Balance vCoH Trolololo

The problem is, you can't just fix one thing here and one thing there and be sure it's going to automatically make the game better. If you fix the Stag's MG reload, you need to buff Brits in other areas to compensate. Brits have a hard enough time as it is with the reload bug. Same is true of AC detection.

That's exactly why I said that while the problem is obvious, the solution isn't.

Still, you're absolutely correct.

I think a fix on the m10 misfire would be cool .

In order to get snipers "right" there needs to be a consensus of what snipers are supposed to be able to do. Are they supposed to discourage heavy infantry play? Are they for clearing atguns/mgs/mortars? Right now they do both of those things. Making snipers more specialized would make them less of a must-buy in the meta, which I think is the generally agreed upon goal.

What about increasing the time required for a sniper to go back into cloak if he has shot recently? Right now you can still shoot every 5 seconds or so (I'm just making these numbers up). Instead, make it so that you have to wait 10 seconds before firing if you don't want to be out of cloak for 5 seconds.

A more extreme alternative would be to do it the CoH 2 way and make it so that snipers have to be in cover to cloak at all. They would need some cost adjustments either way I reckon.

The best designers know when to call it quits and be happy with the result.

What is this nonsense? I'm going to use LoL again as an example: It's still being balanced today (and will be tomorrow.) They brought a lot of new stuff in season 3. And the weak things they buffed, for more options for tactical gameplay instead of cookie cutter strats.


I still don't know why you would still defend 2.602. OF will always be broken in that state (no drastic changes were made) and VCoh games are mostly revolving around sniperwars, with Wehrmacht having the advantage.

Well if snipers were nerfed we would see people start spamming a shit ton of elite infantry in most games because the current MP drain from snipers is why that isn't a viable way to play. Is hitting snipers 100% of the time the perfect solution? Probably not, but it is definitely better than rolling a dice almost every time.

Something that would be cool to test is having the 100% sniper vs sniper accuracy, but reduce the time they come out of camoflage and reduce the recon/bike/jeep detection radius. Then revealing the sniper for long enough would actually be challenging (unlike it is now) but you would be guaranteed to get the kill if you did. Maybe that would encourage people to spam snipers more, but at least the games they win would be from legitimately outplaying the other guy and not getting the lucky dice rolls.

Make mortars fire thrice as fast to clear heavy infantry spam.

I want it just to see what the animation would look like.

Nah.

There is still an element to taking only 1 shot and moving your sniper, waiting till the camo fully refreshes before taking another shot. Just attack moving makes you vulnerable cause u won't move. The skill is to calculate the risk factor. Do you want to take the shot vs moving sniper? Or do you want to wait till he holds still. (You can force these mistakes you know, just by, you know having micro skill and drawing attention elswhere. And i'm not the fastest player, so i'm not talking for my own thing)

There is also the skill of not using a countersnipe, but going for other options.

Snipers are not the only counter to elite infantry.

The skill is to calculate the risk factor. Do you want to take the shot vs moving sniper? Or do you want to wait till he holds still

Calculating the risk would be a skill if there was more than 2 possible outcomes. Either he is stationary and you succeed every time, or he is moving and there is a 50% chance. Shooting a moving sniper is always a coin flip no matter how many times he fired, what type of cover he is in, if he's running uncloaked, if a scout unit is nearby...or any other scenario. Its just a risk, nothing to be calculated.

Someone that takes $20,000 and after years of investing and stock trading becomes a millionaire has some skill. The blue collar man that wins it big in the mega millions lottery does not.

Snipers are not the only counter to elite infantry.

True but in some situations they are definitely the strongest option, like the guys that have 3-4 Airborne/Ranger squads or guys spamming vet3 grens.

What about just increasing the cooldown between shots? I think this was also suggested before.

To be honest though, high rifle reinforce cost & the power of vet2/3 grens is as much part of the 'problem' as the snipers themselves.

Yeah, reducing the cost of rifle reinforcements to 23-4 would probably go a long way in fixing vet2 gren spam, sniper spam and general wehr late-game superiority.

The problem with balance mods or mods of any kind really is people dont know when to stop. We saw this with Opposing Fronts, Tales of Valor, Eastern Fronts, and other previous balance mods who failed. Dev's dont know when to just stand back and leave it alone, they want to keep tinkering.

and a prime example of this kind of poor logic which leads to failed mods:

If you fix the Stag's MG reload, you need to buff Brits in other areas to compensate. Brits have a hard enough time as it is with the reload bug..

The Stag was fixed by the private balance team in beta but Relic broke it in the last patch on accident. Its a bug. Saying the entire faction needs a buff if 1 unit is unbugged (notice i didnt say nerfed, i said unbugged) is just absurd.

AC detect was also fixed in beta by the private balance team and was yet screwed up by Relic in the RTM for unknown reasons.

Bugs or not, changing the Stag's MG and the AC's detection will make both Brits and PE weaker, and those are two factions that are struggling a lot currently.

My logic is poor how? It doesn't matter if a change is a bug fix or an exploit fix or a balance fix; any change will have far-reaching consequences that are difficult to predict, and which must be accounted for with other changes. I am arguing against changing things for the sake of changing them, because current issues in the game are simply too small to be worth risking the current favourable state of balance in order to fix.

I am arguing against changing things for the sake of changing them, because current issues in the game are simply too small to be worth risking the current favourable state of balance in order to fix.

Why would it be for the sake of changing?

You fear the number, but it's actually the content which is important.

You fear TOO MANY change (there is not even correct English for it.)


The thing about changing things toward the right direction is: HOW MUCH and not MANY.

You fear TOO MANY change (there is not even correct English for it.)

There is...
It's "too much change", not "too many change", unless it would be "too many changes".

I don't understand a single word of what you just posted, 12ocky.

I'm responding to the people who believe that simply fixing the few things in the game that people think are bugs (namely AC detection and the Stag MG reload) will result in a better game. That's absolutely false because it fails to take into consideration the ramifications of those changes, and how they will impact other areas of the game.

Problem with balance is that Relic makes too much changes in new patches (actually they were), and in most of time they balance it or unbalanced it, more less

Instead of changing like 100 things in one patch, i prefer more patches with less changes, probability for bigger unbalance is less

Relic gave us a chance to balance CoH in our way and we failed it badly, it's probably because only few people had significiant impact in 2.602 patch

Bugs or not, changing the Stag's MG and the AC's detection will make both Brits and PE weaker, and those are two factions that are struggling a lot currently.

My logic is poor how? It doesn't matter if a change is a bug fix or an exploit fix or a balance fix; any change will have far-reaching consequences that are difficult to predict, and which must be accounted for with other changes. I am arguing against changing things for the sake of changing them, because current issues in the game are simply too small to be worth risking the current favourable state of balance in order to fix.

I think PE AC should have the large detection radius anyways because without it a well micro'd sniper would be literally invulnerable until either A) lucky sector arty B) lucky butterfly mine C) Panther snipe.

But a blatantly broken unit shouldn't be tolerated because of a factions weakness in 1v1. If anything is done to Brit faction it should be increasing truck health vs Shrek, buffing Tommy damage vs Elite armor, or increasing enfield penetration vs halftrack. But if a balance change were to occur or not, obvious and gamebreaking bugs should be the priority. Plus mixed allies is already the strongest 2v2 combination even without stags, and 1v1 isn't the only thing that matters.

Problem with balance is that Relic makes too much changes in new patches (actually they were), and in most of time they balance it or unbalanced it, more less

Instead of changing like 100 things in one patch, i prefer more patches with less changes, probability for bigger unbalance is less

Relic gave us a chance to balance CoH in our way and we failed it badly, it's probably because only few people had significiant impact in 2.602 patch

Holy crap Barton made a serious post! MVGame

I do agree with this though and hopefully Relic employ this technique when patching CoH2 in the future.

They brought a lot of new stuff in season 3. And the weak things they buffed, for more options for tactical gameplay instead of cookie cutter strats.

This makes such little sense in so many ways. How does Riot's forceful change of the entire meta of LoL have anything remotely similar to balance patching? Sure, messing with how snipers work will make them less vital in most games but that still doesn't compare, even remotely, to Riot addition of new content every 2 weeks; besides the fact that they have glaring broken champions so they're not a very good comparison for CoH, and there are dozens of cookie cutter strats in LoL. Almost every mid-high elo ranked game uses them.

Now, moving onm I may be a fresh-faced noob but I know that snipers aren't the end-all be-all of the game or no one would play any more. There's a reason snipers can't snipe drivers out of vehicles. If you're getting bogged down by snipers try to tech up quickly, diversify your army. The early game sniper wars may cause complications, but complications don't equal defeat. The meta could be in a much worse condition than it's in now.

The only reason this is a problem is because of how set into sniper spam the community is. I don't mean to sound like a dick, but that's really all there is to it. Next time you go to make a sniper to count an HMG, or an AT gun, try making a mortar. What'll the enemy's response be to your mortar bombarding his shit? Probably a sniper. So, what do you do? Make a scout unit, toss down some mines and wait for him. Now I haven't tested this out, I'm not a high-skill player so I wouldn't know how it works out in the almighty high meta, and this may seem like a big investment opposed to a sniper, but there are benefits to a mortar that aren't present in a sniper.

This turned into a rant real fast, and now it's done. I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm just a scrub. But I do know 1 thing:

if you don't like the meta - change it!

besides the fact that they have glaring broken champions so they're not a very good comparison for CoH

*Cough* British *Cough*

*Cough* PE *Cough*

The fundaments of these factions are so wrong and it's already wrong from the start of the game.

*
Relic gave us a chance to balance CoH in our way and we failed it badly, it's probably because only few people had significiant impact in 2.602 patch
*

Yes Reborn clan did have a significant amount of influence. 'Next time' COHEXPERTSSSSS clan should definitely be involved.