Login

russian armor

Balance Mod: Trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer.

12 May 2016, 13:55 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

...
Relic starts...welcome to Relic's patching process. It's nothing new...


Only its actually very new. This patch is not Relic patch's. This patch Relic's version of Miragelf's mod, since most of the changes are included in his MOD.

That alone is proof that Relic is open to community feedback. In addition the have made surveys and opened feedback thread indicating that this patch is influenced more from member of the community than any previous.

Redesign 3 faction and introducing the new war spoils indicates that they have not forgotten COH2 over DOW III. The prospect if that is the case are also very gloomy, because if they go ahead with this patch there will be need for allot more to being the game in current level of balance...

In the end of the day, it is my opinion that long lasting issues, some of them 4 years old, should be fixed before attempting to redesign 3 factions, so that we don't have to wait another 4 year to seem them fixed. Feel free to think either-wise.
12 May 2016, 18:32 PM
#22
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 13:55 PMVipper
Redesign factions is not bad, although trying to redesign 31 of them at the same time can be.

And I have explained why imo other issues should be first addressed before going down that road.

It is the priority and way2 the redesigning is made not the redesign itself.

In the end of the day, it is my opinion that long lasting issues, some of them 4 years old3, should be fixed before attempting to redesign 3 factions, so that we don't have to wait another 4 year to seem them fixed. Feel free to think either-wise.


1-
I'll argue that, at least for SU and to some point USF, that the changes are not a redesign as the role of the units are not changed. (Between spoilers i explain myself but no need to read it)
SU


USF has 2 changes that "redesign" the faction. Captain removal of zooks and the inclusion of the mortar (which shouldn't be a copy pasta of OH mortar).
For the rest they are much a QoL changes.


By your logic, I'm also surprised you mention 3 factions and not all 5.
UKF get more initial mp, BC gets significant changes and flares receive a QoL change as well. Finally Firefly role is changed as much as the Su85 has been changed.
Same with OH. T3 and T4 been cheaper, Brummbar QoL and specially Pios been able to build sandbags is not small.

2- Priorities change depending on the eyes of the user. This is still a preview and supposely most changes won't make it. If Relic doesn't have the manpower to make people actually develop new changes, i don't find unreasonable that they draw from what the community can do and then re use it what they consider it fits to the base game.

3- Again, besides OKW, most changes are issues which have some years on their backs. I still want those "since release" issues to be fixed and i was expecting to see more changes from Mirage mod been implemented. IMO it's good to test few things first rather than just throwing the whole mod to people, as on this way they can focus on certain things.

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 09:43 AMVipper
Your post seem to indicate that the game is currently not balanced and imo it is.

As most other people have commented several months before, the game is balanced but ONLY STRICTLY if we talk about going meta. Options have been drastically reduced.

12 May 2016, 21:05 PM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


I'll argue that, at least for SU and to some point USF, that the changes are not a redesign as the role of the units are not changed.
...

This is my personal opinion and you do not have to agree with it:

Soviet faction design (imo) was to have average stock units and very cost efficient call in units.
5 stock units come out better from the patch (+1 doctrinal), that imo is redesign because SU depend allot less in doctrinal units to fill the Gaps.

USF faction design (imo)had them with most cost efficient mainline infantry (and some other stuff like best heal/FRP)and the least cost efficient support weapons. Buffing the HMG, introducing a mortar (that is better than wer one and some other changes)imo redesigns the faction allowing to play defensive game with support weapons.

OKW are all over place and I can't really see what their design is after the patch that removed FU penalty...
----

I call these change faction redesign ,you can call it something else, it is not really not that important.

The point I making is that all these changes will have a very serious impact on the game, and will probably take several patches to smooth out imbalances.

I also doubt that some of them will increase diversity, for instance for the OKW I suspect that instead of volks and PF blob you will volks and SP blob...

The other road, of fixing long term issues, can actually help with diversity allot more imo, it is easier, safer and will yield result faster...

For instance Guards saw many balance changes and remain underused but it was the quality of life changes (more responsive, weapon drops) that lead them to be used more.

If the issue as stated in the patch noes is diversity and not balance or bad faction design trying to increase diversity with so drastic changes is imo like trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer...
12 May 2016, 22:33 PM
#24
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Hey, at least they are trying to kill the fly!
13 May 2016, 00:53 AM
#25
avatar of easierwithaturret

Posts: 247

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 21:05 PMVipper

This is my personal opinion and you do not have to agree with it:

Soviet faction design (imo) was to have average stock units and very cost efficient call in units.
5 stock units come out better from the patch (+1 doctrinal), that imo is redesign because SU depend allot less in doctrinal units to fill the Gaps.



Sov reliance on doctrinal units wouldn't be bad if they had access to a greater number of viable doctrines, or if doctrines had more variety within them. However the reality is that nearly 3 years on there are at most 3-4 viable doctrines for sovs, and with the linear CP system there is little variety in how to employ those doctrines.

In a game like CoH where resources are so scarce and map control so important, if a unit is not cost-effective then building it can cost you the game. If a unit is hardly ever worth building, what's the point of it even being in the game at all?

To use the t34/76 and SU85 as an example: prior to the preview the t34/76 was hardly built because it had poor stats and was rarely worth the micro needed to keep it alive. The SU85, while great against mediums, struggled against heavies bouncing shots at its optimal engagement range. In team games (where armour play is everything) this forced the soviet player to either spam SU-76 or use one of a handful of doctrines with t34/85 or IS2. Trying to make use of t34/76 or other 'non-meta' strategies would be punished hard and usually result in a loss. This reduces enjoyment and replayability for players of both sides because most games play out the same.

Now that t34/76 and SU85 are actually worth building, the SU player has more than one option on how to play. It's not like seeing these units on the field is suddenly game-breaking, they still have plenty of counters. It's not going to radically change the faction, it's just opening up more valid ways to play it.Yes, there may be some unforeseen balance consequences but that is why we have the community testing the changes before they go live.
13 May 2016, 01:43 AM
#26
avatar of RealName

Posts: 276

Hey, at least they are trying to kill the fly!


it's the thought tht counts ehhh? :hansREKT: :hansGG:
13 May 2016, 06:23 AM
#27
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


In a game like CoH where resources are so scarce and map control so important, if a unit is not cost-effective then building it can cost you the game. If a unit is hardly ever worth building, what's the point of it even being in the game at all?

If unit A is more cost efficient than unit B of course people will built unit A. If one want to make unit B more attractive compared to unit he can buff unit, nerf unit A do or both or increase the utility of unit B. This patch mostly buffs unit B and that in my opinion will upset balance...

Su-85 redesigning is actually in a right direction, imo the unit is simply too cost efficient having more range, accuracy, sight, far penetration while begin cheaper than it opponents. (I don't really want to into detail on specific units balance because this not a thread on balancing units, but a thread on patch direction)


Sov reliance on doctrinal units wouldn't be bad if they had access to a greater number of viable doctrines, or if doctrines had more variety within them. However the reality is that nearly 3 years on there are at most 3-4 viable doctrines for sovs, and with the linear CP system there is little variety in how to employ those doctrines.

And that is why one of the thing I proposed was to have a look at commander abilities.

My point once more is that for year now balancing was done Relic way, very big buffs, very big nerfs this is the first patch that is not made by Relic and really worth trying something new lots of small changes fixing long lasting issues.
13 May 2016, 12:37 PM
#28
avatar of DaciaJC

Posts: 73

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 21:05 PMVipper


For instance Guards saw many balance changes and remain underused but it was the quality of life changes (more responsive, weapon drops) that lead them to be used more.



Not really, Guards only became a worthwhile call-in when the PTRS accuracy was buffed. Reducing the drop-rate and fixing the frog behavior helped but they weren't the major catalyst.
15 May 2016, 08:40 AM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 12:37 PMDaciaJC

Not really, Guards only became a worthwhile call-in when the PTRS accuracy was buffed. Reducing the drop-rate and fixing the frog behavior helped but they weren't the major catalyst.

I would argue that PTRS was greatly used when it would target team weapons easily killing the team squad by destroying the weapon but again this is details.

For a very long time people are complaining that Relic over does it with buff and nerfs. This is the first patch that member of the community had such a impact, oddly once more it is full of buffs that have multipliers up to 200%. Imo and I am guessing a significant portion of the community, it is time to test another approach.
17 May 2016, 17:02 PM
#30
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

According to Relic:
Each faction in Company of Heroes has their own set of unique strengths and weaknesses and a major goal at Relic has been to make sure that these differences in strengths and weaknesses between each faction is well balanced. Some of these major differences is demonstarted in each faction's designed strategy, for example, one faction's strengths may be in it's defensive or offensive capabilities, or for example one faction might have a stronger early game where another faction is stronger in the late game. The faction comparison infographic below highlights these differences and goes over some of the strengths and versatility of each faction.

The question is this still relative in any way?

because the patch clearly deviates from this.

And if not, what is the new vision that Relic aim for?
17 May 2016, 19:28 PM
#31
avatar of Socrates

Posts: 40

jump backJump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 17:02 PMVipper
And if not, what is the new vision that Relic aim for?


New Relic's vision - leave game to community in most finished state. Right now they have no "balance director" at all, so they decided to try some community balance ideas and chose Miragefla mod as most adequate mod on community balance mods market.:snfQuinn:
18 May 2016, 14:39 PM
#32
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

I think changes to all factions are in order if you are effectivly changing how OKW works.

USF has needed a t0 mortar for years, Penals needed buffs for years, Ost tech price reduction opens up late ost, Brumbar is op lol.

I think the changes in the patch are long term solutions to gripes we have had for at least 2 years. While some changes still needed tweaking I wouldn't go so far as to say they are making the game worse. All of their changes provide units with more utility and make them worth wile/ of more use in their designed role.
18 May 2016, 20:41 PM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

USF managed without mortar for year so they did not need the best mortar in the game and in T0. No other faction has a T0 mortar...

Penals might need a buff or residing but they did not need to become more cost efficient than a PG a T2 more expensive unit...

Wer cost reduction might help them a bit but the buff to Su-85 and M36 makes look pale. And the Tiger is also nerfed.

I doubt that Brumabar will be used for anything else than defense since it out ranged, too slow and does not have enough armor for a t4 unit.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 1
United States 164
New Zealand 11
unknown 5

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

824 users are online: 824 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49127
Welcome our newest member, Constant
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM