Login

russian armor

Unofficial Revamp mod (EFA & WFA & Brits)

PAGES (30)down
9 Jul 2017, 19:39 PM
#281
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 450

Brits are a joke this patch. Emplacements needed to go, but everything will destroy them. At the very least, give them something else besides emplacements. You would have to be a fuking moron to build one currently.

I know you guys want to make the Churchill viable, but you sent it to its grave with the firefly nerfs. Churchills cannot flank and relied on fireflies stunning ability to have a chance vs heavy tanks. Maybe the tulip should behave differently when it hits certain types of tanks?
Also, you nerfed the Churchill's moving accuracy on an already terrible, inaccurate gun.

Very good changes on the 25 pounders though, and the wasp buffs will make a good alternative to sim city.
9 Jul 2017, 20:22 PM
#282
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2



If you've managed to pull off a flank with 2 squads at point blank vs the Mortar Pit, how fast should the mortar pit die?

Also, btw, was this a single-mortar pit, or a double-mortar pit? Double-mortar pits receive an HP buff.


Maybe something like a bunker that can be eliminated by Panzerschreck, Atgun, Grenades, etc. No by smallweapons.
9 Jul 2017, 21:22 PM
#283
avatar of Chocoboknight88

Posts: 393



If you've managed to pull off a flank with 2 squads at point blank vs the Mortar Pit, how fast should the mortar pit die?

Also, btw, was this a single-mortar pit, or a double-mortar pit? Double-mortar pits receive an HP buff.


The test was done with the Double Mortar Pit. Don't worry, I read the changes closely.

In my opinion, I would consider it reasonable to allow an emplacement like Double Mortar Pits or 17 Pounders to survive up to five close range bursts from double assault infantry before being destroyed. It will give more time to divert your attention to the emplacement (You aren't going to watch it the whole time while you perform raids of your own) to decide to evacuate and retreat or use the time to attempt to drive them off before they destroy absolutely everything. 3 Armour should allow for this.

As mentioned already, Sappers take longer to repair now so having them repair nearly dead emplacements after nearly every engagement is going to severely limit your manpower income for much of the game.

One more thing to add. Putting assault infantry into halftracks and rushing in with smoke cover (Like with Stuka Smoke) make it quite easy to get close to emplacements with full man squads.
9 Jul 2017, 21:31 PM
#284
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

Sorry, but there are way too many changes for it to be considered "good". Lots of which look absolutely unnecessary and many of which are too convoluted. To me it looks like youre adding changes just for the sake of changing things.


I hate to agree with this but yea.

nerfing FRP, good...
nerfing call ins, good...
lowering repair speeds for post WFAs, good...
trying to do something about cheese UKF emplacements, good....

then million other small changes and many of their justification for change is due to the prior changes in the preview patch.

the whole patch notes are like the longest ever. i read them. i like to remember them all clearly so i can formulate my criticism clearer but that is simply impossible - so two things can be going on here.

1. you guys are trying to micro manage way too much, i.e. individual units to the point where it is practically impossible to quantify and evaluate whether these changes made things better.

2. all these changes are actually integral to better balance...

I would go with number 1 - even if the preview version plays better to majority, there is no way to prove that most of the changes were needed or had part in making the game better.

And I cannot fathom any justification for a big ass patch (I know it hasn't been approved by relic yet). Two possibilities - relic only let us do 2-3 more patches or they let us do way more than that. In the former case, you don't want big ass patches because once you screw up, you don't have enough wiggle room for fixing them - the latter case, if we have many patches available so why are we rushing so much?
9 Jul 2017, 22:59 PM
#285
avatar of frostbite

Posts: 593

yea theres alot of changes i loved with ost and sovs but then it started becoming a little bit to many hard nerfs and to many un-needed changes. i played the revamp a ton more then i played regular games tbh. i think changes should be small. and few at a time. not almost every unit. i do hope relic takes some things from this mod tho.
9 Jul 2017, 23:02 PM
#286
avatar of LimaOscarMike

Posts: 440

are you guy have any plan about revamp any stuff (perhaps useless waste of time lol)that lack of dept or not because balance stuff being first priority , i mean after all those balance are done

like USF lack of dept which some player like luvnest used to complain about riflemen overshadow elite unit or elite unit for example ranger to paratrooper which ranger seem pretty much like riflemen with thompson rather than being elite like paratrooper which had their own role like set up explosive also have their own ability (which come from upgrade). In my opinion it would be good if they can have fire up or some babysit ability like heroric charge to feel more seperate from riflemen

and another thing, artillery i dont know if they actually have scatter as small as rocket laucher but back in vCOH when arty shell drop near your head you die but somehow in COH2 they dont and to me it pretty much look like when rocket project tile drop near inf models exactly but that shit does cost some damage when it land near models ,so i think perhaps it's would be great to rework artillery and make them only fire 4-5 round with bigger explosion (and this explosion better be more than illusion) plus long cool down just like indirect fire like land mattress ,so OKW building can no longer get deathsentence for not having Ost with stuka bomb ability also so they can actually act like area deny tools. Right now we can just stand still through arty barrage fine no problem

i really think when relic fix their stuff they just tune that up half of it tune that down half of it that why we have arty that only work with cheeky kill through FRP but can't even force MG to move except you like to pray for RNG
10 Jul 2017, 01:57 AM
#287
avatar of Click

Posts: 139

Sorry, but there are way too many changes for it to be considered "good". Lots of which look absolutely unnecessary and many of which are too convoluted. To me it looks like youre adding changes just for the sake of changing things.


True true. You know what is good? Kyle said that whatever Modders are working on is not authorized/official by Relic and there are no current future patch plans as of yet. If there are any plans, then Relic will follow the same route they followed earlier i.e. releasing mods and getting feedback from all the players and not agree with everything modders say. So the whole process will take more than 5~6 months. :lol:
10 Jul 2017, 06:13 AM
#288
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



You know, you have an army to support it? If your opponent could get close to it and destroy it with tanks, you are doing something wrong.

Yeah but that doesn't invalidate the point. Like, if my 17pdr is more vulnerable to tanks than my section or my much cheaper 6pdr, as is the case in live, there's something wrong there.


Mortar Pits have a lot more HP than shocktroops, though. They also need to be vulnerable to something. If it's not indirect fire, and it's not AT guns sniping them, they have to be vulnerable to infantry.



The main reason why the 17 pounder gets wrecked so hard in the live version is because it has 40 target size. For comparison, the King Tiger has 26 target size. Basically, you can yolocharge around the emplacement all day long and your shots will never miss.

To kill the 17 pounder with the coaxial guns, you need to get close. To get close, a) you receive damage, b) the 17 pounder has already done its job, since you can now dispatch tanks with your supporting troops.

Lol 40 target size. Jeez. Does that affect indirect fire too?

Even though it was mostly a joke, would they though? Don't coaxial mgs have higher penetration values than 1 like most mgs? Or am I wrong?

Again, is there any reason why gliders can't be repaired? Because it really sucks to crash a vanguard glider or have it be too damaged en route by AA fire to be able to produce commandos, especially because it's like >500 mp, or have a glider with a sliver of health left and not be able to do anything about it.
10 Jul 2017, 06:15 AM
#289
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066


Yeah but that doesn't invalidate the point. Like, if my 17pdr is more vulnerable to tanks than my section or my much cheaper 6pdr, as is the case in live, there's something wrong there.

Lol 40 target size. Jeez. Does that affect indirect fire too?

Even though it was mostly a joke, would they though? Don't coaxial mgs have higher penetration values than 1 like most mgs? Or am I wrong?

Again, is there any reason why gliders can't be repaired? Because it really sucks to crash a vanguard glider or have it be too damaged en route by AA fire to be able to produce commandos, especially because it's like >500 mp, or have a glider with a sliver of health left and not be able to do anything about it.


That explains why it dies so fast to everything. 40 target size lol.
10 Jul 2017, 06:18 AM
#290
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



I hate to agree with this but yea.

nerfing FRP, good...
nerfing call ins, good...
lowering repair speeds for post WFAs, good...
trying to do something about cheese UKF emplacements, good....

then million other small changes and many of their justification for change is due to the prior changes in the preview patch.

the whole patch notes are like the longest ever. i read them. i like to remember them all clearly so i can formulate my criticism clearer but that is simply impossible - so two things can be going on here.

1. you guys are trying to micro manage way too much, i.e. individual units to the point where it is practically impossible to quantify and evaluate whether these changes made things better.

2. all these changes are actually integral to better balance...

I would go with number 1 - even if the preview version plays better to majority, there is no way to prove that most of the changes were needed or had part in making the game better.

And I cannot fathom any justification for a big ass patch (I know it hasn't been approved by relic yet). Two possibilities - relic only let us do 2-3 more patches or they let us do way more than that. In the former case, you don't want big ass patches because once you screw up, you don't have enough wiggle room for fixing them - the latter case, if we have many patches available so why are we rushing so much?


I'm afraid modders have forgotten why they were doing the mod in first hand. To have something ready to be presented to Relic and being implemented.
If the mod is proposing many interesting things, it went too far. There are so many changes how Relic is suppose to pick-up things in it whithout breaking the actual balance.

10 Jul 2017, 06:20 AM
#291
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



That explains why it dies so fast to everything. 40 target size lol.

Yep lol. And less armor than the UC rip.
nee
10 Jul 2017, 06:36 AM
#292
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

Sorry, but there are way too many changes for it to be considered "good". Lots of which look absolutely unnecessary and many of which are too convoluted. To me it looks like you're adding changes just for the sake of changing things.
Agreed; the good thing about official patches being comparatively (if also disatsifactorily) short is that it enables people to evaluate things one at a time and not all at once.

It's like adjusting curriculum of elementary students to go all the way to calculus because hey, the more the better, right?

Or like stuffing fifty chefs in your kitchen and thinking that will increase cooking efficiency.

Of course being more than "EFA" revamp should have already been a sign.
10 Jul 2017, 07:23 AM
#293
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

I'd start with QoL-only patch first. I think we can agree that these changes are mostly good.
10 Jul 2017, 08:02 AM
#294
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

Just a quick question from me...
Is there a document somehow on this page where you can see what exactly things like target size, etc mean in the game? Thanks.
10 Jul 2017, 08:27 AM
#295
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

(Although I away and can not test in the mod I still feel that:)Imo the WFA again loses the base line:
The majority of units are more cost efficient than what should be the baseline Ostheer.

Tommies for instance cost only 20 MP (but have no tech cost) to buy, beat Grenadier at all ranges, bleed the same, but scale far better. Generally they are more cost efficient.

Cromwell is more cost efficient than Panzer IV yet it faces less cost efficient TD.

The list can go on but they questions remains,
does any actually compare thing with base line?
Why is so much effort is put in emplacements and not units?

My suggestions would be:
1) compare the units with your baseline and try to make them cost efficient based on that.
2) Fix units and then try to tackle other complicated issues like emplacements.
10 Jul 2017, 10:43 AM
#296
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



I hate to agree with this but yea.

nerfing FRP, good...
nerfing call ins, good...
lowering repair speeds for post WFAs, good...
trying to do something about cheese UKF emplacements, good....


Building a mod with just those features is, quite simply, a complete waste of time. That's because, even if the changes are reasonable, there's nothing interesting to test.

FRPs and Call-ins, sure; everybody knows those need a nerf.

Repair speeds? The only way to test this is playing a game and counting the seconds until your tanks are back online.

Emplacements? To test them, you need to find somebody that builds emplacements, and somebody that loves playing against emplacements. I don't know of anybody like that.

We've all watched the KoTH tournament and cringed together as some of the top players were misusing units and abilities. None of us saw a single game where Penals and DSHK were fielded in that series. This is, even though, nothing has changed between then and now (live version). During the tournament, Penals were considered a "dead" unit. That's because people didn't invest the time required to figure out the meta.

At the same time, even relatively minor changes require a lot of scrutiny. You can't have scrutiny without a lot of playing, and you can't have a lot of playing if the mod isn't engaging enough.

When we were forced to rush Maxim changes through the gate, we only had a week of preparation time, during that time we received a lot of feedback. However, during the remaining month people simply got bored of the GCS preview mod, we stopped receiving feedback altogether, and the result is the potato-level Maxim you can now experience in the live version.

So, there's no point in building a mod, if it is only ever going to be launched once and never replayed; We could have just stuck with the patchnotes instead and save ourselves months' worth of effort.

Also, I'm never going to make a bugfix-only mod ever again. There's no point in that, ever. There's simply too much effort involved in fixing the bug, wasting 100's hours of effort playtesting them, documenting them, asking for approval for Relic about which parts of the bug we're allowed to fix, then reimplementing the bugfixes, retesting them, re-porting the bugfix when it's time for the live version, re-playtesting it, etc. No; when I fix a bug, I want to play a game that's worth playing without having to encounter that bug again.

Instead, the point of this mod is:
- to have changes prepared that are on a good enough level. E.g., if Relic wants us to redesign e.g., Soviet infantry, OKW scaling, indirect fire this is the template we would start from.
- Provide a glimpse as to how those changes would play out in the end. Do the factions end up being interesting and fun, or do you end up with Infantry & TD spam?
- Be fun and engaging enough to play, so that the forementioned points can be playtested sufficiently

If you want a starting point into the mod, focus on a particular matchup, and build up your knowledge from there. Pick 1-2 of the factions that received the least amount of invasive changes (e.g., Soviets, OST, USF) and stick with Vanilla commanders. Then, as you begin to feel more comfortable, fork out from there.
10 Jul 2017, 11:53 AM
#297
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

When we were forced to rush Maxim changes through the gate, we only had a week of preparation time, during that time we received a lot of feedback. However, during the remaining month people simply got bored of the GCS preview mod, we stopped receiving feedback altogether, and the result is the potato-level Maxim you can now experience in the live version.

So, there's no point in building a mod, if it is only ever going to be launched once and never replayed; We could have just stuck with the patchnotes instead and save ourselves months' worth of effort.


The way the balance team go is... not correct from beginning.

For example, about maxim, while OKW has big trouble with it, OST has none. You should question why? It's because OST have sniper, mortar and rifle grenade. Then you will realize that OKW need a similar unit or ability to counter soviet HMG, no need to nerf maxim.
Immediately after you nerf maxim, what's happen? DHSK become the problem. And then you try to nerf DHSK again. It's like you are trying to patch things by displaying stuffs and let people choose what best instead of thinking for BEST CONCRETE PLAN.

If you rely on community to give you a good idea, then that just proves your incompetence in balancing.
10 Jul 2017, 12:17 PM
#298
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



The way the balance team go is... not correct from beginning.

For example, about maxim, while OKW has big trouble with it, OST has none. You should question why? It's because OST have sniper, mortar and rifle grenade. Then you will realize that OKW need a similar unit or ability to counter soviet HMG, no need to nerf maxim.
Immediately after you nerf maxim, what's happen? DHSK become the problem. And then you try to nerf DHSK again. It's like you are trying to patch things by displaying stuffs and let people choose what best instead of thinking for BEST CONCRETE PLAN.

If you rely on community to give you a good idea, then that just proves your incompetence in balancing.


Not really, the problem with the DHSK is Penal+AT associate with DHSK. Take away any form of AT from Penals and the strat lose its power.
10 Jul 2017, 12:59 PM
#299
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



The test was done with the Double Mortar Pit. Don't worry, I read the changes closely.

In my opinion, I would consider it reasonable to allow an emplacement like Double Mortar Pits or 17 Pounders to survive up to five close range bursts from double assault infantry before being destroyed. It will give more time to divert your attention to the emplacement (You aren't going to watch it the whole time while you perform raids of your own) to decide to evacuate and retreat or use the time to attempt to drive them off before they destroy absolutely everything. 3 Armour should allow for this.

As mentioned already, Sappers take longer to repair now so having them repair nearly dead emplacements after nearly every engagement is going to severely limit your manpower income for much of the game.

One more thing to add. Putting assault infantry into halftracks and rushing in with smoke cover (Like with Stuka Smoke) make it quite easy to get close to emplacements with full man squads.


First of all; thanks for taking the time to run the tests for us. There are a lot of units and threats that the emplacements have to come up against that it's impossible to have just the same 3-4 people playtesting emplacements with us (and there's only that many Trois Ponts matches we can survive without turning insane x_X).

One thing about Mortar Pits and the 17 pounder is that their hitbox is insanely large. Like any shots (AT gun or whatever) that lands on the net will deal full damage to the emplacement. That may also affect small arms fire, but I'm not sure.

We've found a way to reduce the hitbox size of those emplacements, which we may trial in the next version, to see if that also affects small arms fire.

Secondly, according to your guestimate, the mortar pit should be roughly 2-5 times more durable vs small arms fire than it currently lis.

My questions to you are...

1. does the Mortar Pit also need to be made more durable vs indirect fire than it currently, is, or did we already hit the right spot? (note that the mortar pit can barrage at longer ranges than the adversary)

2. Do Flame Nades/Flame barrages deal too much damage to emplacements currently? If they do too much damage, by how much should we reduce their damage? Half? 1-third? etc

3. Note that emplacements require squads garrisoned inside to operate at their full potential. Do garrisoned squads take too much damage from indirect fire?

4. (Due to repair speed normalization/HP), do emplacements take too long to repair?

5. Did we miss any offmap that deals too much damage to emplacemnets that brace cannot account for?
10 Jul 2017, 14:30 PM
#300
avatar of mycalliope

Posts: 721

why were okw offmaps like zeroing arty ,useless/copy pasta stuka barrage,and that waste of munition for falls in luftwaffe(it doesn't even make sense the planes also do almost nothing) and countless others
PAGES (30)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 2
unknown 2
Canada 2

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

397 users are online: 397 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49189
Welcome our newest member, Mckrayns
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM