Action Items: Balance Feedback Required!

Those saying that soviet team weapons have more durability are speaking nonsense. All axis units. have proportionally higher dps than their soviet counter parts

Elite Rifleman:
At the moment this ability provides no real downfall to its usage except for its long recharge time. We implemented slight cost increase as well as starting it on a cool down. However we are currently exploring possible redesigns of the ability such as increasing the rate in which rifleman will accumulate Veterancy.

The changes made to the ability are not a fix in any way. You can still get only vetted riflemen in every game, the only difference is you have to get a rear echelon and an ambulance first. After that you can get 3-4 veteran riflemen without having to mix in regular riflemen.

Also, in its current state the ability is very potent throughout the entire game, cause any losses mid-late game become rather irrelevant as long as you can keep getting vetted riflemen.

The way the ability was implemented in the alpha meant you had to get a mix of regular riflemen and veteran ones in order to retain decent map control early game.

I suggest either revert to alpha state or move the ability to 2 CPs. That way veteran riflemen can't be spammed early game but will still be relevant mid-late 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.

Durability is only an issue against weapon teams (specifically mgs and mortars) not versus small arms fire. I think another issue could be the combination of durability and mobility, which is quite uncommon for a support weapon. Maybe slightly reducing both at the same time could mean no significant reduction would be necessary for either.

Long Range Combat:
With our change to lethality in a previous update to make cover more important. A side effect of that change was that it made long range weapons extremely effective, especially LMGs. The combination of cover, lethality, and long range has resulted in medium to short range units being overall less effective. In most situation, units that require closer range will lose too many men on approach resulting in a significant drop in offensive performance.

This is because you (Relic) don't know how to properly test things and like to take huge leaps instead of baby steps. Reap what you sow I say.

But constructively I would suggest revising armor or received accuracy modifiers for close range units. Shocks seem to perform ok with some armor.

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.

Is this part of your reply about my post on the same page?

If so, it's even more disingenuous to wilfully misquote someone whilst attacking them - with said example - for being disingenuous. What I said and what you're quoting me as having said are not the same thing. I'm talking about making units perform similarly per cost and per number of squad members, and you're talking about 'identical' units. That's unfair, and not what I said nor meant. I chose my words carefully.

Incidentally, if you want proof of this apparently invalid slippery slope argument, look at the aforementioned examples; IS-2 / Tiger and T-34 / Panzer IV. There may even be others I've forgotten about. That said, there have been some very positive balance changes, such as making Penals affordable and therefore usable.

What if LMGs did less damage to units in cover then other weapons. Would make sense since these weapons didn't have the accuracy to "snipe" units popping in and out of cover.

That would make them less effective as an aggressive weapon. But still good in a defense against units that need to come out of cover to approach.

Then infantry would be more rewarded for finding ways to flank from cover to cover or use smoke to hide their movements to closer cover.

I don't understand Peter's desire to just standardize everything per cost, with a huge emphasis on stats./

Where do you have this as fact of Peter's position?

And, whats wrong with standardizing efficiency as a factor of cost?
Whats wrong with a huge emphasis on stats?

Personally I think both of these are excellent design principles.

. I'm talking about making units perform similarly per cost and per number of squad members, and you're talking about 'identical' units. That's unfair, and not what I said nor meant. I chose my words carefully.

Whats wrong with units performing similarly per cost and and as including number of squad members?

Isnt it entirely reasonable and rational, that units perform according to their cost?
Isnt it entirely rational and reasonable that the number of squad members should be considered in that?

I didnt say "identical" units anywhere. Even once. I also chose my words carefully

Incidentally, if you want proof of this apparently invalid slippery slope argument, look at the aforementioned examples; IS-2 / Tiger and T-34 / Panzer IV. There may even be others I've forgotten about. That said, there have been some very positive balance changes, such as making Penals affordable and therefore usable.

It is a slippery slope argument, and in addition, not what the Devs requested feedback on either. You posit that if Sov Support Team durability is reduced, then it will eventually result in Maxim mirroring MG42. I dont see the connection, at all. Maxim has stats unique to it, primarily in the de/setup time. Changing the stated problem of Sov Support Team durability is extraneous and separate to that. One does not logically follow from the other. Maxim, as a weapon, does exactly the same with 1man, 4man or 6man.

You then countermand your own example right afterwards, by recoginising that one necessary change to one element of a given unit(s), does not automatically lead to a "mirroring", in the following sentence. As you point out, one change in balance does not always automatically result in another change, and another, and another, that "along a slippery slope" leads to a mirror solution. Have some faith in the Devs We all want asymmetric factions, and it certainly is a hard balance challenge, but a worthwhile one. Even as 4man (or reduced hp 6man, or 4man+armor, or 4man - the incoming smallarms modifier), a Maxim is still very different from an MG42.

I think I understand why. You seem to be under the impression that Sov Support Teams are UNDERPERFORMING as an actual onfield weapon. Whereas, that is not the case at all, and concretely, not what the Devs are asking for feedback on.

Sov Support Team performance, as related to the actual weapon, is fine.
Devs are asking for feedback on the excess durability factor of the crew size (not on the weapon).
Dev also states that they are considering possible changes to the weapon itself, IF those are necessary as a result of reduced durability.

Do you understand?

Primary problem: Sov Support Teams are too durable. (NOT that Sov Support Weapons are underperforming).
Secondary problem: IF Sov Support Team durability, as above, was corrected one way or another, then would that possibly necessitate a Support Weapon buff.

You seem to have misunderstood what they are asking.

They are asking how to fix Sov Support Team durability, first.
And then state they are also open to possible Support Weapon buffs, if necessary, depending on the solution to the above.

Your post carried two primary arguments:
1) That you dont understand why (as you perceive it), Peter is from your perception trying to "standardize everything per cost".
I dont know why you say this, because A) what makes you think that is Peter's purpose B) Whats wrong with standardizing performance to cost?
2) The slippery slope argument, that apparently, illogically, a reduction in Sov Support Team durability will invariably lead to it becoming the same as its mirror, as was the case in the examples you posted. Which is fallacious to begin with, because neither the IS-2 / Tiger and T-34 / Panzer IV are actual mirrors of each other, AT ALL.

Im sure you will agree, that neither of your two primary points above, actually answers what the Devs asked of us.
Neither is a workable or actual solution to what they asked for feedback on.

My recommendation, instead of the above approach, is focus on what they are actually asking for.

With all due sincerity and respect to you, I understand WHY you reacted as you did, and dont blame you for it.
Feedback is feedback, and though I, as a pedantic argumetative bastard, poke holes in it, I do not for one second believe that your actual intent was not good and you too also want a better game, as you see it.

But I do also think you missed the actual point of the feedback request, a bit.
Sov Support Team durability is a problem. Devs want feedback on how best fo fix it, possibly including Support Weapon buffs if necessary.

Its really no more, or less, than that, on this specific point.What do you think of my analysis here?
http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/188243

I would welcome your perspective, as I tried my best to explore 4 possible options, some of which I hadnt read before, or thought of before, and hence would love a second opinion on.

I would welcome your perspective...

No, you'd welcome another opportunity to insult me, patronise me, misquote me, set up straw man arguments to circle around and repeatedly dismiss a logical point despite there being repeated examples of evidence throughout this game's balance history to support it.

So no, let's not go there. I don't have the interest; I merely wished to share my opinion with respect to not being in favour of giving the Soviets four-man weapon teams. You're free to disagree with that, and doubtless many will, but both your tone and assumptions are way off the mark.

That said, I appreciate your willingness to self-associate as a pedantic, argumentative bastard. That's not a compliment to yourself, and largely stems from over-analysing everything and simply reading what you want to read rather than what was actually written down. For example, I never said - nor have I ever assumed - that Soviet weapon teams underperform compared to German ones, and yet this appears to be the basis for your counter-argument.

Also, please don't repeatedly question someone's understanding of a topic throughout a post. It comes across as arrogant and patronising. All I said was that I do not understand Peter's desire to standardize everything per cost; I should probably have rephrased that by saying I dislike it, as I do understand it from his PoV, even if I generally disagree with him on that. Obviously this is something under discussion within the beta group, though.

Well, we've both had our say, and its clear that has resulted in an impasse, for whichever reason.

Lets leave it at that. Our inability to communicate between us is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Back to the topic, as stated in OP.
Hopefully someone will soon come along with more feedback that the Devs asked for.

The core of my ontopic perspective on the Sov Support Team durability is described here:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/188243
And I would very much like to read analysis of the 4 potential options I propose, and especially more creative ones.

Its a very old problem and one that sort of falls into the "gaps" of the system without target tables.
I prefer option #2, which is reducing 6man crew overall hp to match a 4man unit, but a number of the others also "work", though arent maybe quite as intuitive, as was the critique of one particular poster.

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.

Elite Rifleman:
At the moment this ability provides no real downfall to its usage except for its long recharge time. We implemented slight cost increase as well as starting it on a cool down. However we are currently exploring possible redesigns of the ability such as increasing the rate in which rifleman will accumulate Veterancy.

The whole point of the Veteran Riflemen was to give the USF player an early advantage in the first engagements as the trade off for not picking another doctrine like, say, Infantry Company. The downside was that if you wanted to maintain a Veteran Rifleman force you took far, far longer to get them out and as a result had significantly less map control.

When you started it off on a cooldown you essentially handicapped its use. There's no real point to actually getting them now. They're more expensive(20mp is not much, but it is something) and their very early game advantage is simply gone. They functioned very much like an early game soft counter to units like the Kubelwagon.

By the time having Riflemen with Veterancy becomes vitally important and useful again is in the mid game where there's light/medium vehicles running around the rifle grenades can sort-of-maybe scare away, at which point all your standard Riflemen will already have that veterancy.

When taken in context with the rest of the commander, pretty much the only useful aspects to it were the Veteran Riflemen's extreme early game advantage, and then a tonne of entirely useless crap until you got the Easy Eight in the mid-late game to compete with other Medium Tanks.

So, with the Veteran Riflemen's utility essentially neutered(They're not bad, just the call in was over nerfed), you could safely rename the "Rifleman Company" to the "Easy Eight Company".

The whole point of that commentary, was to say that if you want to do something with the Veteran Rifleman, you either need to backtrack a little on that nerf to the call in or you need to totally revamp it into something useful. EARLY GAME useful. Having a passive increase in the rate of veterancy as my 0CP commander stuff doesn't really do jack for me in the early game if it's not going to become noticeable until the mid game.

Increased veterancy gain can be useful, but it'll need to be a real improvement. It's not a bulletin, it's a commander. None of that 10% crap.

Another option would be to allow you to spend a resource to selectively vet up a single infantry unit(Not just Riflemen, now). An ability like that has the aspect of not simply being a "zero downside use", you have to actually purchase the unit and you'll have an additional cost on top of that, but with that it'll maintain constant utility throughout the game.

Long Range Combat:
With our change to lethality in a previous update to make cover more important. A side effect of that change was that it made long range weapons extremely effective, especially LMGs. The combination of cover, lethality, and long range has resulted in medium to short range units being overall less effective. In most situation, units that require closer range will lose too many men on approach resulting in a significant drop in offensive performance.

I personally don't see the problem here. The premise seems to be that close range units should have some utility in all situations. A squad of flame pios shouldn't be able to run across the field and proceed to kill a squad of Pathfinders, nor should, say, Panzergrens be able to just run out in the open and get close to a squad of Guards Rifles with DPs. When you take that approach it's supposed to have risk attached to it; The risk that one too many models goes down and you don't have the damage output to overcome entrenched troops anymore.

Assault troops like PzGrens, Sturmpio, Paratroopers and so on are all already very, very effective once they get in close, it's just a matter of knowing the map, using flanking routes to your advantage and knowing when to pick a fight. If you can't do that, that's a map design issue, not a balance one.

I personally don't see the problem here. The premise seems to be that close range units should have some utility in all situations...

... it's just a matter of knowing the map, using flanking routes to your advantage and knowing when to pick a fight. If you can't do that, that's a map design issue, not a balance one.

I agree completely.

Units need to be used at their optimum range. For units with long range that is, self-explanatorily, at long range.

Its just stupid to try an engage a long ranged unit at, well, long range, with a unit that has a closer ranged optimum.

Having said that, it does not necessarily mean that closer optimum ranged units should do more dps at that closer range (though usually that does happen, to offset the disandvantage of having to maneuver closer, for a better dps output) but in the way CoH2 small arms stats in particular are, that is already answered by a reduced efficacy of long optimum ranged units in closer quarters. Meaning that not only do you have better dps with a close range unit at its optimum, but the long ranged unit you are fighting has less dps in proportion too, at that range, as they are inside of their optimum.

As Cyridius points out, this makes map use, cover use, LOS use and smoke use penultimate for closer optimum units.
Oncenyou get there, the payback is twofold. Not only do your weapins operate at optimum, but the dps you receive is also proportionally reduced as a factor of the opposing long ranged unit being out of its optimum.

BUT, LMG dps (not including the pathetic Guard upgrade (which btw neeeeds a buff and could benefit from the same solution, especially vs lower model units), and rather focusing on the Ost variety) is so high, that it chews individual target models to bits, especially at range, leading to high model attrition. As Cruzz suggested, a generalised DPS across the unit would mitigate this, allowing closer optimum units to close the gap with enough models (and hence dps) to bare inorder to take advantage of the twofold enefit as mentioned above. It is MUCH better to be able to close the gap with a unit that has all its models (and hence weapons) intatct, even with a lower overall hp total, than it is to arrive with 1-2 models dead (and hence their weapons gone) and the remaining models at full health.

Would you rather have a unit arrive with all models intact, but at 50% health, or half the unit arrive with 100% health?
I would choose the former, every goddam time.

Dead guys cannot fire a gun.

In most situation, units that require closer range will lose too many men on approach resulting in a significant drop in offensive performance

Dev concern illustrates this completely. And the primary culprit, is LMGs with their single target DPS chewing the hell out one model in turn, to the result that the opposing closer optimum unit is demicated by model loss to the point where they no longer deliver sufficient DPS on closing the gap to their optimum, due to model losses. Cruzz's generalised LMG dps solution fixes this by allowing time for the approach without losing models (but still keeping the long range impetus of LMG up, in the sense that you cant just sit behind a fence at LONG RANGE waiting to assault, you have to do it now, and preferably through cover/smoke/flank, or the LMG will wear you down to where an assault is no longer viable). And even then, with Cruzz's proposed change, at long range sitting, you wont lose models like now. You can hang there, steadily losing unit hp without model losses if you want to. Costs you no MP, just steadily reduces the assault potential of the unit. Wheras as the system is now, you would have lost 1-2 models and have to reinforce at cost.

wow the first american fanboy. sturmpio beat vet2 rifles? are you running the rifels into a in-cover squad of sturmpios? insta clear houses? are you on crack?

5 star vet that has the abilities from the other faction's 3 vet spread out.

maxim spam is total bullshit. period. MG is crap in comparison.

You must be some kind of genius to think that vet 5 is the same as vet 3.

Elite Rifleman:
At the moment this ability provides no real downfall to its usage except for its long recharge time. We implemented slight cost increase as well as starting it on a cool down. However we are currently exploring possible redesigns of the ability such as increasing the rate in which rifleman will accumulate Veterancy.

Either push them back to later CPs (like 2)

And/Or

Give them an fuel cost and maybe more MP as elite training works

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.

I don't know if this in response to Maxim spam being the new meta, or a longer term issue.

I would be very wary of changing the Soviet essence.

Maxim spam is common right now, but the Soviets basically only have three opening options:

1) T2

2) T1 just got nerfed

3) Con spam is difficult right now, especially v OKW, and more seriously US rifle spam is much better than con spam so if you want to do that you have no real reason to play Soviets

If the other two options become better then maxim spam will be less common

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.

1. I understand what several people and Cruzz said, and I already said that I partly agree, but there are other issues that will arise which have been presented by number of other people. Which I also agree with

2. I cannot help you with you seemingly being unable to comprehend what people who have different opinion than you are saying.

3. I also cannot help you with your ability of seeing text that says one thing and concluding that it says something completely different

4. Don't kid yourself, you are not polite and constantly imply that other people are stupid

5. As such any sort of discussion with you is impossible (unless someone is in agreement with you)

P.S. I put this in technical format for you, since you have difficulties comprehending normal conversational style

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.

To my understanding its exactly the same with MG42.

Retreat an MG42 or mortar. Once the guy who carries the weapon dies, it teleports to other crew members. On the other hand, SU support weapons must be manned again before they are able to continue to retreat.

And i forgot: higher DPS, specially on range, makes decrews easier.

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.

ALL units has the same HP. 80hp.
Some units have modified receive accuracy, shocktroops are the only unit which has armor now (i think). Again, this doesn´t increase HP. Similar to vehicle combat, theres a roll that a HIT will "bounce" (deflect).
If you want to make a realistic comparison, you should had put A squad with more DPS and less health (due to less models) and B squad with more health but less DPS. Basically what we have with cons vs grens at mid range barely.

Spreading the DPS of LMG will make squads without specialized weapons have a bit more sustained DPS.
While the long range squad will deal the same amount of damage, it won´t be as quickly mp effective as now.

Changing maxims now would be Soviet suicide. Cons cannot hang with OKW at all so in 1on1 you won't be seeing a lot of Soviets. In 2on2 I still opt to barely use cons. I think Cons might need a buff in long rang dps now to survive OKW.

In 2on2 I pretty much see a lot of the following.

Maxims, with mortars and AT guns....then tanks. It either works...or it doesn't but it never locks in a win so maxims don't need to be nerfed anymore.

Elite Riflemen should be available right away THEN you get a cooldown. I still use them but they don't make or break anything at the moment and are virtually useless since they don't come out until your 4th unit. I know they are still decent but it's supposed to be a commander, make it useful.

Changing maxims now would be Soviet suicide. Cons cannot hang with OKW at all so in 1on1 you won't be seeing a lot of Soviets.

Cons absolutely murder Volksgrenadiers.

You must be some kind of genius to think that vet 5 is the same as vet 3.

well vet5 volks or sturms are no more powerful than vet 3 rifles? honestly anything that made the okw unique to make up for lack of resouces got whine nerfed by soviet fanboys spamming the forums with threads of nerf germans. so now they are getting nerfed and the resources are getting bumped and still whines. now soviets are so ridiculously op in team games that the only way germans can win is if the sov/americans make a big mistake or are noobs.

But something must be done to maxims..main problem is the spam in team games.Main thing is zis also comes from same building sov an mg that can lock down and be used as an assualt unit supported by an at gun early which reduecs its vulnerability to lights.In team games with another player supporting this is devastatinga nd simple.With just 15 reinforce its dirt cheap.
Build time should be increased heavily of maxim to prevent spam early.Essentially u can get maxims but not 3-4 quickly.Giving opponent time before he can am,ass that critical mass of mgs.Right now spam is too fast,cost effective and overperforming.

In 1 vs 1 its less problematic.

Retreat an MG42 or mortar. Once the guy who carries the weapon dies, it teleports to other crew members. On the other hand, SU support weapons must be manned again before they are able to continue to retreat.

And i forgot: higher DPS, specially on range, makes decrews easier.

I see what was meant then. Thanks.

Yeah, may have been convenient since Sov Support Teams have the men to spare, and "nice graphically", whereas on the original 3man Ost Support Teams (plus the former "fleeing off the field guy") would have made it very impractical.

Im ok with the "Ost support weapon teleporter" technology being applied to Sov support too, if its techincaly possible with the animations and all, regardless of whether the Support Team crew durability is adjusted or not.

It is indeed unfair. A legacy bug, that has been glossed over.
Retreating units shouldnt have these kinds of handicap, just as they also are (generally) immune to suppression too. Pathing is unpredictable enough as it is without stuff like this in addition.