Login

russian armor

WBP 1.7

28 Jan 2017, 21:16 PM
#41
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141

The moving accuracy is horrible on the Panther. I would like if the Panther had it's deceleration value increased, so we could better order stop commands when shooting.
28 Jan 2017, 21:57 PM
#42
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

i wouldn't touch panther yet until other overperforming tanks are nerfed
28 Jan 2017, 22:59 PM
#43
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



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.

And that stupid scatter has been changed as well right?
28 Jan 2017, 23:01 PM
#44
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053




Obers share the same issue

Changing it to paras LMG supression ability would be best I think

Yeah on the rare occassions they reach vet5 obers are batshit broken, especialy since they can fire their lmg 34 on the move.
28 Jan 2017, 23:22 PM
#45
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

@Mr.Smith

Whats the scope about bug fixing?

Is that limited or permitted as you see fit?
29 Jan 2017, 02:10 AM
#46
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jan 2017, 16:33 PMVipper

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.

There is a huge discrepancy between centaur and luchs vs existence that is actually justifiable. Ones a light tank with one 20mm autocannon that costs 60-something fuel and arrives with okw t2 and the other ones a (more) heavily armored anti aircraft platform that suppresses infantry that's also slow as hell, costs 100 fuel, and comes with Brit t3. You can't compare them at all.

TL DR, luchs=centaur as much as IS=obers. They're not imbalanced, they're just totally different units with superficial similarity.
aaa
29 Jan 2017, 03:52 AM
#47
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

If compare self heal to the corresponding abilities of other mainline infantry. Those non combat abi'ities are either nonexistent on riflemen, IS, or weak on cons. IS heal is just a sub for base heal so it doesnt give advantage.

Tripwires absolutely not as good as they should be. Mines in general were massively overnerfed. They were solid and balanced and now they are trash.
If you play vs engies like 66% mines would be sweeped or wasted on tanks (tanks get repairs in a moment). So 66% of them has a 0 effect. While self heal would have 100% effect without clear counterplay against it.





29 Jan 2017, 05:05 AM
#48
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

The removal of PTRS and inclusion of Flamer is not permanent. We are testing different varients which we will then be deciding on in the end.
29 Jan 2017, 09:14 AM
#49
29 Jan 2017, 09:58 AM
#50
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1



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.


I uually struggle with having no good infantry as soviets in lategame (cons vs vet5 volx / vet 3 grens)

with those Penals i can have skirmish squads (fire team) and flanking (assault team) squads

cool idea, thx mod team :thumb:
29 Jan 2017, 10:35 AM
#51
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



I uually struggle with having no good infantry as soviets in lategame (cons vs vet5 volx / vet 3 grens)

with those Penals i can have skirmish squads (fire team) and flanking (assault team) squads

cool idea, thx mod team :thumb:


Sure, but why not make Cons better mainline intead of Penals in first place?
29 Jan 2017, 10:37 AM
#52
avatar of KyleAkira

Posts: 410

I still miss a change on Cromwell. It comes too early and it outplays P4. I think they should consider at least an acceleration/deceleration nerf. Make it slight faster than T34/85 but with the same acc/deceleration stats and I think it would be fine
29 Jan 2017, 11:16 AM
#53
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2

#SaveOstPanther - for real, this tank is just pure crap right now. Give it the same stats that the OKW one has.
29 Jan 2017, 11:49 AM
#54
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1



Sure, but why not make Cons better mainline intead of Penals in first place?


i have always seen cons as a defensive support squad which are to be used in conjunction with support weapons or tanks instead

similar to the volx from coh1. that's also the reason you can build them in t0. because you should use them as support for your penals / support weapons and not as sole attackers

actually i find the Basic design of coh2 extremely smart and astonishingly awesome
29 Jan 2017, 12:05 PM
#55
avatar of Frost

Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Jan 2017, 21:57 PMAlphrum
i wouldn't touch panther yet until other overperforming tanks are nerfed


Well, fixing ostheer's Panther would be rather matching stats to the westheer's Panther and that's would be the best.
29 Jan 2017, 13:08 PM
#56
avatar of Svalbard SD

Posts: 327



with those Penals i can have skirmish squads (fire team) and flanking (assault team) squads

So let's make three different infantry units redundant by giving all their weapons to a fourth one. And ignore the historical sense in the process as well.

Some quality suggestions here.
29 Jan 2017, 13:22 PM
#57
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1


So let's make three different infantry units redundant by giving all their weapons to a fourth one. And ignore the historical sense in the process as well.

Some quality suggestions here.


if you had played at least 1 match with soviets, you would actually know something about them
29 Jan 2017, 13:45 PM
#58
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


There is a huge discrepancy between centaur and luchs vs existence that is actually justifiable. Ones a light tank with one 20mm autocannon that costs 60-something fuel and arrives with okw t2 and the other ones a (more) heavily armored anti aircraft platform that suppresses infantry that's also slow as hell, costs 100 fuel, and comes with Brit t3. You can't compare them at all.

TL DR, luchs=centaur as much as IS=obers. They're not imbalanced, they're just totally different units with superficial similarity.

The Centaur already is far more Lethal Luch.

In addition it has an almost unique weapon that completely ignores yellow cover and is only partially affect by green.

This unique ability to almost ignore cover allows it to engage even ATG frontally and to wipe them out and be lethal vs AT infantry.

Imo there is nothing in the units to justify ignoring cover.

(Centaur does not suppress by the way.)
29 Jan 2017, 13:47 PM
#59
avatar of Svalbard SD

Posts: 327



if you had played at least 1 match with soviets, you would actually know something about them

Well done on demonstrating your complete inability to respond to a point made instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack.

My reply was related to the common sense in game design that if you have four units with specific niche roles, taking abilities and weapons from three and packing them in the fourth one may not be the greatest decision for balance, unit usage and historical reference. Try disputing that next time.

P.S. I have played more than 1 match with Soviets, just like my playercard shows.
29 Jan 2017, 15:02 PM
#60
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

@Mr.Smith

Whats the scope about bug fixing?

Is that limited or permitted as you see fit?


The patch has bloated to monstrous proportions due to the bug-fixes/qol-changes, thus we don't want to throw new stuff in, unless it's absolutely important.

Basically if a bug makes an ability/unit underpowered/useless and resolving it is simple (1 change in 1 file), we will add this in WBP. An example of that could be "Hold the Line". Yes, the Special Weapons Regiment ability that never works.

If a particular bug is affecting an already overpowered unit which is out of scope, we won't be adding it in. An example of that would be British tank hull MGs having a narrower arc than other tanks (Does Comet really need any more help at killing infantry?).

If a bugfix has to do with game's visuals/UI etc, we won't be adding any more in for WBP. However, you are very strongly encouraged to contribute to this thread, so that we can go through the entire list next patch, with one go:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions/page/8#post_id589035

Basically, for us to add a bugfix, that thing has to be super-important. This is because the WBP is nearing its end, and there will be very little time to playtest those bugfixes.
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

637 users are online: 637 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49874
Welcome our newest member, Howden
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM