Spring Update Balance Discussion

1568101116

Comments

  • #212
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21
    edited April 2018

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > @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

    I can't imagine what that must be like, being forced to get an early AT. Oh wait, I can. It's like, you know, when you play OKW and a brit sends a Universal Carrier or a soviet a clown car, forcing you to get a raketen in the early stages of the game. Or WM when a AEC hits the field. My sympathies that Allies will have to face the same conditions that Axis had to for the last god knows how long.

    And your math is way off.
    T1 Building, 10 Fuel, Tech, 40 Fuel, T2 Building, 20 Fuel. A 222 costs 30 fuel, bringing the combined cost to 100 fuel.

    Captain is 60 Fuel, after which an ATG is available.
    The British tech takes 30 fuel before an ATG is available.
    Soviets either takes 10, or 20.

    So please, don't tell me that unlocking AT is more expensive than a single 222, nevermind several.

    @Lazarus said:
    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).

    But again, does that really work? Sure, you get an early advantage but you will absolutely cripple your fuel by doing so. An Allied player's likely response is to simply skip light vehicles and go for tanks. The fuel cost for multiple 222s will slow down your own tank production, and the 222 isn't going to last very long against any sort of armor.

    @DarjeelingMK7 said:
    > 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.

    Like having to spend 270 MP on an incredibly early Raketen like OKW? Oh, the horror.

  • #213
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Farlion said:

    But again, does that really work? Sure, you get an early advantage but you will absolutely cripple your fuel by doing so. An Allied player's likely response is to simply skip light vehicles and go for tanks. The fuel cost for multiple 222s will slow down your own tank production, and the 222 isn't going to last very long against any sort of armor.

    Like most bullrush strategies it can most definitely work, as long as you follow up on the agression. That is where most players get it wrong, you can't be passive with so much of your resources tied up in an agressive build.

    Denying your opponents fuel is crucial, so you either focus their fuel point or camp their cuttoff and proceed to bleed them out when they try to retake either.

    Back when 666 was a common tactic, I found that most allied players would indeed skip lights and go straight for a fast cromwell, t-34 etc. In that situation a teller mine and an at gun overwatching it work great with the 222's as bait, 9/10 they chase, hit that mine and proceed to lose their newly aquired tank only moments after its hit the field.

    Note that I personally do not want to see the return of the 666 strat, it was very cheesey at the time, but it was one of the only viable counters back when stuart and t70 were the core meta.

  • #214
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587
    edited April 2018

    @Lazarus said:

    @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.

    Tell me, what do you believe a nerf of Brens do to tommies DPS?
    I'll tell you instead: It will lower it.
    You know how else is that called?
    A lowering of stats?
    A nerf.
    Increase of the cost of unlocks for 5th men and weapons?
    A nerf.
    Removal of capture speed?
    A nerf.

    And USF mortar is NOT being buffed, why the hell do you think so? It had equally overpowered reload speed as ost mortar and that speed is being removed. Additional range is not a buff, its an adjustment, so USF mortar would not get a cost reduction to 180 mp compared to ost mortar.

    Plus smoke was removed already, use your HMGs, use your sniper.
    Grens were NEVER meant to stand up to rifles and win without support and turbomortar is not the only support weapon wehr has.

    You not being able to properly utilize tools you have does not warrant any further nerfs. HMG got no problems now that rifle smoke is gone and USF never could counter sniper effectively. Why are you not using these?

    @Widerstreit said:
    @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.

    Don't direct that question at me, ask the modders.
    And come on, StuG is probably the last vehicle anyone would want to hull down, remember also that Panther will now shoot FASTER then P4, it would be indestructible in hull down vs any other vehicle in game.

  • #215
    1 year ago
    @Katitof Ecspecial StuG is/was famous in hull-down in cities and some strategic locations because of the high fire rate. Same for Brummbär or Elefant. The change destroys the hole ability. The defense-bonus never was a changer in my experiences.

    Last Patch I worked for Mr. Smith to eliminate bugs and other small things. I had the project to implement a visual indicator for the fire radius for vehicles in hull-down like PaKs have. But it was canceled, I don't know why, because it was more than usefull, it made hull-down practical. Maybe they will implement now, but I am not in contact with Mr.Smith anymore.
  • #216
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @Widerstreit said:
    @Katitof Ecspecial StuG is/was famous in hull-down in cities and some strategic locations because of the high fire rate. Same for Brummbär or Elefant. The change destroys the hole ability. The defense-bonus never was a changer in my experiences.

    Last Patch I worked for Mr. Smith to eliminate bugs and other small things. I had the project to implement a visual indicator for the fire radius for vehicles in hull-down like PaKs have. But it was canceled, I don't know why, because it was more than usefull, it made hull-down practical. Maybe they will implement now, but I am not in contact with Mr.Smith anymore.

    And soviets were famous for having more PPSH guns then people to give it to.

    Soviet armor was also pretty known for hulling down their tanks all the damn time, especially in early war when they were on defensive(and the period CoH2 soviets are), yet there is no ability for them at all.

    The game is not exactly historically accurate, being arcade RTS you know.

  • #218
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @Lazarus said:

    @Katitof said:

    Tell me, what do you believe a nerf of Brens do to tommies DPS?

    Tell me - are Brens Tommies or are Brens Brens? Because you should probably say "Brens are being nerfed" when you're talking about Brens being nerfed and how it impacts Tommies.

    And which unit in UKF roster is most cried about when using that weapon?
    Sorry, but you can't dismiss bren nerf as not tommies nerf, because this nerf is SPECIFICALLY because of tommies, not REs, not commandos - tommies.

    @Katitof said:

    Increase of the cost of unlocks for 5th men and weapons?

    lolno. They tacked a tiny bit of fuel on it (which whatever, UKF has the cheapest tech tree anyway so what's a couple of extra drops) and reduced the manpower - which UKF already was pretty good at maintaining but now will easily be able to float.

    That "tiny bit of fuel" is additional minute without a tank.
    UKF also have both, most expensive and mandatory side upgrades-you can't skip them until late game without gimping your mid game.

    @Katitof said:

    Removal of capture speed?
    A nerf.

    I call it padding a list.

    Does not change the fact that its a nerf.

    @Katitof said:

    And USF mortar is NOT being buffed,.... Additional range is not a buff, its an adjustment

    HAHAHAHAHA! OH MY GOD! That fucking backflip was phenomenal - apply for cirque de solei my man, that you could follow your little Tommy rant with this - it's like you're a parody of yourself.

    "Hey look, I have pulled a line out of context, ignoring remainder of the sentence, because it did not fit my view point and will jerk over it now".
    This is you right now.

    @Katitof said:

    Plus smoke was removed already, use your HMGs, use your sniper.

    (psst - the mortar just got buffed so using HMGs now is going to be less viable).

    (psst - it was not buffed, it no longer fires like a machine gun - a nerf coupled with a buff of equal value translate to adjustment, not a buff and you repeating it 100 times will not change that fact - conveniently ignoring facts that do not suit you will not make these facts disappear)

    @Katitof said:

    Grens were NEVER meant to stand up to rifles and win without support and turbomortar is not the only support weapon wehr has.

    Never said they were supposed to, never said it was. It's OPness was the only crutch keeping Wehrs early game competitive though.

    Not a singular unit was ever a crutch of ost early game if we ignore march deployment patch.
    It was always about the combination of the units - THAT is the crutch. If you will not use combined arms, you should play soviets, OKW or USF for simple early game BOs.

    @Katitof said:

    You not being able to properly utilize tools you have does not warrant any further nerfs. HMG got no problems now that rifle smoke is gone and USF never could counter sniper effectively. Why are you not using these?

    Throws a jab but it misses his opponent. Katitofs really gonna need to step up his game if he wants to start scoring some points in this bout, back to you in the studio Cotton.

    I haven't threw anything yet.
    Its still you, chasing your own tail while I just stand there, face palming.

  • #219
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited April 2018
    @Katitof The option to implement soviet hull-down was an option last patch to, for KV1. It was also dropped.

    But beside, i am no fan of removing the offense-bonus for every vehicle in hull-down. Especially for StuG and Brummbär it should stay.

    Edit: Also without a bug-fix for hull-down nothing will really change. It happens nearly every 4th time. I don't know if there is a real solution to fix it, I think the problem is deeper (like Uhu-bug). So it has to become an ability used by the tank by its own.
  • #220
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,779
    Hulldown deployed by the tanks could work as long as a debuff is applied to casting and decasting (like kv-2) and if it would provide more use then i would be onboard
  • #221
    1 year ago
    @thedarkarmadillo I think, that would be no problem. Everything is better than the situation we have now. I will make a small mod for that, its time to activate the tools again. xD
  • #222
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,980

    @Katitof said:
    "Hey look, I have pulled a line out of context, ignoring remainder of the sentence, because it did not fit my view point and will jerk over it now".
    This is you right now.

    This is you all the time, so you know, business as usual.

    @Lazarus You should take care. Its seems that while staring into that abyss of a... "Man", the abyss has started looking back into you.

    An idea I had was that, since Grenadiers are cra... the Gold Standard of infantry squads, designed to work with the MG 42, why not buff the MG 42? 5th man, more damage, something like that. Make it the absolute centrepiece, give the Grenadiers some ability to make it easier to secure its flank. Or give the MG 42 a timed ability to slowly move while staying deployed. Go all out on it. It certainly is starting to become a more worthwhile unit that the rest of Wehrs roster combined.

  • #223
    1 year ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 685
    edited April 2018
    > @Hingie said:
    > An idea I had was that, since Grenadiers are cra... the Gold Standard of infantry squads, designed to work with the MG 42, why not buff the MG 42? 5th man, more damage, something like that. Make it the absolute centrepiece, give the Grenadiers some ability to make it easier to secure its flank. Or give the MG 42 a timed ability to slowly move while staying deployed. Go all out on it. It certainly is starting to become a more worthwhile unit that the rest of Wehrs roster combined.

    This got me thinking as well. The mg42 is not bad at all, its the best mg in the game imo.
    So i would not buff it or the grens specificly. Both their base stats are fine imo.

    I would buff their synergy. At vet 1 or 2 i would give the mg42 a smaller passive or bigger active timed ability to buff only grenadiers in its radius. Simaler to radio net or the relation tommies have with cover.

    The buff would be rof or recc acc, or a bit off both.

    Thoughts?
  • #224
    1 year ago

    So when is everyone able to test this patch out? It's pretty funny that I triggered so many allied players by telling the truth about their laughable fears about the return of the 222 monsters. Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights. And pios have the worst repair speeds (engis have con repair, rep stations, self repair to help out doctrinally.) So getting the already overburdened pios to repair a vehicle that still will have poor survivability in the mid and late game is quite taxing on Ostheer. People rarely think about repair logistics when assessing vehicles.

  • #225
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights.

    Yet you neglect to mention the fuel cost of the lights you're comparing it to. You say 30 fuel is a lot and prevents double SC, yet you have no problem comparing its performance to vehicles that cost 2x as much fuel and arrive later.

    You are really making this a bigger deal than it is. People are saying that the armor buffs is enough and that maybe it's mp cost doesn't need to be decreased. You're acting like they want it nerfed for christs sake, calm down.
  • #226
    1 year ago
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > So when is everyone able to test this patch out? It's pretty funny that I triggered so many allied players by telling the truth about their laughable fears about the return of the 222 monsters. Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights. And pios have the worst repair speeds (engis have con repair, rep stations, self repair to help out doctrinally.) So getting the already overburdened pios to repair a vehicle that still will have poor survivability in the mid and late game is quite taxing on Ostheer. People rarely think about repair logistics when assessing vehicles.

    Until it is proven those fears will be subjective, just as your truth is. We just dont know until it is actualy tested. I would rather they just start with the 2 buffs. and then see if the price reduction is neccesary. We all know that triple buffs and nerfs mess up more then they intend to fix.

    The allied lights can also disappear in the blink of an eye, they also cost more fuel and manpower. It is not something that only ostheer faces. You know this to be true.
    The 222 is not meant to survive every game to the late game. Allied lights also have to face that fact.

    You are right about people not taking repair time into concideration when looking at the vehicle preformance. And as you say soviets have doctrinal assistance in this regard. But ost has more ways to straight up avoid damage. with panzer tactician/smoke screen drops/armour and hp with vet. Ost also has more options for healing reinforcing unlike soviets.
  • #227
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    So when is everyone able to test this patch out? It's pretty funny that I triggered so many allied players by telling the truth about their laughable fears about the return of the 222 monsters. Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights.

    Keep in mind that they are becoming bulletproof, that's a pretty huge buff in terms of survivability. In the hands of a half decent player, a well microed 666 group that's immune to small arms fire is a scary concept.

    I'm not saying its unfair that they will have the shock factor that other factions light vehicles have always had with requiring actual at weapons to handle, but at that price and with that timing, it could become an issue.

    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

  • #228
    1 year ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 49

    @Farra13 said:
    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

    So what? That works exactly the same for clown cars, M20's and UC's.

  • #229
    1 year ago
    GlitshyGlitshy Posts: 22
    edited April 2018

    I know this has been asked before, but what exactly is the point of this patch? There are so many nerfs, and a decent amount of these are for units which either aren't overly good to begin with or niche and difficult to use to begin with.
    I'd love to live the day the Sturmtiger and AVRE were actually viable options. Sturmtiger can't one shot mediums since last patch anyways and it's incredibly easy to dodge anyways. Same goes for AVRE. They're not even particularly good at blob wiping either. Also B4 is still trash. And why cut the suppression of the Flak HT in half? That thing was hard to keep alive due to AT guns and isn't cheap, why not at least let it be good at pinning?

  • #230
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,779
    @hingie my suggestion was that since grens are supposed to work closely with the mg42 why not reduce the damage reduction the mg42 creates for grens? Even as a vet 1 or something. Because atm a gren and an mg42 works at holding the enemy but less so at bleeding them yet they are supposed to work hand in hand...
  • #231
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    @Glitshy said:
    I know this has been asked before, but what exactly is the point of this patch? There are so many nerfs, and a decent amount of these are for units which either aren't overly good to begin with or niche and difficult to use to begin with.
    I'd love to live the day the Sturmtiger and AVRE were actually viable options. Sturmtiger can't one shot mediums since last patch anyways and it's incredibly easy to dodge anyways. Same goes for AVRE. They're not even particularly good at blob wiping either. Also B4 is still trash. And why cut the suppression of the Flak HT in half? That thing was hard to keep alive due to AT guns and isn't cheap, why not at least let it be good at pinning?

    Yeah, god knows why they're bringing down the Soviets from their god tier. No clue why they're nerfing the virtually invincible snipers, or the wunderwaffe that is the IL-2. No idea whatsoever what the point is.

  • #232
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,779
    > @Farlion said:
    > @Glitshy said:
    > I know this has been asked before, but what exactly is the point of this patch? There are so many nerfs, and a decent amount of these are for units which either aren't overly good to begin with or niche and difficult to use to begin with.
    > I'd love to live the day the Sturmtiger and AVRE were actually viable options. Sturmtiger can't one shot mediums since last patch anyways and it's incredibly easy to dodge anyways. Same goes for AVRE. They're not even particularly good at blob wiping either. Also B4 is still trash. And why cut the suppression of the Flak HT in half? That thing was hard to keep alive due to AT guns and isn't cheap, why not at least let it be good at pinning?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Yeah, god knows why they're bringing down the Soviets from their god tier. No clue why they're nerfing the virtually invincible snipers, or the wunderwaffe that is the IL-2. No idea whatsoever what the point is.

    Notice he didnt mentiom those clearly over performing things?
  • #233
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21
    edited April 2018

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > @Farlion said:
    > @Glitshy said:
    > I know this has been asked before, but what exactly is the point of this patch? There are so many nerfs, and a decent amount of these are for units which either aren't overly good to begin with or niche and difficult to use to begin with.
    > I'd love to live the day the Sturmtiger and AVRE were actually viable options. Sturmtiger can't one shot mediums since last patch anyways and it's incredibly easy to dodge anyways. Same goes for AVRE. They're not even particularly good at blob wiping either. Also B4 is still trash. And why cut the suppression of the Flak HT in half? That thing was hard to keep alive due to AT guns and isn't cheap, why not at least let it be good at pinning?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Yeah, god knows why they're bringing down the Soviets from their god tier. No clue why they're nerfing the virtually invincible snipers, or the wunderwaffe that is the IL-2. No idea whatsoever what the point is.

    Notice he didnt mentiom those clearly over performing things?

    Notice the question.

    "I know this has been asked before, but what exactly is the point of this patch?"

    I pointed out what the purpose of the patch is. To fix the balance of several broken things that are in desperate need of patching.

  • #234
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,779
    If the point was to nerf overperforming units the ones he listed shouldnt be on the list.
    Why is the B4 shit cannon getting moved to a JUST revamped commander broken? How is it possible for the katy barrage to be broken when it lacks the durability of brit and usf "area denial" rockets and the alpha strike of axis ones? Is 5 fuel going to the defining change that suddenly makes a 1 time uograde to improve 2 infantry types by 25% from broke to balanced? This patch is a cluster fuck and the point of it seems to be to spew out as many changes in all manner of direction. Its not to fix broken things, it may adress some, but its not its purpose. Its going to toss the game into an unknown direction. Things like price reduction ANA making the 222 bullerproof while also making the panther MORE expensive and more likely to take damage are not coherent choices with a clear direction.
  • #235
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    Respectfully disagree.

    If you think the Panzerwerfer is even remotely on the level of a Katyusha, then I don't know what to tell you. It's a complete joke, nevermind the fact it takes the completely unattractive T4 in order to get it.

    If you think changes to the snipers, mortars and the god like stuff of the Soviets are not needed, I can't help you.

    Are there areas that are questionable? Yeah.

    The Panther changes don't make a lot of sense. The Brummbär nerf is completely unnecessary. The AVRE/Sturmtiger nerfs are suspect. Delaying OKW flame grenades is not a good move.

    Can't comment on the brit MP/Fuel changes without testing.

    All the others changes make sense and will only improve the balance. The 222 in its current form is absolutely useless. Panzergrens desperately needed something to make them more attractive. The OKW Flak HT was over the top, and its suppression needed lowering.

    As I said, some areas need a bit more rough work and are debatable. But to say this patch has no direction or coherence is just utterly false.

  • #236
    1 year ago

    @Farra13 said:

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    So when is everyone able to test this patch out? It's pretty funny that I triggered so many allied players by telling the truth about their laughable fears about the return of the 222 monsters. Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights.

    Keep in mind that they are becoming bulletproof, that's a pretty huge buff in terms of survivability. In the hands of a half decent player, a well microed 666 group that's immune to small arms fire is a scary concept.

    I'm not saying its unfair that they will have the shock factor that other factions light vehicles have always had with requiring actual at weapons to handle, but at that price and with that timing, it could become an issue.

    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

    Show me a single replay where an Ost player sinks 90 fuel into lights. That is unheard of. When 222 was 15 fuel, it was a common to get 3 222 when stuarts are t70 were op. 222s become useless when the first allied medium tank arrives. If Ost gets 3 222, the allied player should get an at gun if he can't get his tank out in decent time. 222s are so easy to kill.

  • #237
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited April 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights.

    Yet you neglect to mention the fuel cost of the lights you're comparing it to. You say 30 fuel is a lot and prevents double SC, yet you have no problem comparing its performance to vehicles that cost 2x as much fuel and arrive later.

    You are really making this a bigger deal than it is. People are saying that the armor buffs is enough and that maybe it's mp cost doesn't need to be decreased. You're acting like they want it nerfed for christs sake, calm down.

    The mp cost should be decreased. 250 for a bullet sponge. While bulletproof luchs, stuart and t70 cost around the same mp, take 2 1/2 at guns shots to kill vs 222 only needs 1 1/2. And the fact that 222 has worse AI than all 3 of these vehicles. Even after the armor buff, it should get mp price decrease. The 222 anti infantry is about on par with AEC. Thats very sad since the AEC is supposed to be a specialist light AT.

    I never said that 30 fuel is too much. I think it's a fair price and will allow Ost to get UP TO 2 222's. You need 2 222's to match the ai performance of one t70. That means you may spend only 60 fuel, but you're spending a whopping 500 mp while a T70 costs half of that.

  • #238
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited April 2018

    @TheLeveler83 said:

    The allied lights can also disappear in the blink of an eye, they also cost more fuel and manpower. It is not something that only ostheer faces. You know this to be true.
    The 222 is not meant to survive every game to the late game. Allied lights also have to face that fact.

    You are right about people not taking repair time into concideration when looking at the vehicle preformance. And as you say soviets have doctrinal assistance in this regard. But ost has more ways to straight up avoid damage. with panzer tactician/smoke screen drops/armour and hp with vet. Ost also has more options for healing reinforcing unlike soviets.

    Allied lights such as t70, stuart, aec have significantly more health than 222, bulletproof, and have abilities that allow it to help fight mediums (treadbreak, engine shot, etc.) T70 has free recon ability, and capping while 222 gets an ability that you need to open the tactical map for. What a joke. It is obsolete when the first allied medium comes. It isn't even faster than most allied mediums, what a joke, a tank being fast as a lightly armored car. While the allied lights have a decent chance to escape a p4 if the engine is working. So your claim about allied lights being just as useless is completely wrong.

    Also, smoke doesn't guarantee damage negation. And the armor bonus is a lot less useful if your playing team games (hence allied TD spam).

  • #239
    1 year ago
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    >
    > Allied lights such as t70, stuart, aec have significantly more health than 222, bulletproof, and have abilities that allow it to help fight mediums (treadbreak, engine shot, etc.) T70 has free recon ability, and capping while 222 gets an ability that you need to open the tactical map for. What a joke. It is obsolete when the first allied medium comes. It isn't even faster than most allied mediums, what a joke, a tank being fast as a lightly armored car. While the allied lights have a decent chance to escape a p4 if the engine is working. So your claim about allied lights being just as useless is completely wrong.
    >
    > Also, smoke doesn't guarantee damage negation. And the armor bonus is a lot less useful if your playing team games (hence allied TD spam).

    You do know the 222 is a scout car and not a light tank? How long does a t70 eac or stuart survive in the late game? Are they replaced when destroyed? And i never said allied lights are completely usseles.

    A teller destroys "all" allied lights rather then just damage them. Strange that a scout car can survive getting hit by mines, even though its not bullet proof at the moment.
    Twp puts the target in a posistion that it is garateed 90% extra hits from a secondary at source. Plus the stug or pak that shot it. A proper raketten ambush is devastating to lights, esp if its more then one.

    Smoke makes the allied player use attack ground. If the allied player does not do that nothing will shoot.

    I dont play 4v4 but as i am hearing axis can spam panthers there. So yes i understand td spam. Normal mediums are gonna stand up to that.
  • #240
    1 year ago
    GlitshyGlitshy Posts: 22

    @Farlion said:
    As I said, some areas need a bit more rough work and are debatable. But to say this patch has no direction or coherence is just utterly false.

    I respectfully disagree. Sure, there is a decent amount of sensible changes in there, but I'd argue that's more likely to be by accident than intentional. It's basically all over the place. There are way too many changes which do not even remotely take into account what the actual result will be.
    Oh they made Hull Down faster to use, so it's actually usable? Well they also removed the offensive bonus so there is still no point in using it.
    The stun grenades now deal almost no damage to solidify their role as stun device. Did they buff the actual stun effect to make them still equally good? No, they are now just objectively worse. Was that the intention? Can't tell, they don't say the were over performing, were they?
    So they change the Brummbär and ISU to be less good at wiping (I would argue that neither needed a nerf but whatever), but why increase the scatter? This makes them less reliable at wiping, but still just as good when they hit, why not reduce the AOE instead?
    Swapping the ML-20 with the B4 for no good reason while keeping the B4 insultingly bad because this will "make this commander applicable in a larger variety of situations" for some reason?

    Granted, there is some coherence, like the fact that the indirect fire changes to mortars, leig and pack howie are pretty universal as well as the sniper changes. Unless no further reason given, I will assume that any balance change aims to make all factions and playstyles equally viable, but too many changes don't fall into this category IMO and are either barely or not explained at all.

  • #241
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Sander93 said:

    @Farra13 said:
    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

    So what? That works exactly the same for clown cars, M20's and UC's.

    Not really, the UC and the clown car aren't bulletproof, they can be quite easily destroyed with a simple snare/schu mine followed up by some rifle fire.

    While the m20 remains unviable due to its insane mp cost and being attached to the lieutenant, which denies access to the at gun/stuart. So iv'e never really found it an issue to deal with.

    Its not the shock factor nor performance of a 222 with immunity to small arms that I find could be an issue, its the price being so low coupled with timing. The luchs was admittedly overnerfed, but its timing was pushed back as none of the allied factions had a solid answer to handling it that early, only the Brits could really hit back with the aec.

    The problem I see is that the 222's could easily snowball, with a pair overwhelming most early at units like at guns or handheld at (especially when given access to p-tac), and even pushing away the aec, add in a third and unless your opponent has dedicated significant resources to at, the 666 group could be the new luchs.

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    Show me a single replay where an Ost player sinks 90 fuel into lights. That is unheard of. When 222 was 15 fuel, it was a common to get 3 222 when stuarts are t70 were op. 222s become useless when the first allied medium tank arrives. If Ost gets 3 222, the allied player should get an at gun if he can't get his tank out in decent time. 222s are so easy to kill.

    Considering OST has never really had the option to invest so much fuel into lights, I can't really give an example, this is simply theorycrafting and we would admittedly need a balance preview to test. However the 222 hits the field a hell of alot earlier than other bulletproof vehicles, and at such a low price, a single at gun won't really be able to handle even a pair of them, especially if they have ptac.

    I just don't know if the price reduction is really necessary, I feel it might give OST too strong a window to simply overwhelm the enemy by forcing them to divert resources to at for a token sum of mp and fuel. I'm all for giving OST the ability to finally force the allied factions to react, instead of consistently being on the backfoot like they always have been, but I do think the price reduction leaves the 222 as a complete no brainer and will actually domiante the meta again.

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.