Posts: 3260
then give them a flat out price increase. not a performance nerf, no one is guna want to spend 230+ fuel on a tank that doesn't perform well in AI and AT
Posts: 68 | Subs: 19
Posts: 3260
Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Posts: 479
Posts: 960
Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Do people like this proposal?
Anyway, numbers. The idea, as Vipper suggested, is to add a "T5" to every faction, who's purpose is entirely to unlock heavy tanks. It would work much like an OST BP, in that you'd research it at your main building, and it would cost some amount of MP and Fuel. The goal of this "T5 Tech" to standardize the amount of MP and Fuel every faction has to spend to reach heavy tanks.
Detailed explanation of numbers ->
As a result, our "T5 Tech" should cost:
OST: 200mp/10f
OKW: 0mp/0f (Free)
USF: 140mp/20f
Sov: 0mp/20f
Those numbers seem pretty fair to me, for a "heavy tank tech" unlock.
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
snip
19 Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1
Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.
Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Do people like this proposal?
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
Posts: 773
You cant balance for anything beyond 1v1 2v2, not really. There are far too many variable to account for, unless something is really glaring, but that would be caught in the lower levels.
I would encourage anyone trying to figure out how to get heavies to work to look at vanilla COH1 and understand how they impacted the game, their timing, and their scaling.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.
Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Do people like this proposal?
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
Posts: 479
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.
Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Do people like this proposal?
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
 | Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 960
Also, i would consider removing the extra range heavies get at vet 2.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Yes please.
Standardize the ranges of all non-TD heavies to 45 at all levels of vet (+5 to IS2's vet 0 range).
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.
Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Do people like this proposal?
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 366
On top of the CP delays, at least the scatter (not accuracy) bonuses from veterancy have to be removed completely. If not from all tanks, then at least from Tiger(!), Pershing and maybe also IS-2.
This is an issue in all modes, the vet 2 or 3 scatter bonus of the heavies which is between 20% and 50% makes them completely overpowered since the last patch. During the times when Heavy tank scatter was still very inconsistent, these veterancy bonuses made sense but now where that is sorted out, it's basically "Destroy this vet 2 Tiger asap or you will lose all infantry units and lose the game" on many maps. Atm the majority of veterancy 2 shots against inf is either a forced retreat or instant wipe.
I think with the delays and some veterancy changes, heavies could be in a good state. Their vet 0 anti inf performance is already good but with vet it becomes broken.
Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1
Posts: 960
The thing is (not sure post preview patch heavy reworks) the IS2 doesn't need the extra range to work. The unit is not bad at vet 0 to vet 2, while mostly facing TD which are on the 50 range. The 60 range one is the JPIV and that is mostly an anti medium/TD.
Improve the vet 1 shell range/performance at vet 2 for all that it matters if you replace the extended range. Inclusiveor the MG upgrade.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
It doesn't necessarily need the range buff, but it'll probably help with the transition to 'no vet range buff'. Right now every other heavy is at 45 range, and they gain +5 at vet 2, bringing them to 50. The IS2 starts at 40 range, but gains "+20%" (i.e. +10) at vet 2, bringing it to 50 range as well. By standardizing them all to 45, we compensate the IS2's loss of a bigger vet bonus by giving it a minor buff.
Also, it's just nice to have everything similar when making big adjustments. If a 45-range IS2 turns out to be OP, it could easily be brought back down to 40.
 |
|
|
19 | ||
 |
|
|
16 | ||
 |
|
|
82 | ||
 |
|
|
30 | ||
|
|
|
|
16 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
