Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.4 Update

PAGES (21)down
10 Jan 2017, 13:22 PM
#261
avatar of Cresc

Posts: 378

I understand you have nerfed Target weak point ability on Puma and Stug, and the equivalent on Stuart and AEC.

Can you please consider the possibilty of nerfing the Pak40's target weak point?
It is way too frustrating to play against and random, all it takes is for the gun to shoot once and it stuns for 5 seconds, where German tanks have plenty of time to rush and end the job without a scratch.

It is also easier to use than puma or stug, assuming that you may or not see the AT gun, so there is consistent way of avoiding it.

Maybe reduce the stun time?
10 Jan 2017, 13:33 PM
#263
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jan 2017, 13:22 PMCresc
I understand you have nerfed Target weak point ability on Puma and Stug, and the equivalent on Stuart and AEC.

Can you please consider the possibilty of nerfing the Pak40's target weak point?
It is way too frustrating to play against and random, all it takes is for the gun to shoot once and it stuns for 5 seconds, where German tanks have plenty of time to rush and end the job without a scratch.

It is also easier to use than puma or stug, assuming that you may or not see the AT gun, so there is consistent way of avoiding it.

Maybe reduce the stun time?


I think that the ability would be a lot less frustrating for both players if we could change is so that the pak40 fires one and only stun-shot (with a longer grace0time even).

At the moment we do not want to change too many things that are just out of scope. This is because if we add too much, we might be forced to give up many of the changes that we have already implemented.

We have reached Peak Scope.
10 Jan 2017, 13:41 PM
#264
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

I feel like this whole "scope" makes patching impossible.

My point is, you can't properly balance Penals without touching Cons, upgrades and doctrines, yet you try to do it.

So I can imagine situation in, let's say, 6 months from now, with another community patch which will include Cons and doctrines in scope but Penals won't be in scope.

Again, it will be impossible to balance doctrines, cons and upgrade without touching Penals.

And even if Penals would be in scope togheter with other problems, then you would have to change Penals again, from WBP becasue "we coudn't make Penals perfct during WBP but we can now".

Therefore I consider any big changes for Penals a bit pointless if you can't touch anything around.

It's like fixing / buying new, beautiful silver tap for your kitchen while leaving rusty pipes.
10 Jan 2017, 15:06 PM
#266
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283


The troll comment was not referring to you.


Then you and Oversloth have been talking about entirely different things, because the post he was referencing was mine - except that the accusation no longer really holds true, because the "You're too stupid to use PzGrens"-part was removed from your answer by now.



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.


Who cares how different they are, if they do the same job better? Assault Grens are so unbelievably weak that even Pioneers are a better assault unit. As I described above, getting a second Pioneer squad and using the two together results in a far more effective flanking and assault team than a single Assault Gren squad could ever hope to be. That indicates that something is either wrong with Pioneer performance, Assault Gren performance, or even both. That is what I described above, to which none of your points react - I am essentially talking to a wall here!

Assault Grens don't work, and now the StuG E doesn't work either (although I am quite happy about the latter), which essentially means that you ruined a previously working doctrine. That would even be fine by me, because the doctrine was boring to begin with, but it stinks to high heaven if you call that a rework. Call it what it is then: an attempt to make this boring doctrine go away forever.
10 Jan 2017, 15:15 PM
#267
avatar of IA3 - HH

Posts: 289

pls make okw flak emp un-crew-able
10 Jan 2017, 15:19 PM
#268
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

balance feedback != wishlist :/
10 Jan 2017, 15:35 PM
#269
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2




Our door is open, it's just that people don't seem to have the time to cross it.


I believe Helping Hans and DevM have actually attempted to give feedback in the 1.3 thread and in private as well. There may be more I don't know, they just don't give the feedback you guys want to hear and thus there "Is no feedback".
10 Jan 2017, 15:44 PM
#270
avatar of Con!

Posts: 299

you said earlier you might be doing a brit pass in a future verison of the mod, if so I would suggest allowing the mortars in the mortor pit to be un garraisonable from the pit. currently the pit is to easily countered by other mortars that can move and this way you don't buff the pit to being too strong. you could then have it that they lose range when they do this back to 80. thus in pit they have more range. with garrison more range and increased fire. out of pit less range.
10 Jan 2017, 15:57 PM
#271
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jan 2017, 15:35 PMBudwise


I believe Helping Hans and DevM have actually attempted to give feedback in the 1.3 thread and in private as well. There may be more I don't know, they just don't give the feedback you guys want to hear and thus there "Is no feedback".


In terms of PM, maybe to GG but they've not even bothered to send me any issues that I can bring forth to the team. In fact none of the named high ranking players have put forth anything to me to bring to the attention of the team.
10 Jan 2017, 16:52 PM
#272
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Have any of you there made a single thread asking the community, top players or not, what changes they want to see for testing?

All I can see has been the official relic poll asking what we think the issues the game us facing are.

Then suddenly wbp is made and threads asking for replays or feedback on the changes you already made appeared.

Your door may be open, but the gate to the property is coin/replay operated with a guard posted turning away criticism and valid concerns alike.
10 Jan 2017, 17:06 PM
#273
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


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.


I think this part has been answered by Smith. Someone at Relic looking at X mod and taking the parts of it that it likes isn't equal as to implementing the concept behind said mod.


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.)

I'm not sure about the bold part.





You have to consider that some things have it uses on 1v1 mostly while others are only concerns on 2v2+, or some are high ranked issues while others are low ranked problems (ex: sniper value at high rank or zook blob at low rank).

Going back to the main point, light vehicles have always been "meta", specially on 1v1 when you need to push your advantage. They become less relevant on 2v2+ or low ranks when tech is speed up.


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.)


There's plenty of times on where change formations wouldn't solve mine wiping shenanigans. I think that at this point is fine leaving it like that.
10 Jan 2017, 17:34 PM
#274
avatar of Fredbrik

Posts: 18

It's really sad to see so much negativity towards the modders. We actually get the chance to have people from the community that very clearly have good knowledge of coh2 game mechanics to do the balancing, yet too many of these posts are pure vitriol. It's one thing to disagree with some of the changes, but attacking the modders directly is not productive in any way.

Besides, making balance decisions is much harder than a lot of posters here seem to realize, and speculation about balance changes can only go so far. To properly understand the implications, things have to be tested. That is why this is a balance PREVIEW, so that the modders can get to test different ideas and see what works.

Also, if the PTRSes from penals have low enough accuracy to miss against light vehicles, they're gonna be a very bad AI squad. I have a very hard time seeing how this can be overpowered... but then again, this is just me talking out of my ass without testing the mod.
10 Jan 2017, 17:48 PM
#275
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927



Then you and Oversloth have been talking about entirely different things, because the post he was referencing was mine - except that the accusation no longer really holds true, because the "You're too stupid to use PzGrens"-part was removed from your answer by now.




Who cares how different they are, if they do the same job better? Assault Grens are so unbelievably weak that even Pioneers are a better assault unit. As I described above, getting a second Pioneer squad and using the two together results in a far more effective flanking and assault team than a single Assault Gren squad could ever hope to be. That indicates that something is either wrong with Pioneer performance, Assault Gren performance, or even both. That is what I described above, to which none of your points react - I am essentially talking to a wall here!

Assault Grens don't work, and now the StuG E doesn't work either (although I am quite happy about the latter), which essentially means that you ruined a previously working doctrine. That would even be fine by me, because the doctrine was boring to begin with, but it stinks to high heaven if you call that a rework. Call it what it is then: an attempt to make this boring doctrine go away forever.


what? stug e fucking murders now
10 Jan 2017, 17:51 PM
#276
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

when is werhmacht becoming strategic diverse?
10 Jan 2017, 18:03 PM
#277
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976

This game is four years old, so shaking the meta as they are doing is a must else it's begin to taste like old bread...

We will adapt to the new meta and more tuning will be done and so on.

Stop crying and flaming and start playing the mod.

You are acting like children or maybe your are one and you're making the balance team lose it's time.

The mod is great for 4vs4 (the one i tested the most) and the changes are not game breaking at all, rather they improve the game.

i really hope this get patched really quick so we can have fun testing it in automatch.

This is a game, not a religion, stop being fanatic.

Plz get a grip on yourselves.

Thanks.
10 Jan 2017, 19:34 PM
#280
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

Invissed a number of posts from both sides of the table.

We don't deal in threats from anyone, but bring this back from the brink if you will, please.

If you have criticism, source it, back it up with evidence, play the mod.

If you don't like the criticism, respond to it in a way that shows your thought process and does not incite more hatefulness.
PAGES (21)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

1010 users are online: 1010 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49102
Welcome our newest member, Rusel334
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM