WINTER PATCH v1.1
Posts: 187
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/287235#Comment_287235
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
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
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Grenadiers reinforce cost reduction
Continues buff to grenadiers is a sing of power creep.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Apparently the latter is correct for some people.
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.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
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.
Posts: 311
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.
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.
Posts: 5279
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.
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.
Posts: 2358
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.
Posts: 956
The tech changes I not quite sure but probably good
Hell no for the Brumbarr armour buff
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.
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
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.
Posts: 960
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.
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.
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
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.
Posts: 1392
Stopp buffing, start nerfing, god in heaven! Such cheap Allii-wins.
Livestreams
26 | |||||
5 | |||||
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.940410.696+6
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
10 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, yresearcher
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM