Why always such drastical balancing changes?

When I see the changes in the new patch (mostly the Katjusha change) I am wondering more than ever why Relic isn't able to do a balancing without creating more problems than before.

I see it all the time:
Unit X is some kind of underpowered for, let's say, three months and almost no one builds it because it is not viable.
Sure it's a good thought then to buff the thing to make it more appealing to use.

Usually it would be like this.

(Before the flaming starts: I know that 100 DPS is not low )

Before: Unit X has 100 Damage per Second (very low, no one plays it)
After: Unit X has 115 Damage per Second

IF unit X will be played more often after the patch then everything is fine.
If not it's time to think about buffing Unit X for about 10 DPS more (125) or maybe lowering it's costs a LITTLE BIT (maybe from 100 Fuel to 90).

Repeat these tasks every two or three weeks until the unit is balanced.

IF unit X becomes SLIGHTLY overperforming after a patch then the next patch has to fix that again. (For example from 150 DPS to 130)

So can someone tell me why Relic does not do these small changes in their act of balancing?
All I see is balancing patches every two months with major changes most of the time.

Best example the katjusha.
Why not slowly increasing it's performance until it is played by a decent amount of players?
Why do they DOUBLE it's damage in ONE SINGLE PATCH making it a unit that every Axis player will be facing EVERY GAME?

I suppose with the next big patch, Katjusha and Stuka zu Fuß will be nerfed to death again.

Back then with ISU it took for about three months.
Let's see how long we have to wait for now.

How should we know.

Email Relic and ask.

Why do they DOUBLE it's damage in ONE SINGLE PATCH

They also reduced the scatter, and greatly increased AoE. So the effect is a unit that is more than twice as effective as before.

It seems to me that someone at Relic does not realize the full extent of what numbers do in the current state of the game. AoE, as all surfaces, has a quadratic effect - AoE increase of 50% results in a 125% increase in area.

Pqumsieh is not Relic Entertainment nor represents the whole "Design/Balance Team". Stop talking as if it's all his directly responsability that such changes get implemented. We won't tolerate direct attacks to specific Relic members, more so when based on no concrete evidences but just your frustration and lack of common sense use.

Cleaned the thread.

The reason they don't do regular mini patches is because they have to coordinate with Steam and also it breaks replays. That being said, steam allows them to patch more often than previously. Even so, small mini changes might not be beneficial, I think most of us aren't qualified to tell what is optimal when so many variables are at stake.

Game developers look hard into their patches before they're released.

They need to scan and read tons of forums, looking through threads like this to see who's angry at what, before they can talk to steam about implementing another patch

They've been a lot better about this lately, honestly. Just look at the american AA halftrack, it has been very slightly and gradually nerfed to get it to the right place. In fact, the most recent patch was awesome on almost all counts. The Katyusha got a slight overbuff, sure, but most of the changes were small and in the right direction.

I dunno, the same reason the M15 FHT is overused and the 251 FHT is underused, so they decreased the reload frequency on the M15's Machine Guns and increased the 251's setup time. It's just Relic logic.

Pqumsieh is not Relic Entertainment nor represents the whole "Design/Balance Team". Stop talking as if it's all his directly responsability that such changes get implemented. We won't tolerate direct attacks to specific Relic members, more so when based on no concrete evidences but just your frustration and lack of common sense use.

Cleaned the thread.

First of all, there was no attack on anybody in my post.

It only states that people find ways to abuse intended use of units.
As PQ stated in his PUBLIC communications, on what they wanted unit to feel like and perform
This problem became common since OF and highly assimetric faction design. (which I like btw)

P.Q. is public figure and I did no more then repeat his words as he frequently said words such as: intended use of units and side effects of unintended use of units.

I am not frustrated, and I clearly stated which part of my post was speculation. (for which there is concrete proof in number of broken balance units/commanders getting through balance servers)

Second, you attacked me on no valid grounds because you interpreted something as 'attack', which it clearly isn't.
The only person that was attacked here was me, by you.

I forgive you tho, because you are usually cool and probably just frustrated from reading tons of flaming comments

Seems like Relic messes up every once in a while. The nerf the American AA Halftrack properly but mess up on something else.

its not peter's fault. it the endless soviet fanboys who spam the forums with endless whine threads about everything germans have.

The OKW tank fuel cost stealth changes/reverts and perhaps the Katyusha buff appears to be the result of overlapping internal iterations. Especially with the accidental release of the prototype breakthrough commander it is clear things are disorganized at Relic currently.

I can almost guarantee the initial OKW fuel reduction was one option they had to buff OKW, but they decided to buff munitions instead both to promote grenade/ability use or muni/fuel transferring if the player wanted to rush fuel. Some missed deadlines and disorganization and both options go in on a single patch, July 22, necessitating an emergency patch July 25 to revert fuel costs to their original values.

The Katy was probably an experiment with modifying a number of values like scatter/aoe/damage to see which had the best translation to in game effectiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if the Katy went through with all values buffed while devs were still tweaking it.


Relic has seemed distant and disjointed since WFA was released, it is difficult to predict what is going on in the offices. All we can tell is that the players are getting a garbled response and something seems to preoccupying the teams development time. Stay tuned.

Frankly, it's to keep people employed.

Hey Babaroga,

Thanks for replying, I'll explain you why your post got invisibled (I admit I should have toned down the tone of my post a bit btw).

As far as I heard, when people suggest possible problem is beta they get ignored.

This has been constant problem since P.Q. got on board

When I read your post I felt you implied two things: the first one being that there is a correlation between balance problems and the fact PQ got on board, which is, from all the information I know, wrong because Peter is working at Relic even before Company of Heroes 2 went out and because, working myself in strict contact with Relic from years, I assure you the work he has personally done so far was way better than what we could ever hope for and way better than what any other Relic dev has done since COH1. (e.g. He literaly changed the whole combat system of COH2 which was very slow and stagnant - garrison covers, too low dps of squads - turning it into a dynamic and fluid system that the high majority of players prefer to the old one).

From how I read your post I felt you also implied directly (by the way you wrote the sentences I quoted) that there is a correlation between "beta testers getting ignored" (something that in any case you have no idea about since you are not in the balance beta for your own admission) and the fact that this is somewhat caused by Peter's presence, which again is based on rumors you hear, unless someone is breaking the NDA we had to sign. (and again, being in the beta process I can tell you that Peter is one of the most communicative developers at Relic since the game initially came out)

So, since your post was mostly based on your assumptions and considering how easily they could have been interpreted (directly or indirectly) the way I did by someone else with stronger "forum warriors skills" than mine (and considering both the assumptions would directly attack the role and professionality of a specific Relic developer) I decided to invisible your post.

There is no personal issue and I'm happy you asked for clarification and explained me your point of view to better let me understand what you actually meant.

I also tought about that and asked myself the same thing.
I also wonder whether they test their patches, I highly doubt it.
Loading screens without bulletins are a perfect example of that.
You just cant look over it.

its not peter's fault. it the endless soviet fanboys who spam the forums with endless whine threads about everything germans have.

first balance forum page.

9 whine threads about allies being op or axis up.
1 actually valid, about katiusha.
1 arguably valid about ost T4 cost.

4 whine threads about axis being op or allies up.
1 valid, about M3.
1 arguably valid about panzerfusiliers overperforming for cost.

Forum tears say you are wrong as its the exact opposite.

first balance forum page.

9 whine threads about allies being op or axis up.
1 actually valid, about katiusha.
1 arguably valid about ost T4 cost.

4 whine threads about axis being op or allies up.
1 valid, about M3.
1 arguably valid about panzerfusiliers overperforming for cost.

Forum tears say you are wrong as its the exact opposite.

No. Actually your analysis of thread counts supports his position.

Please, feel free to elaborate on that as the conclusion is rather simple.