Kyle wants feedback on the PIV

How about we stop complaining that tank destroyers are able to hurt tanks? Just because you invest in a Heavy Tank doesn't mean you should be invincible to stock units.

Exactly this.

How about we stop complaining that tank destroyers are able to hurt tanks? Just because you invest in a Heavy Tank doesn't mean you should be invincible to stock units.

Not sure if you have understand what I have posted, an examples in numbers:

vs IS2 time to kill
Stug 55.50 - 72.50 2XStug 25.75 - 34.25
Panther, OST 90.25 - 112.75
I find wrong that a T3 "medium tank" destroyer is better than a T4 "heavy tank" destroyer while 2 that are still more cost efficient are far better...

vs Tiger
SU-76 68.65 - 90.03 2XSu-76 34.45 - 43.00
SU-85 39.80 - 56.75
similarly that 2XSu-76 are better than 1 Su-85...

In addition I find wrong that firefly can Alpha strike and kill a Panzer IV vet 3 in 8 secs with very little reaction time and with 100% chance to hit and penetrate the same PZIV at range 60 20 units before the PZIV can even fire...

As long as a PZIV can be destroyed by firefly like it will be a bad investment...

I find wrong that a T3 "medium tank" destroyer is better than a T4 "heavy tank" destroyer while 2 that are still more cost efficient are far better...

That's a problem with the Panther, not with tank destroyers being too good. Tank destroyers need to destroy tanks. If you take that one simple purpose from the StuG, you cripple Ostheer immensely.

In addition I find wrong that firefly can Alpha strike and kill a Panzer IV vet 3 in 8 secs with very little reaction time and with 100% chance to hit and penetrate the same PZIV at range 60 20 units before the PZIV can even fire...

Relic intended it to be that way. Personally I never liked the idea, or how the did the Firefly. It doesn't make sense compared to the real thing (17 Pounder had accuracy problems, hardly a 'tank sniper'), and it's bad gameplay to just wipe a tank off the map. I wished if they wanted rockets, it would have been on a 75mm call-in Sherman.

On a side note, could you change the names to Pzkmpfw IV (Also for the command tank and the Luchs) to be more in line with the panther and tiger... because you know, it is totally unplayable

That's a problem with the Panther, not with tank destroyers being too good. Tank destroyers need to destroy tanks. If you take that one simple purpose from the StuG, you cripple Ostheer immensely.

Imo it is actually a problem of the TDs and not the Panther. The Panther was in good spot before WFA and some people where even complaining of it being OP.

So what happened that made the unit UP since it has seen little change in stats?
Two of it's advantages went down the drain, Extra HP and Armor had less value than before.

Extra HP become irrelevant when M-36 and Firefly where introduced and took it out in 4 shots.

Armor become of less value when bazooka and Piat blob did deflection damage and when M-36/firefly/su-85 got enough penetration to punch thru its armor, out of range, reliably...

My suggestion is not to nerf Stug. My suggestion are:

1)Remove deflection damage of hand held weapon to medium tanks including Panther
Reason: promotes blobbing reduces the effectiveness of medium tanks vs infantry.

2)Reduce the penetration of "medium tank" hunters (su-76/Stug possibly m10 that should be closer to the penetration of Puma)
Reason: This units do not need 100% penetration at max range to be effective vs mediums and are currently far more cost effective than their heavy brothers (Panther ,Su-85) both vs mediums and vs heavies. The change actually promotes teching.

3)Reduce damage of M-36/firefly to 160 and use target tables to increase it vs Super heavies.
Reason: stop Fireflie's alpha strike to medium, makes 800/400 units actually benefit from the extra HP.

4)Reduce chance to hit from 60 range units vs medium either by reducing accuracy or size.
Reason: Gives some room to sorter range units maneuver.

This chances imo would help the Panther,PZIV, Churchill and Kv-1 by giving them some breathing space, and establish the concept that T3 units are better at fighting T3 units while T4 units are better fighting T4 units or super heavies, and give an actual advantage when teching to T4...

Imo it is actually a problem of the TDs and not the Panther. The Panther was in good spot before WFA and some people where even complaining of it being OP.

So what happened that made the unit UP since it has seen little change in stats?
Two of it's advantages went down the drain, Extra HP and Armor had less value than before.

Extra HP become irrelevant when M-36 and Firefly where introduced and took it out in 4 shots.

Armor become of less value when bazooka and Piat blob did deflection damage and when M-36/firefly/su-85 got enough penetration to punch thru its armor, out of range, reliably...

My suggestion is not to nerf Stug. My suggestion are:

1)Remove deflection damage of hand held weapon to medium tanks including Panther
Reason: promotes blobbing reduces the effectiveness of medium tanks vs infantry.

2)Reduce the penetration of "medium tank" hunters (su-76/Stug possibly m10 that should be closer to the penetration of Puma)
Reason: This units do not need 100% penetration at max range to be effective vs mediums and are currently far more cost effective than their heavy brothers (Panther ,Su-85) both vs mediums and vs heavies. The change actually promotes teching.

3)Reduce damage of M-36/firefly to 160 and use target tables to increase it vs Super heavies.
Reason: stop Fireflie's alpha strike to medium, makes 800/400 units actually benefit from the extra HP.

4)Reduce chance to hit from 60 range units vs medium either by reducing accuracy or size.
Reason: Gives some room to sorter range units maneuver.

This chances imo would help the Panther,PZIV, Churchill and Kv-1 by giving them some breathing space, and establish the concept that T3 units are better at fighting T3 units while T4 units are better fighting T4 units or super heavies, and give an actual advantage when teching to T4...

Before the buffs to TDs the Panther was not easily counterable. The Allied factions (pre-UKF) didn't have the stock tools (infantry AT and reliable TDs) to deal with it and had to rely on call-ins. The problem is that its lacklustre offensive capabilities weren't addressed when it acquired counters.

As to your suggestions:

1). Deflection damage for infantry AT is necessary to prevent heavy tanks (IS-2, King Tiger, Panther, Comet) being completely invulnerable to infantry. Removing it only from medium tanks would be fiddly and probably wouldn't do much anyway (due to penetration and armour values). "Promotes blobbing" is an issue with price and availability rather than the weapons themselves.

2). I agree that the Su-76 and Stug could do with a slight penetration reduction to better encourage the use of heavy TDs but the Puma has horrific penetration at long range (50% against Allied medium tanks). The SU-76 and Stug would be better served by a fairly constant penetration profile (perhaps 180/170/160?).

3). Target tables for specific units make the game harder to learn and balance and also reduce authenticity. Should we give the kubelwagon, UC, M3 etc. partial immunity to AT weapons because they aren't useful in late-game? It would be better to use accuracy and target size rather than target tables. The heavier (damage and penetration-wise) the gun, the lower its accuracy and turning rate should be to prevent it from completely obsoleting units (the problem with the Tigers, IS-2, Comet, etc.).

4). Better to go all the way, balancing accuracy/target size for all vehicles. It would help fix the problems with light units being balanced entirely around shock value.

Before the buffs to TDs the Panther was not easily counterable. The Allied factions (pre-UKF) didn't have the stock tools (infantry AT and reliable TDs) to deal with it and had to rely on call-ins. The problem is that its lacklustre offensive capabilities weren't addressed when it acquired counters.

Or that its counters Firefly/M36 can bypass its defensive virtues. Increasing Panther DPS will leave PZIV facing the same problem and will help Panther little since it will still be out-sighted, out-ranged and out-gunned from heady TDs.

As to your suggestions:
1). .. and probably wouldn't do much anyway (due to penetration and armour values). "Promotes blobbing" is an issue with price and availability rather than the weapons themselves.

I would do much both vs the Panther and vs PZIV...
Effeteness is part of the problem also and that is why piats deflection damage has gone down...

2). I agree that the Su-76 and Stug could do with a slight penetration reduction to better encourage the use of heavy TDs but the Puma has horrific penetration at long range (50% against Allied medium tanks). The SU-76 and Stug would be better served by a fairly constant penetration profile (perhaps 180/170/160?).

I left Puma out of it, since it is well balanced in that department at least, I included M10 since imo should perform more like the Puma as cheap flanker, a high risk high reward unit...

3). Target tables for specific units make the game harder to learn and balance and also reduce authenticity. Should we give the kubelwagon, UC, M3 etc. partial immunity to AT weapons because they aren't useful in late-game? It would be better to use accuracy and target size rather than target tables. The heavier (damage and penetration-wise) the gun, the lower its accuracy and turning rate should be to prevent it from completely obsoleting units (the problem with the Tigers, IS-2, Comet, etc.).

Target tables all ready in the game, most hand held AT weapon weapon have them, AVRE has it...
The problem with 200-280 damage from M36/firefly is that they mess with number of shots needed to kill medium and light vehicles for no particular reason.

All 400 HP and 800 HP vehicles are affected and also all 640 (applies to 800HP also at vet3)from the 2 shots 2 (1 at vet3) tulips combo in 8-6 secs...

4). Better to go all the way, balancing accuracy/target size for all vehicles. It would help fix the problems with light units being balanced entirely around shock value.

I see no problem with that. Imo armor/penetration should protect heavy/super heavy vehicles from lower tier units while accuracy/target size should allow some chance of survival to medium light from 60 range TDS and Super heavies.

The biggest issue with the Panther is that it usually offers less dps than a Panzer IV. And even the Panzer IV is arguably underperforming.

In a perfect scenario with which I mean every shot hits and every shot penetrates, the Panzer IV is simply superior:

Panzer IV: http://www.coh2-stats.com/ballistic_weapons/panzer_4_75mm_mp
Reload: 5,3s - 5,7s
Damage: 160
Range: 40
Penetration: 120.0/110.0/100.0

Panther: http://www.coh2-stats.com/ballistic_weapons/panther_75mm_mp
Reload: 5,8s - 6,7s
Damage: 160
Range: 50
Penentration: 260.0 / 240.0 / 220.0

Aim time and cooldown are the same.

The Panzer IV has a way better anti infantry performance added to that, making it even more superior. The Panther suffers from being only good in theory. I would estimate that the majority of tanks fielded in games are Cromwells, T-34s and Shermans. All these units can be penetrated sufficiently by the Panzer IV with higher dps. In my experience the penetration bonus of the Panther is offset by the higer reload of the Panzer IV. Any infantry threat can be countered better by the Panzer IV. And the Panzer IV is already lackluster.

So in my opinion there are three possible solutions:

1) Buff the Panthers AI (making it more multi purpose, which I don´t like since Panzer IV and Tiger fill that role already)
2) Reduce the reload time to match that of the Panzer IV
3) Increase damage to 200 or 240.

In a perfect scenario with which I mean every shot hits and every shot penetrates, the Panzer IV is simply superior:

Only with the penetration value of 100 the chance of all shot penetrating a allied medium are rather low, making this an "improbable" scenario rather then a "perfect" one...

Keep in mind also that the range of the panther is 50 which make quite a difference.

On the topic of target tables, I do not want to see target tables used for anything other than broad classifications, and even then used only sparingly.

If we start peppering the game files with random rules, it will become an intractable problem for somebody to pick up what we have left to even make any meaningful modifications.

Target classification based on infantry/vehicles/sniper/aircraft is already stretching it. I want to avoid it at all costs to make the classification even more fine-grained. Especially if there are alternatives that will allow us to circumvent that.

If there are 50 units in the game and there are no target tables, we only need to look at 50 sets of parameters to get a grip of what's going on and assess the relative strength of each unit.

If we add target tables for every unit type, the list will blow up to 2500 combinations that we need to check about freak match-ups.

What's worse is that with target tables on, we completely abolish relative strength, and any intuition we can leverage to make decisions.

To give you an extreme example:
- We know that the 222 can easily kill the m20
- We also know that the Puma can effortlessly kill the 222
- Thus it is very likely that the Puma can also effortlessly kill the m20

If we start using target tables we may introduce a bug such that m20's main machinegun deals 90000000% more damage vs Pumas. Obviously, none of us have either the will or the time or the motivation to go through every single one of those 2500 combinations to ensure that such freak errors do not occur, and will never occur in the future.

Just because a piece of functionality is there (target tables), it doesn't mean that using it will improve things.

That's a no-go.

Target tables are best utilized in case by case scenarios to tweak a matchup that is imbalanced when there is otherwise a significant level of balance. It's a last resort option when you have a unit that is completely entrenched in a balanced fashion, but there's a specific unit that breaks that balance.

It is at THAT time that something like, a received accuracy bonus or penalty versus snipers is warranted. Or more specifically, a an accuracy penalty on AT guns when targeting infantry to not snipe entities all the time. It's a way of preserving what might otherwise be a functional unit without having to fundamentally change the unit. But that's about as broad a classification as I would get.

Making broad changes with target tables is probably one of the worst applications since it homogenizes units into cookie cutter roles, or completely upends any possible sense of balance or function the unit might currently occupy.

Target tables are a last resort when you run out of options because everything else is working well. I would strongly caution against using target tables outside of that context.

...
If we start peppering the game files with random rules, it will become an intractable problem for somebody to pick up what we have left to even make any meaningful modifications.
...
That's a no-go.

same should apply to damage of M36/FF which is 200-280 instead of 160 as it is equally is not more confusing...
And it this weapon only that I suggested target tables against the limited number of super heavy vehicles (elephant,ST,JT,KT,Tiger).

One cap skip the use of target tables by lowering damage to 160 lowering accuracy and buffing reload.

To give you an extreme example:
- We know that the 222 can easily kill the m20
- We also know that the Puma can effortlessly kill the 222
- Thus it is very likely that the Puma can also effortlessly kill the m20

If we start using target tables we may introduce a bug such that m20's main machinegun deals 90000000% more damage vs Pumas. Obviously, none of us have either the will or the time or the motivation to go through every single one of those 2500 combinations to ensure that such freak errors do not occur, and will never occur in the future.

Well, you only have to check target table entries related to M20.....no the 2500 combinations you are talking about.....


Indeed you won´t have 2500 entries, only the ones you need....or using target tables requires to have an entry for each combination even it is empty or with no impact into the game outcomes???

Well, you only have to check target table entries related to M20.....no the 2500 combinations you are talking about.....

That's provided that I know that the M20 can cause this.

In order to verify that no matchup presents issues, I will have to do either or both of the following:
- Check each of these entries by hand
- Play out every single of the 2500 combinations in the live game

No go.

That's provided that I know that the M20 can cause this.

In order to verify that no matchup presents issues, I will have to do either or both of the following:
- Check each of these entries by hand
- Play out every single of the 2500 combinations in the live game

No go.

well, if you see a puma evaporized in front of a m20, sure you won´t start searching in the entries of the target table related to churchills....but ok, no go....


and...why the hell are you going to have 2500 combinations???? you know you won´t end with that amount of combinations as you only need to have target tables for a very low number of those combinations...

well, if you see a puma evaporized in front of a m20, sure you won´t start searching in the entries of the target table related to churchills....but ok, no go....


and...why the hell are you going to have 2500 combinations???? you know you won´t end with that amount of combinations as you only need to have target tables for a very low number of those combinations...

Today it might be the Centaur vaporising the Centaur (which could be solved by offsetting other parameters; e.g., penetration). Tomorrow it might be the P4 vs the Cromwell (which could easily be solved by lowering Cromwell's armour).

If we start arbitrarily adding ad-hoc rules to "regulate" some weird matchup, I will need to read considerably more information to get a grip of what's going on.

For instance, I regularly consult stat.coh2.hu to get a grip of what's going on with a particular weapon. Look at the page for the T-34/76 gun for instance, and how few lines I need to read:
http://stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=t34_76mm_mp

Just look how small the page is, and how much time it takes for your eyes to take in every single bit of information.

1) Adding arbitrary parameters means that an entire web of support tools will become unusable:
- stat.coh2.hu will need to be updated
- I'll have to update my DPS calculator
- Cruzz will also have to update his tools.

At some point the effort of keeping up will be too much, and those guys might decide to "you know what? I think I'll give up".

Then I will have nobody else to cross-reference any data I gather.

2) Adding per-target rules

As I hinted before, if I am given an 1-dimensional array of parameters, I can rank them from better to worse. And by ranking them I can reuse anything I learned about a unit to apply to its counters and its counters' counters and so on.

If you are given a 2-dimensional array, how do you even begin ranking things? For every single matchup I need to consider, I will have to start from scratch.

By being able to rank things, I can also categorise them, and be able to focus on the bigger picture, than having to worry about updating every single rule. For instance, if we added target tables to everything and we wanted to make a simple change to the Greyhound (e.g,. to nerf it), I would have to go through every single weapon file in the game to see that no weird interactions occur.

3) Finally 1000 times this:

Target tables are best utilized in case by case scenarios to tweak a matchup that is imbalanced when there is otherwise a significant level of balance. It's a last resort option when you have a unit that is completely entrenched in a balanced fashion, but there's a specific unit that breaks that balance.

It is at THAT time that something like, a received accuracy bonus or penalty versus snipers is warranted. Or more specifically, a an accuracy penalty on AT guns when targeting infantry to not snipe entities all the time. It's a way of preserving what might otherwise be a functional unit without having to fundamentally change the unit. But that's about as broad a classification as I would get.

Making broad changes with target tables is probably one of the worst applications since it homogenizes units into cookie cutter roles, or completely upends any possible sense of balance or function the unit might currently occupy.

Target tables are a last resort when you run out of options because everything else is working well. I would strongly caution against using target tables outside of that context.

Today it might be the Centaur vaporising the Centaur (which could be solved by offsetting other parameters; e.g., penetration). Tomorrow it might be the P4 vs the Cromwell (which could easily be solved by lowering Cromwell's armour).

If we start arbitrarily adding ad-hoc rules to "regulate" some weird matchup, I will need to read considerably more information to get a grip of what's going on.

For instance, I regularly consult stat.coh2.hu to get a grip of what's going on with a particular weapon. Look at the page for the T-34/76 gun for instance, and how few lines I need to read:
http://stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=t34_76mm_mp

Just look how small the page is, and how much time it takes for your eyes to take in every single bit of information.

1) Adding arbitrary parameters means that an entire web of support tools will become unusable:
- stat.coh2.hu will need to be updated
- I'll have to update my DPS calculator
- Cruzz will also have to update his tools.

At some point the effort of keeping up will be too much, and those guys might decide to "you know what? I think I'll give up".

Then I will have nobody else to cross-reference any data I gather.

2) Adding per-target rules

As I hinted before, if I am given an 1-dimensional array of parameters, I can rank them from better to worse. And by ranking them I can reuse anything I learned about a unit to apply to its counters and its counters' counters and so on.

If you are given a 2-dimensional array, how do you even begin ranking things? For every single matchup I need to consider, I will have to start from scratch.

3) Finally 1000 times this:

ok, it is clear you won´t use target tables and that´s fine....your arguments though....

1. did you need to surf the whole stat.coh2.hu webpage in order to check t34/76 data??? do you???
2. I prefere a balanced game without a webpage where I can find data, that a inbalance game with a great webpage with stats of the imbalanced game..
3. so you won´t use one of the availabe tools, becasuse others tools of your own would stop working?
4. You say "Finally 1000 times this:" and at same time you insist that using target tables imply that target table will have 2500 combinations....one (you only use for verry specific cases) or another....not both mate.


"NO NO" is not the way to go...

"I don´t want modify my own toools..." is not the way to go....


anyway, Thanks for your answers and the great effort done by you and others balancing this awsome game, but man, you are the one to get a better game, and you should hear what community want to tell you (no whay I say that I don´t have the knowlegde to balance this game, but others....), just my opinion.

How about we stop complaining that tank destroyers are able to hurt tanks? Just because you invest in a Heavy Tank doesn't mean you should be invincible to stock units.

I know right, is not like Tank Destroyers can do anything else but destroy tanks, right?

ok, it is clear you won´t use target tables and that´s fine....your arguments though....

1. did you need to surf the whole stat.coh2.hu webpage in order to check t34/76 data??? do you???
2. I prefere a balanced game without a webpage where I can find data, that a inbalance game with a great webpage with stats of the imbalanced game..
3. so you won´t use one of the availabe tools, becasuse others tools of your own would stop working?
4. You say "Finally 1000 times this:" and at same time you insist that using target tables imply that target table will have 2500 combinations....one (you only use for verry specific cases) or another....not both mate.


"NO NO" is not the way to go...

"I don´t want modify my own toools..." is not the way to go....


anyway, Thanks for your answers and the great effort done by you and others balancing this awsome game, but man, you are the one to get a better game, and you should hear what community want to tell you (no whay I say that I don´t have the knowlegde to balance this game, but others....), just my opinion.

I am not a machine.
I cannot process 2500 potential entries with my bare eyes, or clicking around the UI the attribute editor, of which I don't have the source code.
I need tools that will be able to handle this overload of information.
And I definitely don't want to throw away the time that Cruzz, stat.coh2.hu or I personally have invested to build up those tools.
... for no good reason.

It would be a crime to waste the collective workhours spent on that.

Can you give me a single precise matchup that you consider imbalanced in the game that absolutely requires the use of target tables to solve?

Because, I currently cannot.

@Vipper

Target tables can be used with ease and likely with no unintended consequences either. But there are easier ways to nerf the overperforming tank destroyers, namely the Su76 and probably the M10 s well.


The firefly is balanced against mediums aside from the panther. So, in the end, that is a panther issue, and not related to the PIV or the firefly.

The Su76 is cheap. And broken against everything.