Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

PAGES (18)down
20 Dec 2016, 12:55 PM
#241
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066



+1


Vasa pls
20 Dec 2016, 13:11 PM
#242
avatar of JackDickolson

Posts: 181



And those of us making mods to suggest changes are just muddying the waters and being systematically ignored by both the mod team and the community that want to have their voice heard through official channels.
That is the best way to speak your ideas. Uploading a polished mod with full explanation regarding the changes.

Also it seems the quantity of replay submissions seems to be the metric of authority.

Which is a little problematic since recording replays can render the game unplayable for many.
TBH, this 'replay pls/Out of scope' answer is a way to divert attention, dodge responsibility and mask own incompetence. Unless someone is shouting something like "OMG 222 is OP please remove the MG", there is no reason to shoot people providing valuable, formatted quality feedback with such answers.
20 Dec 2016, 13:38 PM
#243
avatar of Latch

Posts: 773


TBH, this 'replay pls/Out of scope' answer is a way to divert attention, dodge responsibility and mask own incompetence. Unless someone is shouting something like "OMG 222 is OP please remove the MG", there is no reason to shoot people providing valuable, formatted quality feedback with such answers.


Take your tinfoil hat off pal, the majority of people will be saying X is OP Y is UP! without any evidence to back it up, put yourself in their shoes, are you going to look at each complaint manually, try to set up the scenario you spoke about, replicate it X amount of times OR ask for a replay and examine it?

20 Dec 2016, 13:55 PM
#244
avatar of Onimusha

Posts: 149

Jesus. Just make penals similar to riflemen. Just decrease thier fucking vet, give them dp and make them cost 280. Done.


Agree, keep them like high AI squad , and decrease the cost removing flamer and ptrs. This will not make penals blob so deadly on retreat but more spammable and rewarding on early.
20 Dec 2016, 14:35 PM
#245
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

You know what would change the game for the better?

Halving the mg42 set-up time while narrowing it's arc of fire by like 30%.

That would tlead to the cool dynamic coh1 "positioning mg's vs flanking mg's" mechanic in early game





but what do i know....

20 Dec 2016, 14:43 PM
#246
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



If you play a mod, you know, that flak HT arrive at 4-5 min in the game, its to early.


But that's not the point :)

Point is that unlocking 251/17 by Medics is kinda stupid.

It's like unlocking Katusha by T4 and... let's say molotovs /logic

:P

Or better one: T34/85 can be fielded sometimes too fast, so you need to research AT Nades and molo first :P
20 Dec 2016, 15:01 PM
#247
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

You know what would change the game for the better?

Halving the mg42 set-up time while narrowing it's arc of fire by a half as well.

That would tlead to the cool dynamic coh1 "positioning mg's vs flanking mg's" mechanic in early game





but what do i know....



Not much, judging by your post. You want to make the mg42 have a similar arc as the maxim despite having only 4 men and longer set up time? Seems very biased to me. Also in coh1 the mg42 had the same if not extremely similar fire range and arc as in coh2 so that argument doesn't make sense either. The reason superior positioning and flanking in coh1 was partly due to the US-Whermacht matchup which was much more dynamic in the early game and required more micro management in order to win early engagements unlike in coh2 where blobbing is more prominent. The coh1 Wher-US matchup is probably still unparalleled in demonstrating coh gameplay and mechanics at its best, even though the Wher-Sov matchup does a decent job also.
20 Dec 2016, 15:11 PM
#248
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned


But that's not the point :)

Point is that unlocking 251/17 by Medics is kinda stupid.

It's like unlocking Katusha by T4 and... let's say molotovs /logic

:P


But its good move to balance his time of arrive without nerf him or up his price. Maybe better only would change his build time.
You can use argument with 3 ptrs :nahnah:.
20 Dec 2016, 15:15 PM
#249
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1



Stark pls, lets make 5 factions like one standard, lets make mirror factions, if you have trouble vs demo from 2013 its really strange. If demo are so problem why in 1v1 ESL tourney we see it few times ? I only remeber Noggano demo vs Asten and Jesulin. If you whanna balance game why you dont write about dive bomb ? flayers from com panther doc, com panther vet, scope ? molotovs ? cons ? callins problem ? Stug E spam ?


true soviet fanboy :bananadance:
20 Dec 2016, 15:15 PM
#250
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned



Or better one: T34/85 can be fielded sometimes too fast, so you need to research AT Nades and molo first :P


Strange that thay dont use it idea to stuart/luchs/aek time appeared.
20 Dec 2016, 15:31 PM
#251
avatar of Sultan366

Posts: 9

AT Nades and molotov should be lock at T1/T2 the same for brits and USF. If diversity is what we want, we need changes like this.
20 Dec 2016, 15:41 PM
#252
avatar of Gluhoman

Posts: 380

AT Nades and molotov should be lock at T1/T2 the same for brits and USF. If diversity is what we want, we need changes like this.
firstly we need to buff Molotov, cus they are shit
20 Dec 2016, 15:43 PM
#253
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

firstly we need to buff Molotov, cus they are shit


They have similar damage to Volks' incediary but they require additional upgrade + long wind up time which is somehow balanced thanks to low cost.

Biggest problem is range. Before bulletins "fix" you could stac 3x7% which made them useful but right now... eh....
20 Dec 2016, 16:01 PM
#254
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 19:39 PMDevM


...


Those changes would take not weeks but months, team'd increase triply and as we all know at the end we would get game with plenty of bugs which would take another months to balance and bugfix.

The idea is great but it's only utopia. :guyokay:

20 Dec 2016, 17:37 PM
#255
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



...

Biggest problem is range. Before bulletins "fix" you could stac 3x7% which made them useful but right now... eh....


i miss the days of triple faster mine deployment for sov.
20 Dec 2016, 17:48 PM
#256
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976

With the options each have, the worst thing that could happen in COH2 would be that all the factions have nearly identical armies.(fun wise)

But if all options were to be available to all factions, but choices had to be made that could also be interesting. (Meaning that you would have to choose between options and commit but you would not be able use them all.) (experimental)

And for tournament purpose only, i would permit identical factions. matching.

Thanks.
20 Dec 2016, 20:44 PM
#257
avatar of DevM
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 409 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Dec 2016, 16:01 PMStark


Those changes would take not weeks but months, team'd increase triply and as we all know at the end we would get game with plenty of bugs which would take another months to balance and bugfix.

The idea is great but it's only utopia. :guyokay:



yea they are big changes but with the state of how things are at the moment design wise there's little you can do by just tweaking numbers.
20 Dec 2016, 21:10 PM
#258
avatar of PrussianGlory

Posts: 15

While I appreciate the efforts of the modding/balance team, just leave things the way they are, and stop trying to make each faction identical.
If players want to use USSR, and they want to go anti infantry, let them make the choice of going anti infantry by being punished with vehicles.
If they want to go support weapons with an anti tank gun, let them get punished for doing that by being swarmed with infantry.

The USSR doesn't need jack of all trades Penal Battalion squads that have half-assed AT abilities. Leave them as the quasi elite anti infantry they used to be.

Let players suffer the consequences of their choices.

The USF mortar, call in meta, and light vehicle meta have been fixed, leave it at that.



Or, better yet, give people the option to download the patch once it goes live, or give them the option to revert back to older patches if they choose.
I know CPU only players are in a small minority, but I would still like to be represented.

I know I am going to catch flak for this, but this squabbling is ridiculous.

I don't know. I just feel frustrated that these balance patches are making the factions stray away from what they were originally designed around.
20 Dec 2016, 21:12 PM
#259
avatar of cochosgo

Posts: 301

Just let 1.2 go live and keep going from there. Being able to play automatches will increase the number of matches we can play and the feedback we can provide
20 Dec 2016, 23:08 PM
#260
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1


TBH, this 'replay pls/Out of scope' answer is a way to divert attention, dodge responsibility and mask own incompetence. Unless someone is shouting something like "OMG 222 is OP please remove the MG", there is no reason to shoot people providing valuable, formatted quality feedback with such answers.

If you want to be taken seriously you will do as they request.

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Dec 2016, 13:38 PMLatch

Take your tinfoil hat off pal, the majority of people will be saying X is OP Y is UP! without any evidence to back it up, put yourself in their shoes, are you going to look at each complaint manually, try to set up the scenario you spoke about, replicate it X amount of times OR ask for a replay and examine it?

:hansREKT::hansREKT:
+1

You know what would change the game for the better?
Halving the mg42 set-up time while narrowing it's arc of fire by a half as well.

+1 on set up, -1 on narrowing cone

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Dec 2016, 15:01 PMCrumbum

The coh1 Wher-US matchup is probably still unparalleled in demonstrating coh gameplay and mechanics at its best, even though the Wher-Sov matchup does a decent job also.

Agreed, +1

AT Nades and molotov should be lock at T1/T2 the same for brits and USF. If diversity is what we want, we need changes like this.

Agreed, +1.
This way Luchs has a chance to survive the critical engine
PAGES (18)down
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

568 users are online: 568 guests
0 post in the last 24h
2 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49389
Welcome our newest member, Haruta446
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM