Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 03:44 AMMr. Someguy

Why should anyone invest in a tier that hurts them more than it helps? Without any AT, the only way T1 would be worth it is if it's so overpowered that you smash your opponent before he can get enough fuel to make a difference.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 06:06 AMpigsoup

high risk high gain. you either do enough damage to go directly to T3 or pay measly 160mp and 20fu to get a ATG.

3. the conclusion is that flamers on DURABLE squad is the main problem.


Even though it might seem like that I am leaning towards removing flamer, I honestly think flamer is the only way to give sov T1 the umph to be "high risk, high reward" without making T1 OP to make it high reward.

My idea is: make penals 4 men initially (make penal SVT 1.5 stronger so if you want to keep penals as mid range unit, you can) - they gain 5th man when T3 is built. I am not sure if they still got that "till last man" zeal bonus but have that so when they are 4 men, they have health of 4 men but when they are 3 men, they have health of 3.25 men, 2 men - 2.75 men (or simply a slight reduced received accuracy but zeal will make the first kill much easier and wll cause a huge drop off in dps). Give 80muni upgrade of flamer +3ppshs (4th ppsh for the fifth man).

Why I think this will fix the problem: with flamer and ppsh, the T1 will still have that umph to be very aggressive and more mobile and hard hitting IF DONE RIGHT compared to pure con spam or maxim spam. and yes, sov can still have an army of flamer penals but they will be more squishy but penals still keep their current role.

Jump back to quoted post18 Dec 2016, 21:06 PMJackDickolson

His point still stands, T1 doesn't need AT. Countering penals, M3 and snipers require vehicles, giving the Tier any sort of early AT doesn't work.


And people who have been playing this franchise since its creation have a intuitive understanding of core game mechanics, asymmetrical aspects and game balance in general. Nothing to do with elitism or stuff like that, but experience and overall time spent on the games.

Jump back to quoted post18 Dec 2016, 19:25 PMTobis

I think most people will agree that this patch is looking great, except for the penal changes. The reason you guys are having trouble finding a good solution is because there isn't one. As it is, there is no satisfying way to solve the penals issue, without a major redesign of the Soviets. Not in the scope of this patch.

At this point I think you should roll-back the ptrs changes and keep the penals in a somewhat nerfed state from the live version, like in WPB 1.0. The patch already has great changes; the light vehicle rework, the spacing changes, the bug fixes.... Just leave it. Finish touching up the patch and be done with it. Have the patch release with all the good changes and let Relic see it is worthwhile and open up the patch scope. It is not worth wasting all this effort trying to save penals right now while you have one hand tied behind your back.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 06:06 AMpigsoup

high risk high gain. you either do enough damage to go directly to T3 or pay measly 160mp and 20fu to get a ATG.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 10:13 AMMr.Smith

If people want to provide feedback on how a PTRS-free mod would look like, they don't have to wait for WBP1.4.

People can already trial this by:
- Picking Soviets
- Announcing to their opponents in the lobby that they will NOT be upgrading PTRS
- Going for their T1 build

Then, people can post these replays on the thread dedicated to gathering such feedback. This will help convince us that T1 doesn't require any manipulation to be competitive (costs / AT / OP Penals).

However, if we didn't include a PTRS option to T1, people that would like to explore that option would not be able to explore this in the premises of the balance mod.

I understand that PTRS will hurt the purity of the design of T1. Nevertheless, this idealised purity for Soviet T1 was already thrown out of the window the moment OST/OKW were given the option to rush their own light vehicles. Otherwise, I don't see the reason for such a strong reaction to this change.

Most of all, I don't see any replays to support this outrage.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 10:13 AMMr.Smith

*snip*

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 10:45 AMKonyo42

My apologies for going a bit off-topic but, is there also a fix in the works or even possible for vehicles being catapulted backwards when hitting certain objects or is it out of scope/not possible due to engine limitations?

Jump back to quoted post16 Dec 2016, 23:15 PMshadowwada

The problem is T1 is a shit tier & penals suck but penal spam owns noobs so they are trying to rework penals & T1 within the limited scope that relic has permitted them. I've been saying for months that USSR lacks mid-late game elite inf, such as OKW obers & weh mg42 grens, so penals should fill that roll but Relic doesn't know how to move penals to the later stages of the game. Personally I think moving penals to later tiers and/or giving cons a weapon upgrade while leaving T1 as a useless tier is better than trying to make T1 better & balancing penals in T1.

USSR is a near perfect faction with their only weakness being elite inf, which is kinda filled by guards, so the focus should be more on nerfing the strong points, such as t-70, and buffing weh early game by making grens' early game better while their mid-late game weaker with mg42 upgrade nerf since grens outscale cons by a lot. (weh could probably use more buffs but the gren is the most needed one).

Jump back to quoted post17 Dec 2016, 04:58 AMcomm_ash

I think the whole "out of scope" is a big problem for this balance patch. If we are going to fix COH2's stale meta and early game, it can't be done by keeping some units out of scope. The conscript and penal designs have BOTH been factors in causing T1 to never be used, and I don't see soviet early game being fixed in any way without touching cons. Otherwise, we either get penals > cons in every way, or T1 still being shit.

Its just a side effect of cons having a lot of utility and penals being entirely AI focused.

Jump back to quoted post16 Dec 2016, 22:41 PMMr. Someguy

I understand they're out of scope, my worry is that with Penals becoming a strong multi-role unit, by the time Conscripts become "within scope" they will need huge buffs to compete, or remain redundant unless Penals are rebalanced alongside Conscripts.

I'm sure you guys have a plan for the future, I'm just voicing my concerns as an outsider.

Jump back to quoted post17 Dec 2016, 07:22 AMBulgakov

This.


Going T1 gives you snipers and strong infantry, so you can take great map control early game. This should come at a cost - light vehicles are going to push you off. Choices that give good benefits should have negative consequences.

Axis light vehicles have never really been able to do this because of Guards earlier and now because of PTRS penals. PTRS may not work as well vs medium tanks but they're excellent vs 222 and Luchs.


Then compare the AT situation to Axis who now have no large squads with hand-held AT. Sturm pioneers have to sacrifice minesweepers if they want a shrek.

Allied handheld AT:
Penals 2x PTRS
Guards 2x PTRS (doc)
Conscripts PTRS (doc)
USF zookas 2x equippable on all units
UKF Piats 2x equippable on all units

Axis handheld AT
OKW Sturms only. 1x. No minesweeper.
OST Pgrens only. 2x

And it's arguably the Axis who need a light vehicle counter with the AEC, Stuart and T17 currently dominating the early-mid game because there are no light vehicles to counter them except the Puma and getting that means you'll have almost 0 AI!!!




Basically, Allies have the best early game infantry, the best early light vehicles (counter an AEC or stuart with Luchs or 222?) and their late game is not much weaker than Axis'.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 14:26 PMRappy

Ok guys this argument has gone off the rails. To build both T1 and T2 for soviets is TWICE AS CHEAP in fuel as it is to research & build just T2 for wehr. There goes the argument for T1 needing hard AT. Boom.

To put it another way: If you need Hard AT you pay LESS THAN the research cost for At nades to tech to T2.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 14:34 PMvasa1719

Compared to OKW all nations spend more fuel and MP to get at tank. Why you dont write about it ?

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 10:13 AMMr.Smith

Most of all, I don't see any replays to support this outrage.