[Winter Balance Update] General Discussion
- This thread is locked
Posts: 4474
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Veterancy adjustments are long overdue.
I disagree on cautious movement been bad for the sole reason it provides initiative on engagement at no cost. For a vet 1 ability is not bad.
Cloak generally is not bad even without first strike bonus, the reason "cautious movement" is circumstantial is because it bugs out and many unit does not fire and because it make vehicles with bad mobility have even worse mobility.
RW is indeed cumbersome to use but not bad for what it does.
How many top player have you seen using cloak raketen at vet 1? because most streams I have seen it was not being used that much. Extra micro was imply not worth it it seems.
I think it could have like 5%/10% movement speed but i suspect it is in the current state to disuade the whole keeping 2x AT gun in the front at a risky position, shoot and then retreat away.
One can "keep 2x AT gun in the front at a risky position, shoot and then retreat away" with current implementation also...
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
One can "keep 2x AT gun in the front at a risky position, shoot and then retreat away" with current implementation also...
Which is why i said they probable didn't gave it minimal speed.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Which is why i said they probable didn't gave it minimal speed.
One can keep RW at front a risky potion in the current implementation, one can not move them there but one can keep them there if they are in the position.
Point here is RW ability is not being used.
There are ways to fix it or it could simply be changed with some thing that would be useful even when in garrison.
Posts: 956
Veterancy adjustments are long overdue.
I disagree on cautious movement been bad for the sole reason it provides initiative on engagement at no cost. For a vet 1 ability is not bad.
RW is indeed cumbersome to use but not bad for what it does. I think it could have like 5%/10% movement speed but i suspect it is in the current state to disuade the whole keeping 2x AT gun in the front at a risky position, shoot and then retreat away.
Raketen camo.....hmmm. My opponents never see it coming (pun intended ) but OTOH their usage is a bit gimmicky. Regarding slow movement speed at vet I/III. Not something -I- want to be on the receiving end of but maybe someone can make it balanced. Somehow. 20% speed from AT gun ambush is a slow crawl but 5-10% would be inching along and very likely to be still out of position when it's needed.
Rest of the post is a general thoughts thing, not aimed at you specifically.
.
I did some thinking about the RW veterancy and if it can be changed. A surprisingly daunting task. Ended up narrowing ideas down to camo itself as other AT gun vet values didn't really help much.
Honestly, the best I came up with at this point in time are below:
- Reduced received accuracy/damage to give the gun a bit more survivability and reward keeping it alive.
- Increased range. I think the old rak had this somewhere in the table but that was on top of a range 50 gun. Prob not popular as it makes the gun range profile inconsistent outside of stolen AT guns.
- Vet III: +25% reload speed as part of the first strike bonus. Copied from the Soviet AT gun ambush. Should incentivise use of camo and ppl will be reversing away in most situations anyway. Guaranteed penetration is impressive but if the AT gun ambush were copied - few allied vehicles have much more armor than 225*1.20=281.25 pen at far. I have a feeling it still won't be enough esp with the lack of AT gun ambush being used by Soviet players.
Ideas I junked at the initial stage in spoiler.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
...
ATG do not need first strike bonuses from that start. Simply sight bonuses and rotation bonuses are good enough since they can help prepare better an "ambush".
The RW vet bonuses need be looked at because vet 1 is simply not used, vet 3 although decent provides nothing to RW in garrison vet 4 is rather poor and vet 5 is simply not good enough and too late. That make only vet 2 bonus decent.
vet 1 Unlocks the "Camouflage" ability.
vet 2 +25% reload speed.
vet 2 +25% penetration.
vet 3 For first shot, fired out of camouflage:
+100000 penetration.
+25% damage.
vet 4 +15% maximum speed.
vet 5 +10% reload speed.
Posts: 1273
ATG do not need first strike bonuses from that start. Simply sight bonuses and rotation bonuses are good enough since they can help prepare better an "ambush".
The RW vet bonuses need be looked at because vet 1 is simply not used
That is wrong, in 2on2s, it is used regularly by my fixed team member, or even random OKW team member as good as all the time. It is a fantastic ability which is often seen in ranked games. Perhaps it is less popular in your 4on4 games, but it is not a reason to conclude that "it is not simply not used".
RW cloak was no fun when it was unvetted. Keep it vetted, as it promotes good play.
Posts: 956
ATG do not need first strike bonuses from that start. Simply sight bonuses and rotation bonuses are good enough since they can help prepare better an "ambush".
The RW vet bonuses need be looked at because vet 1 is simply not used, vet 3 although decent provides nothing to RW in garrison vet 4 is rather poor and vet 5 is simply not good enough and too late. That make only vet 2 bonus decent.........
I did in the above a pretty exhaustive walkthrough of likely changes that weren't hard to implement. Reload speed being moved earlier would certainly help and something else replaces the vet V bonus. 10% is pretty minor that said. Sight for ambushes maybe would be good, but I'm not sure it'd make much of a difference in actual combat scenarios. I didn't and don't have any conclusive answers, the gun is hard to balance.
RW in garrison is considered to be 'unfixable' so one might as well ignore it, outside of some gimmicky places like Red Ball house left - to threaten armor pushing the MG that's often placed on the left VP. I would love to have raks in trenches being an absolute nuisance and shrugging off rocket arty but it's not practical as long as the target priority is bugged.
I'll admit to often just ignoring the camo as it automatically runs into the problem of the gun being left behind in the heat of the moment. Esp irritating for a tank just 5-10 out of range.
Posts: 5279
If nobody is using the current implementation ANYWAYS couldn't we strike a compromise with the return of that?
At worst we have what we have now where people are not camoing their raks, at best we might see some cheeky positioning and actual ambushes. Plus gets rid of the dubious "invisible in the middle of a field but will retreat if you get too close" shit we thankfully ditched with snipers.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't rak vet 1 originally camo in cover but was changed due to being buggy?
If nobody is using the current implementation ANYWAYS couldn't we strike a compromise with the return of that?
At worst we have what we have now where people are not camoing their raks, at best we might see some cheeky positioning and actual ambushes. Plus gets rid of the dubious "invisible in the middle of a field but will retreat if you get too close" shit we thankfully ditched with snipers.
On release it would camo in cover at vet 1.
Then RW had camo from vet 0 and could move at 0.40% speed (about double than zis), vet 1 was further speed boost.
Posts: 486
Posts: 545
Posts: 4474
Cloaked armies of RW after an OKW player lost their medium and just slowly crawl into an ambush position at Vet 0 never needs to return, It rewarded failure. The vet 1 requirement has been in place long enough that if you don't know to activate it, that's really on the player. Although with recent changes to AT guns gaining prioritize on entering the battlefield perhaps the cloak ability could be default to on when unlocked.mhh the problem is really the stationary part it's difficult to actually do minor changes to position, a 80-90% speed debuff similar to the soviet cloak would solve the issue and still make it almost impossible to move with them, and really it's not that strong on the pupchen , the cloack is more like a need to make sure it does not get decrewed fast (i mean the gunner gets killed so it does not shoot) as it lack the gun shield and range
Posts: 83
Posts: 4474
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
the cloack is more like a need to make sure it does not get decrewed fast
That's what the ability to retreat is for...
If we need to give the Rak this gimmick just so it can be survivable, it's time to scrap this absurd unit entirely and give OKW a normal AT gun. The Rak is still cheesy right now in it's current implementation, that needs to be addressed too if people want to make the easiest to use AT gun in the game even easier
Edit: and before I have to clarify this to someone, easiest to use does not mean best. It means easiest to use. There are better AT guns but they all require better micro
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
That's what the ability to retreat is for...
And 5th man.
And increased range.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
And 5th man.
And increased range.
Other AT guns have more men and they all have more range, so I don't see what that has to do with my point
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
That was more of an addition to what Stug said.
Yeah took me a second but I follow you
Livestreams
69 | |||||
22 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.620223.735-1
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.919405.694+3
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Spdcderry
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM