WBP 1.7
Posts: 141
Posts: 808
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?
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.
Posts: 1617
Whats the scope about bug fixing?
Is that limited or permitted as you see fit?
Posts: 3053
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.
Posts: 1487
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.
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
Posts: 935
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
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
Sure, but why not make Cons better mainline intead of Penals in first place?
Posts: 410
Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2
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
Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
Livestreams
48 | |||||
40 | |||||
9 | |||||
880 | |||||
56 | |||||
26 | |||||
19 | |||||
11 | |||||
8 | |||||
7 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.624225.735+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.919405.694+3
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Bohanan
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM