Login

russian armor

WINTER PATCH v1.1

Ostheer Tech Changes : Facilitate an easier transition for Ostheer T3 to T4 builds
Option Distribution Votes
23%
38%
39%
Grenadiers reinforce cost reduction
Option Distribution Votes
51%
20%
29%
Brummbar armour buff
Option Distribution Votes
62%
18%
20%
Total votes: 175
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
6 Feb 2020, 11:49 AM
#1
6 Feb 2020, 12:14 PM
#2
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Ostheer Tech Changes : Facilitate an easier transition for Ostheer T3 to T4 builds

Either T4 needs to be a "superior" Tier and have at least 1 all around unit or it need to a choice between t3 and t4 and need to have a cheap unit.

A decision need to be made on what T4 is about.

Grenadiers reinforce cost reduction
Continues buff to grenadiers is a sing of power creep. It is not the grenadier that need buffing but other units that need nerfs. Since most of these unit where buffed finding the right spot between their pre-buffed stat and their current ones should not be difficult.

Brummbar armour buff
Unit suffers from T4 design, cost and allied TDs penetration values.

Possible solution:

a) Redesigning the unit of and building/garrison unit.

Toned down damage increase tenacity and give it superior modifier vs cover/garrison and extra damage vs structures. The unit will be now more about utility thus price can be adjusted.

b) Move stug-E to T3, ostwind to T4 (solves some of T4 issues) make brumbar doctrinal. One can even turn it into a super heavy tank and design it like KV-2
6 Feb 2020, 12:20 PM
#3
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Feb 2020, 12:14 PMVipper
Grenadiers reinforce cost reduction
Continues buff to grenadiers is a sing of power creep.


6 Feb 2020, 13:28 PM
#4
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Do you give Grens the slightest buff at 2mp per model reinforce or do you nerf 3 different mainlines and adjust a 4th (Volks)?

Apparently the latter is correct for some people.
6 Feb 2020, 13:48 PM
#5
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Do you give Grens the slightest buff at 2mp per model reinforce or do you nerf 3 different mainlines and adjust a 4th (Volks)?

Apparently the latter is correct for some people.

Do you continue to increase the power with patch or have you decide what is an optimum power level and adjust units according?

And IS are currently UP also.
6 Feb 2020, 13:53 PM
#6
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

What makes you believe grens are "optimum power level"?
Why its not rifles?

There is no universal benchmark for 6 years now as that approach was abandoned the very moment PQ left relic.

Each unit is considered individually, taking into account other units it fights against and is supported by across various game modes.
6 Feb 2020, 14:00 PM
#7
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Feb 2020, 13:48 PMVipper

Do you continue to increase the power with patch or have you decide what is an optimum power level and adjust units according?

And IS are currently UP also.


This honestly does not make much sense.
It is a valid approach to declare one faction's units as benchmark and then balance everything else according to it, but:
1. All factions have to be designed roughly equally, which in CoH2 works for many standard units (mediums and for the most part also main line infantry) but not for many non-standard units (for example there is not unit for the Crocodile if OST is the benchmark as you often said).
2. You always try to push OST as benchmark, although there is little reason for it. If the current state of the game is all in all doing well (which I think we can agree on that it is), then take the easiest route to balance because it will cause less side effects.
6 Feb 2020, 14:12 PM
#8
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

RM, Cons and IS received several buffs in the lasts patches, while Grens were kept untouched.
A 2MP cost reinf buff means nothing, but a joke. Grens needs HP buffs or a 5men model upgrade, just like Cons or IS to stay in line with far superior allied inf.
6 Feb 2020, 14:31 PM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



This honestly does not make much sense.
It is a valid approach to declare one faction's units as benchmark and then balance everything else according to it, but:
1. All factions have to be designed roughly equally, which in CoH2 works for many standard units (mediums and for the most part also main line infantry) but not for many non-standard units (for example there is not unit for the Crocodile if OST is the benchmark as you often said).

My point is quite simple if grenadier require another buff after years of being fine, it mean that the power level has been increased and now they are up. And IS are UP also (I would say conscripts were also UP until they received the OP SVT and & men upgrade).


2. You always try to push OST as benchmark, although there is little reason for it. If the current state of the game is all in all doing well (which I think we can agree on that it is), then take the easiest route to balance because it will cause less side effects.

Actually Ostheer is the more complete faction including most units type thus the better candidate for a benchmark and thus Relic choose it, it was not me who made that choice. You actually brought that up with Croc example.

In addition which faction is the benchmark is quite irrelevant. Its like saying I prefer to call my length units meter over feet.

Actually the easiest way, is to revert some of the changes that make other units OP compared to Grenadier instead of buffing grenadier. It much easier to identify the right spot for other units since it is between their pre buff and current state.

Buffing grenadier further is moving into uncharted waters. And grenadier are not the only UP unit so are IS and even conscripts that had to received OP abilities to leave up to new power level.
6 Feb 2020, 15:49 PM
#10
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I'm inclined to agree with vipper. Continuing to buff units that have been fine in the past and are not up to speed just tosses the balance more. Now that grens will bleed less how does their matchup lineup against Tommies and cons and penals and rifles? If they were UP against rifles (for example) now they might be OP against the other infantries. Treat the condition not the symptoms. A unit being power crept then brought up to speed leaves those left behind in an even sadder state and those relationships that have changed will likley be buffed further. A benchmark is needed to prevent an endless cycle of over buffing and we don't have the support for such a state.

I also agree that Ost is a good candidate for being the benchmark as they are a complete faction stock designed to be utilizing cover and combined arms- something that should be strive for and not shunned.

Additionally, Ost is the truest to their original design. Other factions have had complete tech redesigns or units added to their roster but Ost, while refined is fundamentally unchanged--outside this recent patch. The battle phase system is power crept but remains as it once was. It's also the most flexible in terms of timing due to the multiple stages of tech allowing for good timing. Even further Ost teching allows for speeding up teching for certain units but at a clear cost.

There is imo not a better faction to tie the balance to as to prevent massive power creep.

More to the topic, I don't think I agree with the changes to teching entirely... T4 should be a step up from t3 not an equal option but an escalation and it loses the spirit of the aforementioned battle phase system. It's supposed to be a stalemate breaker tier that shines when fuel starts to float and enemy armour starts getting heavier. Not simply a bigger, tougher and more specialized alternative to t3 which should ideally always be built.
6 Feb 2020, 16:36 PM
#11
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I also agree that Ost is a good candidate for being the benchmark


I disagree, given how 1v1 Ostheer and teamgames Ostheer are almost entirely different factions.
6 Feb 2020, 17:00 PM
#12
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Im going to be the unpopular one now, but idc.

Vipper is right, gren buff is just another step in a continuous buff roullette of mainline infantries. Riflemen received buffs, IS received buffs, previously conscript received buffs and pgrens, even the % of dmg reduction buff to gren is another step in a long ladder of buffs to mainlines. There are so much more buffs that i dont have the time to find and address them accordingly now. I would really like to post a list with all the nerf/buffs and make a worthy balance of it, to show if units have been really power creeping.

I have played plenty of time on MOBAs and they show the same procedure, because each time a hero got buffed, it was like a spotlight and everyone wanted to try their luck to win with the new skills/stats the hero had. Sadly this never ends in a balance state because there is none! It just cycles around the chosen buffed unit from time to time. The balance is to use what that patch just buffed.

The way i see it is because the community is so intolerant to balance adjustments that devs are forced to balance the game by inflation rather than a set design. Its cool to have an active community feedback and continuous patches probably fixing bugs and addint new content. Its true that new content will always unbalance the game, with more or less impact. But IMHO the quality of feedback is rather bad or mediocre at least, so devs must keep the playerbase pleased but at the same time force changes that keep the game at some degree of balance.

Buffing grens reinforce to me is like a band aid patch, not really because they needed it but to put something for OST players to keep cool.

Added: In some mobas the policy was to make the game way too easy to keep new players coming, that was a killing blow to the original game challenge and reward to put effort in it. But numbers matter more than quality nowdays.
6 Feb 2020, 17:19 PM
#13
avatar of adamírcz

Posts: 955

Grens reinforcement decrease is a big yes

The tech changes I not quite sure but probably good

Hell no for the Brumbarr armour buff
6 Feb 2020, 17:38 PM
#14
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I disagree, given how 1v1 Ostheer and teamgames Ostheer are almost entirely different factions.

Great if do not like ostheer as the benchmark choose another. It does not matter which one is used as long as it remains constant.

So pls let us know which one you guys have chosen and stop buffing that faction.
6 Feb 2020, 17:46 PM
#15
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

Tech change is good, always felt 50 fuel tech investment was a bit too much for a structure that provides no additional benefits and has generalist tanks that are worse at their role than a Tiger at BP3.

I do think the Puma needs a timing adjustment now and Stug E should perform closer to other T3 vehicles.

Also, the tech change delaying the Tiger by 10 fuel is for the better imo.
6 Feb 2020, 17:47 PM
#16
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

T4 Tech - Needs a different focus
The issue wasn't the price of getting to T4, it was the units within. They're all incredibly situational and expensive (the units, not the tech). Reducing the T3 -> T4 cost by 15 fuel isn't going to make these units any better.

1. The panther is still really expensive; the STUG is more viable as a TD, due to its higher DPS and range than the panther. Additionally, if you do save up the 490mp/180f (iirc), you might as well save the extra 190mp/50f and get a Tiger, as that's a much stronger unit. There's also the whole "60 range TD" thing which makes going for a Panther a risky choice.

2. The brummbar is still going to impose a heavy micro-tax, and even then, it's only really good against blobbers. The P4 and Ostwind are simply better choices, since they're cheaper, arrive earlier, and don't require manually firing every shot. Also, axis doesn't need a "bunker buster", either. This update does increase its armor by 20, but I don't think that makes it a better choice (in most cases) than a P4 or Ostwind.

3. The P.Werfer is still going to be situational. It's good against static infantry and support weapons, but because the rockets always take a long time to hit, using it against moving infantry is tricky; you can't use it point-blank like a katyusha or caliope.


Grens - Good change

I agree with Vipper's sentiments about another mainline infantry buff, but at this point, that's just the path we're on. Making current grens 'The Benchmark' would require severely adjusting ~6 other mainline units, which just isn't going to happen with the frequency of patches we're getting.


Brummbar - Needs a different focus
The armor change is decent, but still not great. As I said in the T4 changes section, the brummbar's main issue is its incredibly high micro tax (literally manually fire every shot). This doesn't make sense:

The Brummbar is a 40-range (or 45?), slow, case-mate, ~150fuel anti soft-target unit, and it requires constant micro.

The M8 Scott is a 60-range, fast, turreted, ~75 fuel anti soft-target unit, and it can accurately auto-fire on the move.
6 Feb 2020, 17:55 PM
#17
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

The Brummbar is a 40-range (or 45?), slow, case-mate, ~150fuel anti soft-target unit, and it requires constant micro.

The M8 Scott is a 60-range, fast, turreted, ~75 fuel anti soft-target unit, and it can accurately auto-fire on the move.


This isn’t a good comparison. The Stugie is a better 1:1 comparison to the Scott.

The Brummbar is basically a 105mm M4 without the turret&bulldozer and less mobility but more armour and a bit more AoE and damage.
6 Feb 2020, 18:02 PM
#18
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

The Brummbar is a 40-range (or 45?), slow, case-mate, ~150fuel anti soft-target unit, and it requires constant micro.


35 range :lol:

I would rather have seen the range reverted to 40 again instead of the armor increase, it makes ground attacking easier. Even so, I'm interested in its new performance. If you can keep it alive until vet 2 it will have quite a bit of armor to work with.
6 Feb 2020, 18:28 PM
#20
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

If you not nerf Allii hard the game is over that far, game is broken. That is no trolling, everyone with brain knows it.



Stopp buffing, start nerfing, god in heaven! Such cheap Allii-wins.
3 users are browsing this thread: 3 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

332 users are online: 332 guests
0 post in the last 24h
2 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49264
Welcome our newest member, qkpcmjwnpfkacm
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM