Action Items: Balance Feedback Required!

Regarding long range combat:

• Cruzz's idea is not going to be good. As mentioned by a few others, people are going to quickly get frustrated with more frequent squad wipes as their low health squads try to retreat from close range.
  
• I think we need to be clear about conditions. Some LMG grens behind heavy cover is not the problem. That's what we want people to do, use cover. Making changes to LMG while units are on the move is not going to be a fix, there is only 1 unit that can fire on the move with an LMG. Other long range units are not causing the problem while firing on the move. They get in range, stop, then fire. The real problem is blobs moving accross the battlefield, not caring about cover. They could be in any cover at any time, although I think most of are seeing that the cover isn't mattering, because wether your trying to stand up to these blobs from heavy or no cover, your losing to these blobs (mainly as Soviet), because their long range accuracy is so high that even after the cover modifiers are applied to their targets, they are still able to drop them pretty fast. So, the problems are revolving around accuracy, aim times, cooldowns, and just general rate of fire (especially LMG).
  

I agree that Cruzz's idea of turning LMGs to some sort of AoE weapon that spreads damage across the squad doesn't sound good. Frankly it sounds like an unnecessary complication that doesn't really adress the problem.

And even when considering LMG equipped squads, I'd say standard Grenadiers are fine. LMGs only really start causing problems if it's possible to spam them, such as the American 2xLMG per squad blobs. Or alternatively Obersoldaten blobs which achieve similar damage potential since the LMG-34 does 2xLMG-42 damage.

That said, Obersoldaten have already had some nerfs, so perhaps they're bit less of a problem now. I'm also still rather uncertain whether Americans M1919s should be nerfed or not. Possibly just reduce M1 Garand effectiveness at long range to make them closer to Penals in terms of performance. Then see if there is a real need for furter nerfs.

Four man weapon teams for the Soviets is a bad idea. Please stop trying to make all factions feel the same for the sake of (perceived) balance. This happened with medium tanks, then heavy tanks, and now possibly weapon teams as well. I really don't like it, and it just saps much of the uniqueness from how the factions were originally designed, and sadly I don't see this process changing much in the future.

Just IMO of course... but I'd rather you re-costed various units if you felt they under or over-performed. I don't understand Peter's desire to just standardize everything per cost, with a huge emphasis on stats. I understand stats are important in terms of seeing how factions perform in automatch as part of a bigger picture, but I don't want to see the Maxim become a mirror of the MG-42, much as the IS-2 almost has with the Tiger.

If you want weapon teams to be the same price and have the same number of squad members then ultimately (in the name of balance) you will want them to deal the same DPS, which will then require further changes. An example would be that the German mortar is more accurate and has a higher RoF, but the Soviet mortar has a larger crew and is able to use precision strike. If you negate some of these advantages by making the weapon team smaller then presumably this will have a knock-on effect on the unit's other stats.

I'm all for trying new ideas and I understand that Maxim spam is an issue, but I feel that can be addressed with tweaks to the weapon itself rather than tampering with a core concept of the Soviet faction.

Please don't go down this route =/

How is the animation different from Ost MG42?

Same as someone told ya with the Dshka where the guy rolling the gun dies first so under heavy fire there is a long series of guys starting to roll the gun and getting ganked. MG42 the guy picking up the gun dies last and cheeses it immediately. I haven't played a lot of Soviets though since WFA and I never liked doing maxim spam (partly because of the poor animation) so I don't know, maybe it has been fixed.

---

To my understanding its exactly the same with MG42.

Please stop trying to make all factions feel the same for the sake of (perceived) balance.

http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/187290

The Support Weapon stats themselves are already mostly aligned, asymmetrically, for equivalence.

The durability of Sov Support Weapons due to 2 additional crew, sits ontop of that as a completely extra and superfluous advantage that really shouldn't be there.

As you can see from OP, even Relic is aware of and considers this an issue, or why else would they ask for feedback on a change to it?

Yes it's the same for all support weapons. You see it more with Soviets because of German high accuracy results in faster kills. If as Soviets you get a German crew in the same situation and you have the firepower, they will do the same annoying thing. It's like that in Coh1 as well, but I think the animations were faster so it was harder to have this single file of death happen.

Four man weapon teams for the Soviets is a bad idea. Please stop trying to make all factions feel the same for the sake of (perceived) balance. This happened with medium tanks, then heavy tanks, and now possibly weapon teams as well. I really don't like it, and it just saps much of the uniqueness from how the factions were originally designed, and sadly I don't see this process changing much in the future.

Just IMO of course... but I'd rather you re-costed various units if you felt they under or over-performed. I don't understand Peter's desire to just standardize everything per cost, with a huge emphasis on stats. I understand stats are important in terms of seeing how factions perform in automatch as part of a bigger picture, but I don't want to see the Maxim become a mirror of the MG-42, much as the IS-2 almost has with the Tiger.

If you want weapon teams to be the same price and have the same number of squad members then ultimately (in the name of balance) you will want them to deal the same DPS, which will then require further changes. An example would be that the German mortar is more accurate and has a higher RoF, but the Soviet mortar has a larger crew and is able to use precision strike. If you negate some of these advantages by making the weapon team smaller then presumably this will have a knock-on effect on the unit's other stats.

I'm all for trying new ideas and I understand that Maxim spam is an issue, but I feel that can be addressed with tweaks to the weapon itself rather than tampering with a core concept of the Soviet faction.

Please don't go down this route =/

+1. I don't get why players want the same faction with different skins. I would suggest them to make custom games and play Ostheer or OKW mirror matches if they want a "balanced" game.

MG42 and Maxim, in particular, have very little in common.

Reducing the model count or reducing their hp doesn't detract from the difference of the armies or units.

Equalizing durability (which is an issue that extends beyond the asymmetric balance of just Ost vs Sov, to include US and OKW now) is necessary.

MG42 and Maxim, in particular, have very little in common.

Reducing the model count or reducing their hp doesn't detract from the difference of the armies or units.

Equalizing durability (which is an issue that extends beyond the asymmetric balance of just Ost vs Sov, to include US and OKW now) is necessary.

You're missing the point, and he has a good point.

Take the IS-2 and Tiger match up. At their most different the IS-2 had very strong AI and AT but lower health and a slower reloading gun, while the Tiger had a faster gun and higher health but much worse AI. TO balance the IS-2 they reduced the reload time, they also changed the AoE on both guns to be similar. This gave AI to the Tiger and reduced it for the IS-2. More recently the Tiger got a health nerf and the IS-2 got a health buff, now they're both at the same health.

So looking at the matchup now, health, fire rate, AT, and AI are near identical between the IS-2 and Tiger I. 2 completely different units are now near-identical counterparts save for a few differences (notably the IS-2 is slightly more mobile and has better armour). He's worried that they intend to do the same thing with Soviet crews. For example, first bring them down to 4 men, then increase the arc on the Maxim, increase setup time, increase nearby suppression, decrease overall suppression and damage- And oh look, it's an MG 42 clone now.

That's what we're worried about, rightfully so, as the IS-2 has shown us...

Won't giving maxim a long build time be better?This would make 1-2 useable but disallow quick spam of 3-4 maxims if u want optimum field presence..will require no nerfs either and will end the spam.What do u think?

Slippery slope argument

I can understand being concerned that one change leads to another, and another and another and another. And then some distantly related other change, that was a result of this one being "possible".

But its not really relevant. And not really a functional balance argument.

I can understand being concerned that one change leads to another, and another and another and another. And then some distantly related other change, that was a result of this one being "possible".

It happened with the T-34/76 and Panzer IV matchup as well, that's why people are worried.

well it was possible in a game that is 9 years older.

the pikemen dealt 8 damage against units but that damage got multiplied by 5 vs cavalry and 3.5 times vs light infantry

the skirmisher dealt 15 dmg and had a negative multiplier vs cavalry so it only dealt 12 dmg against it while it dealt 30 dmg vs heavy infantry


this could be taken further and somehow solve the long range vs short range weapon problem.
in this game it was necessary to kite with your skirmishers against heavy infantry. and melee units had a small resistance vs ranged fire so it would be easier to close the gap.

9 years apart and that game was more advanced in its core unit balance


and you tell me it is impossible to label units and give them these things?
are you fucking kidding me?

Not that it's impossible, but it makes balance a nightmare by having way too many variables in the mix. AoE III was fun, but it was not a balanced game.

They did that for CoH1. They had target tables where each weapon had X accuracy against Y armor type, against Z vehicle type, all that jazz.

It was a complete mess. Target tables meant Relic had to do a lot of fiddly adjustments because unit X would arbitrarily not be very useful against unit Y because the game said so. This was particularly bad in Opposing Fronts, where they introduced infantry that had more resistance to bullets than any other at the cost of being more vulnerable to flames, which to me is gimmicky and arbitrary. They also had some weapons have a hard time hitting some targets (AT weapons vs light vehicles) for no good reason apart from ''herp derp target table says you miss bro''.

In CoH2, they removed that, and I was happy with it. It doesn,t mean less faction/unit diversity either, the units in the sequel are just as diverse as in the original. But in CoH2 you got much less hidden, arbitrary numbers dictating balance, and that's a good thing.

It happened with the T-34/76 and Panzer IV matchup as well, that's why people are worried.

I understand, but it is whats called a "slippery slope" argument, and is recognised as a logical fallacy in debate.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

His argument also carried another logical fallacy, on the false presumption that "Peter is trying to make all the units identical", when infact the point is improving balance for a better game. Its sort of disingenous to misrepresent the motives and intent of a Dev as something they are not.

-----------------------

Hey Guys,

Design Team is currently reviewing a few key balance complaints in the game and we would like your feedback

Disclaimer: Everything you read below is work in progress and not guaranteed to go into the game.

Soviet Weapon Team:
This has been a hot topic for a while but we are experimenting with 4 men Soviet Weapon Teams. Issue being they are too durable. If a 4 men team loses 2 men, chances of losing that whole squad would go up exponentially. When a 6 men squad loses 2 men the chances of losing that squad still remain fairly low. If overall performances needs to be compensated for reduced durability that is something we could also explore.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated and thank you!

-Maxim, as a weapon, has adequate and unique stats.
Good dps, good suppression, and most importantly a fast de/setup time.
V1 Sprint is a bit marginal, but can be useful for fast delpoyment from one front to another.

-ZiS is more identical to PaK, with the tradeoff of rate of fire compensated by an artillery option.
Practical effect of rate of fire is imo marginal, considering that vs a competent opponent you only get 1-2 shots off anyways, and the rate of fire differential only comes into effect therafter.

-82mm Mortar needs a small buff anyways (unless I missed a patch on that).
I like to recommend a short suppression effect on its AoE, for some flavor and effectiveness.

-120mm does its job just fine, and is the least effected by a potential squadsize/hp reduction.

-Dushka also has weapon stats which mean the weapon itself does its job.

-Light-ATG could perhaps use a vet ability change. Perhaps even a native Camo ability.

Point being, the actual Sov Support Weapons themselves dont need any significant buffing.
They do their job fine, regardless of the unit size. The weapons performance is not as such directly related to whether there is one guy, or 6 guys, operating it.

What the issue really is, and the challenge of it, is finding a way to reduce the durability of Sov Support Teams to non-small arms fire, without upsetting the current small-arms durability balance (and especially considering Rifle Grenade).

Lets run through pros/cons of some options:

1) Reduce support squads to 4man.
-Pros: Now survives at the proper rate vs non-small arms
-Cons: Now survives below proper rate to small arms (due to how small arms units are balanced) Much more vulnerable to RNades.
---Result: Not really a valid option, afterall.

2) Reduce 6man hp pool to equivalent of 4man.
-Pros: Now survives at a more proper rate vs non small arms, with an intermix of larger squad having a larger footprint to snag a peripheral non-small arms AoE hit vs still having models to spare. Also helps soak MG fire from vehicles. Merge retains some usefulness, but Merged units "lose" hps in the exchange. 6man squad also still more useful for capturing other weapons, and the Sov flavor of larger units is retained. Small arms balance is retained, in proportion, as it survives like all other 4man support teams, in total.
-Cons: None that I can think of, considering that the purpose is to naturalise overall survival to that of a 4man squad.
A bit counterintuitive that the 6men have less hp per model, but since the total hp is the same as a 4man, I think people will understand and more easily "get it".
RNade is slightly better, depending on the RNG of which models it hits, which is notoriously unpredictable.

3) Reduce to 4man, and add infantry armor to survive at a 6man rate.
-Pros: Small arms balance is retained almost exactly as it is now (allowing for a small RNG factor regarding soaked armor small arms hits). Vs non-small arms which ignore infantry armor, it survives as a nominal 4man unit.
-Cons: Counterintuitive to have infantry armor on Sov Support Teams. Also RNades raises prominently as a wiper

4) Reduce to 4man and remove the current incoming small arms +% modifier
-Pros: Survives, in total, like a 4man unit vs small arms. Survives like a 4man vs non-small arms.
-Cons: Again, a bit counterintuitive that Sov Support would not have the otherwise universal incoming small arms fire +% modifier.

So of these three, #2 seems to fit the bill best, ino.

I dont agree at all that the weapon stats need to be improved, in order to fix the inherent survival issue on 6man Support teams. They are two different factors, of which only the survival element is a problem. As far as the actual weapon stats go, they are operating at good efficiency in their own asymmetric way.

The survival issue sits "ontop" of the weapon stats. Weapon stats are fine and not the issue. Survival of the units, is.

Elite Rifleman:

No, giving riflemen faster vet is not good, the new and current setup is better.

Soviet Weapon Team:

No, because it would make them very weak toward German infantry in general and OST mortar and snipers in particular.

Long Range Combat:

Yes, this can be a problem sometimes, but it might be related to map design also.

Can you please explain how a generalised LMG dmg, rather than it chewing one model to death at a time, is related to your post?

I dont get it. Please give a scenario in which what you talk above would happen against an LMG?

Furthermore, MG42 has a version of this proposed change by Cruzz already in effect.
Its DPS and suppression factor (iirc) is directly related to and scaled by how many models it is firing at.
So a precedent, of sorts, already exists.

Its pretty self explanatory, if you cannot see problems arising as suggested in dozens of examples people have given you, than you just don't want to acknowledge those as valid examples. Which is fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

P.S. MG42 is support unit which main purpose is area denial. Suppress/pin squads, and if someone is dumb enough to stay suppressed for 2 min than squad wipe, fair enough. So generalized DPS works fine there.
Exact reason so many people are crying about Maxim, because they get killed by Maxim as compared to perceived 'no damage' done by MG42.

Imagine when 90% of player base start getting almost instant squad wipes after having 0% health across entire squad and they don't understand why. It happened before and it wasn't pretty at all.
And most people who play this game won't know why, or care for explanations and L2P suggestions. Exact reason most people think Soviets infantry is better because there are more people in the squad. 6 soldiers are better than 4, end of story. All the talk about DPS, accuracy, etc means jack all to 90% of player base

I asked you politely to explain and elaborate on a specific point of yours.
You refused. Fair enough. Your choice.

Several people have explained how Cruzzs suggestion is functional and good, but you seeimingly choose to overlook or ignore those. Fine. Thats your prerogative.

Your P.S. part has no bearing on anything, and frankly I cant make heads or tails of it, and it seems to underline that you dont actually understand the issue with LMG, which is that it currently single model focuses a model to death, leading to high model attrition. Whereas Cruzz's proposal generalises the dmg so that there is less initial model losses.

Your third paragraph tries to argue that it would a bad thing, because an "imaginary 90%" might not read the patch notes and fail to adapt to the change. Its a ridiculous argument.

You then go on to state that "6 soldiers are better than 4, end of story",as if that was somekind of valid balance argumentation. Doesnt even make sense, nor is it factual. A 6man Con unit is not "better than a 4man" Gren unit simply because it has more models. Makes no sense what you said.

Sorry, but basically your entire post added up to actually not one single valid argument.

Cruzzs Suggestion isn't that good and brings unbalance side effects.

Short squads, with few models will be strongly buffed while large squads with more models will be nerfed.

let's take some random numbers: a 4 models squad vs 6 models squad

A squad: 4 model squads deals 120 dm and have 120 life. Reinforcement cost 40
Each model has 30 life
If a model dies, squad deals 120/4x3 = 90dm and remain 120-30 = 90 life

B Squad: 6 model squads deals 120dm and have 120 life. Reinforcement cost 28
each model has 20 life
If a model dies, squad deals 120/6x5 = 100dm and remain 120-20 = 100 life

It is more or less what we have actually in the game.

Now if we apply Cruzzs Logic, it become's harder to kill a model but as the 6 models squad has lowest life per model he is reaching his limit of 1 life / model faster than the 4 models squad. All B squad's models can die and divide the squad damage before being able to take 1 or 2 models from the A squad.

And it is exactly what happens in COH OF. Large squads can die without killing any models from small squads, just because they weren't able to deal enough damage to the squad
The actual system was used in vCOH which was far more balanced than COH OF.

Last point is about reinforcement, more life your models have, highest is the reinforcement price. But if their reliability increases, the team using A squads is going to save a lot more money than B squad.