Action Items: Balance Feedback Required!

When rebalancing the Maxim please take a big look at how its suppression performs against blobs.

Please test its suppression against blobbed up units.

An MG is meant to be an area denial weapon (as even stated in your games tutorial) that doesnt necessary do big amounts of damage.


Right now the Maxim lacks the area suppression but on the other hand deals huge amount of damage and can set up faster but has a lower cone. Its 6 men squad also makes it more resistant to explosive weapons.


But even with micro it cannot successfull suppress blobs running at it. It will only suppress a small amount of the squads and the other squads will rush over it.


Also please keep in mind that rifle nades are the death sentence for Maxim crews. A solution to this would be to disallow rifle nades beeing fired when the squad is suppressd (not pinned). Even in a realistic manner this would make sense since the guy firing its rifle nade usually stands up and puts its rifle on the ground. But jeah realism is not what we are aiming at here so thats just a nice side note




What I personally would like the Maxim to become is sth like the following. And this is only to give some feedback and add to the discussion so no need for flaming

An MG that can still suppress blobs effectively, isnt hardcountered by rifle nades, doesnt overperform in the damage section and stands off from the MG 42 by its smaller arc, lower set up time, but shorter duration of suppression.
The problem of the durability against explosives could be solved by letting two guys of the squad stand closer to each other so the overall squad gets affected by mortar shells equivalent to the MG 42.


This would mean:

Give the Maxim a bigger area suppression BUT a smaller duration of the suppresion and less damage.
Keep the current firearc and set up time since its allready been increased.

-- This would mean the Maxim could still be used more aggressively than the MG42 due to its faster set up time but is not as capable as suppressing flanked squads by repositioning since the first suppressed squads will be unsuppressed faster.
Also it would not be able to attack on its own since the damage output would be to small to harm a squad before backup arrives.

On the other hand it would still serve as an areal denial weapon meant to punish blobs - just like MGs are meant to be.

The MG42 would have the advantage of having longer and a bit bigger area suppression and would serve a little better as a defensive unit but would lack the ability to support attacks FAST because of its slower set up time --

Stopping grenadiers from firing rifle nades while suppressed AND letting the 6 soldiers of the Maxim stand closer together in groups of two would both allow the Maxim to be more vulnerable to explosives and still keep the rifle nade ability from beeing sincere overpowered.

The higher damage output on german squads still means the small arms damage per second agaisnt the Maxim would be balanced between the factions.


Thats my two cents - theres surely room for discussion.

Best regards!

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.

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.

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.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated and thank you!

Please note: I'm only talking about the core units in each faction.

Elite Riflemen-Add a fuel cost. 20mp is nothing in this game.

Soviet Support weapons: The main issue is maxim spam, especially in combination with zis spam. Otherwise, by themselves, 82mm Mortars and Zis guns are ok. I'd say there's two core issues which need to be resolved here:

1-A critical mass of maxims (3+) will be able to form an impenetrable wall against any flanks due to their fast set-up/pack-up time. Furthermore, as OST/OKW you can't stop a maxim wall from aggressively pushing as it can pin the mg42/mg34 before getting pinned itself.

2-Lack of scaling for cons/penals in late game. Especially cons. Penals cost only 10mp less than rifles but have worse performance and not nearly as much scalability. Cons-the less said, the better. I'm not sure how much it is intended for the soviets to replace their core infantry with guards/shocks so I'm not touching on that, but its something to consider.

So in summary, I'd say you guys should tweak both maxims and soviet infantry-maxims should have increased set-up/pack up times and better scalability for soviet infantry.

Long range combat- I think the two main issues are that the new factions lmgs are primarily balanced around each other, but perform too well against the old factions. That, and an lmg blob will decimate any infantry in sufficient mass. I'd say its not the long-range dps that's at fault here, but the blobbing. Add a 1.25 received accuracy modifier to any blob, like negative zeal for pios in vCoH1, and bingo, problem solved. That said, the US ability to equip two lmgs is a tad too powerful.

Nordkind:

I may not agree with your points, but I like your style very much.
Please post more. We need more guys like you.

Stop favouring the allied teams, this game has so much competitive potential but the balance seems to steer away from this. The German sides suck atm. I've stopped playing atm just going to see how the balance goes and hopefully I come back as I love the game.

Just fix Kats pls.

And how about if MGs couldn't capture territory? For any side. That way spamming Mgs becomes very difficult, while the MGs stay effective.

The fact is that relic has never understood the meaning of organization of the troop or the composition. Spamming should decrease the efficiency of the army and limit capacity of operation. And they do not even have any idea on the math model of simulation of different period of the war.

Replace Elite Riflemen with Rangers--ridiculously expensive, but the same old two-zooks-by-default-and-four-thompsons-for-100-MU that we all came to love (or hate, as the Axis). Something on the order of 440 MP per call in. Rename the company to a Ranger Company or a Heavy Infantry Company.

GG no re.

I'm all for reduced Soviet weapon team sizes--so long as the support weapons themselves get a little better.

Just fix Kats pls.

And how about if MGs couldn't capture territory? For any side. That way spamming Mgs becomes very difficult, while the MGs stay effective.

Im against this, because I think sending an MG to capture a peripheral, especially flanking, objective is a fair exchange away from its primary purpose of support or other infantry, but allowing it to hold its own when on a objectivr capture mission.

Its quite dangerous, unwise (as your other infantry lacks theirnsupport), but I think its a viable and validnuse in meta, and dont want it lost entirely.

Perhaps increase capture time for Support Teams is a compromise? (Though overall, I personally, dont think this addresses the Sov Support durability issue, which is specifically what Devs are asking about).

To my understanding its exactly the same with MG42.


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?

Your claim that the stats of Soviet weapons is already balanced without taking into consideration squad size is completely and utterly false. Please show me where a relic dev has said that this is the case? Or provide some statistical evidence to back this up. Soviet teams clearly preform worse than their ost counterparts, in 1v1.

For those that are approaching this discussion about Soviet Weapon Teams with the assumption that the weapons themselves (the stats of the actual Maxim/Mortar/ZiS) are asymmetrically balanced - without factoring in the squad size...

http://i.imgur.com/8cDsceY.jpg



So yes, as I've claimed in the past, the squad size WAS/IS indeed a concrete factor in determining the performance of the actual weapons that Soviet teams yield.

If Relic was to reduce the squad size, which I maybe... maybe... could see being good in the long-run, they'll absolutely have to improve the performance to compensate. This would require a pretty large overhaul, and a lot of testing - I think there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.b

Thankfully you guys are adressing 6man squads for Soviets.

ITs absolutely ridiculous that they can easily win the war of attrition in additon to having the most area of effect weapons, on tanks, support options, mortars etc.

Please get rid of soviet 6 man squads. Especially on Maxims and cons.

Another Blatantly obvious issue is RIFLEMan. They are extremely OP especially vs OH.

Volks also lacking an LMG for volks. Fueselliers are the only viable infantry vs USF and IMO still lacking until they get upgraded with G43s.and even then they come at CP 2 so its a big disadvantage and obviously restrictred to one commander.

Volks needs to be buffed.

Your claim that the stats of Soviet weapons is already balanced without taking into consideration squad size is completely and utterly false. Please show me where a relic dev has said that this is the case? Or provide some statistical evidence to back this up. Soviet teams clearly preform worse than their ost counterparts, in 1v1.

My full answer to the actual and specific question the Devs asked for feedback on, is here:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/188243

My full answer to the actual and specific question the Devs asked for feedback on, is here:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/188243

Even in that post you're clinging into the notion that the Soviet weapons themselves have sufficient stats to warrant a smaller squad size. Sorry but you're just completely wrong. Look at the screenshot from Ciez... Peter said clearly and unequivocally that squad size was and is taken into account for the stats and performance of Soviet weapons. You'd be even more foolish than I thought totry and disagree with the man that heads up game balance, and created the baselines for all weapons...

Thanks for the insults and provocation, but as I said, my feedback to the Dev's specific question is provided in the post I linked.

Im against this, because I think sending an MG to capture a peripheral, especially flanking, objective is a fair exchange away from its primary purpose of support or other infantry, but allowing it to hold its own when on a objectivr capture mission.

Its quite dangerous, unwise (as your other infantry lacks theirnsupport), but I think its a viable and validnuse in meta, and dont want it lost entirely.

Perhaps increase capture time for Support Teams is a compromise? (Though overall, I personally, dont think this addresses the Sov Support durability issue, which is specifically what Devs are asking about).

I know what you're saying but please look at this:

all MGs have a special ability - supression. As such, they should have weaknesses. They should not be able to walk around the map alone without support, caping territory.

If this ability was removed, nobody would be able to spam them.

Yes, MG spam is viable. It's absolutely viable. But it's boring. It's so so boring to play against. All the joy of flanking is removed from the game as you walk into Maxim after Maxim after Maxim after Maxim after Maxim.



So, take MG's cappign ability in exchange for their suppression ability and power. I thik that's the fairest way.

Yes. But Devs aren't asking whether to remove capping from Maxim or all MGs, or about Maxim spam.

The question is quite specifically about the durability of 6man Sov Support Teams.

Know what I mean? By all means, make a thread with your proposal though.

I know what you're saying but please look at this:

all MGs have a special ability - supression. As such, they should have weaknesses. They should not be able to walk around the map alone without support, caping territory.

If this ability was removed, nobody would be able to spam them.

Yes, MG spam is viable. It's absolutely viable. But it's boring. It's so so boring to play against. All the joy of flanking is removed from the game as you walk into Maxim after Maxim after Maxim after Maxim after Maxim.



So, take MG's cappign ability in exchange for their suppression ability and power. I thik that's the fairest way.

The drawback of MGs is immobility (compared to normal infantry squads), no possibility for weapon upgrades (which, on a whole, are very arguably too powerful in their current state - except maybe the PPSh), no grenades, vulnerability to indirect fire, vulnerability to flanking/green cover (MGs can't suppress squads in green cover - it takes like 2 full minutes of shooting), lack of AT utility (lowered access to AT nades/fausts) etc etc

There are plenty of drawbacks to spamming MGs - especially in 1v1, which is why you never really see top players spamming maxims or MG42s (maybe like 15 patches ago when the MG42 was instant suppress/crazy OP). The issue primarily presents itself in team games where your ally(ies) can cover the weaknesses of spamming Maxims/MG42s.

I don't think removing the ability to cap would really solve anything. MGs would become border-line extinct in 1v1s, and team games would largely remain the same - you'd just let your ally cap while you suppress everything. Lowering the durability of Soviet weapon team squads is a band-aid fix at best, especially considering they'd need to be significantly buffed to compensate for the reduced durability (see the screenshot of me/PQ above).

In my opinion the real issue, if you could call it an issue at all, lies within the Soviet tech system. Since you're forced, in almost every case, to pick two of your four tiers of tech - you always lack a variety of options - which inherently leads to more "spamming" of the options that you do actually have available to use. Personally I'm fine with this tech system, I don't think there is anything inherently "wrong" with a faction that is somewhat designed around "spammy" gameplay. I can still sympathize with those that find it to be boring to play with/against.

Overall I'd much rather see Relic re-work the Soviet tech system rather than try to put a band-aid over Soviet weapon teams. Either they'll be glass cannons (4 men, very powerful weapon stats) or durable (6 men, weaker weapon stats) but either way they'll be spammed because of the limitations present in the current Soviet tech structure.

Might edit this later, was getting my thoughts down quickly before dinner.

They should not be able to walk around the map alone without support, caping territory.

Why shouldn't they? Those kind of artificial limitations are very immersion breaking, just like snipers not being able to board transports. Besides, it's a risky move and I would be happy to catch a lone capping maxim since it's much easier prey than supported one in building for an example.

Why shouldn't they? Those kind of artificial limitations are very immersion breaking, just like snipers not being able to board transports. Besides, it's a risky move and I would be happy to catch a lone capping maxim since it's much easier prey than supported one in building for an example.

So you want snipers to be able to garrison vehicles again? I think that's very sad. It was one of the worst features of this game.


To answer your question, they shouldn't because when they can, the play has the option to build almost exclusively one unit. One fun thing about CoH is that spamming comes with severe drawbacks usually. The drawbacks of spamming Maxims re not sever enough to stop people doing it and playing against Maxim spam is borrrrrrringgggg. Fun > "immersion".

You'll be lucky to catch a maxim capping alone that doesn't have another maxim behind it. Check ImperialDanes Jellydonut shoutcast for an example.

The drawback of MGs is immobility (compared to normal infantry squads), no possibility for weapon upgrades (which, on a whole, are very arguably too powerful in their current state - except maybe the PPSh), no grenades, vulnerability to indirect fire, vulnerability to flanking/green cover (MGs can't suppress squads in green cover - it takes like 2 full minutes of shooting), lack of AT utility (lowered access to AT nades/fausts) etc etc

There are plenty of drawbacks to spamming MGs - especially in 1v1, which is why you never really see top players spamming maxims or MG42s (maybe like 15 patches ago when the MG42 was instant suppress/crazy OP). The issue primarily presents itself in team games where your ally(ies) can cover the weaknesses of spamming Maxims/MG42s.

I don't think removing the ability to cap would really solve anything. MGs would become border-line extinct in 1v1s, and team games would largely remain the same - you'd just let your ally cap while you suppress everything. Lowering the durability of Soviet weapon team squads is a band-aid fix at best, especially considering they'd need to be significantly buffed to compensate for the reduced durability (see the screenshot of me/PQ above).

In my opinion the real issue, if you could call it an issue at all, lies within the Soviet tech system. Since you're forced, in almost every case, to pick two of your four tiers of tech - you always lack a variety of options - which inherently leads to more "spamming" of the options that you do actually have available to use. Personally I'm fine with this tech system, I don't think there is anything inherently "wrong" with a faction that is somewhat designed around "spammy" gameplay. I can still sympathize with those that find it to be boring to play with/against.

Overall I'd much rather see Relic re-work the Soviet tech system rather than try to put a band-aid over Soviet weapon teams. Either they'll be glass cannons (4 men, very powerful weapon stats) or durable (6 men, weaker weapon stats) but either way they'll be spammed because of the limitations present in the current Soviet tech structure.

Might edit this later, was getting my thoughts down quickly before dinner.

Hmmm, really a lot of good points, thanks for the well-thought out reply!

Yes, I imagine in team games it wouldn't have as much of an effect to reduce MG capping ability. Still, I think it would reduce it a little. But you're right it would have a large effect in 1v1. Do you really think MGs would become extinct? Soviets still have conscripts/2CP call-ins to mix in with the MGs for more of a balanced army.


I'm not arguing for a reduction in squad size. If it happened, yes, the squad members should be buffed. Perhaps they should reduce squad size to make snipers a ore viable option for Ost. But definitely improve MG sqaud stats. Not power, just durability.


But I think I agree with you on the Soviet tier design. The cost of 40 or 50 after you've already spent 40 or 50 is too much. So as you said, players are forced to build even more units from that tier. I think for t3t4 is should stay the same though. A choice should be made that has drawbacks. Ostheer also has to make a T3/T4 choice.

Maybe after building one of the tiers, the other tier could drop in price?