So instead of fixing Counter Barrage that makes Advanced Emplacement so tedious to play against, they decided to nerf the hitpoint bonus into a very minor bonus.
+1.
Problem was counter artillery and brace not hitpoint bonus...
April 20th Update
19 Apr 2016, 16:23 PM
#161
Posts: 509 | Subs: 1
+1.
Problem was counter artillery and brace not hitpoint bonus...
19 Apr 2016, 16:27 PM
#162
Posts: 974 | Subs: 2
+1.
Problem was counter artillery and brace not hitpoint bonus...
+1
19 Apr 2016, 16:47 PM
#163
Posts: 556
Cancers have been finally nerfed praise gaben!
19 Apr 2016, 22:29 PM
#164
Posts: 851 | Subs: 1
Cancers have been finally nerfed praise gaben!
Why would you priase Gaben for a non Gaben game?
Alse Cancer hasn't been fully dealt with.
20 Apr 2016, 00:19 AM
#165
Posts: 1124
The fact relic legit didn't bother with cancer in this patch, shows they don't give a shit about this game. It's the most hated element of the game at the moment. And they didn't do shit.
Then to not change counter barrage, the free counter to the units countering your units. Lol wtf? Who would even pass that in the first place.
One of the few standing RTS games of its type, with a loyal fan base, and they are shoving us away. Lol
Then to not change counter barrage, the free counter to the units countering your units. Lol wtf? Who would even pass that in the first place.
One of the few standing RTS games of its type, with a loyal fan base, and they are shoving us away. Lol
20 Apr 2016, 07:23 AM
#166
Posts: 23
I agree. Relic doesn't give a shit about the game or its community. As a consequence we don't give a shit about Relic. Imho they created a lot of the toxicity in the community.
Never spending another euro cent on any of this dev's games.
Never spending another euro cent on any of this dev's games.
20 Apr 2016, 07:31 AM
#167
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Sounds like someone's salty
"but stating that relic did't fixed any issues" lmao when did i say that, katy gonna katy (meow)
katy dont let the cure of cancer,cancer your mind
"Cure"
If "cures" meta just as much as bandages cure ruptured organs
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
20 Apr 2016, 08:03 AM
#169
Posts: 23
Their statements don't have much credibility to me anymore and would be amazed if they actually release a good balance patch in the near future.
For a long time now many good suggestions have been made by the community, but better very late then never I suppose.
For a long time now many good suggestions have been made by the community, but better very late then never I suppose.
20 Apr 2016, 08:07 AM
#170
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Their statements don't have much credibility to me anymore and would be amazed if they actually release a good balance patch in the near future.
For a long time now many good suggestions have been made by the community, but better very late then never I suppose.
I really wish I could say anything valid against this
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
20 Apr 2016, 10:05 AM
#171
Posts: 1217
I´m so happy they finally fixed the cancer commander I used my incredible paint skills to celebrate.
20 Apr 2016, 11:28 AM
#172
Posts: 677
You are confusing cost effectiveness with actual cost.
Its FUEL cost is low. Its mp cost is not.
Its cost effectiveness is still low, despite the low cost. Think of tank version of M-42.
The cost of vehicles is the combined cost of manpower and fuel cost, so one can not only take into account the MP cost and forget the fuel cost. The T-34/76 actually is very cheap compared to other mediums...
----------------MP----FU----Pop---MP ratio---Fu Ratio---Total Cost ratio
OKW PZ4 ----360---150---12-----0.83------0.53----------0.63
Ost PZ4 -----350---125---12-----0.86-------0.64----------0.72
US M4A3 -----340---110---12-----0.88------0.73----------0.79
UKF Crom-----340---110---12-----0.88------0.73----------0.79
Sov T-34/76--300---80----10
Against medium tanks T34/76 is quite cost effective, where it is not cost effective is against heavies...
20 Apr 2016, 11:47 AM
#173
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
The cost of vehicles is the combined cost of manpower and fuel cost, so one can not only take into account the MP cost and forget the fuel cost. The T-34/76 actually is very cheap compared to other mediums...
<data>
Against medium tanks T34/76 is quite cost effective, where it is not cost effective is against heavies...
I have opened up a thread on the exact same topic yesterday. Thus your contribution will be more needed/relevant here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/51916/a-radical-idea-to-rebalance-t-34-76
I guess you are arguing that the T-34 trades decreased Fuel cost for increased MP cost. This is a terrible trade-off to make for a late-game tank (T4 is all about late-game; it's not about early-midgame harassment. Also, what are you saving that fuel for? Teching? You already researched T4).
MP-inefficiency is even more crippling for an army:
- Where no fuel sinks are available (Panthers, Comets, KT etc)
- That has trouble finding scalable units to begin with
Thus:
- If you argue that 250 MP / 80 FU cost for a T-34 is too low, find an appropriate price for T-34 that has the same MP-to-fuel ratio as the other mediums (approximately 3:1)
- Now, trade off fuel-efficiency for MP-efficiency.
The end result:
- You just fixed T-34
- You might have also fixed Soviet T4 as well
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
20 Apr 2016, 11:53 AM
#174
Posts: 677
...I guess you are arguing that the T-34 trades decreased Fuel cost for increased MP cost....
I am simply arguing that saying that T-34/76 cost is not low just because its manpower cost is not as low as it fuel cost is not a valid argument...
The cost of vehicles is the combination of manpower and fuel not just the manpower.
T-34/76 might or might not work but it is centrally cheap and cost efficient in mid game...
20 Apr 2016, 12:03 PM
#175
Posts: 589
I´m so happy they finally fixed the cancer commander I used my incredible paint skills to celebrate.
20 Apr 2016, 12:08 PM
#176
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
I am simply arguing that saying that T-34/76 cost is not low just because its manpower cost is not as low as it fuel cost is not a valid argument...
The cost of vehicles is the combination of manpower and fuel not just the manpower.
T-34/76 might or might not work but it is centrally cheap and cost efficient in mid game...
The cost of vehicles is not just the mere sum of their constituent resources, for the simple reason that:
- You can never ever increase your MP income in this game
- Soviets have absolutely no mechanism to trade fuel-efficiency for MP-efficiency.
Other factions (except for USF) have tanks that are more MP-efficient than they are Fuel-efficient. This allows those factions to tap into those Fuel reserves when MP becomes a bottleneck. Soviets simply do not have that option. At all (doctrinal or non-doctrinal).
To draw an analogy. Assume you have a PC (Soviets) with:
- A hard drive disk from 1990 (MP efficiency)
- A graphics card from 2016 (Fuel efficiency)
And now, assume that you are trying to run office applications (CoH2). No matter how expensive a graphics card you buy, your applications will be crawling still. This is because the bottleneck is the absolutely horrid hard drive disk you are still using (that 300 MP cost for T-34...).
Your PC would be running better with an SSD and a graphics card from 2010, and it would also be cheaper, too.
Now, please answer yourself the following question:
- If you argue that 250 MP / 80 FU cost for a T-34 is too low, find an appropriate price for T-34 that has the same MP-to-fuel ratio as the other mediums (approximately 3:1)
I don't care what the MP/FU cost will be. I just want a concrete value.
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
20 Apr 2016, 13:03 PM
#177
Posts: 677
...
The cost of vehicles is not just the mere sum of their constituent resources, for the simple reason that:
- You can never ever increase your MP income in this game
- Soviets have absolutely no mechanism to trade fuel-efficiency for MP-efficiency.
...
The cost of a vehicle it the combination of manpower cost and fuel...that is what you pay to get a vehicle...
You may actually have a bigger MP income by having lower upkeep....thus a T-34 with a pop of 10 is cost less manpower drainage than PZ4 for with pop of 12...and less manpower to buy...
Soviet have vehicles with high fuel cost to manpower cost like the T70 which is dirty cheap when it comes to manpower (yet balanced due to high fuel value)...at 200 manpower...or the option between su-76 and su-85 with different manpower to fuel ratios.
I have not argue that T-34/76 is too cheap or that it correctly priced, my argument is that one can not simply ignore fuel cost...
20 Apr 2016, 13:29 PM
#178
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
<valid arguments>
I have not argue that T-34/76 is too cheap or that it correctly priced, my argument is that one can not simply ignore fuel cost...
I agree. However, in order to continue the discussion, please give me a concrete MP/FU cost for T-34 which has a ratio of 3-to-1.
Then I will guide you through a process that will help determine a pricing scheme for T-34 that is better adapted for the late-game (when T4 is built).
PS: Could we please continue this discussion on the dedicated thread? You make some valid observations, but consider that:
- People that care about the T-34 might not get to read your observations.
- People that don't care about the T-34 have to read our comments on a thread that had nothing to do about the T-34 to begin with.
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
20 Apr 2016, 14:02 PM
#179
1 
Posts: 4559 | Subs: 2
The patch by itself does not seem bad. But after the veterancy fix I feel many units should have had their stats/vet bonuses balanced a bit based on how they perform now that they are working and vetting as intended.
IMO British Land Mattress and Counterbattery need an adjustement too since their balance problem is as critical as the one of too durable emplacements, they perform too well and their windows of opportunity are far too big (due to relatively low CP requirement for what they provide).
I am all in favour of a nerf to Maxims, but Soviets T1 should be then made more viable, especially the M3A1 and considering the tier itself doesn't provide any AT tool (so you are subject to suffer against both Luchs and 222s and you are pretty much always forced to go Guards - which I think are overperforming when played correctly).
Overall what I would like to see is an increase of viable strategic options and a nerf to some strategies that have proven to be slightly too potent or just too safe in the early game (despite the faction utilized).
The nerf to Maxims will certainly force Soviets to find alternative build orders and strategies to win, I am curious to see if the current faction balance would provide those players enough tools to still stay competitive
Good that there are new patches incoming anyways!
IMO British Land Mattress and Counterbattery need an adjustement too since their balance problem is as critical as the one of too durable emplacements, they perform too well and their windows of opportunity are far too big (due to relatively low CP requirement for what they provide).
I am all in favour of a nerf to Maxims, but Soviets T1 should be then made more viable, especially the M3A1 and considering the tier itself doesn't provide any AT tool (so you are subject to suffer against both Luchs and 222s and you are pretty much always forced to go Guards - which I think are overperforming when played correctly).
Overall what I would like to see is an increase of viable strategic options and a nerf to some strategies that have proven to be slightly too potent or just too safe in the early game (despite the faction utilized).
The nerf to Maxims will certainly force Soviets to find alternative build orders and strategies to win, I am curious to see if the current faction balance would provide those players enough tools to still stay competitive
Good that there are new patches incoming anyways! | Playercard of Marcus2389 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
20 Apr 2016, 14:27 PM
#180
1 Posts: 927
is nigo done with coh2?
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
10 |
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
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1000
Board Info
856 users are online:
856 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48726
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM