Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

PAGES (18)down
17 Dec 2016, 05:47 AM
#61
avatar of StonedAssassin

Posts: 63



PPSH is definitely a downgrade of regular SVT Rifles, and they purposefully synergise poorly with Flamer which can't fire on the move. Penals also have less durability through vet scaling compared to Penals in Live. PPSH Penal Flamers are situational instead of a no-brainer complete upgrade like the previous Flamer Penal.


Yeah close range dps is situational, but when OKW has no viable suppression, it is a very unchallenging situation to happen. The abundance of flamethrower options for SU without a viable way for OKW to dictate range via suppression or smoke is a problem. You constantly have to kite your infantry away from mid-close range, where stg volks are supposed to be good. And it works I guess, I'm not saying they are unable to be beaten, but I'm personally bored of not having viable tools except sheer dps. I will continue to play regardless.

My recommendation is to just avoid any squads having flamethrowers in general besides the engineers. That + molotovs + satchel + sniper are SU's soft T1 anti-garrison. That's more than OKW or UKF get to work with
17 Dec 2016, 06:10 AM
#62
avatar of siuking666

Posts: 707

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2016, 19:28 PMBudwise
lol, make Flak HT cost more tech and give T1 Soviets yet again more PTRS. OK I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this needs to stop, the changes thrown away, and start over. It's not getting better with each patch its getting worse.




It's getting more ridiculously complicated too with all "Lock this behind that"

Lock 3rd PTRS behind T4
Lock Flak HT behind medic...

Where is the logic in that?!
17 Dec 2016, 06:14 AM
#63
avatar of siuking666

Posts: 707

You guys really don't know what you are doing, isn't it?

Why would you give PTRS to penals when they already have Guards in most commanders?
Or why AT-satchel too?! (Seriously wtf is that)
They already have ATG, mines, Cons AT Nade, SUs and loads more to deal with tanks.

Locking Flak HT behind medic.....because logics?
Medic drives the halftracks?
17 Dec 2016, 06:16 AM
#64
avatar of William Christensen

Posts: 401

My boys, I fear that Penals gonna be the new Sturmpioneer if this goes on: Too many roles for 1 unit! Seriously, AT unit. AI unit and anti garrison unit! I'm fine with the 3rd PTRS upgrade, this will make Penals similar to Panzergrens. However, not much with the flamer. I know you try to make them less effective long range with 3 extra PPShs, but then they would be unstoppable on urban maps. If you want anti-garrison duty, use the god damn Combat Engineer, Wehr has to use Pioneer, so why not Soviet? Better give the PPSh upgrade to Conscript (non-doctrinally) so at least they should have a reason to use them, cause at this rate, no one gonna go Conscript anyways!‎
17 Dec 2016, 07:19 AM
#65
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2016, 19:15 PMcapiqua
Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update


OKW
251 Flak Half-Track

To prevent the unit from coming out too early and dominating the field (e.g., a cut-off manoeuvre), players now require to first research Field Medics. This was especially problematic for Soviet Tier 1 or USF Tier 2 did not have access to proper counters. The 251 Flak HT was also overshadowing investing into a Mechanized HQ for Panzer 2 due to its earlier timing and not suffering from any of the downsides of Mech.
* Building the 251 FlakHT requires the player to first research Field Medics



Oh yes because the okw flak track which is universally known to be an UP unit needs to be set back even further despite not having any buffs given to it... lol what a joke. AAHT not a proper counter? Guards, AT partisans, con AT nades and ptrs penals which were just added don't count either? And for USF AAHT or early zooks can't counter flak track? This is the dumbest change I've seen in a long time. Have the modders not played automatch for the last 6 months the flaktrack doesn't just shut down either of these tiers without a fight.
17 Dec 2016, 07:22 AM
#66
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2016, 19:41 PMBudwise


I don't need to try it though. What they're failing to understand is in COH, not every building needs to counter every other building. Not every unit needs to have 20 abilities and sub classes. If you go heavy T1 and you allow your opponent fuel to get a vehicle before you get AT you SHOULD be punished. Every tier is not a damn swiss army knife. This is not balancing this changing game mechanics to your personal taste.


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'.
17 Dec 2016, 07:59 AM
#67
avatar of Oversloth

Posts: 48

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Dec 2016, 07:19 AMCrumbum


Oh yes because the okw flak track which is universally known to be an UP unit needs to be set back even further despite not having any buffs given to it... lol what a joke. AAHT not a proper counter? Guards, AT partisans, con AT nades and ptrs penals which were just added don't count either? And for USF AAHT or early zooks can't counter flak track? This is the dumbest change I've seen in a long time. Have the modders not played automatch for the last 6 months the flaktrack doesn't just shut down either of these tiers without a fight.


+1

This is honestly getting a little worrying.

Anyone who has been given the reigns of the balance of the game, whom ALSO thinks the FREAKING FLAK HALF TRACK is powerful enough to need delaying, absolutely needs to have those reigns taken AWAY from them.

What the actual hell?

Point on the doll where the Flak Half track touched you, Smith/Machine.
17 Dec 2016, 08:36 AM
#68
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

principally speaking, the balance patch, especially at this stage of the game, should touch as little as possible, as subtlely as possible. you guys really should not try to anticipate everything. this nerfing of okw flak ht... logically it makes sense i guess since all other light vics got nerfed. but the aaht is already a niche unit and it just feels like you guys sre trying to compensate for every buttery effects of your primary changes. other changes like nerfing puma AI because AEC got nerfed etc etc is simply unneeded i feel. afterall, changes to most prominent light tanks were small to begin with so i think you guys can chill out on trying to predict every thing in that department.

and this penal ptrs... i thought it was worth trying but it is just getting messier and messier. too big of a change. fundamentally changing a unit's role is obviously creating a lot of real problems. creating too much ripples.
17 Dec 2016, 09:00 AM
#69
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Regarding Winter mod:
I think there are problems in the direction on what they want Penals to be and specially the interpretation of what is the problem with the unit. I don't think it's bad for Penals on been a good AI unit, i think it's bad that you can spam them on live.


If I've to suggest something taking into account Preview v1.3 doesn't exist...

Penals:
-Popcap from 7 to 9
-Reinforce time from 5.4 to 5.9 Build time from 32 to 35 seconds
Penals shouldn't be your main infantry unit and if so, it should take a hit on the number n timing you can produce as well as map control early on

-Penal Veterancy 3 accuracy reverted from 1.3 to 1.15
-Penal Veterancy 3 received accuracy from 0.85 to 0.77
This is basically reverting the scaling change but nerfing only the extra accuracy Penals get at vet3. Since they vet requirements had been increased, i do think it's fine to get an extra 15% at vet3 to offset weapon upgrade/dps increase at that stage of the game

-Penals keep oorah at vet 2
-Flamer package cost increased to 75 munition. Includes 3 Conscript PPSH.
-Oorah and AT satchel is lost upon upgrading flamer package
The PPSH should had been included when they buff Penals to avoid the whole current situation of Rifle flamers 2.0. Oorah was added when vanilla Penals were still bad, so removing it when upgrading with PPSH flamer is a safety measure. This CCQ package should be a strategic option, not a must have.

Now the controversial. I don't think it's bad for T1 to be AT-less but if the design direction is to open up more possibilities with T1 and not hang as much with Guard/AT-sans commanders then...
Option 1:less intrusive
-Remove PTRS on Penals.
-AT satchel is unlocked after researching AT nades. AT nades name changed to AT package (more of this later).
Option 2: current model
-AT package tech unlocks PTRS n AT satchel. Once T3 is unlocked, possible option to buy a 3rd one.
Option 3: less likely to be implemented but IMO preferred to option 2
-AT package unlocks AT satchel and M42 to be built on T1

M42:
-At first, just test the live version with retreat.
-Change vet 1 tracking with camouflage + ambush bonus. When shooting out of camo, increase damage from 80 to 120 and pen to other AT guns level.
I don't think the current M42 is as bad as a stopgap unit IF it's on T1 as opposed to a commander option. Further changes could be tried later but for the moment, i think it would be fine as it is.


PD: i still hope that utility based changes can still be applied to either sniper or M3 scoutcar. I know i've suggest before things that require way more work but for now could something small like this be implemented?
-Sniper flare cost reduction and reveal of cloaked units
-M3 scoutcar lower vet requirements. Bonus: Removal of overdrive munition cost and improve loading troop time (simil to what has been done to HT).


We could definitely try alternatives to PTRS Penals to make T1 builds viable. However, given that we knew that there was a tournament upcoming, we it would be extremely unproductive to change the direction of the patch just 2 days before the tournament.

Hopefully the Tournament will give us a better idea about how the changes affect the playing experience of equal skill-level people. (gief Balance-preview mod matchmaking pls)

Although I have read your sniper ideas, and they are really good (spotter/shooter idea), changes to the Sniper are out of scope :(

We have had some minor utility changes in line for the M3, but those were also out of scope. I think veterancy requirements are straightforward enough that they should be in-scope. Do note that the loading times for all transports have been changed; not just for Halftracks. Thus the max loading time for M3 went down from 5 seconds (the longest one there is) to 2 seconds.

In general, you are correct in your assessment that we are trying to keep T1 afloat with the tools that we've been given access to (Penals).
17 Dec 2016, 09:03 AM
#70
avatar of mycalliope

Posts: 721

like I said allied fanboys 2 of them atleast LOL
17 Dec 2016, 09:07 AM
#71
avatar of Oversloth

Posts: 48


In general, you are correct in your assessment that we are trying to keep T1 afloat with the tools that we've been given access to (Penals).


You're trying to keep Tier 1 good of a viable, balanced faction that is on the higher end of playable..

At the expense of unbalanced, problem riden, lower end of playable factions.

You have to acknowledge this right?

All this pushing of "we have to keep Sov tier 1 viable" "We're trying to keep t1 afloat"...

And you push the Flak half-track behind medics...

It's starting to become a meme, how unaware you are at how ironic that is.
17 Dec 2016, 09:08 AM
#72
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



Go play then, and show us replays of how overpowered Penal Blobs are. (They're not)


But they are still blobs which is agasint the game.

Combined arms > one type of unit with different upgrades.

17 Dec 2016, 09:12 AM
#73
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



But they are still blobs which is agasint the game.

Combined arms > one type of unit with different upgrades.

Anything AT specialized is better than Penals PTRS.


You can probably also go Pioneer-spam blobs. I am pretty sure you will be able to win the first few engagements, but you will start losing 3 minutes into the game.

Yes, you are probably going to see a ton of Penal-only blobs when the patch goes live. However if we've done our job correctly, Penal-only blobs will be unviable (or at least less viable than Penal & Guards blobs). Thus, you are not going to see much of them after the novelty factor wears off.
17 Dec 2016, 09:15 AM
#74
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



You can probably also go Pioneer-spam blobs. I am pretty sure you will be able to win the first few engagements, but you will start losing 3 minutes into the game.

Yes, you are probably going to see a ton of Penal-only blobs when the patch goes live. However if we've done our job correctly, Penal-only blobs will be unviable (or at least less viable than Penal & Guards blobs). Thus, you are not going to see much of them after the novelty factor wears off.


Point is, it's irrelevant if Penals lob is viable. The game encourages you for this which is bad design.


Anything AT specialized is better than Penals PTRS.

Leave PTRS alone (lol at 3rd PTRS after T4), bring Donnie's AT squad or M-42 and we will see what will happen.
You are too much obsessed about PTRS for Penals imo, like you don't wanna try anything else, becasue "PTRS Penals". Dead end.
17 Dec 2016, 09:38 AM
#75
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Penals 1.3
Imo the new implementation of Ptrs will provide problematic. The reason are difference from other hand held AT weapon.

1) RoF. Once the target has been acquired PTRs fire faster than other AT weapons
2) Accuracy. PTRs always hits vehicles while other AT weapon miss quite often especially at max range.
3) Range. Ptrs has 5 more range than other ATW
4) Deflection. In 1.1 Ptrs deflection damage received a massive boost from 13 to 20
5) AI. PTRs remain the ATW with the best AI performance.

Now the problem become blobbing with 2 penal squad one will do a guaranteed 120 damage against any vehicle at range 40. With 4 one will 240 more than a "heavy" TD that hits and penetrate again guaranteed damage.

Imo the PTRs path is going to the wrong direction since it promotes heavy blobbing of infantry with hand help AT....

Flamer on Penal
If I am not mistaken the PPsh's will the same as the ones used by conscript. These weapon still have allot of DPs at ranges from 10-15.

The Price is also low since it very close to the price for CE flamer.

Imo the only way to make this work would be:
1) Increase price to 90
2) Provide 1 flamer + 5 PPsh. The PPsh are now using shock troops ppsh profile but at around 75% DPS
3) provide a defensive bonus to help Penals close the distance could something like 1.1 armor or 0.9 target size.

In this implementation Penals are unit that performs good only at close range.

I would also suggest that in any case it would better for Penal generally to have their cost reduced to 280 and tone down their weapons. Even better if they come out with mosin to start with, (and even have SVT as an upgrade)

This is actually the best new a have read so far:
."..., and that is better left for a veterancy spring-clean, if it ever comes."
Since it my opinion that veterancy bonuses and abilities is actually the number 1 issue with the game currently.
17 Dec 2016, 09:52 AM
#76
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670

AT penals were a mistake. They were supposed to be used alongside conscripts, expensive enough so you literally had to make some cons which also provided AT support. Now it's a molotov-ptrs penal clusterfuck.
17 Dec 2016, 09:55 AM
#77
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



You can probably also go Pioneer-spam blobs. I am pretty sure you will be able to win the first few engagements, but you will start losing 3 minutes into the game.

Yes, you are probably going to see a ton of Penal-only blobs when the patch goes live. However if we've done our job correctly, Penal-only blobs will be unviable (or at least less viable than Penal & Guards blobs). Thus, you are not going to see much of them after the novelty factor wears off.


There is nothing else to build on Soviet T1, what do you expect from players? If they are smart enough, their not going to blob, simply spam and flank.

The way you focus on Penal scare me a lot. You (and me) have no idea how people will use it, what kind of silly OP strat someone will find from what you change and ruin your patch.
But I can already tell you with the change you do on Penal, T1 Penal spam + lend lease commander will be more than broken. I know cuz I did it.

You are simply putting too much changes on this one where a couple of located nerf/up would have been sufficient for the sake of the balance. You don't know how people will react, you need more data than 10/20 replays per patch version.

My advise: Let the penal be strong AI as before, only remove FT upgrade and tune its Vet3, nerf Guards AI like you did, make it more vulnerable vs infantry, and stop. watch the trend for a month to see how players are managing this.
Do the same for the t-70 and Stuart/AEC but don't nerf others LVs and LTs, brings some up to the okw flaktrack and 251 and done.
Tune the USF mortar, the rifle vet3, keep the nerf on RM+1919.

Maybe I forget some other minor changes, but the most important is: make it live for a month and watch the trends.
17 Dec 2016, 09:59 AM
#78
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

is it me or thiw winter patch gets more retarded over time?
17 Dec 2016, 09:59 AM
#79
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Dec 2016, 09:55 AMEsxile

The way you focus on Penal scare me a lot. You (and me) have no idea how people will use it, what kind of silly OP strat someone will find from what you change and ruin your patch.
But I can already tell you with the change you do on Penal, T1 Penal spam + lend lease commander will be more than broken. I know cuz I did it.


This is why there is a Tournament going on tomorrow; and I would advise you to sign up.

We expect that a great-many broken things that we were not allowed to change will become even more broken with some of the changes.

What we hope that the players will do is find out those broken things, and abuse them in the tournament in order to win. That will hopefully give us the bargaining chips to be allowed to fix those things as well.
17 Dec 2016, 09:59 AM
#80
avatar of bulldozer

Posts: 13

Just give up on PTRS Penals it´s just too chaotic. Relic will never allow to change the role for units and u can also forget to add light AT gun into T-1. Having a flamethrower on any mainline inf is a problem like it was with rifleman. Maybe u can try to add DP28 for Penals with an ability to supress inf (like rear achelons have maybe a bit stronger) at certain level of veterancy remove oorah from them. They will become long to mid range AI unit. Also remove DP from guards and give them 3rd PTRS at certain level of veterancy as they will become pure AT unit.
PAGES (18)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

763 users are online: 763 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM