Login

russian armor

Why patch should not overbuff/overnerf units anymore

28 Nov 2016, 10:23 AM
#1
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

In this thread I will explain why imo the coming patch should not overbuff or overnerf units.

In trying to compute the square root of number one can use the Heron's method of finding two numbers. One that is bigger than the value that one is looking and one that smaller. Once one has done that, one has established the boundaries around his solution. One then can continue testing be choosing numbers between with it those boundaries.

The game is in state where those two numbers can be estimated thus the changes in unit stats should becoming increasing smaller.

It is understandable that is cases where the role of the units changes like light vehicle play from shock units to unit worth building in every stage of the game the change might need to be bigger but imo the patch goes over the top with some units.

I will use the Stug -E as an example since it has been hit the hardest with 9! nerfs.


To sum up, imo the time for big changes in stat (without a change in role) has passed. Smaller changes are needed and especially in utility and scaling with things like veterancy bonuses and abilities.
28 Nov 2016, 15:30 PM
#2
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

If anything is overnerfed its the Soviet mortar lol.

Although I do agree that the Stug E is hit hard, it deserved the nerfs. This goes for multiple units as well. Call-ins simply need to be tech bound. But I think Relic don't want that.
28 Nov 2016, 15:36 PM
#3
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

Have you actually played the mod and used the Stug E? it's still really good, due to the scatter offset change, especially as it allows you to skip check. If you are having issues with units, please send us in replays for us to look at where you are using the new units and they are underperforming.
28 Nov 2016, 15:44 PM
#4
avatar of JackDickolson

Posts: 181

Have you actually played the mod and used the Stug E? it's still really good, due to the scatter offset change, especially as it allows you to skip check. If you are having issues with units
The modded Stug E is underperforming considering the timing, the new cost, new squad spacing and piat buffs.

It wasn't a light vehicle anyway and didn't need adjustments. The cost and spammability were the only issues affecting the unit and 1v1 balance.


please send us in replays for us to look at where you are using the new units and they are underperforming.
No offense but I think this should be done by the balance team, test the unit and see reevaluate the performance/timing/cost.


Regardless, your active participation in discussions and firendly interaction with the community is highly appreciated.
28 Nov 2016, 16:03 PM
#5
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Have you actually played the mod and used the Stug E?

I tested vs a conscripts in open around max range. It took an average 2-4 shot before causing any casualties and around 10-15 shot to kill the squad.

Although I agree with the reduction is shock value of light vehicles (and I probably was one of the first to suggest decrease shock value increase utility) imo Stug fall in to another category. It is not a light vehicle it is an assault gun.

Its luck of turret, luck of hmgs, poor moving accuracy and poor mobility does not allow it to be used as other light vehicles, neither it's role.

It can not chase retreating units or do most of the thing light vehicles do...

The hole point of the unit is to offer support fire from a distance and with the patch stat it waste of resource when used at far range.

If you are not happy with the performance of the main gun I would suggest to make it work more like M8a1 and use a explosive weapon profile instead of ballistic one. An explosive weapon profile will fit the unit better historically and thematically.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my thread.
28 Nov 2016, 16:41 PM
#6
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

Have you actually played the mod and used the Stug E? it's still really good, due to the scatter offset change, especially as it allows you to skip check.

Speaking of which, I was wondering about that stat for a while. So, uh...dafuq does it mean exactly?
28 Nov 2016, 16:45 PM
#7
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Nov 2016, 16:41 PMVuther

Speaking of which, I was wondering about that stat for a while. So, uh...dafuq does it mean exactly?


Scatter offset determines where vertical scatter is centered around. Like if shots are centered around the target, or tend to overshoot more.

A high scatter offset is useful if you have bad accuracy, and want to still hit vehicles, because your projectile will collide with them anyway.

On the other hand, for infantry that have no height you want your shots to be centered around where the infantry currently are, because you can't control whether they will move forward or backwards.

To get the effect of high scatter offset, I want you to harken back the memories of drunken IS-2 gunners. Ever since the miragefla-inspired patch, the offset was significantly lowered to other tank levels.
28 Nov 2016, 16:51 PM
#8
avatar of wouren
Senior Social Media Manager Badge

Posts: 1281 | Subs: 3

I like the cost increase, but I think it needs to be buffed a little more to fulfill its role.

The change that I have petitioned for when talking on stream is a range buff as well as a slight ROF dropoff at further ranges combined with a cost increase. This shifts its role from a dinky spammable unit to a robust support unit that you can build 1 MAYBE 2 of without falling behind.
28 Nov 2016, 17:03 PM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I would like to take a minute before the thread is side-trucked to clarify that the actual point of the thread is NOT Stug-E.

Stug is simply used an example why imo major buff and nerfs are helpful in this stage of the game.
28 Nov 2016, 18:51 PM
#10
avatar of Oversloth

Posts: 48

Have you actually played the mod and used the Stug E?


jump backJump back to quoted post28 Nov 2016, 16:03 PMVipper

I tested vs a conscripts in open around max range. It took an average 2-4 shot before causing any casualties and around 10-15 shot to kill the squad.


So are the creators of this Winter Balance mod going to respond to this?

On one hand, you guys are saying that the StuG E is still really good...

And yet everyone who is testing it (YES, PLAYING WITH YOUR BALANCE MOD) is giving you feedback that it's basically a complete waste of resources now.

I think the question really should be, has the Winter Balance creators played with the StuG E in their mod themselves?

Your constant go-to response questioning the people who are criticizing the mod as people who haven't even played it is, quite frankly, childish and insulting to the people taking the time to test it and give feedback.
28 Nov 2016, 19:07 PM
#11
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Your constant go-to response questioning the people who are criticizing the mod as people who haven't even played it is, quite frankly, childish and insulting to the people taking the time to test it and give feedback.


I don't think that there should be so much tension with these people who are actually trying to improve the game with the limited resources they have available.

Imo we should all try to help in their effort. I feel that I could be allot more helpful if I new what are the changes aiming for.

In the particular case of Stug-E the notes mention as issues cost efficiency and too much AT utility that are addressed by cost increase lowering HP and change to TWP.

If there is need for more one could simply have it built from T3 or T2 and replace TWP with a ability fitting a support gun like barrage or WP barrage.

So imo the weapon changes are simply too much. If changes are need to gun one can simply change it to explosive as mentioned before.

Once more the reason for this thread is not Stug-E, iis the magnitude of buff and nerfs.
28 Nov 2016, 21:59 PM
#12
avatar of wouren
Senior Social Media Manager Badge

Posts: 1281 | Subs: 3

Suggestion:

Put comments about the StuG E. into a spoiler and correct some of the factual errors.
28 Nov 2016, 22:04 PM
#13
avatar of Tittendachs

Posts: 115



please explain to me what I did wrong with the Stug since it clearly didn't behave as everyone else mentioned. I had this tested multiple times and it was almost always like in the video...

also sorry for bad quality :/
28 Nov 2016, 22:06 PM
#14
avatar of scratchedpaintjob
Donator 11

Posts: 1021 | Subs: 1

clearly didn't behave as everyone else mentioned.

loooool :D owned them
29 Nov 2016, 00:07 AM
#15
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141



please explain to me what I did wrong with the Stug since it clearly didn't behave as everyone else mentioned. I had this tested multiple times and it was almost always like in the video...

also sorry for bad quality :/


I wouldn't get this Stug for the old price LUL.
For the Stug's sake I hope this is bad luck and not representative of the Stug performance in the patch.
29 Nov 2016, 00:50 AM
#16
avatar of Cyanara

Posts: 769 | Subs: 1



please explain to me what I did wrong with the Stug since it clearly didn't behave as everyone else mentioned. I had this tested multiple times and it was almost always like in the video...

also sorry for bad quality :/


lol, that's hilarious. I gotta try that out myself.
29 Nov 2016, 00:51 AM
#17
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



please explain to me what I did wrong with the Stug since it clearly didn't behave as everyone else mentioned. I had this tested multiple times and it was almost always like in the video...

also sorry for bad quality :/


This is an excellent test. I think that the reason this looks so bad is because of elevation. The change we introduced to the elevation-ignoring part makes it so that the projectile will not be "wasted" exploding short.

However, from the scatter pattern I can see in the video, the elevation does mess up with targeting and is causing it to scatter all over the place (i.e., much more than the nominal value). If you have enough time to test the following, it would really help us try to come up with a solution:
1. How would a live-version Stug-E perform at exactly the same spot (with the elevation)?
2. How does the mod-version Stug-E perform against conscript squads at the same distance, but on a completely flat terrain?

Once again, thanks for the time you have invested in it. I will try to investigate this as soon as possible.
29 Nov 2016, 01:12 AM
#18
avatar of Cyanara

Posts: 769 | Subs: 1



This is an excellent test. I think that the reason this looks so bad is because of elevation. The change we introduced to the elevation-ignoring part makes it so that the projectile will not be "wasted" exploding short.

However, from the scatter pattern I can see in the video, the elevation does mess up with targeting and is causing it to scatter all over the place (i.e., much more than the nominal value). If you have enough time to test the following, it would really help us try to come up with a solution:
1. How would a live-version Stug-E perform at exactly the same spot (with the elevation)?
2. How does the mod-version Stug-E perform against conscript squads at the same distance, but on a completely flat terrain?

Once again, thanks for the time you have invested in it. I will try to investigate this as soon as possible.


EDIT: Cruzz has advised that CheatMod spawns the wrong Stug e (single player), so please disregard the below videos. I'll try again using the commander ability instead.

Ok, I just did a few tests myself. Videos will be edited in once uploaded. The 'good' news is that the live version appears to be just as broken, so it's probably not something you guys did yourselves. However, for that reason I can't understand why people think the live Stug-e is in any way good. I even tried attack ground and they still couldn't kill anything.


Stug-e Live Version Test




Stug-e Winter Mod Flat Ground Test




Stug-e Winter Mod Hill Test


29 Nov 2016, 01:42 AM
#19
avatar of skyshark

Posts: 239

I agree with OP. I'd rather see incremental changes that risk doing too little than drastic ones that take the game too far in the other direction. Everyone remembers the patch that buffed flame weapons to God gun status, right? Ridiculous. Let's not nerf vehicles to the point of uselessness, especially with the tendency to blob mainline infantry.

In all honesty, vehicles across the board don't do enough damage to infantry. People whine about squad wipes, but no infantryman in their right mind would stand in the open and let a .50 cal shoot at them (m20, aaht, etc), much less a panther.

Let's err on the side of too little change. The game is in a good place balance wise right now.
29 Nov 2016, 01:53 AM
#20
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

In all honesty, vehicles across the board don't do enough damage to infantry. People whine about squad wipes, but no infantryman in their right mind would stand in the open and let a .50 cal shoot at them (m20, aaht, etc), much less a panther.

The scope of the game just can't allow that. In real life - say, the Battle of Kursk - a side might have around 300 infantrymen for every tank - in CoH2, the internal relative resource "worth" (1 MP = 2 Muni, 2 Muni = 1 FU) makes a medium tank similar in cost to no more than around 20 men.
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

520 users are online: 520 guests
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50111
Welcome our newest member, bob23ton
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM