MARCH 28th UPDATE
Posts: 37
Im also very pleased with how camo will be changed. No more instant phase-shifting squads rushing your units but instead you actually have to play for ambushes. And people will also have to better manage their snipers.
Of course a lot of broken stuff still remains in the game. But atleast we can hope that they could be next in scope
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
snibbety snab
I read everything you wrote, and it seems you pretty much ignore anything you don't like.
Other counters to light tanks besides the 222 work. It was difficult for Ostheer, so they were all toned down significantly. All things considered Ostheer will come out ahead with this patch. They will still be having issues, especially against brits, but most of the main problems facing them have been adjusted. More changes would have been better but they are not in the scope of the patch. This is a stepping stone necessary to deal with, you said it yourself that the 222 was underpriced.
If you want people to take you seriously please post some actual facts or replays to give your arguments some legitimacy. Prove to me that the 222 should be buffed more.
Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4
Permanently Banned
Guards (with coming nerfs) are hardly elite when compere to Obers, Paras, Rangers or even PzGrens.
Personally, for me it's more obvious to give them a buff but increase call-in cost and reinforce to make them powerful, expensive and elite to encourge to use Penals/Cons instead of making them semi-main line infantry.
+1
Posts: 818
Can someone explain to me what these 222 scout car changes are doing for the damage though? It seems like the same thing as the t70(more mg damage less aoe) but i don't see it clearly there.
Posts: 2742
Considering 222s had to more or less make sacrificial dives to be worth it, this means the 222 won't be able to perform that same role.
The 222 is kind of like the flakht for okw now: too expensive, poorly timed, highly situational, and ineffective in its role.
222 has been an issue since day 1. The dang thing is supposed to be closer to a kubel than the 234 puma it's pretending to be.
Posts: 164
Guards (with coming nerfs) are hardly elite when compere to Obers, Paras, Rangers or even PzGrens.
Why would you compare Para's and Rangers to Guards?
Maybe the soviets have a different tool (or set of tools) to fill the rolls that these other units fill?
Comparing 2 units in a vacuum ignores way too many aspects of the game.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Why would you compare Para's and Rangers to Guards?
Maybe the soviets have a different tool (or set of tools) to fill the rolls that these other units fill?
Comparing 2 units in a vacuum ignores way too many aspects of the game.
Becasue they are supposed to be elite, like Rangers or Pars, not main line infnatry (maybe not in terms of raw power but you should feel "elitness")
With cheaper (and weaker) Guards, maxim spam into Guards with Motor Guard will be a thing for 99% games (unless you want to stay fancy and use Cons but why would you?)
Posts: 1954
Guards, DSHK.
Also Maxims too, until they get eventually nerfed.
I appreciate all of the work that you and the rest of the balance team have done, but, comments like this make most of us think that you're pretty biased towards axis factions.
The win rate right now is the most balanced that it has ever been. It will be interesting to see what it is after the patch.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I appreciate all of the work that you and the rest of the balance team have done, but, comments like this make most of us think that you're pretty biased towards axis factions.
The win rate right now is the most balanced that it has ever been. It will be interesting to see what it is after the patch.
You won't find a single top player or non biased one which would tell you that maxims A move strats aren't TOO GOOD for whatever input they require.
There's an (unfortunate) reason why maxims are mainline infantry and conscripts are supports.
Posts: 1954
You won't find a single top player or non biased one which would tell you that maxims A move strats aren't TOO GOOD for whatever input they require.
There's an (unfortunate) reason why maxims are mainline infantry and conscripts are supports.
I wouldn't argue that point but, at the same time, show me one of those players who uses conscripts as their main infantry throughout the game.
Posts: 284 | Subs: 1
I wouldn't argue that point but, at the same time, show me one of those players who uses conscripts as their main infantry throughout the game.
You can ask VonIvan
Posts: 5
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Becasue they are supposed to be elite, like Rangers or Pars, not main line infnatry (maybe not in terms of raw power but you should feel "elitness")
With cheaper (and weaker) Guards, maxim spam into Guards with Motor Guard will be a thing for 99% games (unless you want to stay fancy and use Cons but why would you?)
They are pretty commonly see on the battlefield to be elite right now.
Posts: 1740
The idea with the 222 is that it can now deal more damage to infantry in the short window it can fight infantry that is not in cover. Their staying power is unchanged and they will cost a whole lot more, enough so ostheer is pretty much going all-in with their fuel investment for 222s.
Considering 222s had to more or less make sacrificial dives to be worth it, this means the 222 won't be able to perform that same role.
The 222 is kind of like the flakht for okw now: too expensive, poorly timed, highly situational, and ineffective in its role.
222 has been an issue since day 1. The dang thing is supposed to be closer to a kubel than the 234 puma it's pretending to be.
What as good as most players don't know about the 222 is that it deals insane damage if it targets enemies IN FRONT of cover.
so just a quick sketch:
X = The 222
O = The enemy units
| = Cover
In this case, the 222 will do almost zero damage:
|
X | O
|
But if you manage to get the enemy in front of the cover:
|
X O |
|
It will deal as much damage as an Ostwind because the projectiles will stop directly behind the enemy troops, dealing splash damage almost exactly near the target.
Posts: 367
You won't find a single top player or non biased one which would tell you that maxims A move strats aren't TOO GOOD for whatever input they require.
There's an (unfortunate) reason why maxims are mainline infantry and conscripts are supports.
If Maximim get nerfed. conscripts need some love and shocks.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
They are pretty commonly see on the battlefield to be elite right now.
And that's the thing. They are already common so why make them even more common? Why would you ever use Penals or Cons if you can spam maxims and then spam guards?
Posts: 37
The win rate right now is the most balanced that it has ever been. It will be interesting to see what it is after the patch.
This current set of "balance" has been around for such a long time that active players have learned to work around certain things. In my opinion its some of the most ridiculous things like British artillery cover or moments of RNG blessings that stand out as things that can unnecessarily turn the tide of some matches rather than any blatant balance issues. But changes are still welcome and needed.
Posts: 2066
And that's the thing. They are already common so why make them even more common? Why would you ever use Penals or Cons if you can spam maxims and then spam guards?
Because cons don't deserve buffs FeelsBadMan
I remember one patch in 2014 where they buffed cons to be superior or equal to grens. The amount of rage it produced was sad. I like conscript strats, it is just that conscripts strats usually don't work
FeelsBadMan
Livestreams
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.883398.689+5
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, may88forex
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM