Spring Update Balance Discussion

17810121316

Comments

  • #272
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018
    @1ncendiary_Rounds For the love of GOD dude, you are only one who has used the word spam!!! I am well aware that getting 2 of something does not constitute a spam. All i am telling you to do is to stop comparing the scout cars performance to vehicles that cost twice as much and arrive later.

    You are the one who said 222 spam isn't coming back in response to my point about 2x scout cars. You brought it up, not me. This is ridiculous man
  • #273
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @1ncendiary_Rounds For the love of GOD dude, you are only one who has used the word spam!!! I am well aware that getting 2 of something does not constitute a spam. All i am telling you to do is to stop comparing the scout cars performance to vehicles that cost twice as much and arrive later.

    For the love of God, stop thinking that only fuel costs matter. Allied vehicles do NOT cost twice as much and they arrive 2 minutes later. Show me a game where the Ost player secures victory in those 2 minutes. The AEC easily arrives AT THE SAME TIME as a 222 due to the fact that it costs 100 f to get the first 222 and 100f to get first AEC.

  • #274
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,640
    edited May 2018

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @1ncendiary_Rounds When this conversation started, I was talking explicitly about double Scout car, and then you quoted me and said you were tired of people thinking SC spam was coming back......

    Let me tell you once more: getting 2 of one unit is NOT a spam.

    Not exactly coh, but somewhat related
    http://dow.wikia.com/wiki/Retribution/Spammer!

    #relic

  • #275
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    @1ncendiary_Rounds Who said anything about it only mattering? Its not the only thing that matters its just a hell of a lot more significant in determining when you can get it.

    Darks example is perfect:
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > Hell for 20fuel more in UNIT price the soviet can instead of getting a t70 get a full blown medium tank!

    The t70 is even closer in fuel cost to the t34 than the SC is to the t70. Do you think 2 t70s could beat 1 t34? Fat chance, and that would cost WAYYY more mp and fuel than a t34.

    Above all else I really can't believe your going after me this much over such a tiny specific difference of opinion. I have stated several times that im with the armor buffs and the MG should get a buff against snipers. Back. Off.
  • #276
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @1ncendiary_Rounds Who said anything about it only mattering? Its not the only thing that matters its just a hell of a lot more significant in determining when you can get it.

    Darks example is perfect:
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > Hell for 20fuel more in UNIT price the soviet can instead of getting a t70 get a full blown medium tank!

    The t70 is even closer in fuel cost to the t34 than the SC is to the t70. Do you think 2 t70s could beat 1 t34? Fat chance, and that would cost WAYYY more mp and fuel than a t34.

    If you can survive the 85F it costs for your T34 building without light tank pressure, than good for you. Because while you're waiting for the 85 f, and if the opponent is able to get a medium tank first due to lack of fuel harrassment from your refusal to get t70, you'll have yourself to blame.

    I'm not just going after you regarding the 222 complaints. Like I've said, you AND many others have the same 222 complaint so I've decided that I need to address those unreasonable fears.

    Above all else I really can't believe your going after me this much over such a tiny specific difference of opinion. I have stated several times that im with the armor buffs and the MG should get a buff against snipers. Back. Off.

    And yes, I picked you because, you seem more allied biased than others (just MY opinion), and so I see it as my duty to win debates against arguments that seek to excessively weaken the axis especially those from people who I deem more biased.

  • #277
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @1ncendiary_Rounds Who said anything about it only mattering? Its not the only thing that matters its just a hell of a lot more significant in determining when you can get it.

    Darks example is perfect:
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > Hell for 20fuel more in UNIT price the soviet can instead of getting a t70 get a full blown medium tank!

    The t70 is even closer in fuel cost to the t34 than the SC is to the t70. Do you think 2 t70s could beat 1 t34? Fat chance, and that would cost WAYYY more mp and fuel than a t34.

    Above all else I really can't believe your going after me this much over such a tiny specific difference of opinion. I have stated several times that im with the armor buffs and the MG should get a buff against snipers. Back. Off.

    What kind of argument is this now? They're not even in the same tier. That's like arguing instead of going for a 222, I could go for a Stug.

  • #278
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds
    > And yes, I picked you because, you seem more allied biased than others (just MY opinion), and so I see it as my duty to win debates against arguments that seek to excessively weaken the axis especially those from people who I deem more biased.

    Excessively weaken the axis? Ate you serious? We are disagreeing about a 50mp cost reduction.

    And I don't really care about what you think of my "bias". I have proposed several buffs to Ostheer in this thread alone, you were silent on those. Then, suddenly, I suggest that MAYBE 1/3 buffs for the scout car is unnecessary, and you start talking about how allied players are annoying you. Do you not understand how absurd that is man? I don't think I've ever seen you propose a buff for any allied unit...
  • #279
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds
    > And yes, I picked you because, you seem more allied biased than others (just MY opinion), and so I see it as my duty to win debates against arguments that seek to excessively weaken the axis especially those from people who I deem more biased.

    Excessively weaken the axis? Ate you serious? We are disagreeing about a 50mp cost reduction.

    And I don't really care about what you think of my "bias". I have proposed several buffs to Ostheer in this thread alone, you were silent on those. Then, suddenly, I suggest that MAYBE 1/3 buffs for the scout car is unnecessary, and you start talking about how allied players are annoying you. Do you not understand how absurd that is man? I don't think I've ever seen you propose a buff for any allied unit...

    I know you don't care. Yes, I've seen you propose buffs for axis before. It's just that for every axis buff, you want 4 allied buffs(or axis nerfs) from what I've read. To try to counteract you, I must be axis biased especially when, it's clear that axis are easily worse off than allies right now. Take a look at most threads. Allied biased members outnumber axis biased ones and there are still 1 or 2 fairly neutral members. I'd say I can always agree with Dark and Lazarus though they don't always agree with me.

  • #280
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,640

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds
    > And yes, I picked you because, you seem more allied biased than others (just MY opinion), and so I see it as my duty to win debates against arguments that seek to excessively weaken the axis especially those from people who I deem more biased.

    Excessively weaken the axis? Ate you serious? We are disagreeing about a 50mp cost reduction.

    And I don't really care about what you think of my "bias". I have proposed several buffs to Ostheer in this thread alone, you were silent on those. Then, suddenly, I suggest that MAYBE 1/3 buffs for the scout car is unnecessary, and you start talking about how allied players are annoying you. Do you not understand how absurd that is man? I don't think I've ever seen you propose a buff for any allied unit...

    Allied biased members outnumber axis biased ones and there are still 1 or 2 fairly neutral members.

    How do you evaluate that?
    Is it numbers of dislikes both of us get? MVGame.

  • #281
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798

    @Katitof said:

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds
    > And yes, I picked you because, you seem more allied biased than others (just MY opinion), and so I see it as my duty to win debates against arguments that seek to excessively weaken the axis especially those from people who I deem more biased.

    Excessively weaken the axis? Ate you serious? We are disagreeing about a 50mp cost reduction.

    And I don't really care about what you think of my "bias". I have proposed several buffs to Ostheer in this thread alone, you were silent on those. Then, suddenly, I suggest that MAYBE 1/3 buffs for the scout car is unnecessary, and you start talking about how allied players are annoying you. Do you not understand how absurd that is man? I don't think I've ever seen you propose a buff for any allied unit...

    Allied biased members outnumber axis biased ones and there are still 1 or 2 fairly neutral members.

    How do you evaluate that?
    Is it numbers of dislikes both of us get? MVGame.

    Mainly seeing how many comments are pro-allied and pro-axis. Recently I think there is a slight upswing in the number of axis biased participants in the forum and your posts are getting a bit more dislikes than they used to which confirms my observations.

  • #282
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,640

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @Katitof said:

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds
    > And yes, I picked you because, you seem more allied biased than others (just MY opinion), and so I see it as my duty to win debates against arguments that seek to excessively weaken the axis especially those from people who I deem more biased.

    Excessively weaken the axis? Ate you serious? We are disagreeing about a 50mp cost reduction.

    And I don't really care about what you think of my "bias". I have proposed several buffs to Ostheer in this thread alone, you were silent on those. Then, suddenly, I suggest that MAYBE 1/3 buffs for the scout car is unnecessary, and you start talking about how allied players are annoying you. Do you not understand how absurd that is man? I don't think I've ever seen you propose a buff for any allied unit...

    Allied biased members outnumber axis biased ones and there are still 1 or 2 fairly neutral members.

    How do you evaluate that?
    Is it numbers of dislikes both of us get? MVGame.

    Mainly seeing how many comments are pro-allied and pro-axis. Recently I think there is a slight upswing in the number of axis biased participants in the forum and your posts are getting a bit more dislikes than they used to which confirms my observations.

    Comments always will be split and lets face the truth, its about 6 of us making comments regularly while others are just making one post never to be seen again, I wouldn't count them as indicator of anything.
    Its the threads that invoke them, that do make a difference.

    And on the first page the commotion is quite stale, summing up all the threads and ignoring the neutral ones, there is almost twice as many "buff axis/nerf allies" threads then opposite, so I do not really see what you see.

    Moreover, it does not take a genius to see that there are at the very least a couple of people abusing like/dislike feature just because they are full of bile against the poster, not his argument.

    I've had dislikes on a post that stated raw stats without any comment.
    I'm quite positive you also said something completely random and neutral and got a dislike for it.
    Hell, I'm 100% positive that you know best of us all how abusable the feature is and how meaningless the system became(dow3 forums got that fixed by not only presenting more options on the forum, but also listing people who clicked specific button and that led to no abuse and much healthier convos).

    I am also quite positive there are at the very least 2 individuals just spamming dislikes on all of my posts, like it happened in the past already.

  • #283
    1 year ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,134 mod

    And lets move back to the topic shall we ? Discuss the balance changes, not people. Thank you very much

  • #284
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > Take a look at most threads. Allied biased members outnumber axis biased ones and there are still 1 or 2 fairly neutral members

    How about instead of ignoring the topic completely and wasting our time with something ridiculous, you just stick to talking about individual units from individual factions. I swear you spend as much time talking about likes and dislikes and other people's bias, as the actual game itself.

    Would really appreciate you keeping your assumptions about me to yourself. Again, this entire rant at me is all over a 50mp cost reduction. Somehow that is me "wanting to excessively hamper axis". Okay man, okay
  • #285
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Can anybody show me how many 15fuel soviet scout cars it takes to combat a 30fuel 222?
  • #286
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,640

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Can anybody show me how many 15fuel soviet scout cars it takes to combat a 30fuel 222?

    I'd say about 3.
    Maybe 2 if they got a jump on rear armor up close.

  • #287
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    The main problem I see with dropping the mp cost of the 222 is the possibility of them snowballing hard. Its easy to forget that vehicles do not bleed mp like infantry do in engagements, multiple engagements over the next 2-3 minutes before their counterparts hit the field give them plenty of time to rack up kills.

    As the OST player won't be taking squad losses in those engagements, they will be banking mp, whilst bleeding their opponent at a steady rate. Careful engagements mean grabbing a second scout car at that low cost and then a third could quite easily be a feasible strategy. By that point its easy to overwhelm a stuart or aec.

    I would rather see the 222 given its armour changes and fixed mg, then look at its performance and decide whether its in the right spot before touching its price.

  • #288
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @Farra13 thats the LOGICAL way to do it. But its been 2 and a half weeks and we still dont even know what the SCOPE is or any additional changes or a playable mod....
  • #289
    1 year ago

    @Farra13 said:
    The main problem I see with dropping the mp cost of the 222 is the possibility of them snowballing hard. Its easy to forget that vehicles do not bleed mp like infantry do in engagements, multiple engagements over the next 2-3 minutes before their counterparts hit the field give them plenty of time to rack up kills.

    As the OST player won't be taking squad losses in those engagements, they will be banking mp, whilst bleeding their opponent at a steady rate. Careful engagements mean grabbing a second scout car at that low cost and then a third could quite easily be a feasible strategy. By that point its easy to overwhelm a stuart or aec.

    I would rather see the 222 given its armour changes and fixed mg, then look at its performance and decide whether its in the right spot before touching its price.

    That's why i think a balance preview mod should be released.Atm we are just making assumptions,at least some test matches and playtesting should be done.

  • #290
    1 year ago
    VonManteuffelVonManteu… Posts: 159

    Any news about Spring Update? @Relic?

  • #291
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    edited May 2018

    I hope this spring update is not pushed through or kept for custom games.
    Too many questionable choices and moving towards mirror units instead of asymmetrical units. Are the original Coh2 team still at relic? Cant believe you guys are allowing a mod team to throw everything out. Did you not learn from Dow3 radical and failed shift?

    1. most mortar changes are un-needed. Wehr mortar should do better and further, now we have USF performing the same. The original purpose of wehr mortar was to take out 6 man squads and brit emplacements. USF didnt even have mortar at the start. Now USF is going to town with wehr combined arms weapon teams.

    2. PG and 222 buff at the same time? I know wehr has trouble countering fast allies light vehicles. But the PG are in a good spot in Live game, so a 222 buff is enough to give wehr another mobile opening, or do a combine arms pak/faust + 222 chase down. I am cynical and feels our mod guys will sneak in a stealth nerf at the end. Something like the recent PG buff was too effective, hence we will reduce to 1 shrek per squad at 50 muni.

    3. Another Panther nerf was not needed. We just needed to tweak the Jackson pop cap and give a slight armor boost back to the Panther at vet2.

  • #292
    1 year ago

    One ability I'd like to draw attention to is the Forward Observation Post. That structure's abilities could use a substantial decrease in munitions cost to make it even somewhat useful.

  • #293
    1 year ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 129

    We would like to see a Decrease in the cost of the Penalties.

    Penalties - Not effective against the Grenadiers and higher.

    • Cost - Expensive
    • Accuracy SVT-40 - Medium
    • Damage - Low
    • Cost of replenishment - Expensive
    • Explosion package - Not clear

    What kind of change is needed?
    1) The cost is reduced from 300 to 270
    2) Weapons Replace 3 SVT-40 with 3x Mosin
    3) SVT-40 Increase the damage from 10 to 12
    Mosin to do damage 16
    4) The cost of replenishment from 27 to 25
    5) Explosion package reduce the explosion time from 3.5 to 2

  • #294
    1 year ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 129

    Conscripts

    • Damage - Medium
    • Accuracy - Medium
    • Cost - Good
    • Cost of replenishment - Medium

    Abilities

    • Molotov cocktail - Lower the cost from 20 to 10
      Since the "Molotov Cocktail" does not damage the enemy.

    • Hooray! - Reduce the cost from 15 to 5 or 10
      Since "Hooray!" only accelerates the run. If there was an acceleration of shots or an improvement in accuracy during the action.

    • Anti-tank grenade RPG-43 - Neither of which does not change.

    Building

    • "Sandbags" to replace the Trench.
      Cause?!
      "Sandbags" have little survivability and are quickly broken.
  • #295
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @Commissar_Squad_RU said:
    We would like to see a Decrease in the cost of the Penalties.

    Penalties - Not effective against the Grenadiers and higher.

    • Cost - Expensive
    • Accuracy SVT-40 - Medium
    • Damage - Low
    • Cost of replenishment - Expensive
    • Explosion package - Not clear

    What kind of change is needed?
    1) The cost is reduced from 300 to 270
    2) Weapons Replace 3 SVT-40 with 3x Mosin
    3) SVT-40 Increase the damage from 10 to 12
    Mosin to do damage 16
    4) The cost of replenishment from 27 to 25
    5) Explosion package reduce the explosion time from 3.5 to 2

    "Not effective vs grens?!" Penals don't have any problem vs grens. The only problems arise if Ostheer gets elite troops and uses a lot of stun grenades, which btw are getting nerfed to the ground if the patch pulls through. So if you see stun nades, you're simply going to be more careful and can't just charge grens and expect to win. You'll need to watch for the stun nades and evade them when closing the gap.

    On a side note, I've probably read about 20 of your posts over the last few months and your ideas are not even worth considering which is why you're getting so many dislikes. It's likely you simply need to L2P especially when declaring that penals can't fight grens.

  • #296
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    So this was posted three weeks ago, and ever since there has been total silence.

    Could we please get an update already? At least allow us to test the changes.

  • #297
    1 year ago
    Naya_TyanNaya_Tyan Russia Posts: 129

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @Commissar_Squad_RU said:
    We would like to see a Decrease in the cost of the Penalties.

    Penalties - Not effective against the Grenadiers and higher.

    • Cost - Expensive
    • Accuracy SVT-40 - Medium
    • Damage - Low
    • Cost of replenishment - Expensive
    • Explosion package - Not clear

    What kind of change is needed?
    1) The cost is reduced from 300 to 270
    2) Weapons Replace 3 SVT-40 with 3x Mosin
    3) SVT-40 Increase the damage from 10 to 12
    Mosin to do damage 16
    4) The cost of replenishment from 27 to 25
    5) Explosion package reduce the explosion time from 3.5 to 2

    "Not effective vs grens?!" Penals don't have any problem vs grens. The only problems arise if Ostheer gets elite troops and uses a lot of stun grenades, which btw are getting nerfed to the ground if the patch pulls through. So if you see stun nades, you're simply going to be more careful and can't just charge grens and expect to win. You'll need to watch for the stun nades and evade them when closing the gap.

    On a side note, I've probably read about 20 of your posts over the last few months and your ideas are not even worth considering which is why you're getting so many dislikes. It's likely you simply need to L2P especially when declaring that penals can't fight grens.

    If the grenadiers perks put there on the accuracy of the rate of fire and recharge, then all fines sasat + LMG (machine gun) for 6 damage, and the penalties do not have anything

    Well, the PTRS is well against the infantry shit, and the grenadiers have a faust

  • #298
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    > @Commissar_Squad_RU said:
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    >
    > @Commissar_Squad_RU said:
    > We would like to see a Decrease in the cost of the Penalties.
    >
    > Penalties - Not effective against the Grenadiers and higher.
    >
    >
    > * Cost - Expensive
    > * Accuracy SVT-40 - Medium
    > * Damage - Low
    > * Cost of replenishment - Expensive
    > * Explosion package - Not clear
    >
    > What kind of change is needed?
    > 1) The cost is reduced from 300 to 270
    > 2) Weapons Replace 3 SVT-40 with 3x Mosin
    > 3) SVT-40 Increase the damage from 10 to 12
    > Mosin to do damage 16
    > 4) The cost of replenishment from 27 to 25
    > 5) Explosion package reduce the explosion time from 3.5 to 2
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Not effective vs grens?!" Penals don't have any problem vs grens. The only problems arise if Ostheer gets elite troops and uses a lot of stun grenades, which btw are getting nerfed to the ground if the patch pulls through. So if you see stun nades, you're simply going to be more careful and can't just charge grens and expect to win. You'll need to watch for the stun nades and evade them when closing the gap.
    >
    > On a side note, I've probably read about 20 of your posts over the last few months and your ideas are not even worth considering which is why you're getting so many dislikes. It's likely you simply need to L2P especially when declaring that penals can't fight grens.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > If the grenadiers perks put there on the accuracy of the rate of fire and recharge, then all fines sasat + LMG (machine gun) for 6 damage, and the penalties do not have anything
    >
    > Well, the PTRS is well against the infantry shit, and the grenadiers have a faust

    Penals dont NEED anything. They are a 6 man squad good on the move, highly accurate, less per man than grens, no munition cost and kick ass from the instant you build them. They should be made cheaper and have to buy the SVTs or the PTRs because kick ass AI and reactionary AT isnt good design
  • #299
    1 year ago

    Well, again to topic plz.

    My suggestion was to give Stormpios the ability to get the minesweeper upgrade, regardless of another upgrade (like shrek, flamer).

    There was no disagree as i can see, so maybe relic can get this into the next patch?!

    Thx.

  • #300
    1 year ago
    javabaljavabal Posts: 88

    I like the patch, but I have 2 problem.
    1) Katyusha: Reload time increased from 2.5 to 3
    why? why? now it's difficult to kill someone with the Katyusha, because he misses most of the shots and the enemy can retired all your units after the first volleys. And you increased the time? why you don't increased the time to shoot of Rocket Launcher. The Rocket Launcher can kill all your units in 1 shoot, he can suppress you and have a bonification vs garrisons. And you change the Katyusha?
    2) Jackson: Range reduced from 60 to 55
    The others change are good, but dont reduced the range, today the USF need to decide between Calliope, Pershing or Easy 8, because you can´t have all like others army, for example OKW (they can have Stuka, Jagdpanzer IV, panther, and King Tiger or Jagdtiger). And have for the USF a power tank with good range for shoot is necessary, because if I choose a commander with Calliope, how can i confront to panther, and King Tiger or Jagdtiger? And in the last patch you increase the cost of the Jackson, so I thinks its ok, or reduced to the range of all tanks destroyers too.

  • #301
    1 year ago

    At the moment the Jackson, in the right hands, dominates any other axis tank. There are some threads where this is discussed a lot. So I think, reduce armor or reduce range will do it. Right now the Jackson can get some very good shots and retreat right before axis can counter him.

    Good armor, high range, turret, fast movement, good accuracy and penetration, the combination of all makes him a bit over the top. And not to forget, how fast and easy he can be repaired. I dont say op, but something has to be done.

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.