ISU-152 Overnerfed

have faith everyone. they will be changed...SOON(TM)

+1 i think so too. They are supporting the game well I'd say.

Thank god, ISU added nothing but frustration to the gameplay. Same goes for JT.

Fear not, the abuse wagon is back.

It mean that players skill should be the dominant factor in winning. But when a faction overall power bring too much impact into the game then the game won't be fun.

Really? Because for the last 9 pages you have been arguing the opposite for the ISU-152.

Fear not, the abuse wagon is back.

Back, and they slightly buffed the abilities on both the ISU and the Jagdtiger. Not enough to make any difference and on pretty under used abilities, but I'm not happy they made additional balance changes to the vehicles but left the original features that everybody complained about untouched. Oh well.

Back, and they slightly buffed the abilities on both the ISU and the Jagdtiger. Not enough to make any difference and on pretty under used abilities, but I'm not happy they made additional balance changes to the vehicles but left the original features that everybody complained about untouched. Oh well.

Imo, the Jagdtiger, Elefant and ISU-152 should be support weapons, not core vehicles. That's what made the beta more entertaining, particularly in 2v2. Where if one player did go for the 152, he would play a more supportive role, due to the attention he would have to spend on the 152. Same goes for the Jagdtiger. Now, it's just the same old, same old. I personally hate using the Jagdtiger and I play mostly Axis. That being said, the 152 is just as abusive as it used to be.

Imo, the Jagdtiger, Elefant and ISU-152 should be support weapons, not core vehicles. That's what made the beta more entertaining, particularly in 2v2. Where if one player did go for the 152, he would play a more supportive role, due to the attention he would have to spend on the 152. Same goes for the Jagdtiger. Now, it's just the same old, same old. I personally hate using the Jagdtiger and I play mostly Axis. That being said, the 152 is just as abusive as it used to be.

The ISU152 is a core unit because
.
1. It is good
2. There aren't many doctrines that provide late game options
3. Reliance on call-ins due to underperforming core units

every game shreks spam with since kubel spam. isu its only 1 unit that can kill german blobs... and what soviet can do if: 1) germans have strong tanks 2)support by shreks spam or rambo infantry ?! - nothing only isu or ml-20
so dont write about units if u dont know about infantry support

The ISU152 is a core unit because
.
1. It is good
2. There aren't many doctrines that provide late game options
3. Reliance on call-ins due to underperforming core units

Which is fine. I think the lack of alternatives is a design flaw. Which I'm aware is something that has plagued the Soviet faction from the get go (flawed design).

Well i was perfectly happy with the balance in COHO and the latest vcoh patch. so yes it can be balanced. Remember, balanced enough to be fun don't mean perfectly balanced. It mean that players skill should be the dominant factor in winning. But when a faction overall power bring too much impact into the game then the game won't be fun.

vCOH has never been balanced in 3v3 and 4v4 and never will be.

If the teams are about equally skilled and coordinate to the same degree Axis will win 8 or 9 out of ten times.
BECAUSE the factions are different. In 1v1 and 2v2 a skilled Allied team can push Axis off the map and end the game in 15 or 20 minutes. Actually the Axis often could call gg before the 10 minute mark. In this case Axis especially WH can't capitalise on their superiour late game.
In 3v3 and 4v4 this isn't possible anymore. If the Axis players only cling to a small portion of the map and one VP they will advance into their late game and push the allies of the map. Slow and steady.
If there are no VPs Axis will allways win unless the Allies are super agressive and push the straight off the map.
The balance part is that its actually difficult to hold the required portion of the map early on for the Axis players... if the Ally players know what they are doing and are agressive.
Wich again interacts with 3v3 and 4v4 since most players that prefer these games seem to be more of a defensive and turtle type (no insult intended). Its just an observation that they are not the 1v1 and 2v2 ledder and competative type of players. Lots don't even understand that the factions need to be played diffrent and a longer game is not automatically better.

In CoH2 this effect is amplified because the units scale different compared to vCoH.

In a nutshell 3v3 and 4v4 is a different game to 1v1 and 2v2. It gets again a differnt game without VPs, high recourses etc. The number of options makes it allmost impossible to balance the game effectively. So of course the team focusses on balancing the game if certain options are selcted and hopes it will work with other options as well. It also makes discussing the balance in forums like this difficult because usually a player assumes that the game mode and options he prefers are the norm. Wich might ot might not be the case.

I fully agree that skill should have the biggest impact on the outcome of the game. As far as I can tell this currently is the case in CoH2. A lot of complaining about the balance is because most players have a bad self evaluation. If somethings goes wrong it has to be the game.

Yesterday I tried the patch and played 3v3 and 4v4 a bit. Both Axis and Allies. In each and every game players from the loosing side regardless of their own faction complained about the other faction being imbalanced and their opponents just exploiting it.
I was accused of rifle spam when playing US. Yet I never had more than three rifle squads on the map. These also weren't blobbed. Not spread all over the map either but certainly not a blob.
This is of course only an anecdote but how most players perceive balance is not by numbers and facts but by feeling and anecdotes.

The "lack of other options" doesn´t mean that an overpowered unit like the ISU is justified. An OP unit is going to be OP, no matter what other units are available.

Imagine we would make PGs the weakest infantry unit in the game. To "balance" that we would make regular Grens the strongest infantry in game. What happens? The game isn´t balanced, because everybody would build the OP unit.

Really? Because for the last 9 pages you have been arguing the opposite for the ISU-152.

You just demonstrate with this post that you didn't understood my previous posts. That's sad.
Maybe my poor english writing skills were the cause.

Thank you anyway for your comments.

The "lack of other options" doesn´t mean that an overpowered unit like the ISU is justified. An OP unit is going to be OP, no matter what other units are available.

Imagine we would make PGs the weakest infantry unit in the game. To "balance" that we would make regular Grens the strongest infantry in game. What happens? The game isn´t balanced, because everybody would build the OP unit.

I never said that the ISU or the JT were balanced, i just said that with the current meta the ISU is still needed to give some chances of winning to the allies side in 4vs4.

When Relic's deva will bring news options to the meta that will help the allies side, i'll be glad to see the ISU change.

Thanks.

The "lack of other options" doesn´t mean that an overpowered unit like the ISU is justified. An OP unit is going to be OP, no matter what other units are available.

Imagine we would make PGs the weakest infantry unit in the game. To "balance" that we would make regular Grens the strongest infantry in game. What happens? The game isn´t balanced, because everybody would build the OP unit.

I agree that frustration arising form the use of OP units should be mended and OP units nerfed.

The Soviets are in a tricky position. The ISU is a crutch unit that keeps the USSR in game. However, without the ISU, the USSR is going to be at a severe disadvantage compared to the Axis late game. I would be happy if they toned down the ISU ALONG with tweaks to the faction in order to minimize dependence on the ISU.

Nerfing the ISU alone without making any changes to compensate would be a severe blow to the Soviets. It really is a delicate line to cross. Keeping some semblance of balance albeit having an OP unit as a crutch until permanent solutions are figured out or nerfing the ISU alone to remove its frustration on the playerbase but causing a disadvantage to the entire faction