Login

russian armor

Commander Update Beta 2021 - British Feedback

PAGES (26)down
22 Apr 2021, 09:32 AM
#341
avatar of leithianz

Posts: 472


You've answered your own question there.


That's why I did not strongly argued to simply remove the penalties, but "look into it".

Buffed UKF tanks are great, but costs extra amount of fuel+mp designated for the commander tank. And addition to extreamly high pop for UKF tanks, it is very hard to designate one(even chromwell). So in almost all cases, you end up with AEC if it survived during the mid-game.

If you think about 1v1 there is not really a huge amounts of tanks at the battle field even in late-games. (Top-most 3~4 middle), loosing one simply to buff other is very harsh penalties. So I'm suggesting to reduce the buff & penalties a bit so it can be widely used even with 1~3 tanks.


P.S. https://gfycat.com/ko/hairymelodicblackfly this gif is probably the good one to back me up on how commander upgraded tank is useless in dealing dmg.
22 Apr 2021, 10:56 AM
#342
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

the Brits have no good option for Assault Rifle. Bren already has a cemented position, so changing Vickers K is much better, as most dont use it.

This is because contrary to the recent design changes, brits sre not supposed to be 360 no scoping through the field as a battle blob. They had debuffs outside of cover specifically to stop that. However now that the attempt to stop power blobs has been abandoned I don't see why not give them concentrated firepower on the move and just admit that tactics are not supposed to be a part of the game when mass firepower can do as well or better with a lot less effort and input.
22 Apr 2021, 13:24 PM
#343
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1



We're currently considering the following changes:
- Raid Section moved from Mobile Assault to Tactical Support;
- Recovery RE moved from Tactical Support to Royal Engineers (flamethrower upgrade added to RRE);

Both would be a better thematic and strategic fit.


And:
- Raid Section either moved to 0 CP as an alternative mainline similar to Riflemen, or moved to 2-3 CP as an elite brute force squad similar to 3x BAR Rangers.

I'm personally not sure which of the latter UKF needs more. The first would give them more diverse build orders and a different play style, but it'd overlap with Assault Sections. The second would give them a better option to fight Axis elites, against which IS can struggle late game.


The plan sound good and it is nice that you let us know what is coming.

RRE moved to royal engineer is definitely thematic, and raid section, if can be rightly tuned can help tacc support come back to life. It will event better if a rework for fob can come along (lower cp, off map lock behind tech or separate cp).

Raid section at 0cp to not over lap with assault section should start from giving up the thompson and get a custom rifle profile instead. Not only me but various pp has suggest a mid range light infantry/recon unit set up with utilities that can fill in more than 1 Commander.
At the same time, Push them to 3cp butr force elite may require more change than to 0cp, like, they should gain elite stat like a default ra <0.8 and a better rifle, and proper grenade. But then the name "raid sectio" nolonger reflect the heavy infantry role and should be change, maybe something like "heavy weapon section".

On the other hand, recovery sapper and flamethrower may not fit well together. May be change them to a 0cp "Specialist sapper" call in, with rifle and two mutually exclusive upgrade line as demolition sapper(flamethrower) and recovery sapper (salvage and repair critical)
22 Apr 2021, 14:10 PM
#344
avatar of JPA32

Posts: 178


And:
- Raid Section either moved to 0 CP as an alternative mainline similar to Riflemen, or moved to 2-3 CP as an elite brute force squad similar to 3x BAR Rangers.

I'm personally not sure which of the latter UKF needs more. The first would give them more diverse build orders and a different play style, but it'd overlap with Assault Sections. The second would give them a better option to fight Axis elites, against which IS can struggle late game.


For what it's worth, Brits in theory probably have the most options for an opener that you could already offer with the UC, Vickers, and Sapper in t0 and the cheapest tech in the game if they want to run a Sniper or roll out an early AO, then you also have Ass Sections. Brits really only have Commandos and a slightly different version of Commandos when it comes to elite infantry where as every other faction have atleast 2 or 3 unique options. So I'd vote for the latter in this case just to diversify the mid/late game infantry roster.
22 Apr 2021, 15:24 PM
#345
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

Raid Section moved from Mobile Assault to Tactical Support

That would be way better. Please consider in addition changing the FoP into a forward position for reinforcement and healing that gets unlocked about 1-2 CPs (similar to soviet one) which unlocks artillery abilities if CP requirements are met. That way it would see an early use as an alternative for Forward Assembly while scaling into lategame with artillery abilities.

Recovery RE moved from Tactical Support to Royal Engineers (flamethrower upgrade added to RRE)

Very good change. Add the construction of tank traps, it seemed always dumb that not even RE Regiment has this option.


- Raid Section either moved to 0 CP as an alternative mainline similar to Riflemen, or moved to 2-3 CP as an elite brute force squad similar to 3x BAR Rangers.

I would take the second approach. As others said already, UKF has only a single elite unit with multiple call-in/build options at different regiments. A second one wouldn't hurt.
22 Apr 2021, 17:58 PM
#346
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279


That would be way better. Please consider in addition changing the FoP into a forward position for reinforcement and healing that gets unlocked about 1-2 CPs (similar to soviet one) which unlocks artillery abilities if CP requirements are met. That way it would see an early use as an alternative for Forward Assembly while scaling into lategame with artillery abilities.


Not sure this would be worth the effort as Relic is endorsing map creators (whiteflash) to disable abilities such as the FOP as they see fit from official rotation maps. Doesn't make sense to spend limited resources in abilities that can be disabled if map creators don't like them.
22 Apr 2021, 19:58 PM
#347
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919



Not sure this would be worth the effort as Relic is endorsing map creators (whiteflash) to disable abilities such as the FOP as they see fit from official rotation maps. Doesn't make sense to spend limited resources in abilities that can be disabled if map creators don't like them.


Interesting.

So if this is true, shouldn't we use this commander patch (maybe it is the last one) to remove abilities like that from all commanders and exchange them for something else?

Instead of doing this, we are heading in the opposite direction. Ostheer gets a new transformation of garrioned building at two doctrines. That makes no sense if it won't be playable in the future.
22 Apr 2021, 20:08 PM
#348
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



Not sure this would be worth the effort as Relic is endorsing map creators (whiteflash) to disable abilities such as the FOP as they see fit from official rotation maps. Doesn't make sense to spend limited resources in abilities that can be disabled if map creators don't like them.


This is the first time I hear of it, do you have anything to back this up this claim with?

Also I don't really see what you mean by spending "limited resources", nobody is getting paid as far as I'm aware and the community team are doing it for... I guess they each have their own reasons for doing so but anyway, I doubt it would take more than half an hour to for example enable the concrete bunker to be built with as an engineer and medical station that can reinforce as well as have a FRP or something.



Interesting.

So if this is true, shouldn't we use this commander patch (maybe it is the last one) to remove abilities like that from all commanders and exchange them for something else?

Instead of doing this, we are heading in the opposite direction. Ostheer gets a new transformation of garrioned building at two doctrines. That makes no sense if it won't be playable in the future.


Agreed, makes little sense if what he says is true then.
22 Apr 2021, 20:31 PM
#349
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Not sure this would be worth the effort as Relic is endorsing map creators (whiteflash) to disable abilities such as the FOP as they see fit from official rotation maps


Apparently this was just a quick solution at a time where it was unknown there would be any more (balance) patches to come up with a more elegant solution. I didn't even know about it until recently and I don't think Relic themselves know about it, and in my opinion it should be reverted now if possible and be balanced with different means. I certainly wouldn't let it happen to any more maps.
22 Apr 2021, 20:54 PM
#350
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1



We're currently considering the following changes:
- Raid Section moved from Mobile Assault to Tactical Support;
- Recovery RE moved from Tactical Support to Royal Engineers (flamethrower upgrade added to RRE);

Both would be a better thematic and strategic fit.


And:
- Raid Section either moved to 0 CP as an alternative mainline similar to Riflemen, or moved to 2-3 CP as an elite brute force squad similar to 3x BAR Rangers.

I'm personally not sure which of the latter UKF needs more. The first would give them more diverse build orders and a different play style, but it'd overlap with Assault Sections. The second would give them a better option to fight Axis elites, against which IS can struggle late game.


I think this would also better fit for Raid Sections. Personally I think the diverse build order is more interesting and usable if they are to retain their current traits of extra capping speed, molotovs, and sprint which I feel are better geared towards some early game advantages and map dependent things. Conversely I find stationary Camo on a 3X Vickers(I assume) run and gun unit kind of strange. I think you could make the Elite version work but would want to tweak things a bit like replacing Vet 1 Camo and Passive Capping with a Vet 1 "Counter Attack Tactics-Raid" type ability that lets them cap 1 point at 2.5X speed. Some iteration of Artillery Officer's "Diversion" would also make sense.
22 Apr 2021, 22:37 PM
#351
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Interesting.

So if this is true, shouldn't we use this commander patch (maybe it is the last one) to remove abilities like that from all commanders and exchange them for something else?

Instead of doing this, we are heading in the opposite direction. Ostheer gets a new transformation of garrioned building at two doctrines. That makes no sense if it won't be playable in the future.


i agree, this is the issue with outside powers deciding what is allowed in the game and not. map creators are not the official balance but we have an example of them not only trying, but succeeding in removing abilities from the game they dont want in the game. to me it would be like deciding i do not like heavy tanks so i make the entry points off map incapable of allowing them into the field. even worse howeveer is without KNOWING that FHQs (and any other abilities that require converting buildings) are disabled by an outside power there is no way of knowing. its not disclosed anywhere and appearently not known to all (as seen by this chain)
VERY dangerous precedent


This is the first time I hear of it, do you have anything to back this up this claim with?



here is whiteflash's reply to a thread that got very little traction explaining that he feels FHQ is broken so he disabled the ability to convert buildings in one map and would like to do so on all of them. he argues that you can just build the lil FHQ building but that isnt the point. balance team deals with game balance, allowing others to impress their version of balance is a very dangerous precedent

Also I don't really see what you mean by spending "limited resources", nobody is getting paid as far as I'm aware and the community team are doing it for... I guess they each have their own reasons for doing so but anyway, I doubt it would take more than half an hour to for example enable the concrete bunker to be built with as an engineer and medical station that can reinforce as well as have a FRP or something.

by limited resources i mean to say that we never know when relic will pull the plug. i recall one very ambitious balance patch a long while ago where the balance team puty in a lot of work and relic quashed the whole thing. id hate for them to waste their time as well as a window for opportunity in helping the game become better on something that a map maker with a grudge can decide isnt allowed in official map (go ham in the workshop, its there SPECIFICALLY to allow personalized balance but it has no place in official maps)

Agreed, makes little sense if what he says is true then.




Apparently this was just a quick solution at a time where it was unknown there would be any more (balance) patches to come up with a more elegant solution. I didn't even know about it until recently and I don't think Relic themselves know about it, and in my opinion it should be reverted now if possible and be balanced with different means. I certainly wouldn't let it happen to any more maps.


im glad that its being addressed. regardless of why they did it, they snuck one past the official channels to impose their version of balance. if it became the will of said official channels to disallow building conversion and did so uniformly and allowed the player base to weigh in on how they felt it would be one thing but the "quick solution" is entirely dependent on map cycles and continued support and worst of all there is no indication to the player that any map is disallowing certain abilities or even WHY in the case of ploiesti

again, im glad this is on the radar
22 Apr 2021, 22:56 PM
#352
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



i agree, this is the issue with outside powers deciding what is allowed in the game and not. map creators are not the official balance but we have an example of them not only trying, but succeeding in removing abilities from the game they dont want in the game. to me it would be like deciding i do not like heavy tanks so i make the entry points off map incapable of allowing them into the field. even worse howeveer is without KNOWING that FHQs (and any other abilities that require converting buildings) are disabled by an outside power there is no way of knowing. its not disclosed anywhere and appearently not known to all (as seen by this chain)
VERY dangerous precedent




im glad that its being addressed. regardless of why they did it, they snuck one past the official channels to impose their version of balance. if it became the will of said official channels to disallow building conversion and did so uniformly and allowed the player base to weigh in on how they felt it would be one thing but the "quick solution" is entirely dependent on map cycles and continued support and worst of all there is no indication to the player that any map is disallowing certain abilities or even WHY in the case of ploiesti

again, im glad this is on the radar


Interesting, so we come to the badly designed FHQ in this game which could have been avoided if they just inherited the CoH style FHQs which you could decap instead of completely destroy the building.

Anyway, the solution to this problem is very simple in my opinion in that FHQs on neutral buildings are removed entirely from the game and instead replaced by structures which can be built by the player, similar to the Ostheer concrete bunkers and British Forward Assembly if it's such a problem.

As far as limited resources being time, again I doubt it would take more than around half an hour.

Hell I could probably even do it and I haven't touched the modding tools in a while now.

But in general I do agree with you that each of these updates should be treated as the last which also makes it very sad and unfortunate on the amount of things that still have potential to be used to make the game better, more fun and interesting not being implemented.
22 Apr 2021, 23:22 PM
#353
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Interesting, so we come to the badly designed FHQ in this game which could have been avoided if they just inherited the CoH style FHQs which you could decap instead of completely destroy the building.

Anyway, the solution to this problem is very simple in my opinion in that FHQs on neutral buildings are removed entirely from the game and instead replaced by structures which can be built by the player, similar to the Ostheer concrete bunkers and British Forward Assembly if it's such a problem.

As far as limited resources being time, again I doubt it would take more than around half an hour.

Hell I could probably even do it and I haven't touched the modding tools in a while now.

But in general I do agree with you that each of these updates should be treated as the last which also makes it very sad and unfortunate on the amount of things that still have potential to be used to make the game better, more fun and interesting not being implemented.


aye, there are solutions, but they are for the balance team to make, not mapmakers. at least then its consistently applied and actually made known to the player base. ive always complained about how much ISNT communicated to the players making it difficult for new players to jump in, having to guess which maps are allowed to do this or that based solely on the whims of mapmakers would make it even worse. you can only pick 3 commanders, it would suck ass for a newbie to pick one and for no clear reason have its centerpiece not work as advertised. its the sort of thing that would turn someone on the fence off assuming it was an awful bug and a lack of QQ from relic (which there is enough of without adding more intentionally)

as for only taking 30 min, my problem isnt how long it would take, but that the balance team puts work in that an ornery map maker doesnt like and thus disables meaning that it was 30 min that could have been spent on something else. its simply an issue with the inefficiency of multiple arms doing things that counteracts the efforts of each other. the balance team already has a great task ahead of them without smashing assets together to appease map makers (even great ones like whiteflash)

in or out i guess is what im saying. all or none
22 Apr 2021, 23:49 PM
#354
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

So I see three options (depending on the balance the mods want to achieve):
1. remove them completely and exchange with other commander abilities
2. rework/tune combat role and CP requirements
3. make them buildable structures that are not depended on maps


-> 1. No further explanations needed.
.> 2. While Soviet FHQ is very strong because of it early timing (1CP), Ostheer (5CP) and UKF (10CP) struggle a lot more. Both have the problem that at their timing there are weapons that can destroy buildings quite easily. This is especially true for UKF version, since you have simple one-klick-delete abilities around that timing to destroy the building which can't evade, brace or get repaired (if it survived). That is punishing. I do think Ostheer and UKF version should be either available at maybe 2-3 CPs with limited abilities which get unlocked one after another by gaining more CPs or have some form of a chance to not getting destroyed outright by weapons that are potent versus buildings.
-> 3. Its in the game at Soviet FHQ already, there is an alternate buildable version for maps that are low on buildings. Maybe its just a little bit too easy to destroy for its price but it is there.

22 Apr 2021, 23:56 PM
#355
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



aye, there are solutions, but they are for the balance team to make, not mapmakers. at least then its consistently applied and actually made known to the player base. ive always complained about how much ISNT communicated to the players making it difficult for new players to jump in, having to guess which maps are allowed to do this or that based solely on the whims of mapmakers would make it even worse. you can only pick 3 commanders, it would suck ass for a newbie to pick one and for no clear reason have its centerpiece not work as advertised. its the sort of thing that would turn someone on the fence off assuming it was an awful bug and a lack of QQ from relic (which there is enough of without adding more intentionally)

as for only taking 30 min, my problem isnt how long it would take, but that the balance team puts work in that an ornery map maker doesnt like and thus disables meaning that it was 30 min that could have been spent on something else. its simply an issue with the inefficiency of multiple arms doing things that counteracts the efforts of each other. the balance team already has a great task ahead of them without smashing assets together to appease map makers (even great ones like whiteflash)

in or out i guess is what im saying. all or none


I believe you're over-thinking what I said about the 30 minutes lol but otherwise I agree.
23 Apr 2021, 06:21 AM
#356
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

Is there any appeal to the community for the field engineers proposal for advanced emplacemets?

(Field enginners being crappy cheap troops like osttruppen)

I think this would be cool & thematic, and allow for a new british playstyle (as their current infantry is expensive)

23 Apr 2021, 07:53 AM
#357
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Is there any appeal to the community for the field engineers proposal for advanced emplacemets?

(Field enginners being crappy cheap troops like osttruppen)

I think this would be cool & thematic, and allow for a new british playstyle (as their current infantry is expensive)




with tank trap and mg bunker, yes. And "Field Engineer" or "Field Sapper" section are good name for them.
Not need to be as bad and dirt cheap as osstruppen but rather more affordable and faster deploy than section. I will take a 250mp 5 man squad with rifles and 25mp reinforce cost, models stat same as stock sapper.
Some perks that fit them well may include:
- Take No/less extra dmg while repairing (Viper suggested)
- Faster repair on emplacement (viper suggested)
- Tear dowm emplacement for better refun.
23 Apr 2021, 08:21 AM
#358
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1




with tank trap and mg bunker, yes. And "Field Engineer" or "Field Sapper" section are good name for them.
Not need to be as bad and dirt cheap as osstruppen but rather more affordable and faster deploy than section. I will take a 250mp 5 man squad with rifles and 25mp reinforce cost, models stat same as stock sapper.
Some perks that fit them well may include:
- Take No/less extra dmg while repairing (Viper suggested)
- Faster repair on emplacement (viper suggested)
- Tear dowm emplacement for better refun.

(thanks allot for the credits although not really necessary)
23 Apr 2021, 13:53 PM
#359
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

Can we please still fully remove the early warning flares?

While they are not a no-brainer spam anymore, they are still neither counterable nor do they need any preconditions. There will ALWAYS be an interesting front line sector for artillery. And on some big maps the sectors are still very large.

At the moment it is more like the "old" OKW flare with restrictions but cheaper.
23 Apr 2021, 15:00 PM
#360
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

Just scrap warning flares and in that place add usf mortar with flares
PAGES (26)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

560 users are online: 1 member and 559 guests
mmp
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49184
Welcome our newest member, Eastman04
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM