Balance Preview Update 09/08/2015
Posts: 959
Really what's your logic in nerfing UC flamer?!!!! and still keeping the UKF's pathetic early g.ame untouched????! plus the miserable manpower situation UKF has which is by far not in line with other factions.
Please do something about this
Posts: 172
The unit is simply overpriced for the cost...
Posts: 172
Relic,
Really what's your logic in nerfing UC flamer?!!!! and still keeping the UKF's pathetic early g.ame untouched????! plus the miserable manpower situation UKF has which is by far not in line with other factions.
Please do something about this
Something has to be done to tommy for early game, but not the UC change revert I think.
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/67-coh-2-changelog?p=207570#post207570
Balance Preview Update 09/04/2015
Partisan cost increased from 210 to 250 to bring the unit in line with its cost.
Partisan guns changed from MP44 to MP40s (PPSH for placeholder) they will deal slightly less damage but still be good at dealing with weapon teams
Partisans now have camouflage to gain extra utility after their initial deployment
T34 Population increased from 8 to 10 to prevent overwhelming numbers of the tank
As if AT partysans were bad enough(reinforce wise). Now this. Someone explain to me why partysans are getting changed for the worse rather than the better. And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.
Posts: 959
Piats are too bad!
Posts: 2070
As if AT partysans were bad enough(reinforce wise). Now this. Someone explain to me why partysans are getting changed for the worse rather than the better. And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.
Posts: 959
What's the point of UKF's infantry sections being able to build catches??!!
You never have extra manpower to build one!!
Please fix
Posts: 1487
And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.
was sayig the same
http://www.coh2.org/topic/39915/why-t4-t3476-is-a-mistake/page/1#post_id390896
there is absolutely no reason to use t34/76 now. Unless you have bad commander without tank.
Posts: 440
Hm, can't find those numbers on coh2-stats. Where did you find those numbers?
In his head?
Posts: 172
As if AT partysans were bad enough(reinforce wise). Now this. Someone explain to me why partysans are getting changed for the worse rather than the better. And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.
They'll not get lmg anymore and they'll use the same weapon as German.
Normal partisans get mp40 always, and AT partisans will always get panzerschreck.
Also camouflage added.
They've become efficient harassing and ambush unit.
How can you say they're getting bad? Only because of ppsh?
Posts: 179
Relic check this, buff the 25 pounders.
Posts: 172
Is this intended? There was no mentioning on the preview note.
Posts: 174
Why do you guys insist on turning heavies into these counter-all vehicles all the sudden. Weren't we working away from a heavy tank meta..
There is no reason give heavy tanks longer ranges to deal with tank destroyers. Tank destroyers are supposed to kite heavy tanks. Is that not obvious?
To deal with this,you support your heavy tank with 50-60 range units...
The KT literally does not need this. Just park a Jp4(which flat out beats SU85s and jacksons) right next to it..
Same with tiger,even though its harder since they lack a 60 range TD(SO BUFF THE STUG TO BE INLINE WITH OTHER FACTIONS 60 RANGE TD's,NOT THE TIGER. #JustRelicBalancing),park double paks,or a couple stugs with a halftrack to reinforce paks that were hit by artillery.
I dont understand. Please dont put this in live. And if youre planning on giving a pershing(when its added) 45-50 range,please reconsider. Its only moving towards taking away from late game combined arms.
The other changes are +1 btw,but why go 4-5 steps forward and 1 step back.
+10 or however many people have agreed with this post.
I don't understand how "Tigers die too easily to tank destroyers" is even an issue. The Jackson is the only unit USF has to deal w/ these heavily armored, late-game Axis units, whether they be Tigers or Panthers or whatever. To that end, I thought they were a hard counter. I mean, lawd knows Zooks and 57 mm rounds are just gonna bounce off left and right.
So what's the actual rationale behind this proposed change? Who at the office is saying "USF has too strong of a late game" or "[either Axis faction] needs help killing USF armor." Because I haven't seen anyone say it here.
Posts: 1108
why are they nerfing molotoves? they are fine they way they are, should grenades get nerfed because they do alot of damage and squad wipes?
because they killed bunkers/buildings in seconds. Imagine a single grenade could kill a fighting position. Maybe relic can change only the "building damage"
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
+10 or however many people have agreed with this post.
I don't understand how "Tigers die too easily to tank destroyers" is even an issue. The Jackson is the only unit USF has to deal w/ these heavily armored, late-game Axis units, whether they be Tigers or Panthers or whatever. To that end, I thought they were a hard counter. I mean, lawd knows Zooks and 57 mm rounds are just gonna bounce off left and right.
So what's the actual rationale behind this proposed change? Who at the office is saying "USF has too strong of a late game" or "[either Axis faction] needs help killing USF armor." Because I haven't seen anyone say it here.
I think it's about proportions. By the time the heavies' number wasn't limited, I don't think to many people complained about this issue. TDs were having the range advantage, but Heavy tanks could compensate with numbers (for example, 2 instead of 1 on the battlefield) and people get shocked now seeing 3 TDs chasing a heavy around the map. The heavy tanks relevance in the game was seriously diminshed and this made some people uspet and they request for a compensation in exchange. I don't necessarely think it's bad, I'm just stating the obvious. Therefore this little compensation in terms of range and penetration appears appropriate for me, we are somehow closing to historical reality (Tiger had a huge range and its amo could penetrate targets at 2000 m), but I don't think we need more. Well, you can't please everyone, that's for sure.
Posts: 431
I don't like seeing Brits' late game get nerfed while their poor early and mid game goes untouched. How are they supposed to stand a chance now? The manpower bleed is atrocious, and adding even more manpower to teching costs is going to make it even worse. The Comet is getting nerfed way too heavily given its pricing, timing, and the fact that it's tied to a resource-starved faction to begin with. I see myself going Anvil 95% of the time if this gets implemented. The couple of questionably strong facets of UKF are being toned down while their weaknesses are going largely untouched.
I agree with other users that incendiary grenades should be on Sturmpioneers, not Volks. Also, can Ostheer and USF please just have sandbags by default? I really don't understand why this basic functionality isn't a core part of all factions. Rear echelons need mines, too, even if they're not as good as infantry company mines.
I'll be honest, the way Relic balances the game really annoys me sometimes. I'm glad to see these kinds of beta patches, but they always, always have to go for huge, sweeping changes. Usually on relative non-issues. Something is slightly too good? Cut its damage and accuracy by 60% because fuck that thing. And nerf its health too. All the while, big issues everyone agrees on take forever to get remedied, like UKF manpower bleed, or a slew of units being useless. How long was the SU-76 worthlesss? Like two years. People have been complaining about UKF manpower bleed since the alpha in May, and absolutely nothing got changed. I barely noticed any changes at all between the alpha and the retail release.
Posts: 615
Proposed Changes:
- Revert Tiger I & Tiger II range buffs
- Revert Jagdtiger price buff (foreseeable Jagdtiger rush meta incoming by skipping most OKW HQ tiers and calling in this GGWP tank in 15 minutes)
- Revert Comet changes
- Nerf Churchill Mk VI (it can be rushed very easily)
- Revert Logistics Glider changes and add in resource bonus only for player (like Opel)
- Nerf Ostheer sniper
- Buff USF M3 Assault Group
- Buff Ostheer SdKfz 250 (w/LMG Gren or PG)
- Buff Soviet 45mm mini AT gun
- Buff OKW flak emplacement (also make it un-decrewable)
- Buff OKW barbedwire build speed to compensate for it being wire-cuttable
- Fix USF Infantry Company defensive ability where Fighting Position doesn't unlock at 0CP, but mines do and apparently now sandbags do as well
- Revert LeFH ninja buff changes
- Buff Infantry Section Tank Hunters in Special Weapons Regiment
- Revert SdKfz 251 & M5 HT reinforcement penalty changes and just nerf the upgrades! Don't change the roles into offensive units!
- Make Tiger Ace cost some fuel
- Buff Dodge WC51
- Fix bug regarding passive Recon Company riflemen sight bonus while in cover
- Buff Paratrooper Assault Group (the one with two recon paratroopers & AT gun)
- Revert Stuka Dive Bomb AOE increase
- Increase Panzerwerfer damage vs. emplacements
- Substitute Riflemen defensive position with something else w/ m1919 upgrade (like supressive fire plz)
- Buff USF major called in artillery
- Give some special ability to Lieutenant
-
Posts: 728
We will have to play around with the numbers through testing, maybe we just increase the fuel and not the manpower? testing will reveal this.
Comet still the fastest tank in the game and deals massive damage still. Although its scatter is increase slightly its accuracy, splash etc makes it way more versatile. Problem was it was able to move fast, kill stuff and tank a lot of damage. so yeah, if the cost needs to be adjusted or numbers need to be adjusted thats what testing will prove or disprove.
I don't get it why can Allies not have good tanks like axis? If were going to nerf its hp increase its accuracy? I use it all the time it is fine how it is now, it dosent have that great of pen and its accuracy dosen't seem the best on the move. You know but the panther is fine why can there not be some sort of parity between late game forces?
I mean the tiger ace that thing has been op since creation?
Posts: 1157 | Subs: 2
Wow? Why even buff the Tiger in the first place when the veterancy is nerfed? So the Tiger stays the way it is. I was hyped before... now I´m just disappointed. That bit of penetration and range on vet0 and 1 is nothing it neeaded. Back to garbage Tiger.
Give it at least some armor or health back.
Don't hinge your hopes on a balance preview mod that is bound to change mang
Posts: 2470
you have to also take into account OKW resource personality as it is harder to accumulate that amount of fuel.
why was the fuel penalty instituted in the first place as opposed to just making their things cost more fuel? as it is there's simply been an invisible (to the "average" player) extra thing added. additionally, the current system means that the OKH fuel/mun drop gives OKW a disproportionate amount because their reduced income, which does nothing in 1v1s but causes issues in team games.
Livestreams
803 | |||||
125 | |||||
8 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, johnsmith008
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM