Login

russian armor

Comet at 20!?! population

6 Apr 2017, 20:34 PM
#21
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 466



ppl who wna balance the fkin game


swiftboi please remove post for flaming me :new:
6 Apr 2017, 20:38 PM
#22
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

Why did Mr smith feel this was a good change? Especially with the British faction where something like the 17pdr takes away 25 pop alone

Command panther is 16 pop for record, comet is now one less pop than the King tiger at 21

I'm not sure about anyone else but the new nerfed comet is not exactly KT material...


playercard pls
6 Apr 2017, 20:41 PM
#23
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

I think the change would be fine if heavies (including allied ones) were also needed to this baseline. Because now a kt costs literally 1 more pop than the comet. I would argue that the kt, st, and jt should cost about 26-28 following the baseline of mediums, considering they are really much more impactful than 2 ost p4s or shermans, especially in team games and considering it's much easier to keep them alive than two mediums. I would put is2 and tiger at around 24 since right now they cost less pop than comets, and Pershing and CP around the same. That's just my thoughts on it anyway. I think we can all agree that sturmtiger plus kt should cost more pop than 2 comets though (IMO they should be mutually exclusive but that's another discussion).
6 Apr 2017, 20:42 PM
#24
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



playercard pls

I do think 17pdr shouldn't take up a quarter of your army though, especially when it's just blatantly worse at everything except blowing up than the pak43.
6 Apr 2017, 21:14 PM
#25
avatar of Switzerland
Donator 33

Posts: 545

Although limited by scope, making changes without the counter changes mentioned by smut himself seems pretty dumb. May the "master" modder who represents this community tell us of any progress with relic on expanding the scope? Otherwise enjoy putting out fires on all forums. Pretty lame that we have a community team but still tgthee relic gag order.
6 Apr 2017, 21:38 PM
#26
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1


I do think 17pdr shouldn't take up a quarter of your army though, especially when it's just blatantly worse at everything except blowing up than the pak43.


i bet 99% of a community agrees with you but it's out of scope
6 Apr 2017, 21:39 PM
#27
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1

Why did Mr smith feel this was a good change? Especially with the British faction where something like the 17pdr takes away 25 pop alone

Command panther is 16 pop for record, comet is now one less pop than the King tiger at 21

I'm not sure about anyone else but the new nerfed comet is not exactly KT material...


L2adapt
6 Apr 2017, 21:41 PM
#28
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Apr 2017, 21:39 PMStark


L2adapt

It's not even really gamebreaking anyway. Comet spam is just stupid.
6 Apr 2017, 21:42 PM
#29
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

All popcap should scale according to a unit's real usefulness. Otherwise, you create no-brainer build-everytime units. If a low-popcap unit has no unit limit, then you've created a spam-monster (see live-version Comet).

I will concede that the Comet popcap looks bad when compared to a list of vehicles. However, I would argue that this is not an issue with the Comet. This is an issue with call-in heavy vehicles in general.

In particular, I am referring to the following vehicles, whose popcap is a complete joke:
- King Tiger (21)
- Jagtiger (21)
- Elefant (20)
- IS-2/Tiger (19)
- Command Panther (18) <-- Note that you can no longer have a CP AND a King Tiger at the same time
- Specialist Churchills (18)
- Sturmtiger (18)
- Pershing (16!!!)

However, if you skim the list, above, each of these vehciles is limited to one. Giving the Comet a bad popcap value means that we would be turning a blind eye to Comet spam.

The popcap of the following vehicles is also a joke, however:
- Stug (8!!!)
- OKW Panther (16) <- The OKW panther is actually a potent generalist, unlike its useless OST sibling
- Callope (12!!!)

^ Those vehicles look pretty bad on the modes you can spam them. This is why we will be fixing them when their time comes and they enter the scope.

Compare each one of the forementioned vehicles to the OST Panzer4, which has 12 popcap, and you will see what I am talking about.

We will also be fixing over-pop-costed vehicles and units. Again, this cannot come without Relic's blessings.

20 popcap is very fair for a durable (and mobile unit) that has access to the utility abilities that it has. Build 1-2 of them, and you will have a fun time. Build 3 or more and you will suffer.

We want to address all popcap-related issues (6 popcap pfussies, lol) as soon as possible. However, we haven't been allowed to normalize popcap yet, by Relic. In the meantime, we can only chip in at whatever enters scope.


What do you think about increasing population cost of all heavy vehicles to the point where having 2 of them on the field would be a bad idea 90% of time and then relaxing the "limit to 1" rule? I feel that sometimes building 2 heavies should by viable option and operating on pop cost we can make it so this is a rare possibility rather than obvious choice like before. Without using artificial limits on unit counts.

Such change would open more posibilities, especially in team games where you could imagine one player choosing a doctrine with heavy and going double heavy and the other covering infantry and spamming mediums - much more of a synergy than everybody going heavy vehicle doctrines just to get one per player.
7 Apr 2017, 00:14 AM
#30
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



What do you think about increasing population cost of all heavy vehicles to the point where having 2 of them on the field would be a bad idea 90% of time and then relaxing the "limit to 1" rule? I feel that sometimes building 2 heavies should by viable option and operating on pop cost we can make it so this is a rare possibility rather than obvious choice like before. Without using artificial limits on unit counts.

Such change would open more posibilities, especially in team games where you could imagine one player choosing a doctrine with heavy and going double heavy and the other covering infantry and spamming mediums - much more of a synergy than everybody going heavy vehicle doctrines just to get one per player.


That could work, provided that:
- The popcap values are reasonable
- Repair speed is normalized for all factions

The latter is even more important than the first one, given how fast certain factions can repair their super-heavies and bring them back on the field.

Over-investing into heavies means that Tank Destroyers would be money-shooting your heavies. Even if no kill is scored, the long repair times would act as a balancing factor.

7 Apr 2017, 01:24 AM
#31
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



What do you think about increasing population cost of all heavy vehicles to the point where having 2 of them on the field would be a bad idea 90% of time and then relaxing the "limit to 1" rule? I feel that sometimes building 2 heavies should by viable option and operating on pop cost we can make it so this is a rare possibility rather than obvious choice like before. Without using artificial limits on unit counts.

I played a game as usf on steppes where the axis players all constantly overextended their infantry in giant blobs and we wiped the fuck out of their infantry, but then we couldn't destroy their bases because it's such a big map and they just replaced them with panthers and brummbars. They had a pretty small army for a while and it dragged on and on down to like 50 points on their side, but they had caches and marginal field control and by that time they had amassed basically an army of tanks and a couple pios/sturms. So the problem is my BAR riflemen, the other dudes bren tommies, and the other two guys' penals and conscripts were all basically useless, and our tanks eventually got run over by sheer numbers before we could replace them. This whole long anecdote I basically wrote down because I could see the same thing happening, which is a problem because it almost rewards or at least heavily compensates for shitty infantry micro and unit preservation, but with heavies, and increasing the popcap would probably cause this situation, but with heavies: an okw player could just dick around with volks for 30 minutes of a team game and lose most or all of them, and then just call in like 3-4 kts (since I can't see anything over 30 pop for a heavy being balanced for okw) or 2 kts and 2 sturmtigers and it'd just be cheesy as hell. What would you even do against 3 kts? It'd be legitimately unbeatable, but then another or even two other okw players could do the same thing as long as they were backed up by an ost with caches and pios.
7 Apr 2017, 01:32 AM
#32
avatar of Aronin

Posts: 13

This is ridiculous.

This has devolved into a witch-hunt for units capable of killing other units. At this rate we should just replace the main guns on all the tanks in the game with giant spud guns, and infantry rifles with air-soft. Because if something is able to wipe another unit with a little thought and good use it's OP right? I'm sorry people's feelings get hurt when they lose a good unit that they just left in the line of fire too long.

Sorry to the few of you who are discussing this reasonably but there are way too many people that mistake their own game play errors for units that need to be nerfed into the ground.
7 Apr 2017, 03:47 AM
#33
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1

They had a pretty small army for a while and it dragged on and on down to like 50 points on their side, but they had caches and marginal field control and by that time they had amassed basically an army of tanks and a couple pios/sturms. So the problem is my BAR riflemen, the other dudes bren tommies, and the other two guys' penals and conscripts were all basically useless, and our tanks eventually got run over by sheer numbers before we could replace them.


LUL. Lesson Learnt I hope?
Always invest in AT
7 Apr 2017, 04:32 AM
#34
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

So Comet + 17 pounder will eat 45 pop while Panther + Pak43 only 26?

LEL
7 Apr 2017, 06:57 AM
#35
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

So Comet + 17 pounder will eat 45 pop while Panther + Pak43 only 26?

LEL


Why lel?

they brit have a perfect combi vs tanks and infantery...the axis player will have only a anti tank combo.
7 Apr 2017, 07:40 AM
#36
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

So Comet + 17 pounder will eat 45 pop while Panther + Pak43 only 26?

LEL


That's more of a problem with the 17 Pounder having too high of a population cap. The Pak 43's is much lower because it can be decrewed by a single artillery strike, or destroyed by a couple. The Panther has a lower cap because it's purely Anti-Tank, while the Comet can do all including an AT Gun counter at Vet 1.
7 Apr 2017, 07:42 AM
#37
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

18 POP would be enough IMO. 20 is a little to much.
7 Apr 2017, 08:11 AM
#38
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

7 Apr 2017, 08:29 AM
#39
avatar of Mr +

Posts: 112

comet is spammable if u have lots of fuel like all other tanks... and this game is about micro and resource so wtf is the point of increasing popcap?
7 Apr 2017, 08:34 AM
#40
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Apr 2017, 08:29 AMMr +
comet is spammable if u have lots of fuel like all other tanks... and this game is about micro and resource so wtf is the point of increasing popcap?


maybe that the comet is the best tank fpr its costs and is easy spamable? which tank:

- cost so less
- has such a great armor, abiltys, speed, crush, HP
- is so effective vs all
- is non doc
- is spamable


hm?
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

856 users are online: 856 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49120
Welcome our newest member, truvioll94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM