[SOV] [3v3-4v4] Late game scaling/viability

#1
2 years ago
JLXJLX Ottawa, CanadaPosts: 28

@Mr_Smith said:
If you want to discuss about Soviet viability in 3v3/4v4 (pre- or post-)WBP, please make a separate thread, and I'll join that thread to enumerate the reasons why Soviet late-game feels so lacklustre in those modes.

Until then, I'll have to stick to my principles and not derail the thread :)

Thread started :-)

SOV are strong in in short 1v1 but perform poorly in longer team games. This is more than just a feeling and data to support this can been seen on CoHCharts.

I've very concerned about 1.9 WBP Penals as I feel they make the situation worse.

  • While every faction's stock infantry can upgrade to both Assault Rifles and LMGs, SOV have zero AI stock upgrades.
  • SOV don't have an assault rifle (I saw the flamethrower as a clever substitute)

With this in mind, I think that with the WBP Penals need their upgrade delayed rather than nerfed. The complete removal of the (AI) upgrade seems overkill and also implies that only short games are being considered for balance which is problematic for those of us who regularly play long team games.

My suggestion in order to keep SOV infantry viable into the late game but is to:

  • Delay by locking Flamethrower behind Molitov (as an earlier version of WBP did but add SVT-38 instead of PPSh)
  • Give Penals the Molitov they would now require (some may feel it's sufficient and not continue with the flame upgrade?)
  • Decrease Molitov throw time
  • Replace SVT-40 on flame upgraded squads with SVT-38 (see below)
  • Remove AT satchel completely and keep live version only.

SVT-38

SVT-38 would basically be identical to SVT-40 with their long range significantly reduced. The idea being that when upgrading to the flamethrower, they lose their all-range flexibility - concentrating their damage output on the mid range.

This opens a spot for long range Guards late game and also doesn't clash with short-range fire-on-the-move Shocks.

The SVT-38 would not require any new art assets but just be mentioned in the flavour text to avoid having single weapons have multiple profiles depending on who picks them up (this is terrible! Especially for newbies).

The lock behind Molitov take significant fuel which delays the very vital T3 making it a meaningful choice. Delaying T3 for only Molitov on Cons is a no brainer - don't do it! But with a useful upgrade attached to it? That's not so obvious.

PTRS

As for the thorny issue of PTRS, I'm not going to add too much here other than to reiterate what I've mentioned earlier: All factions, SOV included, need the basic tools (AI and AT inf upgrades) in their stock lineup. That said, I don't like Penals being the go-to squad for everything and think Cons upgrading to PTRS makes much more sense.

However, as that is currently out of scope, I'd consider leaving the PTRS out completely until a patch in which Cons can be considered to. They two units need to work in complement/synergy with one another and trying achieve synergy when you can only balance half of the equation is problematic. Yes, that would mean that diversity by removing reliance on Guards for PTRS would also be delayed. But, that may be preferable than rushing a change that may not be the best long term solution.

If there is no intention of giving Cons PTRS at any point, then yes, give a either-or PTRS/Flame upgrade to Penals as I do believe the faction needs them. But this would not be my first choice.

As always, just my $0.02

Comments

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

    The idea that Soviet need stock AI upgrades because other factions have them holds little water. The Penal SVT is one of best weapons, available in it's time frame to begin with and receives some of the highest bonuses via ability and veterancy.

    Flamers are bad in large squads.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Mr_Smith Can I just point out that alongside your four points, resource inflation does put SOV at the largest disadvantage out of all the factions, Axis tanks in general are of a similar mp cost, but pay a premium in fuel for their higher level of performance when compared to their Allied, or more the to the point SOV counterparts. The best example being the t-34 compared to the OST P4, very similar mp cost, but nearly a third more in fuel overall.

    The overabundance of mainly fuel (but also muni, which ties in to your point about the potency of dive bombs and CAS, as both are routinely used several times a game), without any changes to the MP incomes and upkeep means that SOV is usually finds itself facing equal numbers of axis tanks whilst trying to weather so much extra offmap fire, the resulting bleed hamstrings them all game, usually leading to a loss.

    Lastly, their lack of deployable smoke also means fighting against the likes of the "wunderwaffe" units eg. super-heavies is significantly more difficult, the massive amount of options that both the UKF and USF puts the head and shoulders over the SOV when it comes to large scale engagements. Certain maps including lanes in team-games (Port of hamburg, Red ball etc.) are nearly impossible for SOV to fight in as they lack any cover from the heavy td fire and arty.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    BigBearBigBear Posts: 94

    Maybe we can give the Soviet the ability to use any building as the command HQ, like in Urban warfare commander. This can be used as a forward retreat point unique from the other factions, but the downside is it's effectiveness varies a lot on the map played.

  • #7
    2 years ago
    JLXJLX Ottawa, CanadaPosts: 28

    @Mr_Smith, as you've clearly pointed out, Soviets don't have an equivalent to cheap (popcap-wise) late game heavy hitters and must rely on combined arms, putting them "out of the equation" in the later stages.

    However, I disagree with your comment that Penals would not be able to address any of these "real issues".

    Regardless of the cause, late game Soviets have trouble keeping pace and Penals, as core combat infantry, have an important role to play. Of course they can't solve all the issues but they certainly can and should contribute to a solution.

    The PTRS "downgrade" that trades 1/3 of their fighting strength for an early game AT deterrent simply ensures that they aren't viable late game. If PTRS are desired, Guards are still a MUCH better option. In which case, the net result is that Penals just had their AI upgrade removed, vet bonuses (RA/Oorah) reduced/removed and popcap increased. Considering that scaling is a problem, that's counterproductive.

    Long games will require Elite infantry more than ever and commander diversity is unlikely to benefit from these changes much either.

    So, despite "overwhelming votes", I'm still struggling to understand how these changes help overall balance, other than for shorter 1v1 games where scaling isn't an issue. Community feedback is a good and insightful tool. But, without firm curation, it can also lead to knee-jerk reactions and squeaky-wheel outcomes which aren't always the best long term solutions.

    Maxim over-nerfs made T2 unappealing. I believe Penal over-nerfs make T1 unappealing. Conscripts are also currently unappealing. Missing upgrades that other factions benefit from exacerbate the issue and leave Soviet infantry in a very awkward/inflexible place at the moment.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    @JLX said:
    @Mr_Smith, as you've clearly pointed out, Soviets don't have an equivalent to cheap (popcap-wise) late game heavy hitters and must rely on combined arms, putting them "out of the equation" in the later stages.

    However, I disagree with your comment that Penals would not be able to address any of these "real issues".

    Regardless of the cause, late game Soviets have trouble keeping pace and Penals, as core combat infantry, have an important role to play. Of course they can't solve all the issues but they certainly can and should contribute to a solution.

    The PTRS "downgrade" that trades 1/3 of their fighting strength for an early game AT deterrent simply ensures that they aren't viable late game. If PTRS are desired, Guards are still a MUCH better option. In which case, the net result is that Penals just had their AI upgrade removed, vet bonuses (RA/Oorah) reduced/removed and popcap increased. Considering that scaling is a problem, that's counterproductive.

    Long games will require Elite infantry more than ever and commander diversity is unlikely to benefit from these changes much either.

    So, despite "overwhelming votes", I'm still struggling to understand how these changes help overall balance, other than for shorter 1v1 games where scaling isn't an issue. Community feedback is a good and insightful tool. But, without firm curation, it can also lead to knee-jerk reactions and squeaky-wheel outcomes which aren't always the best long term solutions.

    Maxim over-nerfs made T2 unappealing. I believe Penal over-nerfs make T1 unappealing. Conscripts are also currently unappealing. Missing upgrades that other factions benefit from exacerbate the issue and leave Soviet infantry in a very awkward/inflexible place at the moment.

    1) Penal where overperforming especially in combined with Guards and they have to be nerfed.
    2) PTRS upgrade is an option, one does not have to upgrade.
    3) PTRS is not simply a early AT deterrent it can contribute vs even Super heavy tank due to deflection damage and so can the AT satchel especially vs slow Super heavy tank or Tanks with engine damage.
    4) Making Penal an equal or better option than Guards would turn Soviets into USF 2no where although they have great doctrinal infantry most people simply spam riflemen because they can deal with everything adequately.
    5) Penals remain the strongest infantry of its time frame and it would be poor design to have "core combat infantry" that is also "elite" and performs very good at all stages of the game.

    I think (and I might be wrong) that community was given a choice between flamers and PTRS and chose the lesser of two evils.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Vipper summed up the Penal situation well, from the onset of their arrival in live they can bully every single axis non-vehicle unit from the get-go, they then proceed to recieve some of the best veterancy rewards of any infnatry in the game. They end up incredibly durable, excellent at all ranges, can clear buildings effortlessly, can sprint, become nearly impossible to wipe due to their vet1 ability and reach full vet faster than any other unit due to how much raw damage flamethrowers provide.

    In the WBP they are still highly effective but lack the incredibly durability that they have in live, no longer have access to the flamer (something that was removed from the rifle company as flamers on durable units were considered far too op) due to issues with superfast vet and being able to crush anything short of high vet obers in nearly all situations.

    Instead they do have access to an emergency at stopgap in the form of the PTRS, that is available if the enemy gets a strong upperhand and manages to deploy an early enough vehicle when you lack any other at options. Its not a mandatory upgrade, it simply takes the reliance of guards and only acts as something to help stop a player falling to far behind before their own at-guns/light vehicles hit the field. Penals without ptrs are still some of the best AI infantry in the game. Arguments about their performance currently are pointless as they perform as expected against OST and OKW infantry will eventually get changes anyway, so until then its simply a waiting game.

  • #10
    2 years ago

    Penals can be usefull in late 4v4 games but they dont excel in either AI or AT and bleed the axis less then axis will bleed the soviets.

    Yellow cover is every where in 4v4 and no reall way to combat that without the flamer or grenades for that matter. (Didnt the rm get double flamers back then?) Penals being less durable will only increase the manpower drain for soviets in big games.

    Soviet inf cant protect or screen for the at or td wall like other faction can despite having 6 men in a squad.

    Although balance for 1v1 was needed for penals. In big games i agree that the penal nerf will hurt soviets big time. Esp late game will get worse.

  • #11
    2 years ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 275
    edited March 2017

    I dont know if the balance in 4vs4 with decent player is that bad after all. And as in this status where Sov is pointed out as a weak faction in late 3-4 vs game i provided a playback for you where the Soviet dude did the most damage for excample. This was a really tuff fight with 8 high level players. All tought they had the advantage and played as a team as for us it was just random players. Check it out and give some toughts please. (Allied win)

    http://www65.zippyshare.com/v/X241Pjmz/file.html

    I know i just built armor, but lost to them in the prev game just before this one so knew there would be plenty of late axis armor swarming.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    JLXJLX Ottawa, CanadaPosts: 28

    @Vipper said:

    1) Penal where overperforming especially in combined with Guards and they have to be nerfed.

    It is well understood that Penals+Guards are over performing in the early game. I have never suggested otherwise.

    However, the knee-jerk reaction of "too powerful = must nerf" is what I am bringing into question. What I am trying to point out is that while they ARE too powerful in the early game SOV in general AREN'T powerful enough in the late game. I believe a more nuanced solution (I'm suggesting a delay) is more appropriate than a flat nerf.

    The point of this thread was to also include the late game 3v3/4v4 matchups. In this scenario - as is backed by stats - SOV are struggling. All I'm suggesting is that these long games ALSO be taken into consideration when looking for a solution.

    If SOV are too strong early and too weak late, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest delaying an upgrade rather than removing it might be a good idea. A delay (I suggested a long range nerf as well) helps move the power from early, where it is too strong, to late, where it isn't strong enough and ideally help balance things out. A flat nerf will help with the early game issues, but it will make the late game problems worse. I'm hoping to avoid that. Live version Penals+Guards, which are stronger than what I'm proposing here, still show SOV struggling late game.

    2) PTRS upgrade is an option, on does not have to upgrade.

    What is your point here? Of course you don't have to "upgrade". In fact I said that it's so detrimental you shouldn't do it and just stick with a Guards commander if you want PTRS.

    3) PTRS is not simply a early AT deterrent it can contribute vs even Super heavy tank due to deflection damage and so can the AT satchel especially vs slow Super heavy tank or Tanks with engine damage.

    I'm aware of deflection damage. But due to their low overall damage, PTRS are really only effective against light/med vehicles. I know you disagree which is fine. But I'm not going to revisit that again as there are already many pages about this from about post 1021 onwards in the main WBP thread.

    4) Making Penal an equal or better option than Guards would turn Soviets into USF no2 where although they have great doctrinal infantry most people simply spam riflemen because they can deal with everything adequately.

    Once again, what is your point? I never suggested making Penals equal or better than Guards. I suggested keeping them a dedicated AI unit, delaying (rather than removing) their AI upgrade and removing the PTRS (and AT satchel) from the WBP completely until a better solution can be found. I don't understand how your comment is relevant to the points I am making or address late game scaling issues.

    5) Penals remain the strongest infantry of its time frame and it would be poor design to have "core combat infantry" that is also "elite" and performs very good at all stages of the game.

    Once again, this is why I'm suggesting a DELAY. Because it's not only the early game that needs to be taken into consideration IMHO.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    @JLX said:

    I have played 4vs4 games and I usually find that 1 Soviet player in the game can actually be very helpful. On the other hand one must use the Soviet player to provide what the other factions miss and not play them as in 1vs1 spamming Penal and Guards.

    Now Penal in both live and WBP are too strong for their time frame if one wants to have an AI upgrade for them one should also nerf their initial punch. Personally I find that a better solution than the PTRS.

    Do not expect any changes in the next patch thou since it is about finalized.

  • #14
    2 years ago
    Make_love_not_warMake_love… Posts: 166
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    Now Penal in both live and WBP are too strong **for their time frame **

    As you said it yourself: for their time frame. Lets skip this Penal discussion please, it contributes nothing. Penal may have a good early and mid game and thats it. Buffing them contributes not very much to 3v3/4vs4 lategame performance but boost 1vs1 winratio of soviets. So lets stop this never ending debate about Penals and don't let turn every single thread in a Penal only discussion. Relic failed hard by mainly concentrating on Penals in WBP instead of changing the way soviets work as they did with OKW.

    The true problems are alot bigger and harder to solve as Mr_Smith posted (#3). With the addition of Farra13 (#4) and thedarkarmadillo (#5) its a true summary of real soviet problems in 3v3/4vs4.

    Soviet would need either a Wunderwaffe or an elite infantry that doesn't bleed as much as all other soviet units in lategame. Look at USF, their lategame performance got boosted alot with the introduction of two new commanders having Calliope and Pershing, it is that easy and yes it is that boring. But at least the op bs is balanced that way. Soviet had their Wunderwaffe with that squad eating ISU-152 before it got nerfed to the ground. Don't get me wrong ISU-152 was op indeed, but it was wrong to nerf the Wunderwaffe of one faction alone.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    Make_love_not_warMake_love… Posts: 166
    edited March 2017

    @mrdjjag81 said:
    I dont know if the balance in 4vs4 with decent player is that bad after all. And as in this status where Sov is pointed out as a weak faction in late 3-4 vs game i provided a playback for you where the Soviet dude did the most damage for excample.

    You can go to http://coh2chart.com/ yourself and see that it is at its worst with decent players. 4vs4 Top 250 players has the worst soviet performance in comparison to the other four factions. Even if soviet would loose 99% of their games (and they do not of course) there would always a game were a player had a very strong performance with that faction (RNG and particular great decision in that game). I personally have games were everything goes wrong from the first moment and then I have games were all feels like a piece of cake with the same faction.

    The charts hide one fact: If for example soviet performance in top 250 4vs4 is 8% below all other factions they are even worse than this 8% less victories on their own. Sounds weird? Let me explain. Soviets profit of the performance of USF and UKF in 3vs3/4vs4. If there would be same ratio of UKF, USF and Soviets in every game all three factions would have the same win ratio and thus have the same chart. Soviets beeing worse means that the more Soviets are in the allied team the more likely the team will loose. This is especially easy to understand if we talk about 3vs3. One soviet, one USF and one UKF in one game add the same shared win/loose to every of the three faction charts. Two soviets with one UKF or USF, or three soviets in one game have to loose more than 8% more often to even out this shared win/loose pool of all three factions and come down to 8% less victories counted all their games together. I hope I got this one clear.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    I am not the one bringing Penals in this thread, I am simply responding to author of OP who says:

    "Regardless of the cause, late game Soviets have trouble keeping pace and Penals, as core combat infantry, have an important role to play. Of course they can't solve all the issues but they certainly can and should contribute to a solution."

  • #17
    2 years ago
    JLXJLX Ottawa, CanadaPosts: 28

    @Vipper said: Do not expect any changes in the next patch thou since it is about finalized.

    I was hopeful that my earlier comments may have prompted a reconsideration of 1.9 but at this point it seems quite clear that that they are sticking to their guns (pun intended ;-) With luck, my feedback will still contribute towards the balance process moving forward nonetheless.

    Not that it matters for anyone other than myself, but as @TheLeveler83 mentioned in another post, I will likely shy away from playing SOV in team games which is unfortunate because I find the faction suits my play style the best.

    I like that the Soviets are aggressive, mobile and scrappy. They have character. Flame on Penals instead of assault rifles; the PTRS role mashup of a recoilless and sniper rifle... Things like this make the faction unique and fun to play. I'd still like to see Penals with a Molitov for flavour if nothing else.

    Even lacking late game wunderwaffe as @Mr_Smith pointed out, the necessity for combined arms is fun in it's own right. SOV are supposed to peak mid-game and I'd like to see them retain that (slight!) advantage. That's part of the ebb and flow of faction design. The wonderful sense of urgency as you aggressively push forward knowing that when the big cats hit the field, the wind will no longer be at your back.

    But, for all the Soviets could be, they are awkward and frustrating to play at the moment. While innovative and scrappy play may be encouraged, the lack of basic functionality/upgrades in the stock units necessitates a small subset of commanders to fill the gap resulting in very limited meta options which can get dull. For a faction that should thrive on combined arms and variety, this is antithetical. Add severe manpower bleed and a weak late game and they lose their appeal.

  • #18
    2 years ago

    @Vipper said:
    I am not the one bringing Penals in this thread, I am simply responding to author of OP who says:

    I didn't blame you to be the one. I just qouted you, because you were the last post above mine speaking about Penals.

    "Regardless of the cause, late game Soviets have trouble keeping pace and Penals, as core combat infantry, have an important role to play. Of course they can't solve all the issues but they certainly can and should contribute to a solution."

    Cons should be the most used soviet core infantry, they should rather have adressed their problems of scaling. But as you said yourself Penals are good in their time frame, so no need to buff them further and thus no need to talk about them further. There are enough soviet units that would deserve a little love with the goal to buff soviets lategame-wise.

    Either bring in some lategame upgrades or buff some lategame units to strengthen soviet 3vs3/4vs4 performance without screwing 1vs1 games. Possible lategame upgrades could bring in manpower cost/upkeep reductions to reduce bleeding effect. Or you could bring in a timed commander ability that replaces lost tanks with a new T34/76 (similar to US ability in CoH1). Both options would reflect the steamrolling russian bear with its mass production in the late years of the war thematically. Just some thoughts.

  • #19
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    If there are no changes to fuel and muni income in larger games, then I am strongly in agreement that SOV needs upkeep reductions/mp bonus income research. Mainly to compensate for the fact that the two axis factions have access to so many more off-maps and have much easier time matching the SOV vehicle count, despite the additional fuel costs they pay that are offset by inflation.

  • #20
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    Imo it this other way round. The economy in large games should be slowed down a bit to be closer smaller mod. For instance a fuel caches compared in 1vs1 and 4vs4 game is 4 times for efficient. If one was to introduce a penalty the more players in the game there would less differences in modes and would be easier to balance things.

  • #21
    2 years ago

    @Vipper said:
    Imo it this other way round. The economy in large games should be slowed down a bit to be closer smaller mod. For instance a fuel caches compared in 1vs1 and 4vs4 game is 4 times for efficient. If one was to introduce a penalty the more players in the game there would less differences in modes and would be easier to balance things.

    Absolutely agree. As a bonus call-ins would stay in the same relation to tech. Atm all call-ins in 3vs3/4vs4 come way later in comparison to comparable tech units. I always wondered why they never gave it a try to balance big game modes.

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.