talking about cost more than twice fuel of the 222, and arrive later. I don't know why you're even including them in the conversation.

    A LOT of players are complaining about the 222 buff, making it sound like it's gonna encourage spam again. If it was just u saying that, I'd just address YOUR statement.

  • #199
    1 year ago

    @Katitof said:

    .> @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @thekingsown said:
    I would like to point out that the soviet T70 needs toning down.

    It kills infantry better than an Ostwind for cheaper and comes earlier. Add the increased damage to the sniper and you have an already extremely overpowered unit even stronger.

    T70 is fine. The Ostwind needs a buff (which the balance team fucked up). I just hope this patch fixes the ostwind buff PROPERLY.

    Considering the fact that they have just nerfed Centaur, I wouldn't count on any ostwind buffs outside of AA performance.

    Not asking for one. I just want them to FIX the buff that they implemented because everybody knows its just as useless as before and there is no increase in Ostwind usage from Ost players. So whatever buff the balance team was trying to give the Ostwind clearly failed. Even a small buff, should warrant an increase in usage, but it hasn't increased at all.

  • #200
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > A LOT of players are complaining about the 222 buff, making it sound like it's gonna encourage spam again. If it was just u saying that, I'd just address YOUR statement.

    Dude this is exactly my point. Don't quote me then if you're not talking about my statement. If the first sentence of your post that quotes me is gonna be about what a bunch of other people are saying then leave me out of it. It's annoying as hell
  • #201
    1 year ago
    TimmehZATimmehZA Posts: 3

    I very much agree with the 222 buff.

    Fuel cost will prevent spam, so that is what all the complaints are not taking into account.

    Right now the 222 has one time when it is useful and that is early game to counter sniper and light vehicle spam, after that there is no reason to build one anymore, besides for light anti aircraft support, for which you rather want to build the Ostwind, since you can at least use that to some effect against infantry.

    The Ostwind is in a nice place right now, although some light suppression would be a great addition.
    I know there is a bulletin for a little supression on it's mg, but that is never worth the slot.

  • #202
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Katitof said:

    @Lazarus said:

    @Katitof said:

    Its still going to exist.
    It simply won't have 21st century mortar auto loader anymore, just like the USF mortar won't.
    Turbomortars are biggest culprits in game since forever, I am actually amazed it took so long to nerf them after pit nerf which was op because exact same reasons.

    Turbo mortars are absolutely bullshit and I'm glad they're being nerfed - but isn't the whole "Wehrs mediocre infantry is propped up by its support weapons" kinda counter to homogenizing the mortars?

    That was the case pre allied infantry nerfs.

    Rifles were nerfed ages ago, recently lost smoke, but still need to be more potent to compensate lack of access to support weapons.

    Tommies are being nerfed this patch.

    Cons always lost to grens despite costing the same.

    Tommies aren't being nerfed, their vet scaling has been shifted so the power spike is at vet 3 instead of 2. Cons were buffed and Rifles were nerfed when they were OP and put in a place where they performed reasonably against Grens for cost (double BARs aside) - by now weakening Wehrs mortar AND strengthening USFs mortar, I don't see who could - while maintaining an unbiased opinion, argue that this doesn't tip the favor against Wehrs early game even harder, especially against the USF.

    So I guess what I'm saying is we're still waiting on those Allied infantry nerfs you mentioned.

  • #203
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    I'm worried about T-70 spam. And Stuart spam.

    Oh wait. Doing that would slow your tank production. 222 spam is as likely to happen as the above two.

    Moving on.

  • #204
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    > @Farlion said:
    > I'm worried about T-70 spam. And Stuart spam.
    >
    > Oh wait. Doing that would slow your tank production. 222 spam is as likely to happen as the above two.
    >
    > Moving on.

    Lets play a game called "which is larger?"
    Ok 1 or 2
    2 or 4
    5 or 10
    30 or 60
    30 or 70
    For the same delay as 2 t70s the ost player COULD (not saying they would) have almost 5 222s for 3 t70s the ost player COULD build 7 222s

    With it becoming bullet proof the counters will be the same.

    And those 7 222s would cost 350mp less than they would now to boot.
  • #205
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    You're ignoring that the 222 is nowhere near as effective as the above mentioned vehicles. A single sapper unit with PIATs will hardcounter a 222. Ditto REs with zooks. Nevermind Penals and Guards with PTSRs.

    Besides of which, as mentioned above, the fuel required for that 222 spam will absolutely cripple a WM player longterm for a laughable short gain. The 222's window is a lot shorter than that of a T-70 or a Stuart.

  • #206
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    The keyword there though is that they will counter A 222. It's a matter of massed volume of fire spiking focusing down individual squads from multiple 222s that will become a problem - because being a vehicle even if the 222s are chased off you will inflict bleed on the enemy and suffer none yourself.

    The other issue is not so much 222s vs infantry, but rather 222s being too cost effective at fighting light vehicles for what you pay (for a wolf pack of them).

  • #207
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    Will there be a preview tuning pack released for this balance update? So we can test it out...

  • #208
    1 year ago
    @Katitof Ok, but why not only remove the reload buff for Ostwind? Still now every vehicle has its own bonus system in hull-down. Especially the nerfed StuG would benefit from the reload-buff in hull-down.
  • #209
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,773
    > @Farlion said:
    > You're ignoring that the 222 is nowhere near as effective as the above mentioned vehicles. A single sapper unit with PIATs will hardcounter a 222. Ditto REs with zooks. Nevermind Penals and Guards with PTSRs.
    >
    > Besides of which, as mentioned above, the fuel required for that 222 spam will absolutely cripple a WM player longterm for a laughable short gain. The 222's window is a lot shorter than that of a T-70 or a Stuart.

    YOU arw ignoring that now a 222 will FORCE proper AT.
    And building a pair of 222s sets back your armour less than a a single t70 and is actually a threat to the t70 to boot. Fuck, UNLOCKING proper AT will be more expensive than the 222 for 2/3 allied factions. You are underestimating the pressure a bulletproof 222 can put on. Bulletproof means you can park ontop of infantry that doesnt have AT and not take a lick of damage. Thats HUGE. The 50mp reduction is however unnecessary
  • #210
    1 year ago
    > YOU arw ignoring that now a 222 will FORCE proper AT.
    > And building a pair of 222s sets back your armour less than a a single t70 and is actually a threat to the t70 to boot. Fuck, UNLOCKING proper AT will be more expensive than the 222 for 2/3 allied factions. You are underestimating the pressure a bulletproof 222 can put on. Bulletproof means you can park ontop of infantry that doesnt have AT and not take a lick of damage. Thats HUGE. The 50mp reduction is however unnecessary

    I agree with this. Weapons rack unlock is 150mp/15fu. A pair of PIAT is 100mu or A 6pdr is 350mp. All is expensive in the early game. And a pair of 222 will be terrible.
  • #211
    1 year ago
    And UKF doesn't have snair.
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.