Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.4 Update

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.

Thanks for your work.

where is the AT for Ost in t1? If u mean the faust...hm...sovjet have in t0 their snare...

why in the hell do u mean sovjet need in t1 AT?? WHY??

where is the AT for Ost in t1? If u mean the faust...hm...sovjet have in t0 their snare...

why in the hell do u mean sovjet need in t1 AT?? WHY??

The answer was given many times.

Check this:

[WBP] FREQUENTLY QUESTIONED COMMENTS REGARDING SOVIET T1

And optionally this:

Questions that are intentionally silly dont need reply. He trolled you.

IF it is possible to spam penals with t1 and now i can deal with infantery and armor...why in the hell should i build t2/t3?

i can wait to t4 and bring tanks....so its a penal spam into t4.

Nice one.....we have a sec. USF Faction....no combine army need and ost struggle much more as
before the patch.

IF it is possible to spam penals with t1 and now i can deal with infantery and armor...why in the hell should i build t2/t3?

i can wait to t4 and bring tanks....so its a penal spam into t4.

Nice one.....we have a sec. USF Faction....no combine army need and ost struggle much more as
before the patch.

AT Penal does almost no no damage to infantry the opponent will just focus on Anti infantry penal first till he get wiping machine such as bumbar while he still have AT option that doesn't bleed him much like penal spam that only keep enemy tank from yolo behide your line

I'm just curious how many other light at solutions have been tested apart form Penals PTRS

AT Penal does almost no no damage to infantry the opponent will just focus on Anti infantry penal first till he get wiping machine such as bumbar while he still have AT option that doesn't bleed him much like penal spam that only keep enemy tank from yolo behide your line

i spam 4-5 penals...i upgrade 2 squads with ptrs...no i can deal with everything.

where is the logic? i seen penals which kills 2 models from grens....on the MOVE! and at longe range...maybe bad RNG...but this was so horrbible...combine penals with ptrs penals..and let the spam begin.

before the patch u can build 1-2 222s to deal with penals spam...no its impossible...u need grens, pios, HT, mg, mortar to deal with them ....nice one

I just watched the video which GG talking about: why did they feel Penals should be Over Powered. Tested some situations.
- I think they are too fast.
- They can managed to drop models.
- It is good in every stage of the game.

Edit:
If only SU was a unique faction rather than a boring thing. If only SU needs to trade Cons to keep their better(and expensive) units alive. Where you keep your useless cons squads at front to be a sandbag and guards, penals and such can charge behind them. Now all reinforce cost semi-similar in all factions and we stuck on SU talks. Where should be focus given to UK and OST. Also I though we could see re-introducing of OKW resource changing mechanic but no one even mentions them.

PTRS rifles on penals isnt even the problem its that you added back the flamer.. what good to the game does the flamer do to a 5-6 man squad? It forces you not to use garrisons or cover so.. yeah thats "fun"? Maybe for the guy who has 5 flamer squads its fun but not for the axis player. Not only flamer but you add pphs to the squad also making it close range terminator sqads. If you ever get caught with an mg in a house it will get wiped due to the pphs when it exits the house.

Mass flamer on mainline infantry has already been tried and removed on other factions... we all know the results and it doesnt work. How about working on units that actually sucks instead of wasting 4 months on buffing the already OP unit?

i spam 4-5 penals...i upgrade 2 squads with ptrs...no i can deal with everything.

w

No you can't cuz you never play Sov and you never played the balance mod.

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.

Even though the May Balance patch was influenced by the competitive mod, Miragefla had 0 input about which changes to include or how to implement them. There was no direct communication channel between Relic and Miragefla at that point.

This is how we ended up with Flamer Penal blobs. This is how we ended up with turbo mortar. This is how we ended up with panzerschreck-free OKW with no compensating buffs (raketenwerfer, ISG smoke). This is also how we ended up with a pitifully small set of bugfixes/qol changes, even though Miragefla's mod was full of these.

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.)

This time, unlike the may preview mod, there is a very active 2-way communication channel with Relic. We write the mod, Relic has access to the mod and will have to implement it.

However, unlike previous times, we will also be given access to a beta build, before it gets released in the unsuspecting public. This is the same procedure that was used for the last bugfix patch. Thus, if something is wrong, we will spot it and fix it before it becomes public.

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.)

The #1 annoying thing about mines was the door-mine thing. That's probably due to how stupidly fast squads enter/exit buildings, which was itself necessitated by the power of certain AoE weapons. To me, the new mines hit a perfect balance, and unless door-mine related issues are ironed out, I don't feel comfortable risking reverting to the previous state again.

With respect to squad formations, we can do absolutely nothing about how squad spread out behind fences, etc. If a squad is clumped up behind directional cover a single shot from a light vehicle can harm/kill multiple models. This is why we reduced the maximum possible damage (near AoE). Making no adjustments to near AoE would result in blink-of-an-eye wipes every time a squad is hugging a wall.

Wall-hugging is, incidentally, the most usual position you will find retreating squads in, as they clinch for dear life when they retreat.

However, as you mentioned, squad formations affect how squads behave out of cover. To rectify this:
- Vehicles that are good at chasing were given MG buffs (e.g., T70). That way they can deal damage to out-of-cover squads, without adding to the wipe-on-retreat potential
- Vehicles without MGs and/or bad at chasing (e.g., Stug-E) had their AoE radius inflated
- All AoE-oriented vehicles have had their far AoE/radius buffed

Now, if we could find a way to make squads spread out behind directional cover, we wouldn't have to go through all this. However, we haven't found a way to bypass this issue. Thus, this is the only reasonable solution we have come up with, so far.

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.

Thx.

Do note that as of WBPv1.4 the bulk of the changes we wanted to make are there (this also means no more major bugfixes/qol changes). With the exception of the PTRS-free alternative, the only other changes people are going to see is fine-tuning of existing changes.

This is where community feedback is crucial.

No you can't cuz you never play Sov and you never played the balance mod.

Ah. Which game was it, i played last weekend with a WBP 1.4 minimun 10games?? Was it C&C?

pls tell me...

The other troll was using outdated points to launch an ad-hominem attack.

The points that the other troll was making were perfectly valid feedback for WBPv1.3. However this is WBPv1.4 and we have already addressed all the issues the other guy was using as an excuse to make a post.

In short, if you haven't bothered to launch the mod and if you haven't even invested the time to read the changelog, you don't belong in this thread.

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.

Since the only fitting post to this topic was mine, thanks for the compliment. It seems laying out points, trying to describe a problem as accurately as possible and then have my argument turned around by someone who purposefully uses wrong terminology now makes me a troll. And I didn't attack anyone, I responded in kind - if your post wasn't an attack in the first place, then how can you consider mine one without being completely hypocritical?

Not to mention that having a different opinion from yours doesn't make me a troll, how about you cut the bullshit and tell me what your problem is with me specifically? Did I hurt your precious feelings in some way? Did you simply get up on the wrong foot?

P.S.: How come I am the troll, when you either constantly ignore everything I post (like my post about Assault Grens still being inferior to Pioneers) or try to dismantle my arguments by ridiculing me, thus trying to make it personal? Honestly, that makes you look like the troll, not me. Not once have you managed to coherently, and without trying to insult me, answered to any of my posts. Yet calling me a troll at the same time is disingenuous at best.

i spam 4-5 penals...i upgrade 2 squads with ptrs...no i can deal with everything.

where is the logic? i seen penals which kills 2 models from grens....on the MOVE! and at longe range...maybe bad RNG...but this was so horrbible...combine penals with ptrs penals..and let the spam begin.

before the patch u can build 1-2 222s to deal with penals spam...no its impossible...u need grens, pios, HT, mg, mortar to deal with them ....nice one

yup perharp you right mate

I'll have to agree with Budwise, I don't know about 95% consensus but it sounds like you are really into it and you don't want to hear that the patch you worked so much on has downsides and flaws.

Here is how I see it, no disrespect intended:

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.

Every time somebody disagrees or argue with GGthemachine = Come play 1v1 I'll show you how it's not how you say.


And in the end,

• Guards and penals build is still too strong.
  
• Conscripts are being overshadowed by Penals, on both sides and upgrades.
  
• T-70 is too weak (but I guess that comes with light tank meta changes)
  
• USF mortar still overperforms against Ostheer
  
• Brits, the most cancerous faction in the game(to this date), has not received a single nerf.
  

Actually once you use all logical arguments against someone who, lets agree, is stupid, you don´t have any other option that showing him in game that things are fine.

Hovewer telling this always and to everyone isn´t fine. Sometimes is and sometimes not. I think GGmachine use it only when its needed.


Can you all once and for all understand that balance team had plan from beggining ? At first patches they gave us option to test PTRS penals with different changes and now in second part of WBP lifespan they will give us other options for penals without PTRS. This wasn´t make up based on community hate or arguments. This was they plan from beggining and I like it. Only shame is that they told us this only now.

I think balance team should tell us more about their plans and why they made these changes, so we won´t come into more misunderstoods.



No your list.
Ofcourse it is. But stills its nowhere near power of maxim spam with ppsh cons.
They wanted to keep guards/penals useful for soviet player so he will go 50/50 for maxims and penals, so we won´t see only maxims in next patch. They did this because Relic didn´t give them authorisation. I´m pretty much sure they will nerf guards/penals more if needed with maxims nerfs so both traits remain useful.


Cons didn´t get authorisation as well. Btw they are really good with vet3 bonuses ppsh or as maxim support. By buffing cons without nerfing maxims we would promote maxims spammers even more.


t70 is weak. Nothing to say here. It is weak. Reducing price to 60 fuel would be more fitting I think. T34/76 cost 80 fuel as well.

This is mainly because usf mortar shouldn´t have been ever added or maybe only at cost of 200-240 mp while being able to fire smoke and somehow dislodge buildings. At least we can agree it is much worse against squad in the open that before. Also you can countermortar it with your own that cost less mp.


Brits didn´t get authorisation so balance team wasn´t able to nerf them. Problem is that balance team have tied hands and can only do what relic allows them to.

I think balance team should tell us more about their plans and why they made these changes, so we won´t come into more misunderstoods.

As much as we would like to, the final choice about what makes it to the final patch or not, is not ours; it's Relic's. For instance if we had plans of fixing the Greyhound, then announcing it to everyone, and then the fix would get canned by Relic, then everybody would get super-disappointed. People are already disheartened by the current state of the live game, and we don't want to add to that.

Since the only fitting post to this topic was mine, thanks for the compliment. It seems laying out points, trying to describe a problem as accurately as possible and then have my argument turned around by someone who purposefully uses wrong terminology now makes me a troll. And I didn't attack anyone, I responded in kind - if your post wasn't an attack in the first place, then how can you consider mine one without being completely hypocritical?

Not to mention that having a different opinion from yours doesn't make me a troll, how about you cut the bullshit and tell me what your problem is with me specifically? Did I hurt your precious feelings in some way? Did you simply get up on the wrong foot?

P.S.: How come I am the troll, when you either constantly ignore everything I post (like my post about Assault Grens still being inferior to Pioneers) or try to dismantle my arguments by ridiculing me, thus trying to make it personal? Honestly, that makes you look like the troll, not me. Not once have you managed to coherently, and without trying to insult me, answered to any of my posts. Yet calling me a troll at the same time is disingenuous at best.

Pioneers are NOT 4-man Assault Grenadiers. The two mp40 versions are greatly different. Pioneers get shit combat veterancy, they don't spawn instantly to help you with map control, and they certainly don't have sprint or grenades. Their flamethrower and the ability to plant mines is good, but it's not your go-to combat unit.

PS: The troll comment was not referring to you. The people I was referring to as trolls are people that post disruptive comments for the sake of posting disruptive comments, no matter if they are making an ass of themselves.

Dear Mr smith I would suggest removing/reworking both tank hunter (for obvious reason) and lend and leas (opieop) if you want to push the ptrs penal (I like them is just that I fell cons lose the main role inf just give them ptrs on tier 1 unlock (so is like an upgrade) and penal get the ppsh and flame pack)

As much as we would like to, the final choice about what makes it to the final patch or not, is not ours; it's Relic's. For instance if we had plans of fixing the Greyhound, then announcing it to everyone, and then the fix would get canned by Relic, then everybody would get super-disappointed. People are already disheartened by the current state of the live game, and we don't want to add to that.

But you could have at least told us that you ware planning also introducing penals without PTRS in this preview before turning into real life.

I think if many players knew this, we won´t have here 100 pages of whinning around penals.

I´m not saying it was completely bad move because I don´t know (as most player whinning here don´t know as well) what is actually behind this patch, so you maybe have your own "things" why you didn´t tell us this, but I think telling us this fact before (if you could have ofc) would have made things much more easier.

Ah. Which game was it, i played last weekend with a WBP 1.4 minimun 10games?? Was it C&C?

pls tell me...

If you REALLY want to make this game better - provide replays of your WBP games (with feedback) where you were facing such problems in this thread Winter Balance Preview Replays