Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update

PAGES (12)down
3 Dec 2016, 09:05 AM
#41
avatar of |GB| The Lnt.599

Posts: 323 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 01:04 AMVuther

It's propaganda to show the fascista that the Motherland provides to such an extent they can fucking their stuff give away to their enemies


its also in the live game, i tend to do it to keep my enemy from surrendering Keepo. XD but it is funny when their aa then still takes down the plane so they wont get any fuel afterall LUL
3 Dec 2016, 09:06 AM
#42
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 08:33 AMEsxile
Make the Penal PTRS upgrade requiring an additional building (T2/T3), and you can even increase a little its performance.
Otherwise people will simply spam Penals, get half of them PTRS and wait till IS-2/ISU or M4c sherman spam.

The point of the PTRS upgrade is give the tier some anti-(light)tank capability without needing another tier. While I personally think it's fine now anyway, I can assure you the options for the PTRS upgrade are either anything but what you're suggesting, or not existing at all.
3 Dec 2016, 09:19 AM
#43
avatar of FalseAlarm

Posts: 182

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 09:06 AMVuther

The point of the PTRS upgrade is give the tier some anti-(light)tank capability without needing another tier.


Then just add an expsnsive dedicated AT squad to the tier.



Long ranged highly accurate AI specialist assault units don't need an AT upgrade. We've been there, we know the disaster. TheMachine take notes.
3 Dec 2016, 09:23 AM
#44
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 09:06 AMVuther

The point of the PTRS upgrade is give the tier some anti-(light)tank capability without needing another tier. While I personally think it's fine now anyway, I can assure you the options for the PTRS upgrade are either anything but what you're suggesting, or not existing at all.


Are OKW or Ostheer able to deploy those light tanks between 0 and 5 minutes? no. So what other purposes than extending T1 play does have PTRS on Penals?
You can still unlock atnade, deploy cons and Hourraatnade whatever light tank you see with your T1.
3 Dec 2016, 09:25 AM
#45
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 09:23 AMEsxile


Are OKW or Ostheer able to deploy those light tanks between 0 and 5 minutes? no. So what other purposes than extending T1 play does have PTRS on Penals?
You can still unlock atnade, deploy cons and Hourraatnade whatever light tank you see with your T1.

Yeah, I personally have no problem with the current options. Feels like there's plenty of time to backtech to T2 or grab RPG-43s to me. I'm just telling you right now the entire idea behind the addition means slowing it in the manner you state will never happen before the upgrade being removed will be.
3 Dec 2016, 09:31 AM
#46
avatar of le_saucisson_masque

Posts: 485 | Subs: 1


Long ranged highly accurate AI specialist assault units don't need an AT upgrade. We've been there, we know the disaster. TheMachine take notes.


everyone remember blob of volks with schreks, but the ptrs are not panzerschrecks and penals are not volkgrenadier.

ptrs are less effective
penals are more expensive

But still, you could be true, and in order to proove your point you can give them a replay where you actually win with this 'tactic'.
3 Dec 2016, 09:36 AM
#47
avatar of JackDickolson

Posts: 181

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 09:23 AMEsxile
Are OKW or Ostheer able to deploy those light tanks between 0 and 5 minutes? no. So what other purposes than extending T1 play does have PTRS on Penals?
Good points.
3 Dec 2016, 10:09 AM
#49
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Right now tommies can't effectively use 2 bren guns because at vet 3 they get scoped rifles that count as a weapon slot. IF they have 2 bren guns they risk droping one starting at 4 men left in the squad. In my opinion, something should be done about those scoped rifles at vet 3. I saw a cast where the brit player tried to use double bren on tommies and the okw player ended up in having more brens at the end.


I do not see that as an issue for the simple reason that it happen to other unit that do not have the option to buy 1 weapon like AT PG.

Being able to buy 2 weapons is a available only to some faction and having the draw back of dropping them is a good price to pay. Being picked up by the enemy is simply bad play and there is no reason not to be punished...
3 Dec 2016, 10:13 AM
#50
avatar of MoerserKarL
Donator 22

Posts: 1108

thanks for the update :)

Question:
Is it possible to give the raketenwerfer another change in matter of the terrain elevation? It feels like that the projectile hits more often the ground/fences etc. than paks/zis.

for the UC command ability (free recon):
What do you think about a munition cost for the recon?
3 Dec 2016, 10:36 AM
#51
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

thanks for the update :)

Question:
Is it possible to give the raketenwerfer another change in matter of the terrain elevation? It feels like that the projectile hits more often the ground/fences etc. than paks/zis.

for the UC command ability (free recon):
What do you think about a munition cost for the recon?


A munitions cost for the recon would be a good idea. However this was deemed out of scope. We did manage to ban the UC from being a command vehicle though, which should curb its strength.

Given the fuel price of other available options, this should bring the ability in line with the infrared halftrack/Valentine, at least.

Fixing the raketen further would mean having its projectile spawn from higher up than where the gun is visually at :(

At the very least the accuracy boost will make it fire fewer fence-hitting shots.

3 Dec 2016, 10:37 AM
#52
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2016, 21:54 PMVuther
Zomfg Raketen might be fixed yaaaaaaaaassssssssssss :clap:


how much i belive in this guys i don't think those changes will be enough to fix raketen :guyokay:
3 Dec 2016, 10:53 AM
#53
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Fixing the raketen further would mean having its projectile spawn from higher up than where the gun is visually at :(

What if you only move the hitbox and left the visual where it is?
3 Dec 2016, 10:54 AM
#54
avatar of Nick Banana

Posts: 96

ptrs on penals :rofl:

rip okw and ost light vehicles
3 Dec 2016, 10:59 AM
#55
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Fixing the raketen further would mean having its projectile spawn from higher up than where the gun is visually at :(

At the very least the accuracy boost will make it fire fewer fence-hitting shots.

How about removing terrain collision?

those 6 digit accuracy number look a bit odd :)
0.06/0.0516665/0.043333

There some other issues with rakketen as well.

1) retreat unit take for ever to turn and retreat, either speed up rotation speed on retreat or allow it to retreat without turning first, or change retreat plan...

2) Scaling.
Vet 1 and 3 revolve around camo and nerfing camo also nerf scaling

Raketenwerfer 43 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher vet bonuses
No movement penalty when in camoflauge
-25% reload, +25% penetration
For first shot fired out of camouflage +100000 penetration & +25% damage
+15% speed +10% range
+12 sight radius, -10% reload

3) Garrison although the unit can garrison it gives up camo, retreat and vet bonus in doing so, in addition garrison trench or bunker is rather pointless because limits to firing angle.

Suggestions:
1) fix retreat
2) camo become vet 1 ability with no moment penalty
3) Unit in garrison get buff like extra range
4) UKF commander detection is removed or made smaller
5) trenches and bunker allow rakketen 360 fire
6) vet bonuses increase performance in garrison
7) maybe tone down vet 3 a bit.
8) add some damage reduction to AOE or extra HP for crew?
3 Dec 2016, 12:35 PM
#58
avatar of Hater

Posts: 493

PIAT-totting Sapper blobs

1 Bren gun per squad

:snfPeter:
3 Dec 2016, 13:10 PM
#59
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

I think that reduces accuracy on penals PTRS is a bad idea, it still costs much, and i believe it's worth to note that this version of PTRS is permanent, that means Guards picking dropped penals PTRS will have reduced accuracy, am i right?

about Stug's and other assualt guns, isnt it better to make HE and AP shells switchable on them like Sherman has? that would involve some micromanagement and can be rewarding, im kinda sick of seeing worse version of Stug being better vs infantry than its better counterpart

about PTRS deflection - this refers to every vehicle right? so actually PTRS can destroy KT with deflections? why not make something like this -> if weapon has at least 60% chance to penetrate than deflection will deal 25% standard damage (this refers only to infantry weapons)

any other changes seems good, maybe Luchs could get 5 fuel cost reduction?

And i'd like to some changes to Brits cancerino a.k.a arty cover and free recon
3 Dec 2016, 13:47 PM
#60
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

I think that reduces accuracy on penals PTRS is a bad idea, it still costs much, and i believe it's worth to note that this version of PTRS is permanent, that means Guards picking dropped penals PTRS will have reduced accuracy, am i right?


We are aware of this. This is why Penals will not drop their PTRS (just like conscripts PTRS). Thus, the only version of PTRS that will drop is the guards one (which is always the good version).

The reason why Penals need to get worse anti-infantry PTRS has to do with the opening phase of the game. With Guards PTRS (even the nerfed one) you can literally spam penals out from the get go, and upgrade to PTRS without having to worry about infantry counters or vehicle counters.

There is no counter the enemy can throw at you, apart from MG spam. Even though vanilla-PTRS penals would not scale that well into the late-game either way, there might not ever be a late-game in the first place. We are talking Volksblob 3.0, here.

Also pea-shooter PTRS makes them different from Guards and AT Conscripts.


about Stug's and other assualt guns, isnt it better to make HE and AP shells switchable on them like Sherman has? that would involve some micromanagement and can be rewarding, im kinda sick of seeing worse version of Stug being better vs infantry than its better counterpart


That's a good idea. Though it depends on what role assault guns should have. Stug-E could still use a little bit of love.


about PTRS deflection - this refers to every vehicle right? so actually PTRS can destroy KT with deflections? why not make something like this -> if weapon has at least 60% chance to penetrate than deflection will deal 25% standard damage (this refers only to infantry weapons)


That's pretty doable, and I think that's what we will actually aim for if PTRS begins to look too good. It is the longest-range handheld AT gun, and it may cause issues when spammed.


any other changes seems good, maybe Luchs could get 5 fuel cost reduction?


We have to think about this. With all tiers and all factions having some soft AT the luchs could become cheaper. We're giving out buffs little by little, though.


And i'd like to some changes to Brits cancerino a.k.a arty cover and free recon


Can't do anything more than prevent the Universal Carrier from being a command vehicle, unfortunately.
PAGES (12)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

unknown 24
unknown 18
unknown 1
Germany 981
Russian Federation 2

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

453 users are online: 453 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49112
Welcome our newest member, Buchh647
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM