Patch Notes Discussion (Dec. 10th)

Ok, I see, thanks for clarification. Well, if you want to talk about specifically PPSHs then it would have helped if you had said so specifically earlier. When you say "Cons feel weak" its not at all the same thing as saying "Cons with PPSH feel weak". Know whatI mean? It helps to be as specific as possible.

If you read this thread, you might have missed the posts that Wooof made which show the old and new stats, and also his observation that PPSH where basically incorrectly still operating with Single Player stats, rather than Multi Player ones.

I attempted to elaborate on his post with some calculations on the new PPSH here:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/11822/patch-notes-discussion-dec.-10th/post/104934

Basically PPSHs where pretty grossly overperforming before, so its probably quite a shock for someone who was used to taking advantage of that, compared to what they are now when they have the proper Multiplayer stats.

As I tried to demonstrate in my calculations, what you can expect from the new PPSHs is roughly the following:
-A Moving PPSH Con will do roughly the same DPS as a Stationary Vanilla Con
-A Moving PPSH Con will do roughly twice the DPS of a Moving Vanilla Con.
-A Stationary PPSH squad will do roughly 60%ish more DPS than a Stationary Vanilla Con.

So as I stated earlier, this incentives PPSH Cons as a more mobile DPS platform than Vanilla Cons, since they are as good compared to a stationary one, and twice as good as a moving one. When stationary, they have 60% more DPS, which is substantial, but its really the PPSH double DPS when moving that stands out, over moving Vanilla Cons.

For 10 Muni, I think thats pretty good. Double DPS when moving compared to Vanilla moving, the same moving DPS when compared to a stationary Vanilla, and 60% more when stationary.

Hope that helps you adapt to the change!

(Assuming I got the proportions right. Im not a math genius by a long shot, just trying my best to provide some info.l

I agree that they were too good,but they were a little extreme with this nerf,they are too weak now compared to LMG&G43 Grens ,for example G43 raped pre-patch PPsh Conscripts even before this nerf...
As you said,I will have to adapt to new strategies...
Maybe build more Shock Troops from now on

I do agree PPSH upgrade nerf is a bit to hursh especially when you compere them with LMG or G43. Maybe give out the weapon to the third member?

I agree that they were too good,but they were a little extreme with this nerf,they are too weak now compared to LMG&G43 Grens ,for example G43 raped pre-patch PPsh Conscripts even before this nerf...

I do agree PPSH upgrade nerf is a bit to hursh especially when you compere them with LMG or G43. Maybe give out the weapon to the third member?

Well you sort of have to remember that PPSH only costs 10 Muni.
G43 or LMG costs 60 Muni.

I mean you can have 6xPPSH for the cost of 1xLMG/G43.
See what I mean?

Im not sure what kind of effect you expect from 1/6 of the cost....
You can basicaloy outfit your entire Con build with PPSHS, for less price than it takes Ost to upgrade even one Gren.

Dont you think you are being a bit unreasonable expecting a 10 Muni upgrade to outperform a 60 Muni upgrade...?

For 10 Muni, you get double the DPS when moving and 60%more when stationary.
Ill crunch the numbers for how many % LMG and G43 give for 60 muni, but I think once you see them, you will see that you are bit being a bit unreasonable in your expectations.

Ill brb with the numbers, but Im quite certain PPSH is vastly more efficient in terms of DPS/Cost, at 10 Muni, than LMG/G43s are for DPS/Cost.

Assigning prices based on DPS alone turns out simple because platform survivability makes a huge difference, not to mention how many men you can lose before the weapon must be retreated to be kept (3 for lmg grens).

But the problem I think sov players feel is not the pricing, but the nerf to the dps. They would have prefered a strong but more expensive weapon, since their main issue is that they want to use conscripts but they fall off so fast without a weapon upgrade.

So it's kinda less important that the 10 muni are okay price for performance

Yeah because all those saved munis = a lot of molotovs, which should be thrown constantly if your spamming cons.

There still can be reward, but its more micro and harder to pull. So thats quite good.

Rather than turning each con squad pretty much into shocks.

@Nullist Yes the 10 munitions upgrade work...the first 5 minutes of the game,after that it's rapefest...
I would've prefered if the pre-patch PPsh upgrade would cost 30-40 Munitions...

All in all the patch is great!

The only thing I'm undecided about is the ppsh-change. I guess I'll have to play some more games to make my final opinion.

I think that the nerf to ppsh is a good thing since it makes shocks less redundant. now infantry tiers have clear steps between them.
If you wanna beat vanilla grens get ppsh
If you wanna beat ppsh cons upgrade grens/get pgrens
If you wanna beat upgraded grens/pgrens get shocks (or appropriate support/sniper)
Overall it discourages blobbing/spamming and encourages diversity

Assigning prices based on DPS alone turns out simple because platform survivability makes a huge difference, not to mention how many men you can lose before the weapon must be retreated to be kept (3 for lmg grens).

1) Well if you dont consider weapon upgrades according to DPS (and all its many minutae) and their cost, then what? Aesthetics?
2) PPSH never drop.
3) In terms of platform survival difference, Cons are on a rough equal footing with Grens. One of the problems with Con/Gren predictability, is Gren armor. Its a hard RNG factor. At 50% deflection chance, it can swing either way. Grens might score a lucky string of deflects, or they might tske it in the face on every shot. This ofc in addition to the vagaries of accuracy and cover % modifiers, and which models are being focused, and on Osts part, its always a gamble when to retreat. On Sovs part, models will consistently die at the same rate (after the accuracy/cover modifiers that it shares with Ost). But as far as platform survival goes, I think its fairly obvious who will win for example a 3 PPSH Con vs 2 Gren+1xLMG/G43 Gren engagement (which is at a net profit of 30 Muni for Sov over Ost).

But the problem I think sov players feel is not the pricing, but the nerf to the dps. They would have prefered a strong but more expensive weapon, since their main issue is that they want to use conscripts but they fall off so fast without a weapon upgrade.

True, that would work too. But frankly, and lets be real here, what is really upsetting them is that their previously Single Player stat PPSH has been brought inline with Multiplayer balance standards. Its understandable it hurts to lose what has tuened out to be an OP option, but its really all for the best of the game.

So it's kinda less important that the 10 muni are okay price for performance

I think its a very cheap price for what amounts to:
-60% more stationary DPS
-Twice the moving DPS

For 10 Munis per upgrade, that is pretty awesome.
Infact its so good, that I woulsnt be the least bit surprised if it got bumped back to 20 Muni per upgrade in subsequent patches.

Why not up it to 20muni per PPSH, but allow repeated purchase to a max of say, 3 or 4 PPSHs? Perhaps if it allows for too-rapid scaling of infantry the first could cost 20, and subsequently 30, 40, 50, and so on?

Even if something is really good though (in a doctrine), it doesn't nesecarily have to cost a certain amount.


Examples:

radio intercept, totally free.

Pak camo, totally free.


The pak one in particular is a huge buff in damage, but it's free. You could say that's imba, but it's not because its balanced within the doctrine, what you get and what your missing out on.

I think its a very cheap price for what amounts to:
-60% more stationary DPS
-Twice the moving DPS

How honest and not totally skewed of you

60% is a awfully impressive number when it's not connected to the actual numbers. How much increase % is 1 to 1.6 damage per shot? Twice the moving dps - of a moving standard con rifle? The troll is roused

3 cons vs 2 grens is nothing new my friend. It's pretty dishonest to even include the munition upgrades here. Grens still lose without any upgrades on either sides. But here's the catch: as the game progresses the cons get weaker and weaker while the grens get stronger and stronger. The game will reach a point where 2 grens will obliterate 3 ppsh cons without even blinking if the player upgrades them with g43+lmg.

The key point here is not a question of DPS or price, in fact, its less a question of balance. Its a question of design, and I think it's bad design that a upgrade that was entirely popular for its ability to make a early game contender (conscript) reasonably useful in the midgame, now is completely relegated to the early game again.

A critical problem for both OST and SOV players is when a fuel point is being capped. Do I send a single grenadier or two? Conscripts reach their potential with molotov and ppsh now, and will not improve from this point. A grenadier squad can be rigged out with camoflauge, g43, g43+lmg, lmg. Being able to have lots of firepower on a squad by choice is a big benefit.

My point here is not that g43s or lmgs or grens are op. But that a strong and moderately expensive ppsh in the doctrines that have it has good effect on how the game plays out:

- Sov are less pigeonholed into mines and demos (and those vicious grenades and molotovs)
- You wont be so reliant on shocks or guards
- conscripts can provide true support for t2 play, less emphasis on vehicle rush

It's in every ostheer fanboy's best interest for PPSH to stay viable and popular actually. PPSH strats are straight forward, allows you to be play with the strong german infantry based anti-infantry weapons against squishy conscripts. These strats as long as decently popular and viable provide viability for a lot of Ost's own fringe units (ostwind, brummbar). They also take up the space of sniper or tank spam.

It doesn't matter that the price is 5 munitions when he picked a doctrine that secured him a whopping 20 second advantage, while the german doctrine allows him to completely dominate the sov once they both get maxed out. While there clearly is a difference in the doctrines on whether or not they are "early" or lategame doctrines, the early game of the ppsh hardly justifies its current design.

Maybe they will release a DLC with the singleplayer PPsh for 4$...
Oh and +1 Smok for the post

SmokazCOH, you got mail.

The pak one in particular is a huge buff in damage, but it's free. You could say that's imba, but it's not because its balanced within the doctrine, what you get and what your missing out on.

BTW, unrelated question with the thread topic.

Gives ZiS' doctrinal camo a damage buff too? How many increase damage are we talking about?

Oh I missed the important fact that they actually cost 10muni now?!

I usually just click the upgrade icon because I'm rarley ever short of munitions when playing Soviet

Here you get a choice - either weaker ppsh for cons or that wonderful mine that sometimes changes early/ mid game

You could say that's imba, but it's not because its balanced within the doctrine, what you get and what your missing out on.

I dont understand or agree with this "missing out on" attitude.

Let me give you two examples:

1) You are invited to three parties tonight, and you choose one (because you obviously cant go to all three at once). Yes, you are missing out on the other two parties, and maybe the party you chose is shitty compared to what happens at those others, but it might also be better. Its pure speculation anyways. Maybe you meet a one night screw in this party, but would have met the love of your life at the 2nd one. Atleast you got laid. Maybe the other party had a better punch bowl, but this one has better music. Maybe the other one was small and intimate, but this one is large and wild. You don't know what would have happened if you had gone to those other ones, and if you had, you would STILL be "missing out" on the party you chose against.

2) You have three toolboxes full of different sets of tools. You go to do your DYI shit and chose one to take with you, cos it suits you best. Well, guess what, the problems you eventually face actually could have been better dealt with by tools from another set. So what. Because if you had taken one of the other two, youd be equally fucked dealing with some of the problems your chosen current toolbox made a simple task. You didn't "miss out" on anything. You made a choice, and some of your tools where appropriate to the task as it unfolded, whereas some of the tasks would have been better handled with one of the other two toolboxes you didnt choose.

This "I chose one, so I miss out on the rest" mentality is full potato.

It implies the impossible, which is that you should "have it all, at once".
No. It doesnt work that way. You make a choice out of 3. Depending on how things develop, and on what your opponent chose out of his 3 choices, you may either have the best tools you need, or they may be inferior to what you could have had. So what. At the same time some of the abilities in the Commander you chose are infact helping you deal with somethings that another Commander would not have been as good with. And at the same time, the abilities you chose, are making your opponent rage that he didnt choose a different Commander from the one he did, which would make dealing with your specific choices easier. Its also a reciprocal relationship. You arent the only one making a choice, so is your opponent, and with that, everything it entails.

I dont get this kind of thinking, at all. And I especially don't understand how it is any kind of balance argument. "This Commander is shit cos if I had chosen that one, I would have that other ability". No matter what Commander you chose, that will ALWAYS BE THE SAME SITUATION. Why? Because you can't have them all in one Commander. It doesn't make choosing one Commander "missing out" on the rest. It just means you have to choose one, and deal with what it has and what your opponent chooses. There is no "missing out" involved at all.

TLDR: With your attitude, you are ALWAYS "missing out" on something.
No matter what you choose. And its true, in a sense. But thats how the game (and life) works.
You make a choice from what you have available to you, and live with it.
You cant have it all.

Nullist, are you insane dude?

If I chose one doc without say Shocks, I cannot call them in, say opponent then spams PGs I've missed my opportunity to call shocks.

Yes I am missing out on calling shocks.

No that does not mean I want everything at once. Simply the opposite, that I can't.


This is how the docs are balanced, put certain good stuff in, miss out on others.


In practise, the price of Ppsh may be appropriate because you are choosing not to have access to any heavy tank. (Basic example)


If ''missing out on something'' does not make sence to you maybe it's a language thing , nothing to get upset about.

Nullist, are you insane dude?

No, Im not. Certified sane. Stopped reading right there btw.

If you want to discuss, you should drop the ad hominem.

No, Im not. Certified sane. Stopped reading right there btw.

If you want to discuss, you should drop the ad hominem.

Reminded me of Sheldon =)
"I am not insane, my mother had me checked" -Sheldon Cooper

But what Nullist is saying is actually right. With the Soviet commanders you have to pick according to the start you choose to follow for example. If you go T2-->T3 you will select the a shocks commander to cover up for AI because you went with a support building. If you got T1-T4 you will choose guards to support your snipers and penals for example because those 2 units will be your AI counter. (Note: this is my opinion only on how to pick commanders so don`t go full apeshit on me) Cons are just a filler to the combined arms for flanking/at nading/supporting.

In the ostheer there is not such thing. You bassically can choose w/e the fck you want for a commander and you will still be able to cover up all the roles with non doctrinal units.