Great post. I feel exactly the same way. Players say coh2 isnt balanced, maybe it is their fault to. They got the tools now to make it more balanced, stop the whine and post good feedback.
The only modding efforts that have wver.been considered have been mirages and now this version. Anyone else utilizing mods and maps to produce working solutions and suggestions have been denied all chances to have their efforts acknowledged let alone implemented.
If it is happening now it's solely at the discretion of the official mod team, not relic. Sure you might think that's a step in the right direction, but it creates a more adversarial atmosphere. We aren't actually working with the mod team, we are competing with them for the limited time and space to have ideas tested and considered by relic.
Which is why alternatives to penal ptrs aren't even being considered for the bulk of this mod tests run.
Right. So after literal years of community members effectively producing and delivering content and analysis to deaf ears, a mod team if formed to produce a mod that has seems to serve as a buffer of communication. The mod was already made and released for what is considered fine tuning, not testing, before the community was even informed of their efforts.
Are they though outside of qol changes and bug fixes? It seems more apparent that the only items they will consider from the community without like sixty replays are bug fixes. There is no community engagement on balance design.
This is the second time this has happened for coh2. The first time this happened we saw okw be broken by removing volks schrwcks without actually redesigning anything and giving USF the turbo mortar without redesigning anything.
The game saw a whole lot of problems as a result and spawned the exceptionally stale light vehicle meta this patch is pretending to address.
Just because the latest bits of the mod look like tuning does not mean that it is a tuning mod only. If you read all of Mr. Smith's responses you will see they have to test in stages, and that PTRS penals are out in the next stage; seems like changes based on feedback.
You seem to be forgetting the literal load of balance that is being added to this game by writing it all off. You want T70's to continue to be wipe machines? Stuarts to stun heavies? Quads to be terrible at hitting planes? No of course you don't, those are good changes and people seem agreed on that (Quads shooting down planes after 0.1 sec, that's wrong but that was changed). So you shouldn't be minimizing the other pieces just because you didn't get exactly what you wanted.
This is actually the first time community feedback has happened with real time updates. Never before have you had the chance to voice an opinion and have feedback on it from the team making the mod and never before have you had the feedback be detailed to the point of boredom. Rarely before have multiple iterations of the mod been tested to confirm things look good before it is deployed. This is a first for COH2, and I mean that.
@Oversloth
Saying have you played or read patch notes from mod is like asking someone if they like Big Macs, and the person saying they don't eat or even know what they are but, for various reasons, they are the worst burger on the planet. It is not arrogant to request players educate themselves, it is a fact that will help the team. Contributions to the balance team cannot be made without some understanding of how balance operates based upon either the changelog or the gameplay itself, preferably both. Again, you are not a victim, you are trying to make yourself look like one.
Nothing gives someone the right to be rude (read vitriolic), you choose to be rude because you want to make yourself feel better.
PS: Anybody who claims they know whether the "majority" or the "minority" players loves/hates PTRS is only bullshitting themselves. The only entity that has any clue about it is Kyle. We're still waiting for the results of the survey.
Basing balance decisions on a survey is also flawed beyond belief and an asinine idea if actual balance is what you're after. There's a thousand terrible players who have zero idea about balancing the game for every 1 that does. If 1000 4v4 players all answered that survey and 1 DevM or Sepha level player, just think of the balance we'll have!
It's just like Relic honestly. You brought your changes here and didn't get the response you hoped you would. So keep on creating new avenues for data gathering and maybe, just maybe, one of them will validate your opinions.
Rarely before have multiple iterations of the mod patchbeen tested to confirm things look good before it is deployed. This is a first for COH2, and I mean that.
My replay there show some penal AT perfomance as far as i can see penal actually feel like Pgren for me but less AI (almost dont have any AI power) so they both good and suffer for same thing AT Penal can't just blobing around without Anti infantry support and i like it but mean while capable of keeping enemy armor at bay. as far as i can tell is if anyone go only AT Penal blob they will not bleed any man power but themself .
There is a match which i didn't save the replay i've won early to mid game. the opponent seem to lose infantry fight to me but once i've lose my con and there is only 3 AT penal i can't even fight double flame engineer with 1 Pgren and make me bleed so much for having too much AT unit while only have 2 con . and eiter go cap the other side or try to take back head on i always lose my manpower while the opponent seem fine that mean Penal serve same role as Pgren not even close to riflemen zook spam which give riflemen vet so fast while they still have AI power to fight. i think it actually great now , people said that penal have make con bad but i can tell that penal AT snare not as good as con one ,so con+penal still great way to go
scout car. i've knew that balance team try to fix many unit but scout car that actually act like scout car will be one of their list make me feelgood. scout car gain vet from near by unit now they actually can build anytime eiter mid or late game to do their job in my replay i didn't use it much for scouting but you will see i build a second after i've lose the first one and actually dont need to run with flamethrower to gain ability to do it job like before. this is a great change
Sniper. well i've always terrible at sniper and mostly didn't build one ,but after last game i have lose cuase i have no Anti infantry unit but pena.l i've try use sniper to provide more anti infantry and found that it still good after i've heard they got camo nerf. but keep in mind it might becuase the opponent didn't try to get rid of it or my penal prevent that from happen . i have no idea only good player can see and im not
finally i've felt like Tier 1 had it own play on early mid and late game i dont know if it similar to brit bofor guading Light tank for rushing in or AEC to chase down light tank
oh and one thing 6 man AT mostly survive from wipe by squad space make me feelsbad man for Pgren sometime
Basing balance decisions on a survey is also flawed beyond belief and an asinine idea if actual balance is what you're after. There's a thousand terrible players who have zero idea about balancing the game for every 1 that does. If 1000 4v4 players all answered that survey and 1 DevM or Sepha level player, just think of the balance we'll have!
It's just like Relic honestly. You brought your changes here and didn't get the response you hoped you would. So keep on creating new avenues for data gathering and maybe, just maybe, one of them will validate your opinions.
Alright, then. A survey from Relic won't cut it, sure. If I can read between the lines, you want us to go after the top players and ask for their opinion.
However, the issue here is not that we don't want top players to help us. It is that the top players themselves have not made themselves available. Out of the whole array of top tournament scorers, the only such player to have actively engaged with us in a two-way communication channel is Jesulin. Occasionally, HelpingHans has also given some valuable input (especially while we were designing v1.0).
Thus, the only realistic option we have is create two alternatives, and hopefully every person in the community will be able to identify with at least one of those two options. Thus, give us some time, and you will not be disappointed.
Our door is open, it's just that people don't seem to have the time to cross it.
Since you gentlemen are so interested in the percentage results of a poll regarding PTRS Penals, how about you fellows go create a poll to go find out yourself?
Buy a 251 reinforcement halftrack and keep it safe. That will solve both of the issues you are raising.
really? instead of having equal mainline infantry i need to invest fuel in a mobile reinforcement point that will be sniped by a t70?
The reason wehrmaht infantry is 4 man is when vanilla was released conscripts were even worse than they are now and maxims too so wehrmachts mg42 was this awesome weapon platform that made 4 man enough for mainline infantry.
Now all factions has better infantry and just as good or close enough, machine guns as wehrmacht. And how many months are you gonna waste on this penal debacle? I could write a wall of text issues that needs to be adressed.
Since you gentlemen are so interested in the percentage results of a poll regarding PTRS Penals, how about you fellows go create a poll to go find out yourself?
im not interested in percentage at all. im just tired of people going after the winter balance team, they are doing this for free, are trying to balance a game, trying alot of stuff, they answers us.
let just stop whining and give positive feedback and ideas.
We can't make assgrens super good because that will affext a powerhouse doctrine and only that doctrine. It's also the fact that they rush out at 0cp.
Regardless, judgong from your comment I fail to see how the changes don't improve assgrens scaling.
Lower mp cost and sprint allow you to close in ehile bleeding less.
Thr goal of assgrens is not to take lategame closerange allied infantry head on. It is to flank tean weapons and dispose of them.
Finally assgrens already cost only 5 popcap, which is the lowwst in the game for any infantry squad.
if the doctrine is the problem then put assgrens in T4 so we can finally tech towards other things than just tanks or more powerful tanks. That would be an elegant solution to leviate a long standing problem, how late game is just about who has more tanks.
This is the second time this has happened for coh2. The first time this happened we saw okw be broken by removing volks schrwcks without actually redesigning anything and giving USF the turbo mortar without redesigning anything.
The game saw a whole lot of problems as a result and spawned the exceptionally stale light vehicle meta this patch is pretending to address.
Loading memory.exe:
-Beta test was made with a sudo OH/SU mortar. It was fine. Relic implemented single player turbo mortar.
-Not even half of Mirage patch was implemented.
Damn, some people really are fatalist.
Cause light vehicle was not prominent before July patch? T70, Aecs, 222s, P2, Stuart/M20s.
Heavy rear armor bullshit? Mine wipe and tripwire flare cheese? Random heavy engine damage? Tactical nade lobbing while suppress? AT weapon sniping infantry? Deflection stun? Gunner loop of dead? Cpt getting free bazookas? Brumbar no longer useless!
OKW problems came from: AAHT still useless, ISG not reliable to deal with garrison or maxim spam (fast enough to actually matter), raketen taking ages to track, SP healing or OKW healing in general. Access/Timing of elite infantry and chances of them getting wiped before vetting up.
if the doctrine is the problem then put assgrens in T4 so we can finally tech towards other things than just tanks or more powerful tanks. That would be an elegant solution to leviate a long standing problem, how late game is just about who has more tanks.
Good luck with having that approved by Relic. It's one thing giving OKW a suppression platform (after removing it from ISG/Kubel and AA HT been shit) and other in just starting to add doctrinal units to base tech.
We can't make assgrens super good because that will affext a powerhouse doctrine and only that doctrine. It's also the fact that they rush out at 0cp.
Regardless, judgong from your comment I fail to see how the changes don't improve assgrens scaling.
Lower mp cost and sprint allow you to close in ehile bleeding less.
Thr goal of assgrens is not to take lategame closerange allied infantry head on. It is to flank tean weapons and dispose of them.
Finally assgrens already cost only 5 popcap, which is the lowwst in the game for any infantry squad.
Mr. Smith, what about removing the PTRS's From penals and adding the 45mm M42 AT gun to Teir one and making it as expensive as the current zis 3 just it comes out earlier and is more a hard counter risk/reward.
Currently it's just sitting in a doctrine that nobody really uses and is more just a novelty. You can't put it in late game because it's useless then, experiment with an iteration of maybe teir one locked behind AT Gernades
Smith and his team will NEVER do something that good for Grenadiers.
Fact of the matter is, they have this strange notion that the Soviets/Other Allied Factions should have tactical flexibility tied to there organic, non-doctrinal units, but HEAVEN FORBID Germany has any tactical flexibility without having to choose a doctrine.
IB4 "but-but-but the Conscript vs Grenadier matchup -sniff-"
Ostheer is unequivocally regarded as the most flexible faction. It has everything in the core faction and does not have to rely for anything on commanders, that's why most consider it to be the best designed faction since it doesn't have to crutch on a commander to fill a gap, commanders add flavour.
It is exactly the lacking flexibility of the western front armies and brits that make them less diverse and fun and arguably force them into play styles that are so often criticised.
To the topic of the patch: Most seem to completely forget everything else over this penal change. There are literally 3 pages worth of just bug fixes and quality of life changes that we've been waiting for for years and they are all being addressed now. To completely ignore everything and make the decision to change penals the make or break of this patch is quite shortsighted.
Loading memory.exe:
-Beta test was made with a sudo OH/SU mortar. It was fine. Relic implemented single player turbo mortar.
-Not even half of Mirage patch was implemented.
I know. (Also to further clarify, I mean the May Preview Patch, not his Competitive mod). But please understand that this is at the heart of why I've been a little critical of the balance and design decisions of the mod team.
Damn, some people really are fatalist.
I've really been trying not to be. I mean I started out by insisting that they need to be careful about the changes they make because A) Relic has to take them, interpret them, and implement them. and B) trying to tweak combat stats and performance would be an endless cycle of balancing. I also insisted not to just make changes because they are in the scope. Not every light vehicle necessarily needs changes, especially when changes compound other changes being made (like squad formations.)
Cause light vehicle was not prominent before July patch? T70, Aecs, 222s, P2, Stuart/M20s.
Heavy rear armor bullshit? Mine wipe and tripwire flare cheese? Random heavy engine damage? Tactical nade lobbing while suppress? AT weapon sniping infantry? Deflection stun? Gunner loop of dead? Cpt getting free bazookas? Brumbar no longer useless!
Look, I'm a huge, huge proponent of all the bug fixes, quality of life changes, and changes that affect all factions and game modes (like the nades thing.) Those functional issues and inconsistencies being fixed are an overwhelming boon to the game.
I do love the AT satchel functionality in its v1.4 form, but that's also because I thought that's how Satchels should have functioned since Beta. I disagree greatly with the previous changes to mines, but that's because I greatly agree with the formation changes of this patch. I felt the mine changes ignored the issues that formation changes attempts to deal with, but I accepted them as accomplishing a much needed goal. (Incidentally I'd suggest reverting the mine changes in a version of WBP to see how many wipes occur.)
I won't shy away from what I think are good changes nor will I allow that to overshadow what I find to be poor changes. The opportunity to test a mod in an official sense is an incredible opportunity. As much as I respect their efforts, I fear they are squandering the bulk of their potential.
...
We keep telling that PTRS doesn't digress their AI ability that much > you keep saying it does.
We tell you Assault package is op > No it's not.
...
*penals with PTRS and gren with no LMG always
*always at mid range
green covers for both no vet: grens win 1 man left
no cover no vet: grens win 2 men left
no cover 3 vets: grens win 2-3 men left
considering how mid range is where penals excel at, i think this is a pretty good gimp in their AI DPS.
p.s. all times... ALL TIMES the grens got down to how many members they would be at the end of the engagement when the final SVT penal model was killed. then the PTRS did absolutely no damage.
Basing balance decisions on a survey is also flawed beyond belief and an asinine idea. There's a thousand terrible players who have zero idea about balancing the game for every 1 that does
Waiting for your next post to be "ptrs penals is exelent thing and have no alternative on the road of improving the game."
Well, Ptrs for penals just don't feel right.( we don't want to cannibalize the gards usefulness).
But Sov. tier 1 still need some AT-weapons.
So just keep penals (improved vs inf) as mod 1.0 and just add sticky bomb as global upgrade as conscrits, but don't add molotovs either, they have satchels.
LimaOscarMike
sir lechu
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
