Login

russian armor

WBP 1.7

28 Jan 2017, 12:41 PM
#21
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jan 2017, 12:30 PMaaa
Mainline infantry is realatively balanced. So this self heal is questionable.
In comparision IS self heal is very strong and not OP overall because of absence of base heal.

In that case there is 15m self heal AND base heal. They try to make existing ability iseful but grens are worst unit to play against already. They just dont drop models unless wiped by random shell.


There is no aura here though. And it takes 15 for every use. On a munition - hungry faction. This is enough to make it ballanced.
28 Jan 2017, 12:56 PM
#22
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 1003

New AEC :clap:
Ballanced to right direction.

Luchs now have suppresion ability for muni?
28 Jan 2017, 13:07 PM
#23
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jan 2017, 12:56 PMAradan
New AEC :clap:
Ballanced to right direction.

Luchs now have suppresion ability for muni?


Vet5 only. Current vet5 is instantly pinning enemy squads, and there's no way to turn this off. That's OP as fuck.

Current Vet5 is also unattainable, that's why we lowered vet requirements.
28 Jan 2017, 13:11 PM
#24
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7



Vet5 only. Current vet5 is instantly pinning enemy squads, and there's no way to turn this off. That's OP as fuck.

Current Vet5 is also unattainable, that's why we lowered vet requirements.



Obers share the same issue

Changing it to paras LMG supression ability would be best I think
28 Jan 2017, 13:46 PM
#25
avatar of empyriumm

Posts: 51

Touching one sides OP or good abilities and MOSTLY not touching other sides is bad way for the balance. Yes other sides abilities are not in scope but with these changes in total u make allies more powerful then before.
28 Jan 2017, 13:47 PM
#26
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6



AEC accuracy (stationary and moving) has been increased to match the Puma already from v1.0. With v1.7 it also gets +20% accuracy on the move than the Puma for equal ranges (0.6 vs 0.5).



Technically, from our part, the patch is nearly done. To be completely done we need specific feedback about specific vehicles. i.e., how people used the vehicles and why said vehicle was OP/UP in that role. Attaching a replay in that comment will also help us identify whether there was something else going on.


it's nearly done? ain't you just started patching? ohh well, time to uninstall then :snfBarton:
28 Jan 2017, 13:52 PM
#27
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



it's nearly done? ain't you just started patching? ohh well, time to uninstall then :snfBarton:


If the feedback we receive is that all units we touched are good, then we can wrap things up. There's no point in complicating the patching by putting in changes that have not been finalized.
28 Jan 2017, 13:56 PM
#28
avatar of empyriumm

Posts: 51



If the feedback we receive is that all units we touched are good, then we can wrap things up. There's no point in complicating the patching by putting in changes that have not been finalized.


Community feedback absolutely bullshit. Most of them vote for they want to see not for balance. This way is the worse for balance.
28 Jan 2017, 14:09 PM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

///V1.7 UPDATE
Panzer 2 'Luchs'

We are increasing the consistency of the damage output of the Luchs by eliminating sources of inconsistency other similar units do not normally suffer from.

Main gun ignores cover if driven within 10m from enemy squad (like all small-arms weapons)////

Actually this chance will have the exact same result. Luch inconstant damage behavior is related to its extremely low damage modifier vs heavy cover 0.25% instead of standard 0.50.

Having a X400% more damage from range 11 to range 10 will make the unit even more inconstant.

(generally that is also a fault of the "point blank" mechanism that kick in we no warning to player and with yes/no mechanism instead of linear mechanism. Point blank mechanism should be look at imo, maybe removing 25-50% of cover bonus at range 10 and the rest linearly).

With this change the unit will overperform vs unit with no AT/snare while it will UP vs unit with AT.

A far better solution would be to make the multiplier 75% and 100% vs green/yellow cover. (While you at it apply the same change to Centuar that is OP vs cover)


///V1.7 UPDATE
Retreat Point Decongestion///

Although this changes a good, imo it would be allot better I player where allowed to place a retreat banner near their base.


///V1.7 UPDATE
Medkit Ability (veterancy 1)///

Simply remove MU cost and give a long cooldown. Paying MU for heal is simply not worth it in MU starving faction.


///V1.7 UPDATE
AEC//

Having defensive smoke on a "flanker" unit will rather difficult to balance and with less utility.

Replacing the defensive smoke with a long range gun smoke (60 range?) will be better for the unit as it can help UKF dislodge HMGs.

(Gun smoke can be removed from Cromwell, unit already have great stats)
28 Jan 2017, 14:25 PM
#30
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jan 2017, 14:09 PMVipper
///V1.7 UPDATE
Panzer 2 'Luchs'

We are increasing the consistency of the damage output of the Luchs by eliminating sources of inconsistency other similar units do not normally suffer from.

Main gun ignores cover if driven within 10m from enemy squad (like all small-arms weapons)////

Actually this chance will have the exact same result. Luch inconstant damage behavior is related to its extremely low damage modifier vs heavy cover 0.25% instead of standard 0.50.

Having a 300% more damage from range 11 to range 10 will make the unit even more inconstant.

(generally that is also a fault of the "point blank" mechanism that kick in we no warning to player and with yes/no mechanism instead of linear mechanism. Point blank mechanism should be look at imo, maybe removing 25-50% of cover bonus at range 10 and the rest linearly).

With this change the unit will overperform vs unit with no AT/snare while it will UP vs unit with AT.

A far better solution would be to make the multiplier 75% and 100% vs green/yellow cover. (While you at it apply the same change to Centuar that is OP vs cover)



The Luchs is supposed to be shredding squads that sit outside cover. This is something we hope it is still does.

The counterplay to the Luchs is, and should be having your squads remain behind cover. The reason why cover modifiers are so steep is because Luchs ignores all other obstacles between the tank and the target. This is unlike other anti-infantry targets.

If we leave things as they were, the Luchs would have particular trouble dislodging MGs that sit in craters. Even if the Luchs is hugging the offending MG, crater cover would not get removed, and the Luchs would take longer to score the necessary hits.

If there's a light vehicle hugging an unsupported squad (which is the requirement for the close-combat mechanic), that squad had better retreat. Soviets/USF have bountiful access to Snares. Brits can always choose to delay their teching by a bit to buy some upgrades to support their forces.

We also don't want to leave squads behind yellow cover completely unprotected because, luchs accuracy does not care about obstacles inbetween, and Luchs also deals AoE. We might reduce the penalties vs green cover. However, for the time being, we feel that it is useful that a squad can take refuge between a particular type of cover to survive a luchs attack and/or bait the luchs to close in.

aaa
28 Jan 2017, 15:03 PM
#31
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487



There is no aura here though. And it takes 15 for every use. On a munition - hungry faction. This is enough to make it ballanced.


aura is irelevant. And there is no munition hungry faction. Every faction uses all munition available.

They have to make sure that this self heal will not be used automaticaly with script. Such as zerg auto injects.
28 Jan 2017, 15:10 PM
#32
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885



it's nearly done? ain't you just started patching? ohh well, time to uninstall then :snfBarton:


They said that there are going to be different patches with different scopes in the future. But this patch, within this scope is really good to the point there is not much more to be done.
28 Jan 2017, 15:15 PM
#33
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978



They said that there are going to be different patches with different scopes in the future. But this patch, within this scope is really good to the point there is not much more to be done.
Someone mentioned it earlier. I also have no hope in this patch if Ostheer tanks remain in an abysmal state.
28 Jan 2017, 15:40 PM
#34
avatar of Stormless
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 762 | Subs: 4

I'm not active recently, so let me catch it up...

We've been testing PTRS for Penals for almost entire WBP but it won't be included in the patch? Right?


What's wrong with that? If it's tested and it doesn't work you don't keep it in there!
28 Jan 2017, 16:14 PM
#35
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



The Luchs is supposed to be shredding squads that sit outside cover. This is something we hope it is still does.

The counterplay to the Luchs is, and should be having your squads remain behind cover. The reason why cover modifiers are so steep is because Luchs ignores all other obstacles between the tank and the target. This is unlike other anti-infantry targets.

If we leave things as they were, the Luchs would have particular trouble dislodging MGs that sit in craters. Even if the Luchs is hugging the offending MG, crater cover would not get removed, and the Luchs would take longer to score the necessary hits.

If there's a light vehicle hugging an unsupported squad (which is the requirement for the close-combat mechanic), that squad had better retreat. Soviets/USF have bountiful access to Snares. Brits can always choose to delay their teching by a bit to buy some upgrades to support their forces.

We also don't want to leave squads behind yellow cover completely unprotected because, luchs accuracy does not care about obstacles inbetween, and Luchs also deals AoE. We might reduce the penalties vs green cover. However, for the time being, we feel that it is useful that a squad can take refuge between a particular type of cover to survive a luchs attack and/or bait the luchs to close in.



As I said with the current change the difference in damage from 11 to 10 is huge (X4) and will make the performance completely inconstant.

Luch is a unit (maybe the only) with some of the lowest modifier vs infantry in cover which makes very little seance since it is meant to counter infantry and not infantry out of cover.

By comparison and again making very little sense Centaur has the some of the highest (four times better).

Increasing the damage modifier to at least 50% (I would suggest 75%/100%) as other unit and adjusting damage if need seem to me to far better solution than having high damage only when closing in under 10 unit or out of cover.
28 Jan 2017, 16:25 PM
#36
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

The luchs is not, exactly, completely helpless when it comes to directional (green) cover. If the luchs doesn't want to close in, it has the speed and manoeuvrability to flank around the cover and deal damage. It has a choice.

What's not consistent is that in the live version, even when hugging the enemy squad, the penalties for cover are still there.

Hugging an enemy squad with a T-70 means that the projectile will go -over- the wall/whatever is protecting said squad. The change will, again, make Luchs performance consistent with other vehicles.

In short, the changes aim that if you choose to shove your luchs next to an enemy squad/support weapon, that squad should be forced to retreat, because the player grossly overextended.
28 Jan 2017, 16:33 PM
#37
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Look at it another way. There is a huge discrepancy between Centaur and Luch vs Cover that is not actually justifiable.

There also a big discrepancy between Luch and any other weapon (in the game)vs cover.

Imo that part of cause of inconstant performance and I am simply pointing out, trying to be helpful.
28 Jan 2017, 16:34 PM
#38
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



What's wrong with that? If it's tested and it doesn't work you don't keep it in there!


PPSH + Flamer upgrade doesnt work either.

PTRS upgrade was at least somehow "special" while ppsh and flamer overlap with engis and cons trying to make Penals mainline infantry instead of semi-elite AT squad.
28 Jan 2017, 18:29 PM
#39
avatar of Draje

Posts: 68

I'd like the idea of the new AEC on the puma actually. The puma seems like its a light tank hunter, but its current stats put it towards just poking away at max range. Its fast, with pen enough to fight light tanks and hit the rear of medium tanks effectively, while not enough to fight from the front effectively. But with such low armor and moving accuracy, it doesn't get a lot from pulling off risky aggressive flanks.

Would much prefer being aggressive with it, especially since with its low pen (compared to actual tanks) plinking away at max range vs medium and above does basically nothing. It would make sense imo to have stats that allow it to better back up medium tanks assaulting (later in the game), having better mobile accuracy letting it flank since it can actually pen from the rear.
28 Jan 2017, 20:57 PM
#40
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

10 munitions to heal would be more in line. Also wehrmacht T4 is just a joke. Panthers have worthless reload and even MORE worthless accuracy and panther is supposed to be The Anti-tank Tank.
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

446 users are online: 446 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM