Login

russian armor

Sander's personal balance changes

PAGES (24)down
17 Oct 2020, 12:57 PM
#281
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3


I'm aware of the Osstruppen trouble in 1v1, but I don't see much gain in those changes. The cost increase seems negligible (player has to float anyway because of the recharge timer) and adding 10-20s to the the recharge timer itself would force the player to float 350-410 manpower after building an HMG 42 before being able to deploy their first Osttruppen squad. Those sound respectively like inconsequential and overnerfing changes to me on first sight, especially when combined with the T1/BP1 switch, but I don't play 1v1 or Osstruppen so correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise I'd be happy to try them.


The reason I recommended the Master League discord is a lot of players had interesting perspectives on Osttruppen in the players chat which could be useful.
17 Oct 2020, 13:18 PM
#282
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351


This change was removed because there were several good arguments brought up against it - the most important one being that it would be a nerf as much as a buff, because it would also force players to recrew with 2 models which would make stealing a weapon under fire (when you need 3 models to get away with it a lot of the time) a lot harder.

Why not try to code 2 men when the recrewing unit is only down to 3 models? If the unit is 4 or above it could still be 3.
17 Oct 2020, 14:43 PM
#283
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279


Why not try to code 2 men when the recrewing unit is only down to 3 models? If the unit is 4 or above it could still be 3.
I'd assume because the code is already a mess and trying something like that will probably bug out.
Pip
17 Oct 2020, 16:30 PM
#284
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

As a quick suggestion regarding OKW teching changes, Sanders, have you considered something along the lines of this regarding OKW medical:

"Medics" is now an upgrade directly from the HQ building, available when any truck has been placed. Medics initially surround the HQ, but either automatically (or upon a toggle) move to the Battlegroup HQ if one is built. I'll have to admit ignorance as to whether this is feasible, but it would give OKW an avenue to heal without having to go down a particular tech line, and potentially has the added benefit of being able to still heal if the BGHQ is either dead, or not close enough to the HQ building. Perhaps investing in the BGHQ increases the number of medics, as well. (Not from 3 -> 4, i mean having 1-2 by default, and then going to 3 once the BGHQ is built)

Admittedly this would make Mechanised even MORE appealing, if further changes aren't implemented alongside. I imagine such a change would have to come with a reshuffling of the units inside the trucks, and really I'm not sure if it's entirely worth all the hassle.

Thoughts?
17 Oct 2020, 16:35 PM
#285
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

I'd assume because the code is already a mess and trying something like that will probably bug out.

There is a mortar that can be equipped by one guy - if that is possible...
I honestly think it would be a cool faction feature and a balance improvement.
Pip
17 Oct 2020, 16:38 PM
#286
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594


There is a mortar that can be equipped by one guy - if that is possible...
I honestly think it would be a cool faction feature and a balance improvement.


The 120mm being crewable by one guy isn't quite the same as a contextual "two or three man recrew", though. The Pack Howie is similar, needing three men minimum, but it's not the same code-wise as what's been suggested.
17 Oct 2020, 16:54 PM
#287
avatar of Smartie

Posts: 857 | Subs: 2

Happy to see your 1.4 version. Giving OKS free med is a good idea, this will make BHQ more attractive without changing much in the faction design.,
17 Oct 2020, 17:07 PM
#288
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

Ok all this balance changes looks great but i think soviet defensive commander should have mg bunker comon Sander versusCPUonly players deserve for this !1
17 Oct 2020, 17:16 PM
#289
avatar of flyingpancake

Posts: 186 | Subs: 1

What about replacing the t34(and 85) ram with a different abilty?
Like for example hulldown like the KV1 has. Soviets would dig in their tanks often.
17 Oct 2020, 17:27 PM
#290
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

What about replacing the t34(and 85) ram with a different abilty?
Like for example hulldown like the KV1 has. Soviets would dig in their tanks often.

Explain to me how tank with worst penetration on long range would be used as stationary object?
The ability makes sense for KV-1 because it takes fuckload of punishment.

Also, if what you say was anything else then cocaine dream, we would see that used with P4s as ost already has access to this since forever.
17 Oct 2020, 17:37 PM
#291
avatar of flyingpancake

Posts: 186 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Oct 2020, 17:27 PMKatitof

Explain to me how tank with worst penetration on long range would be used as stationary object?
The ability makes sense for KV-1 because it takes fuckload of punishment.

Also, if what you say was anything else then cocaine dream, we would see that used with P4s as ost already has access to this since forever.

T34 76 has no higher pen then a KV1 so this argument is meaningless. The highest value you get out of the KV1 hulldown is the rate of fire increase, same would go for the t34's. The OST hulldown is not comparable because you need infantry to apply the ability.
17 Oct 2020, 17:46 PM
#292
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

What about replacing the t34(and 85) ram with a different abilty?
Like for example hulldown like the KV1 has. Soviets would dig in their tanks often.

Could T34 ram just be a skillshot like Firefly Tulip rocket? I assume you're trying to nerf it by giving it a worse ability. Hull down wouldn't work too well with T34s because they don't have enough health, and I don't think hull down will give it enough extra to make it useful
17 Oct 2020, 17:46 PM
#293
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


T34 76 has no higher pen then a KV1 so this argument is meaningless. The highest value you get out of the KV1 hulldown is the rate of fire increase, same would go for the t34's. The OST hulldown is not comparable because you need infantry to apply the ability.

Did you missed the part about KV-1 being more durable then 2 T34s?

Also, hulldown, by nature, is a defensive ability - if you are defending the area, you have units in it, including infantry units, so that argument lands straight in the trash.

Highest value you get out of KV-1 hulldown is having a Tiger level durability meat shield protecting your ATGs, while you want to make a target practice for PaKs and P4s.
Pip
17 Oct 2020, 18:03 PM
#294
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

I, personally, would use Hulldown more as OST if it were more similar to the KV1 version. While you might have infantry nearby when defending a position, it's far less convenient to pull them from whatever they might have been doing before, dig in a tank, and then send them back, than to press one button and have the tank do it on its own.

It's an extra micro tax that is annoying to have to do, and oftentimes you might want to dig a tank in at a moment's notice. Would you be happy if the KV2 were changed to need an Infantry squad to dig it in?
17 Oct 2020, 18:11 PM
#295
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Oct 2020, 11:44 AMVipper

Some interesting changes.

Lend Lease
The commander does not need a powerful off map, it currently give players a strong early start so it should not also provide power late game off map.

There should be limit to what commanders offer so that more commander should become attractive.


Still, there are commanders with shock troop and is2 or ass gren into tiger. While i do agree that isn't the best design but the change wont go any further than make the commander allround decently. I Also suggest Precision Barrage from advance emplacements regiment. It was a good ability being wasted by being in a garbage commander, and it use the same 155mm artillery profile.
17 Oct 2020, 19:16 PM
#296
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Still, there are commanders with shock troop and is2 or ass gren into tiger
. While i do agree that isn't the best design but the change wont go any further than make the commander allround decently. I Also suggest Precision Barrage from advance emplacements regiment. It was a good ability being wasted by being in a garbage commander, and it use the same 155mm artillery profile.

Those commander should also change and that will increase the "meta" commander.
17 Oct 2020, 20:51 PM
#297
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279


There is a mortar that can be equipped by one guy - if that is possible...
I honestly think it would be a cool faction feature and a balance improvement.

thats not managed on a factional level is managed on a per weapon level. a mortar that requires 1 man for ost to recrew will also only require 1 man for soviet to recrew.
whats more if memory serves, thats just the MINIMUM required to recrew and 3 men will grab it by default.
18 Oct 2020, 04:30 AM
#298
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789


I'm aware of the Osstruppen trouble in 1v1, but I don't see much gain in those changes. The cost increase seems negligible (player has to float anyway because of the recharge timer) and adding 10-20s to the the recharge timer itself would force the player to float 350-410 manpower after building an HMG 42 before being able to deploy their first Osttruppen squad. Those sound respectively like inconsequential and overnerfing changes to me on first sight, especially when combined with the T1/BP1 switch, but I don't play 1v1 or Osstruppen so correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise I'd be happy to try them.


Have you considered increasing the cost of the flame HT and reducing the cost of grenadier’s mg42?

This would make Osttruppen into Flame half track cost more, while giving a slight early game buff to grenadiers and keeping the grenadiers+flame HT timing roughly the same.

What do you think of this?
18 Oct 2020, 12:34 PM
#299
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Have you considered increasing the cost of the flame HT and reducing the cost of grenadier’s mg42?

This would make Osttruppen into Flame half track cost more, while giving a slight early game buff to grenadiers and keeping the grenadiers+flame HT timing roughly the same.

What do you think of this?


From what I'm seeing in ML3 everyone almost always goes for the 222 anyway (all vs USF though), and even if that's less so the case in automatch, there's a good chance it would simply push players to the 222 rather than the 251. Osttruppen builds are also very light on munitions so I don't think increasing the ammo cost for the 251 would achieve much. Besides, I think the LMG 42 is a strong upgrade that is worth its 60 munitions cost. Grens generally have different issues I think, mostly durability and the timing of their stock scalability (competing with more efficient alternatives).
18 Oct 2020, 13:02 PM
#300
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

V4 changes



Updated complete notes (V4):

Global Changes



OKW



OST



SOV



UKF



USF
PAGES (24)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

624 users are online: 624 guests
0 post in the last 24h
2 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49389
Welcome our newest member, Haruta446
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM