Spring Update Balance Discussion

11012141516

Comments

  • #332
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    edited May 2018

    TD sniping is so dominant now and armor stats so worthless, you see the latest UTT 2v2 games, no one build panther except for command panther call in, which is going to get nerfed, effectively ending Panther reins.

    Only time for panther and comets are in 4v4. And the heavies are not even used commonly, so what if Elefant has good armor, it is just not worth it.

  • #333
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    Any news about the patch? Cancelled?

  • #334
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @mrgame2 said:
    TD sniping is so dominant now and armor stats so worthless, you see the latest UTT 2v2 games, no one build panther except for command panther call in, which is going to get nerfed, effectively ending Panther reins.

    Only time for panther and comets are in 4v4. And the heavies are not even used commonly, so what if Elefant has good armor, it is just not worth it.

    No one built a panther, because it was a high level 2v2 setting.
    You do not need panther when facing allied non doctrinal mediums, P4s are enough to deal with them.

    You get panther against IS-2 or comet or pershing, which was not present in UTT.
    Top players have this ability to pick right unit counters for right situations.

    They were not not using it because its weak, but because there was nothing for it to counter.
    OKW can do well on P4 with some infantry support and occasional JP4, Ost can counter all armor with exception of IS-2 with StuGs alone.

    And command panther was used for the perks it got, not because its a panther, its 50 sight range, mark target and aura are better then getting KT or JT in hands of aware and micro capable player.

    I am not saying panther shouldn't get changes it gets, but your reasoning why it was not used in UTT is completely off the point.

  • #335
    1 year ago
    BratkartoffelBratkarto… Posts: 9
    edited May 2018

    @DarjeelingMK7 said:
    King tiger is stock unit with okw too. > @Bratkartoffel said:
    > There is one aspect missing in the discussion about jackson - it is a stock unit. And compared to the german stock units, he overperformance. And I think, not everybody wants to have jagdtiger in loadout and even then, jackson can easily flank them.
    >
    > So, combined with the strong infantry, it is tough to fight americans.

    OkW have King tiger as stock unit. What do you thing (? _?)

    Yes, I expected this argument - well, I never killed a Jackson with a King, cause he is way too fast and king is too slow. And king comes late, while Jackson dominates all other tanks meanwhile.

    But it is a valid point, that it is feared, that the only hard counter against heavies americans have, will get useless. It all depends on how good the patch is balanced, so Jackson is not dominating tanks in middle game, but can fight effectively against late game havies, not one Jackson can defeat a king but maybe two or three (depending on cost) will do a good job.

  • #336
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Loren said:
    I dunno why my thread deleted. anyway,> @Farra13 said:

    @Loren said:

    most cases, USF players in the top tier do not just use riflemen and Jackson. And in other words, the lower tier axis players also use volks spam or gren spam. This is a characteristic of the player level rather than a characteristic of faction player.

    Oh, I forgot. Jacksons, rifles and Priests. That's meta.

    As for top tier USF, I'm lvl 18 across all factions bar Brits. I have enough experience to know that USF end game boils down to rifles and jacksons. Partly due to their awkward tech, but mainly as that is the most effective combo. Why use units like the stuart or shermans, when rifles can handle ai and jacksons at?

    If you feel that the USF is spamming only Riflemen, it is a structural problem of the USF Faction, not just a problem for the user. In fact, most users are playing all five factions.

    Rifles are fine... its being able give every squad bars without any thought, as the Jackson can handle any and all at duties. That said, fixing the USF tech tree would open up their options in terms of support weapons.

    The anti-tank means of the USF is weak compared to the axis. zooks, AT gun, no mines without a few command abilities. Etc. However, using these various means to force the USF to deal with the tanks of the axis is no different than to force the axis to catch the M36 with pak40, teller-mine, Panzerschreck, and Panther. But the latter is said to be because M36 is an op, so it is a very biased story that the former is no-brainer.

    Zooks are excellent, especially for cost. The at gun handles any light/mediums bar the OKW p4, which is why it has sabot rounds. The M20 has the best at mine in the game, and nearly all commanders have mines available, whether field defences for rifles, assualt engineers, paratrooper support squads etc.

    Paks, p-shreks and panthers won't even touch a Jackson when handled properly. As for mines, Jacksons don't have to flank to score penetrating hits, so how on earth are you going to get it to crosss a teller?

    The m36 should be the answer to the axis premiums and heavies, not anything on damn wheels.

  • #337
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    > @Farra13 said:
    > @Loren said:
    > I dunno why my thread deleted. anyway,> @Farra13 said:
    >
    > @Loren said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > most cases, USF players in the top tier do not just use riflemen and Jackson. And in other words, the lower tier axis players also use volks spam or gren spam. This is a characteristic of the player level rather than a characteristic of faction player.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Oh, I forgot. Jacksons, rifles and Priests. That's meta.
    >
    > As for top tier USF, I'm lvl 18 across all factions bar Brits. I have enough experience to know that USF end game boils down to rifles and jacksons. Partly due to their awkward tech, but mainly as that is the most effective combo. Why use units like the stuart or shermans, when rifles can handle ai and jacksons at?
    >
    > If you feel that the USF is spamming only Riflemen, it is a structural problem of the USF Faction, not just a problem for the user. In fact, most users are playing all five factions.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rifles are fine... its being able give every squad bars without any thought, as the Jackson can handle any and all at duties. That said, fixing the USF tech tree would open up their options in terms of support weapons.
    >
    > The anti-tank means of the USF is weak compared to the axis. zooks, AT gun, no mines without a few command abilities. Etc. However, using these various means to force the USF to deal with the tanks of the axis is no different than to force the axis to catch the M36 with pak40, teller-mine, Panzerschreck, and Panther. But the latter is said to be because M36 is an op, so it is a very biased story that the former is no-brainer.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Zooks are excellent, especially for cost. The at gun handles any light/mediums bar the OKW p4, which is why it has sabot rounds. The M20 has the best at mine in the game, and nearly all commanders have mines available, whether field defences for rifles, assualt engineers, paratrooper support squads etc.
    >
    > Paks, p-shreks and panthers won't even touch a Jackson when handled properly. As for mines, Jacksons don't have to flank to score penetrating hits, so how on earth are you going to get it to crosss a teller?
    >
    > The m36 should be the answer to the axis premiums and heavies, not anything on damn wheels.



    you plays 3v3 or 4v4 mostly, right?
    I think you're not playing 1v1. quite different game what you talk.
    in 1v1, no one choose infanty company and spam jacksons.
    Watch 1v1 games. It will look quite different from what you say. The game aspect of 3v3 or 4v4 is very different from 1v1, and balancing based on it is always dangerous.
  • #338
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    I play some 1v1 2v2 and i choose infantry company for the sandbags and offmap arty. The mortar ht or Stuart helps against support teams.

    But yes the USF is majorly fuel starve that Jackson is coming quite late game in 1v1.

    What's a good alternative opening to USF without infantry company?
  • #339
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Loren said:

    you plays 3v3 or 4v4 mostly, right?
    I think you're not playing 1v1. quite different game what you talk.
    in 1v1, no one choose infanty company and spam jacksons.
    Watch 1v1 games. It will look quite different from what you say. The game aspect of 3v3 or 4v4 is very different from 1v1, and balancing based on it is always dangerous.

    You are making a hell of alot of assumptions here.

    I play mainly 2's, and dabble in teamgames and 1v1's. I understand the gamemodes and their differences just fine.

    As for not picking infantry company in 1's? Where have you been? Does the mortar halftrack not ring any bells? Its the meta currently. Especially against OST. Rifles>mortar ht>at gun>jackson. That is the most common build.

    Anyway moving back towards the topic at hand, the Jackson. Its simply overperforming, and the argument that the other USF at units are rubbish (not at all true) is not a viable reason to leave the jackson in its current state.

  • #340
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22

    @Farra13 said:

    @Loren said:

    you plays 3v3 or 4v4 mostly, right?
    I think you're not playing 1v1. quite different game what you talk.
    in 1v1, no one choose infanty company and spam jacksons.
    Watch 1v1 games. It will look quite different from what you say. The game aspect of 3v3 or 4v4 is very different from 1v1, and balancing based on it is always dangerous.

    You are making a hell of alot of assumptions here.

    I play mainly 2's, and dabble in teamgames and 1v1's. I understand the gamemodes and their differences just fine.

    As for not picking infantry company in 1's? Where have you been? Does the mortar halftrack not ring any bells? Its the meta currently. Especially against OST. Rifles>mortar ht>at gun>jackson. That is the most common build.

    Anyway moving back towards the topic at hand, the Jackson. Its simply overperforming, and the argument that the other USF at units are rubbish (not at all true) is not a viable reason to leave the jackson in its current state.

    It can be 2v2 or more. However, in 1v1 games, the Infantry Company often has difficulty maintaining the lines. It is rather effective for okw than ost. Most 1v1 users tend to choose Rifle Company or Armor Company because of the lack of flamethrower in USF. As a result, the Commander Roaster is monotonous and the Infantry Company's pick rate is extremely low. I have played all 5 factions for 16 ~ 18 lv and have played few games with top 10 players, but have never played Infantry Company on 1v1. I like SPH so much that I choose it sometimes, but I have never seen anyone except me.

  • #341
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    @Farra13 said:

    @Loren said:

    you plays 3v3 or 4v4 mostly, right?
    I think you're not playing 1v1. quite different game what you talk.
    in 1v1, no one choose infanty company and spam jacksons.
    Watch 1v1 games. It will look quite different from what you say. The game aspect of 3v3 or 4v4 is very different from 1v1, and balancing based on it is always dangerous.

    You are making a hell of alot of assumptions here.

    I play mainly 2's, and dabble in teamgames and 1v1's. I understand the gamemodes and their differences just fine.

    As for not picking infantry company in 1's? Where have you been? Does the mortar halftrack not ring any bells? Its the meta currently. Especially against OST. Rifles>mortar ht>at gun>jackson. That is the most common build.

    Anyway moving back towards the topic at hand, the Jackson. Its simply overperforming, and the argument that the other USF at units are rubbish (not at all true) is not a viable reason to leave the jackson in its current state.

    I experience again the unilateral deletion of my writing.
    I play all factions in 1v1 and usually go to lv 16-18.
    But at 1v1, I rarely saw a user selecting an infantry company when I played the axis.
    2v2 or higher, teammate can cover your weakpoints, but 1v1 has no teammate who covers your weakpoints.
    If the US is using mortar ht, it is advantageous to maintain a stabilize frontline, but the other skills of the infantry company are usually very difficult to use in 1v1, then typical USF users choose mechanized assault to use mortar ht instead.
    I have not seen a single player, while playing COH2 for almost 1200 hours, except me, using a priest in 1v1.

    Anyway, this is what I want to tell; In 2v2 or 3v3, 4v4 games, the battlefield aspect is often very different from 1v1. At 2v2 and above, the width of the frontline is narrow, which causes allies tank destroyers to exert very strong forces. However, in the case of 1v1, it is much easier to do flanking and should handle multiple frontlines simultaneously. Therefore, spamming of medium tanks (like panzer4, sherman, T-34) is dominant META in most games. In this situation, balancing of M36 is very different from 2v2 or more.

  • #342
    1 year ago
    LorenLoren Posts: 22
    edited May 2018

    @Farra13 said:

    @Loren said:

    you plays 3v3 or 4v4 mostly, right?
    I think you're not playing 1v1. quite different game what you talk.
    in 1v1, no one choose infanty company and spam jacksons.
    Watch 1v1 games. It will look quite different from what you say. The game aspect of 3v3 or 4v4 is very different from 1v1, and balancing based on it is always dangerous.

    You are making a hell of alot of assumptions here.

    I play mainly 2's, and dabble in teamgames and 1v1's. I understand the gamemodes and their differences just fine.

    As for not picking infantry company in 1's? Where have you been? Does the mortar halftrack not ring any bells? Its the meta currently. Especially against OST. Rifles>mortar ht>at gun>jackson. That is the most common build.

    Anyway moving back towards the topic at hand, the Jackson. Its simply overperforming, and the argument that the other USF at units are rubbish (not at all true) is not a viable reason to leave the jackson in its current state.

    I experience again the unilateral deletion of my writing.
    I play all factions in 1v1 and usually go to lv 16-18.
    But at 1v1, I rarely saw a user selecting an infantry company when I played the axis.
    2v2 or more, teammate can cover your weakpoints, but 1v1 has no teammate to cover your weakpoints.
    If the US is using mortar ht, it is advantageous to maintain a fairly stable frontlines, but the other skills of the infantry company are usually very difficult to use in 1v1, this being so typical USF users choose mechanized assault to use mortar ht.
    I playing COH2 for almost 1200 hours, but i never seen before using a priest in 1v1, except me.

    This is what I really want to tell; In 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4, the battlefield aspects are often very different from 1v1. At 2v2 and above, the width of the frontline is narrow, so firepowers are concentrated, which causes allies tank destroyers and long-range weapons to exert very strong. However, in the case of 1v1, it is much easier to do flanking and should handle multiple frontlines simultaneously. Therefore, multi-purpose units are more reliable and this is why spamming of medium tanks is dominant META in most 1v1 games. In this situation, balancing of M36 is very different from 2v2 or more.

  • #343
    1 year ago

    @Bratkartoffel said:

    @DarjeelingMK7 said:
    King tiger is stock unit with okw too. > @Bratkartoffel said:
    > There is one aspect missing in the discussion about jackson - it is a stock unit. And compared to the german stock units, he overperformance. And I think, not everybody wants to have jagdtiger in loadout and even then, jackson can easily flank them.
    >
    > So, combined with the strong infantry, it is tough to fight americans.

    OkW have King tiger as stock unit. What do you thing (? _?)

    Yes, I expected this argument - well, I never killed a Jackson with a King, cause he is way too fast and king is too slow. And king comes late, while Jackson dominates all other tanks meanwhile.

    But it is a valid point, that it is feared, that the only hard counter against heavies americans have, will get useless. It all depends on how good the patch is balanced, so Jackson is not dominating tanks in middle game, but can fight effectively against late game havies, not one Jackson can defeat a king but maybe two or three (depending on cost) will do a good job.

    That is why I've suggested nerfing the Jackson a little but not to the point before the December balance patch. Its cost will also drop a little and the result is a unit whose performance is a middle ground for pre and post balance patch.

  • #344
    1 year ago
    GbpirateGbpirate Posts: 63

    Hey, it looks to me like the M2HB suppression is actually increased... .00006 to.00054. Six Hundred-thousandths to 54 ten-thousandths... or am I just not good at math?

  • #345
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    > @Gbpirate said:
    > Hey, it looks to me like the M2HB suppression is actually increased... .00006 to.00054. Six Hundred-thousandths to 54 ten-thousandths... or am I just not good at math?

    Typo i think but good catch.
  • #346
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    So no preview? We're just jumping right into this? I am a bit perplexed by that. Especially given that we had 2 spring patch posts: the first one and the final one....
  • #347
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    I really think this is the patch that ends it for me. Not bothering with the preview, no discussion even. Bailing on good changes (su76 pen) that everyone agreed was good and plowing through with ones players were on both sides about (sniper and panther to name a couple), completely new changes coming through too (Vickers now costs the same as the mg42 and maxim)
    It's all so unpolished and untested. A private "community" patch by a private mod team throwing the game how they see fit...
  • #348
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    I really think this is the patch that ends it for me.

    Same here. I've said that the game has been going in the wrong direction. I never thought you'd quit on CoH2. I always believed you to be one of the most rational forum members. And now the last Ost crutches, the stug and mortar are now nothing special while the other Ost units remain crap.

    These changes are simply boneheaded. Stug nerfs are over the top. RoF nerf IN ADDITION to pop cap equal to T34? The t34 is far more flexible and can probably almost take out a stug head on now with the RoF nerf. And now the Tiger Ace costs fuel? It already has a cancerous burden on the economy. If it's gonna cost fuel, make the mp cost down to 500. What kind of player doesn't know how to deal with the ace, just damage it and don't kill it. The Ost player will be hemorrhaging mp for a long time. The command p4 shouldn't have gotten any nerfs after the panther and stug nerfs. If u do the math a vet 2 panther has now 286 armor - a far cry from vet 0 320. Where's the gren vet 1 RA that cons get? And yet the pop is nerfed back to 7. Sappers and sections are still op. There are some good changes such as the SU snipers and UC armor nerf, 6pdr accuracy nerf but most changes are just simply poorly thought out. If this patch goes live, I'm done with the game.

  • #349
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    First of all - I appreciate that there is a lot more clarity in these notes. So thanks to you and the team for putting that extra effort in - I know note writing is tedious.

    That said I need to echo the sentiment of a few others. In what way exactly is this a community patch? We got to theory craft with a bunch of paper changes but we haven't been able to properly test this at all. Our input has been severely hamstrung - as has our bugfinding capability. We have been unable to substantiate a lot of our points and it feels like a lot of what we have said has gone unheard.

    @Andy_RE - as CM I need to ask, can you understand why we think there has been a lack of transparency in this patch compared to the previous ones? Is there any explanation as to why we departed from the previous formula? What are the advantages for the community of this patching method over the more thorough method from last year?



    On a more general note - when I said the range change on the Jackson was taking the piss, I didn't mean leave it at 60. That sight nerf is next to nothing.
  • #351
    1 year ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 90

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    It's not 1 tiny change. It's many tiny changes, many large changes, many controversial, much dilution and NO testing. I've played the game (too much), since the beta. I've played through tiger ace and windistry. I've played with assault pioneers after after the March deployment. I've played with OPel blitz trucks that worked for everybody. I've played with satchels that blew up so fast with such a large AOE you would lose penal models every time. I've played before pen was effected by range when scatter for howitzer WASN'T effected by range. Don't get on me a bout whining about changes. I've played damn near every iteration of this game it I see the trend.
    And it's not even the CONTENT of the patch that's leaving a sour taste it's the way its been carried out. There wasn't a SINGLE post from anyone involved since the initial "this is what we're looking at" and now we have a "yupp this is what we're doing"

    I'm done because I've watched a game I loved be torn apart, stripped back and watered down to the point where the next patch might just well be mirror matches.

    LOL FFS stop crying!! No one cares what you think of what balance should be like. I think 80% of the changes are good and rest a bit controversial (Sniper, Tiger Ace, etc). Guess what? No one cares what i think either! There are soo many of us and if you think the patch team must consider everyone's suggestion into their decisions, you are delusional im afraid. If you want to make a real difference, then join Relic or find a way to get into the patching team or anything else other than whining LOL.

  • #352
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    I'm amazed how they managed to make the Wehr Panther even crappier than it was before. Oh well. No one built it anyways, so nothing new there. Relic, if you are not willing to mobilise even a modicum of resources into testing, etc. just let it die.
  • #353
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    > @Hingie said:
    > I'm amazed how they managed to make the Wehr Panther even crappier than it was before.

    How much 2v2 do you play? In that mode the panther is very much useable. T4 is attainable and often necessary, it's a massively different experience from 1v1.

    Honestly I'm interested to try it. Im a big fan of the main gun changes and as for the health/armor trade, well people here have been saying the Panthers armor is meaningless for some time. So the opposition to trading some for health I don't understand. I still think they should've gone with a rec dmg modifier like the kv1 to help with repair time.
  • #354
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > > @Hingie said:
    > > I'm amazed how they managed to make the Wehr Panther even crappier than it was before.
    >
    > How much 2v2 do you play? In that mode the panther is very much useable. T4 is attainable and often necessary, it's a massively different experience from 1v1.
    >
    > Honestly I'm interested to try it. Im a big fan of the main gun changes and as for the health/armor trade, well people here have been saying the Panthers armor is meaningless for some time. So the opposition to trading some for health I don't understand. I still think they should've gone with a rec dmg modifier like the kv1 to help with repair time.

    The opposition to the HP armor change is because it's a net durability nerf. Getting the HP earlier is nice and all but now at vet 2 you end up with something weaker than what you had before.

    Also yes - TDs have made armor mostly irrelevant but lowering the armor just lowers the threshold even more (especially pertinent for things that would otherwise be RNG cannons like SU-76s).

    It'd be like if we decided since squad size was being made irrelevant by artillery spam we made cons in to a 4 man squad.
  • #355
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,984
    edited May 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    How much 2v2 do you play? In that mode the panther is very much useable. T4 is attainable and often necessary, it's a massively different experience from 1v1.

    Because the Vehicle is now more than ever wicked shite, mate. You pay more for a machine that is effectively weaker. They shouldve kept vet 2 as is, then wed be talking about a de facto buff. What this does is make it a) more expensive, b) less durable vs mediums and premium mediums, c) make its vet 2 really, really bad, d) do nothing for its offensive capabilities. TDs are still going to totally overpower it and now lighter vehicles have much better chances to fight it as well. Its accuracy is still, after all this goddamn time, total dirt. That minute buff they gave it is a joke. This thing should sit atop the AT foodchain. Its not. If this is the best spot the Panther has ever been in, as the balance team so vaingloriously claims, the Panther was from the word go in a very terrible place.

    Also, what is up with that hull down nerf no one ever asked for? I dont recall the last time thinking to myself "damn, if I only had hulled down that tank!". Come to think of it, in all my hours I have seen hull down in use maybe 3-4 times? Guess that was enough to make it OP? Jesus bloody Christ. Talk about needing an airport and building an offshore Oil-drilling plattform.

  • #356
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018

    What I cannot understand is how volks STGs have still yet to get touched. Several things on OKW have been nerfed since the shreck was swapped out for stgs that honestly didn't need to be. Like to me the STG was a much bigger deal than any of the volks vet bonuses that we decided to nerf to oblivion. The vet bonuses only became OP because of the STGs...

    I mean Im pretty sure most people agree that STG volks make no sense, its just that OKW is designed so poorly that they are really necessary at their current level. I would make the same argument about riflemen, they are too good themselves but the state of the rest of their roster/their shoehorned teching needs them to be that good.

    This is all by way of saying I miss the pre-WFA days so goddamn much. Everyone here knows I like US, but not THAT much. I would drop them in a heartbeat if I could have the Sov-Wher matchup back.

  • #357
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    USF net boost.
    Wehr net nerf.

    I like jackson get pop increase but offset by cheaper tech units. Jackson sight nerf but no range nerf, infantry spotting and attack ground with same pen damages. What a troll.
  • #359
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595
    edited May 2018

    To all the people complaining that panther is magically weaker now:

    -Its weakest stat, rate of fire, got massive buff.
    -Its armor is more then enough to bounce most shots of any med, it was never meant to protect from TDs, which are its intended counter
    -Vet0 health allows you more time to respond with less RNG, you can reliably chase down or escape said TDs depending on situation

    edit: we have 7
    people so terrible at this game to the point where they are unable to comprehend stats and don't understand importance of reliable stats over RNG stats, can we get more?

  • #360
    1 year ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 49
    edited May 2018

    @Katitof said:
    -Its weakest stat, rate of fire, got massive buff.

    Afaik ROF buff only applies to OKW Panther, which is now in a great state IMO. I'm glad to trade armor RNG for consistant HP pool for survivability, although it's weird that vet2 doesn't completely restore the original armor. At vet0 the Panther can now win 1v1 against all enemy medium tanks / TDs and against IS2 or Pershing it's about equal (so a coin toss who wins).

  • #361
    1 year ago
    GlitshyGlitshy Posts: 22

    @Glitshy said:
    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?

    I have to admit, I am pleased to see that at least these two complaints of mine were sort of addressed (well, the B4 is still bad but at least they didn't make another commander worse by adding it), though I doubt it was actually my post which made them change their minds.

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.