Login

russian armor

April 20th Update

PAGES (11)down
19 Apr 2016, 09:00 AM
#121
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

"Normalized pop-cap on 120 mortar team."

"Fixed an issue with the comet tank projectiles."

Thank god for that, very under rated changes.


*Sexton crews keep crying, smoking and drinking dirty ale from Southampton. QF25 teams already shooting at empty bottles of shitty scotch - can't hit any.*.
19 Apr 2016, 09:02 AM
#122
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

so that's this huge patch that relic was talking about? well, good to see cancer emplacement nerf and maxim nerf but that's not much, soviet were underperforming for long time while others were getting buffed, and now they are loosing their last good stuff :snfBarton:
19 Apr 2016, 09:05 AM
#123
avatar of Hikuran

Posts: 194

so that's this huge patch that relic was talking about? well, good to see cancer emplacement nerf and maxim nerf but that's not much, soviet were underperforming for long time while others were getting buffed, and now they are loosing their last good stuff :snfBarton:


No, the huge patch is coming next week.
And New War Spoil System in May
19 Apr 2016, 09:33 AM
#124
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

I don't think that either change will reduce maxim/emplacement spam.

Maxim Spam? Feels like band-aid.
- There's simply no other alternative for Soviets. Thus, it will be slightly-less efficient Maxim spam.

Emplacement Spam? Feels like smokescreen.
- Sure, one of the abilities was nerfed, but that was the least potent one to begin with.
- Standfast & Repair Assembly untouched. (the real culprits in 4v4s)
- Counterbarrage is still there. (the big culprit in 1v1)

Shock Troop's RG-42 Grenade now damages buildings and does full damage to units inside buildings.

That's good news! The game's crappiest grenade by a huge margin will now be the game's crappiest grenade by a smaller margin.

Fixed an issue with the comet tank projectiles.

Uh oh! Comet projectiles were working just fine ever since the last major patch (was a ninjafix). I hope it doesn't break anything.
19 Apr 2016, 10:02 AM
#125
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

About T3476

I will constantly repeat the quote of Luvnest, when he chooses his commander for a game :

"I don't want to stuck with t3476 in late game"


So i don't care about opinions of player who lose to him. Only if they constantly win him with t3476 i may trust.
Until that moment no one can rely upon t3476 in late game.
19 Apr 2016, 10:05 AM
#126
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

Pathetic patch as per usual, considering how long we waited.

At this rate the game won't be balanced for another 10 years. Relic showing how incompetent they are yet again.
19 Apr 2016, 10:42 AM
#127
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

Good patch, but sadly not much content. This new war spoils system better be worth the wait. It's taken way too long to get implemented. Also still no word on optimisation? I thought that was on the road map.


This!

So little content after so long.
19 Apr 2016, 10:47 AM
#128
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

I never had a problem against maximum spam, annoying yes but I didn't think it needed a nerf. Tho I do agree it did act as mainline infantry.

Good nerfs to advance emplacements tho counter barrage was the main problem here?
19 Apr 2016, 11:15 AM
#129
avatar of Maschinengewehr

Posts: 334

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2016, 06:45 AMGramses


Your approach basically assumes that they make arbitrary nerfs or buffs in the first place as if they were in a vacuum. Everything has to be done relative to other units, you don't make something more powerful just for the sake of making it more powerful.

You could, however, argue that the changes to, for example, the 222, were too significant or not warranted at all, but you would need evidence for that, which I assume relic had in order to convince them the changes were needed in the first place. (I'm not saying that I always agree with relic or anything) I don't think anyone would argue that the 222 wasn't underperforming before the changes. Maybe they went a bit overboard and it could use some further adjustment, I'm not sure.

The entire idea of "balancing" is based on making slight changes to that very delicate ratio of cost/performance until the unit fits well relative to other units. There's a reason skilled players will consider spamming maxims but not mg42s.


That's a moot point given the asymmetrical design of each faction. Even if say, a unit is rather crap to start with (looking at the T34/76 >.>), making it cheaper won't mean it's suddenly more viable. People are more likely/happier to pay a higher cost for a unit that performs as it should (or inversely, a unit that overperforms for its cost).

I'm not saying that the 222 is "OP" or anything like that, as it's good that it has finally found viability. But for its cost, saying that it's too cost-effcient for its utility is a valid argument to make. Especially using your own argument in this case here.

Spammed MG42s can be countered, just as spammed Maxims can be. Hell, they don't even have to be "relative". As long as their intended counters cost and work as they should it's alright. That's the idea of asymmetry.
19 Apr 2016, 11:20 AM
#130
avatar of Jadame!

Posts: 1122

Lol, no weapon drop fixes for british inf.

Absolutely murdered maxims (triple nerf relic style, whats next thing would be to make soviets viable, triple penal buff to make them beat stg obers on the move? Maybe commander, which makes them to do so?).

Volks (only infantry OKW needs tbh) untouched.

Fixes seem to be like 1 day of work out of 2 months of waiting.

I give up.
19 Apr 2016, 11:25 AM
#131
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

What's the setup time for MG42? The shorter setup for maxim was supposed to make up for the comparatively small arc and it was intended for a more offensive use. Does it have anything on the MG42 now? It sounds like a worse hmg to compliment the worse infantry of the Soviet faction.
19 Apr 2016, 11:26 AM
#132
avatar of Jadame!

Posts: 1122

Also, lol, i bet dshk setup time would be the same. 3 cons dshk spam without any tiers straight into shermanspam here we go.
19 Apr 2016, 11:27 AM
#133
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2016, 11:20 AMJadame!
Lol, no weapon drop fixes for british inf.

Absolutely murdered maxims (triple nerf relic style, whats next thing would be to make soviets viable, triple penal buff to make them beat stg obers on the move? Maybe commander, which makes them to do so?).

Volks (only infantry OKW needs tbh) untouched.

Fixes seem to be like 1 day of work out of 2 months of waiting.

I give up.

:drool:
19 Apr 2016, 11:35 AM
#134
avatar of Svanh

Posts: 181

Maxim Spam? Feels like band-aid.
- There's simply no other alternative for Soviets. Thus, it will be slightly-less efficient Maxim spam.

In addition, the cost and build time increases aren't great solutions to the problem.

Part of the reason Maxims are spammed is due to their ludicrously low reinforcement cost (15 manpower versus Conscripts' 20). Even assuming the cost increase is added to the models and not the MG (which is unlikely because 3 doesn't divide 20), it would only increase the reinforcement cost to 18-19 manpower.

Also, why would they keep most of the Improved Fortification health bonus (the major issue with the upgrade) and almost entirely remove the armour bonus?
19 Apr 2016, 11:36 AM
#135
avatar of bingo12345

Posts: 304



*Sexton crews keep crying, smoking and drinking dirty ale from Southampton. QF25 teams already shooting at empty bottles of shitty scotch - can't hit any.*.


Sexton buried™
19 Apr 2016, 11:53 AM
#136
avatar of Khan

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2016, 02:31 AMaaa
Tigers are still in half of the docs while it should be in a 1 or 2

Lol wut? Why do you create 'issues' where there are none?
19 Apr 2016, 11:59 AM
#137
avatar of Beinhard

Posts: 161

Relic just keeps on murdering the soviets...
19 Apr 2016, 11:59 AM
#138
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2016, 11:53 AMKhan

Lol wut? Why do you create 'issues' where there are none?


As much as I hate to admit it, he actually got half of a point right.

The disparity of IS-2 vs Tiger docs gives ost over twice as much doctrinal freedom in the choice, increasing possible BOs, while not being as doc reliant in the first place.

You could argue for 34/85, but its still a med and you need to pick it if you want to use med that works.
19 Apr 2016, 12:16 PM
#139
avatar of Bananenheld

Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2016, 11:59 AMKatitof


As much as I hate to admit it, he actually got half of a point right.

The disparity of IS-2 vs Tiger docs gives ost over twice as much doctrinal freedom in the choice, increasing possible BOs, while not being as doc reliant in the first place.

You could argue for 34/85, but its still a med and you need to pick it if you want to use med that works.


Thats a good one
19 Apr 2016, 12:27 PM
#140
avatar of tenid

Posts: 232

Glad that they're at least still making balance patches, but disappointed that it shows no clear plan to address the issues each faction has.

Hopefully the balance preview will give a better indication when we get details.

Also nice to see the skins being released, there's some good work in there.
PAGES (11)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

383 users are online: 383 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM