Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

PAGES (18)down
21 Dec 2016, 12:20 PM
#281
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Sorry but your logic is so broken.

Not more than yours. but lets not fill a thread about WBP 1.3 with irrelevant issues...
Soviet need to pay 125/25 for AT grenade access
Ostheer need to pay 80/10 for Faust access
aaa
21 Dec 2016, 12:44 PM
#282
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

Broken logic is very mild word for that. Most relevant issue is the playerxard.
21 Dec 2016, 13:33 PM
#283
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2016, 12:44 PMaaa
Broken logic is very mild word for that. Most relevant issue is the playerxard.

Can you quite already with your attempt to prove that I am not "qualified" to have an opinion on balance?

There is nothing to be gain down that road since even I prove to you that I am as "qualified" or even more "qualified" than you to have an opinion on balance, you will still refuse to accept that opinion...
21 Dec 2016, 13:57 PM
#284
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
Vipper pls, you logic in this question are broken. USF dont pay for at nade, brit dont have them. But you try make drama or somthing like tabloids.
21 Dec 2016, 14:07 PM
#285
avatar of Ful4n0

Posts: 345

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2016, 12:20 PMVipper

Not more than yours. but lets not fill a thread about WBP 1.3 with irrelevant issues...
Soviet need to pay 125/25 for AT grenade access
Ostheer need to pay 80/10 for Faust access, green access, mortar access and sniper access...


fixed for you!
21 Dec 2016, 14:21 PM
#286
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

If anyone wants to debate that Wer tech tree actually provides them with a advantage over the soviets I would be be happy to do so in another thread.

Until then the fact that Cons have to research AT grenades offer no tangible advantage to Wer that has to built T1 to access Faust.

Moving on I really thing that the command vehicles penalties should be reduced now that one has to use it in a more expensive vehicle.

Actually imo they should probably be different depending on the vehicles type...

The penalty on target size for instance is too much for the AEC while less important on the Churchill.
21 Dec 2016, 14:27 PM
#287
avatar of Ful4n0

Posts: 345

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2016, 14:21 PMVipper
If anyone wants to debate that Wer tech tree actually provides them with a advantage over the soviets I would be be happy to do so in another thread.

Until then the fact that Cons have to research AT grenades offer no tangible advantage to Wer that has to built T1 to access Faust.

Moving on I really thing that the command vehicles penalties should be reduced now that one has to use it in a more expensive vehicle.

Actually imo they should probably be different depending on the vehicles type...

The penalty on target size for instance is too much for the AEC while less important on the Churchill.


nice....if you want to debate why your statments about faust research are so broken, we can do it in another thread...


"Until then the fact that Cons have to research AT grenades offer no tangible advantage to Wer that has to built T1 to access Faust. " --> that could be true if you have to built t3 to get faust, but saying that you have to build t1 to get access to faust (building where green are built) is soooo funny...is as much as saying that smoke for shermans has a cost of 120 (t3 fuel cost) +110 (sherman fuel cost) = 230 fuel....


21 Dec 2016, 15:44 PM
#288
avatar of Sultan366

Posts: 9

Maybe give the soviets free upgrade but lock it to tiers like Osther :/, somethings must be equal i think if we want balance
21 Dec 2016, 16:51 PM
#289
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

Maybe give the soviets free upgrade but lock it to tiers like Osther :/, somethings must be equal i think if we want balance


By that logic we would have to lock the Lieutenant, Captain, and Major behind extra payments, because no other faction gets units essentially for free with teching. And of course that would require the removal of the FlaK on the Schwerer Panzer HQ for OKW as well (with the medics and repair pioneers having been adjusted already).
While we're at it, all factions should also have five-man infantry squads, remote weapon upgrades, linear teching, etc. pp.

Do you see the problem here? There are already significant differences in terms of teching linearity and teching costs to make up for the differences in side-teching (there's of course also the timing aspect, especially with Ostheer having to research and build a teching level), so how about taking a look at these first before adjusting the teching structure itself?
21 Dec 2016, 17:00 PM
#290
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987



T1 dont give greate map control, for reason that units from this tier have high price, how good control you can have with sniper ? If sniper so good, why we dont see it in 1v1 tourney allied meta stats ? You forget that soviet tiers re not line, thay based on MP coz ligh vehicles compared to axis are in more hight tier.



For the first 2 minutes, soviets will have bad map control, yes. But then the m3a1 halftrack shuts down axis capping and afterwards the penals can push axis off the map and then take garrisons to hold.

We didn't see it in the tourney because Maxim spam is a bit more effective but takes less brainpower to execute. If maxims weren't still so powerful, you'd be seeing even more T1 strats in tourneys.


Gameplay would be improved greatly if the m3a1 and penal-flamers were removed and the maxim were changed.

Do you really think it's right that all the allied armies has an early-game vehicle that can wipe squads and carry units behind MGs but that the axis don't? They don't have anything even close!

But I really think early-game light vehicles should all be similar to the Kubel in terms of damage and durability. I'd love to have the early-game infantry battles and map-hassling that we saw in CoH1. Not this head-to-head static slugfest.
21 Dec 2016, 17:10 PM
#291
avatar of Sultan366

Posts: 9



By that logic we would have to lock the Lieutenant, Captain, and Major behind extra payments, because no other faction gets units essentially for free with teching. And of course that would require the removal of the FlaK on the Schwerer Panzer HQ for OKW as well (with the medics and repair pioneers having been adjusted already).
While we're at it, all factions should also have five-man infantry squads, remote weapon upgrades, linear teching, etc. pp.

Do you see the problem here? There are already significant differences in terms of teching linearity and teching costs to make up for the differences in side-teching (there's of course also the timing aspect, especially with Ostheer having to research and build a teching level), so how about taking a look at these first before adjusting the teching structure itself?



I said "SOMETHINGS" not evrything, look games like age of empires 16 years older and still well balance
21 Dec 2016, 17:21 PM
#292
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283




I said "SOMETHINGS" not evrything, look games like age of empires 16 years older and still well balance


Well, then you naturally have to explain the reasoning as to what is equalised and why. Otherwise we would have to call that adjustment the "Arbitrary Balance Patch" (which is a cool name, I have to admit). As I said, the system itself is not free of flaws, but there are significantly easier ways to fix that, rather than reworking the whole teching structure. That would of course require quite a lot of research into whether those teching structures are actually as broken and/or one-sided as you make them out to be, because these changes have massive implications by their very nature.
21 Dec 2016, 17:22 PM
#293
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned



For the first 2 minutes, soviets will have bad map control, yes. But then the m3a1 halftrack shuts down axis capping and afterwards the penals can push axis off the map and then take garrisons to hold.

We didn't see it in the tourney because Maxim spam is a bit more effective but takes less brainpower to execute. If maxims weren't still so powerful, you'd be seeing even more T1 strats in tourneys.


Gameplay would be improved greatly if the m3a1 and penal-flamers were removed and the maxim were changed.

Do you really think it's right that all the allied armies has an early-game vehicle that can wipe squads and carry units behind MGs but that the axis don't? They don't have anything even close!

But I really think early-game light vehicles should all be similar to the Kubel in terms of damage and durability. I'd love to have the early-game infantry battles and map-hassling that we saw in CoH1. Not this head-to-head static slugfest.


Flamers penals yes, broken, but not m3. Carrier have same power or maybe more. Ligh vehicles dont wipe alone, its synergy. All factons have there differend gameplay, if m3 was so powered wi will be see it vs ostheer too, but nope. Like all another talks here high risk and agressive tier must be like this.
You mean maxim were changed - nerf maxim more ?
Dont play coh1 online.
Hope we will see after patch more games with t1 from you.
21 Dec 2016, 17:44 PM
#294
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7




For the first 2 minutes, soviets will have bad map control, yes. But then the okw flaptrack halftrack shuts down penals completely and afterwards axis pushes penals off the map and then take garrisons to hold.


Fixed it for you :sibHeart:


Do you really think it's right that all the allied armies has an early-game vehicle that can wipe squads and carry units behind MGs but that the axis don't? They don't have anything even close!

But I really think early-game light vehicles should all be similar to the Kubel in terms of damage and durability. I'd love to have the early-game infantry battles and map-hassling that we saw in CoH1. Not this head-to-head static slugfest


Do you really think it´r right that axis can get early snare without paying for it. They have snare for a purpose and if you fail to protect your hmg against M3 its your fault. Once you fuast M3 and have some source of DPS nearby (full health gren, good position of hmg) its dead M3.

Also tier1 doesnt offer any kind of reliable AT so you can punish him for going tier1 by getting 222. And then he punishes you with light tank and then you punish him with mediums and then heavies hit the fiel. This is coh2 concept, if you dont like it, dont play coh
21 Dec 2016, 18:28 PM
#295
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Every panzerFaust soviets can compel grens to use delays mines and lmgs. They are a one time use munitons expenditure.

Delays lmgs and stgs and such is an important thing to keep in mind.

Now if resource territories weren't so generic and linear players might be able to try and use that to the advantage. But players can only reduce all resource income generally because there's no way to target the fuel or munitions income except for the one or two points that usually can't be cut off.

There's no real resource denial gameplay in coh2 which is a bit of a travesty and why balancing strategies is such a continual mess: the major principal feature of coh gameplay is nonexistent or barely perceivable.
21 Dec 2016, 18:44 PM
#296
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225



Fixed it for you :sibHeart:



Do you really think it´r right that axis can get early snare without paying for it. They have snare for a purpose and if you fail to protect your hmg against M3 its your fault. Once you fuast M3 and have some source of DPS nearby (full health gren, good position of hmg) its dead M3.

Also tier1 doesnt offer any kind of reliable AT so you can punish him for going tier1 by getting 222. And then he punishes you with light tank and then you punish him with mediums and then heavies hit the fiel. This is coh2 concept, if you dont like it, dont play coh

If you manage to have your penal play shut down by an OKW halftruck...you don't play very well. Thats all there is to be said to that.
Not to mention that come two 2cp you have doctrinal hardcounters to the Flaktruck, and at 3cp you should have a t-70 on the field.
21 Dec 2016, 20:44 PM
#297
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


If you manage to have your penal play shut down by an OKW halftruck...you don't play very well. Thats all there is to be said to that.
Not to mention that come two 2cp you have doctrinal hardcounters to the Flaktruck, and at 3cp you should have a t-70 on the field.


I think he is talking bout WBP not LIVE.
21 Dec 2016, 21:01 PM
#298
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7


If you manage to have your penal play shut down by an OKW halftruck...you don't play very well. Thats all there is to be said to that.
Not to mention that come two 2cp you have doctrinal hardcounters to the Flaktruck, and at 3cp you should have a t-70 on the field.

What are those hardcounters ? And how you can hold with only tier1 against flaktrack, please enlighten me
21 Dec 2016, 22:47 PM
#299
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141

5
Every panzerFaust soviets can compel grens to use delays mines and lmgs. They are a one time use munitons expenditure.

Delays lmgs and stgs and such is an important thing to keep in mind.

Now if resource territories weren't so generic and linear players might be able to try and use that to the advantage. But players can only reduce all resource income generally because there's no way to target the fuel or munitions income except for the one or two points that usually can't be cut off.

There's no real resource denial gameplay in coh2 which is a bit of a travesty and why balancing strategies is such a continual mess: the major principal feature of coh gameplay is nonexistent or barely perceivable.


Couldn't agree more with the last part you wrote. CoH2 is different from vCoH, I get this and this is not an effort to make the game more like vCoH for the sake of it, but resource distribution among strategic points are in comparison watered down and hold very little meaning. It doesn't have to be extreme but I believe that more distinction would add to the game.
For example changing the current distribution from
+5M/+3F, +11M, +7F to something like
+4M/+2F, +15M, +9F or even
+3M/+1F, +17M, +12F.
The math around it is easy, but dependant on the map pool. You just take the average resources on every map and since they are all symmetric you can just divide the results by two and reallocate the distribution in a more distinct manner across the average amount of (dedicated) resource points.

It's just a question whether we believe this is a good thing or not.
21 Dec 2016, 23:00 PM
#300
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225


If you manage to have your penal play shut down by an OKW halftruck...you don't play very well. Thats all there is to be said to that.
Not to mention that come two 2cp you have doctrinal hardcounters to the Flaktruck, and at 3cp you should have a t-70 on the field.



Well alright, if you were referring to the new patch, then I'll withdraw that comment, I haven't played it.
PAGES (18)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

778 users are online: 778 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49150
Welcome our newest member, Bohanan
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM