[Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback
- This thread is locked
2 Dec 2020, 15:08 PM
#321
Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2
This.
2 Dec 2020, 15:20 PM
#322
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
My preferred solution:
- Move PTRS to Cons, unlocked with T1 build
- Penal AT Satchels get unlocked with AT nade tech
I've thought about a similar approach myself and I agree it is a more wholesome solution to fix T1's AT problem. The PTRS upgrade for Penals always felt a bit shoehorned into T1.
Balance wise, it would have a much greater impact than improving the PTRS upgrade on Penals. T1 would have access to more sandbags (and other utility) from the PTRS Conscripts. Penals would be able to focus fully on their AI role. Giving AT satchels to all Penals would also be a big (maybe unnecessary) change. T1 would be played very differently from now.
It's an interesting idea that would definitely be worth testing, but it would require further finetuning like Vipper said.
2 Dec 2020, 15:41 PM
#323
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I've thought about a similar approach myself and I agree it is a more wholesome solution to fix T1's AT problem. The PTRS upgrade for Penals always felt a bit shoehorned into T1.
Balance wise, it would have a much greater impact than improving the PTRS upgrade on Penals. T1 would have access to more sandbags (and other utility) from the PTRS Conscripts. Penals would be able to focus fully on their AI role. Giving AT satchels to all Penals would also be a big (maybe unnecessary) change. T1 would be played very differently from now.
It's an interesting idea that would definitely be worth testing, but it would require further finetuning like Vipper said.
Yes, Penals need a clear design on what their supposed roleis. The rest can be fine tuned.
One also has to keep in mind that Soviet have a plethora of doctrinal units/commander that with some tweaks could be sued to cover T1 AT requirement. For instance there could be some commander that provided normal alternative ATG (zis or 6p) so that one could create strategies around them.
(for instance the Partisan commander could have access to "stolen" paks)
2 Dec 2020, 15:42 PM
#324
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
I've thought about a similar approach myself and I agree it is a more wholesome solution to fix T1's AT problem. The PTRS upgrade for Penals always felt a bit shoehorned into T1.
Balance wise, it would have a much greater impact than improving the PTRS upgrade on Penals. T1 would have access to more sandbags (and other utility) from the PTRS Conscripts. Penals would be able to focus fully on their AI role. Giving AT satchels to all Penals would also be a big (maybe unnecessary) change. T1 would be played very differently from now.
It's an interesting idea that would definitely be worth testing, but it would require further finetuning like Vipper said.
I agree that satchels on penals could be problematic. There's a few things to consider. Like tank hunter doc would probably need a rework? I guess it would maintain its value with T2 builds but still. Also you'd have stock at units with snares but then again same thing exists in the form of Piat Royal Engineers.
2 Dec 2020, 16:06 PM
#325
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I've thought about a similar approach myself and I agree it is a more wholesome solution to fix T1's AT problem. The PTRS upgrade for Penals always felt a bit shoehorned into T1.
Balance wise, it would have a much greater impact than improving the PTRS upgrade on Penals. T1 would have access to more sandbags (and other utility) from the PTRS Conscripts. Penals would be able to focus fully on their AI role. Giving AT satchels to all Penals would also be a big (maybe unnecessary) change. T1 would be played very differently from now.
It's an interesting idea that would definitely be worth testing, but it would require further finetuning like Vipper said.
It leaves Tank Hunters PTRS upgrade in question.
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.
2 Dec 2020, 16:09 PM
#326
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
It leaves Tank Hunters PTRS upgrade in question.
As mentioned above Tank Hunter PTRS would maintain at least some kind of (theoretical) relevance because you'd be able to get them without T1. Imo decreased relevance of an already irrelevant doctrine is a small sacrifice for a change that would vastly increase the amount of possible soviet openings and finally serve as a solution for the penal identity crisis.
Edit: Plus a doctrine patch has already been hinted at. So tankhunter may very well get a rework either way.
2 Dec 2020, 16:13 PM
#327
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
As mentioned above Tank Hunter PTRS would maintain at least some kind of (theoretical) relevance because you'd be able to get them without T1. Imo decreased relevance of an already irrelevant doctrine is a small sacrifice for a change that would vastly increase the amount of possible soviet openings and finally serve as a solution for the penal identity crisis.
Edit: Plus a doctrine patch has already been hinted at. So tankhunter may very well get a rework either way.
You still could put "specialist training" or sth instead for dank hunters, so PTRS cons with the doc would have 5 more range or sth on top of what it already provides.
However, it all depends on how PTRS will be improved to have a relevant place in late game as AT weapon.
No one ever said a thing about Guards exclusively because of its AI usefulness, but cons/penals one are never worth it for the weapon and you pick them exclusively to zone out armor through abilities.
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.
2 Dec 2020, 16:34 PM
#328
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
You still could put "specialist training" or sth instead for dank hunters, so PTRS cons with the doc would have 5 more range or sth on top of what it already provides.
However, it all depends on how PTRS will be improved to have a relevant place in late game as AT weapon.
No one ever said a thing about Guards exclusively because of its AI usefulness, but cons/penals one are never worth it for the weapon and you pick them exclusively to zone out armor through abilities.
They would definitely be better than penal version due to the cheaper carriers and the fact that you combine them with Ooorah and regular snares but I agree that they could need further rebalancing.
2 Dec 2020, 16:41 PM
#329
Posts: 390 | Subs: 2
Pen frontally? Dude in this scenerio Axis player must be braindead and his friends too.
Ele in good hands is almost impossible to catch.
I have no idea why jager armor still exist in current form. Self spotting heavy armored tank destroyer with little micro input can counter all alied tanks and u cant even use static howitzers because recon and stuka offmap exist hmm balanced. Frankly this is meta problem and should be fixed now.
An ISU in good hands is even harder to catch as it can engage both infantry and armor. While you can frontally charge an ELE/JT with AT guns or AT inf, you can't do the same to an ISU without massive bleed.
I will say that Jaeger Armor should have Stuka dive bomb removed and both ISU commanders should have IL2 bombs removed as well. ML20/B4/LEFH should be reliable counters to heavy TDs in my opinion.
2 Dec 2020, 16:48 PM
#330
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Tune PTRS Penals to counter LVs with the upcoming PTRS change, then once T4 is up give players the option to pay 60 munis to downgrade back to SVTs as a stock penal squad that can’t upgrade again and doesn’t have a satchel snare anymore.
2 Dec 2020, 16:53 PM
#331
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
One could also add "new" PTRS unit is T1 designed it accordingly.
One could even take to so far and make Penal Doctrinal and move the to NKV commanders.
So that there "shock army" commander that come shock troops, "Guard army" commander that come guards and "NKVD" commanders that come Penals
One could even take to so far and make Penal Doctrinal and move the to NKV commanders.
So that there "shock army" commander that come shock troops, "Guard army" commander that come guards and "NKVD" commanders that come Penals
2 Dec 2020, 17:18 PM
#334
Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3
There's a few things to consider. Like tank hunter doc would probably need a rework? I guess it would maintain its value with T2 builds but still.
It leaves Tank Hunters PTRS upgrade in question.
Not necessarily, Dankhunter Cons would still have their niche, they('d) have:
- Techless nade assault.
- 3x PTRS vs 2x PTRS.
- Camo in cover.
- Vehicle detection in a 90 range radius for 30 seconds for 15 munitions.
- No T1 requirement.
And any improvement to Tank Hunter doc could be looked at in another patch anyway.
2 Dec 2020, 18:10 PM
#335
Posts: 208
Tune PTRS Penals to counter LVs with the upcoming PTRS change, then once T4 is up give players the option to pay 60 munis to downgrade back to SVTs as a stock penal squad that can’t upgrade again and doesn’t have a satchel snare anymore.
Perhaps allow Penals to swap between PTRS and SVTs after T4? Just like Pios can swap sweepers.
2 Dec 2020, 18:22 PM
#336
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Perhaps allow Penals to swap between PTRS and SVTs after T4? Just like Pios can swap sweepers.
I had this idea, but they said no "anti everything" infantry allowed. Therefore allowing a downgrade back to the initial 6 SVTs seems to be the best idea since PTRS package is best suited for the LV phase.
2 Dec 2020, 18:25 PM
#337
Posts: 97
Perhaps allow Penals to swap between PTRS and SVTs after T4? Just like Pios can swap sweepers.
Balance team wants to avoid good-for-all units and that would be too strong anyway.
2 Dec 2020, 18:29 PM
#338
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
Tune PTRS Penals to counter LVs with the upcoming PTRS change, then once T4 is up give players the option to pay 60 munis to downgrade back to SVTs as a stock penal squad that can’t upgrade again and doesn’t have a satchel snare anymore.
You cant really play without snares tho, so you'd probably still end up with 2 ptrs penals.
2 Dec 2020, 18:43 PM
#339
Posts: 208
I had this idea, but they said no "anti everything" infantry allowed. Therefore allowing a downgrade back to the initial 6 SVTs seems to be the best idea since PTRS package is best suited for the LV phase.
If it unlocked at T4, when actual tanks start rolling out, I feel it wouldn't be as anti-everything, because against tanks they would only be able to do chip damage.
Alternatively, if we're looking for something unique and unexplored, allow them to swap between SVT and PTRS, but only in the HQ sector.
2 Dec 2020, 18:49 PM
#340
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
I don't like that the M3 has its eHP reduced against small arms fire.
It will make repairing it take more time and make it easier to just blob it down.
All the ULVs should instantly die to mines and the M3 is no exception.
It will make repairing it take more time and make it easier to just blob it down.
All the ULVs should instantly die to mines and the M3 is no exception.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34857.859+13
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1000
Board Info
834 users are online:
834 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48723
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM