Login

russian armor

Fall Balance Preview

PAGES (17)down
18 Jul 2017, 15:27 PM
#81
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

since your bringing OKW's FRP cost in line with USF, do you still have to pay for the actual retreat point? or is it free like the USF's one
18 Jul 2017, 15:33 PM
#83
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2



... as they should be.


No, or you are one of those people who likes: click click I won?
18 Jul 2017, 16:17 PM
#86
avatar of dOPEnEWhAIRCUT

Posts: 239

don't insult smith please the RW is weak to small arms because it doesn't have cover, just give it green cover when set up and all is fair



I'm not insulting him, just stating observations. It wasn't a secret back when he first started posting that he had a strong bias towards Allies, and it honestly shows in patch notes for their balance mod. Every argument I've seen him make against FRPs when he was considering removing them completely targeted only one faction out of the three that currently have it, guess which one?

Look, the mod brought forth alot of great changes as well, and for the most part that's reflected in the FBPs notes, so bravo to the team on that. The radical redesigns though, leave those for mods.



i approve 100% of what mr smith is doing and i actually play the game.

this is a PREVIEW of a patch that gonna come. why don't you go play the preview and give some good feedback that mr smith will listen to, and stop attacking people?

atleast mr smith is doing something for the game, what are you doing?


I'm glad that you actually play the game, maybe you can get him on board with playing the game as well so that he can make decisions based off of experience rather than speculation. I'm not attacking anyone, I just think that you all are so hungry for a patch that you're willing to accept anything thrown at you, and the full list of changes that Smith and his team want to bring to you is, in my opinion, extremely unhealthy for the game. We don't need an entire redesign, we need balance tweaks and bug fixes. Sometimes doing nothing is less harmful than doing something (Don't fix what isn't broken).
18 Jul 2017, 16:18 PM
#87
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Invis a comment and the following ones quoting it.

The RW is weak to small arms because it doesn't have cover, just give it green cover when set up and all is fair


AT gun cover doesn't work as you imagine. I've said it in the past but to put it simple:

The 2 guys operating the weapon don't benefit from the cover created by the support weapon. The ones which are behind, have to hug the weapon in order to benefit from it (which due to formations usually doesn't happen). Putting an AT gun behind cover benefits the 2 guys operating the weapon.

The only difference is the hitbox on the AT guns which can "absorb" a hit.
18 Jul 2017, 16:19 PM
#88
avatar of nigo
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 2238 | Subs: 15

Thanks to Smith, miragefla and crew. Great work guys.
18 Jul 2017, 16:19 PM
#89
avatar of zarok47

Posts: 587



Oh, that's because of the massive auto-attack range in live.

In order to dodge a barrage you simply have to click a target location 5 meters away, and the pit can't harm you for another minute.

If you're willing to sink 400-800MP on immobile indirect fire, odds are that you won't be able to survive the first light vehicle; or that the enemy is doing something seriously wrong.


Brace+waiting for aec/atg/AT inf sectons.

Heck, if it;s ostheer, you can use small arms fire to drive away the lv.

I've done it many times.

But perhaps the autofire range is enough.
I hope it is.
18 Jul 2017, 16:20 PM
#90
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Invis a comment and the following ones quoting it.



AT gun cover doesn't work as you imagine. I've said it in the past but to put it simple:

The 2 guys operating the weapon don't benefit from the cover created by the support weapon. The ones which are behind, have to hug the weapon in order to benefit from it (which due to formations usually doesn't happen). Putting an AT gun behind cover benefits the 2 guys operating the weapon.

The only difference is the hitbox on the AT guns which can "absorb" a hit.
but doesn't the cover absorb the projectile of tank too ?
18 Jul 2017, 16:24 PM
#91
avatar of GenObi

Posts: 556

Absolute amazing changes, this needs to be implemented as quickly as possible when the testing is complete.
18 Jul 2017, 16:24 PM
#92
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jul 2017, 14:01 PMHater

:lolol:

What does it mean? Units will left with near 1 HP like after phosphorous or only previously damaged models will die? Or what?


Wagen/Wagon. Don't blame forum members if even Relic can't spell it right :rolleyes:

:lolol:

:clap:
Still feels like penalblob will dominate in the infantry engagements but it's something to remove their everything-counter role.

You call these changes?o_O

And these are interesting :thumb:

:thumbsup:

Damn, I thought the reason is to disable hiding it behind tall building or trees. So make this for mortar pits too!

:thumb:


WARNING: Butthurt Axis Fanboy Spotted.

Lol ze battlegruppe change is to prevent units stucking between truck and wooden plank near to it. It happened to me many times and im fine were getting rid of it. You can still hide HQ behind trees, actually this is a buff not a nerf to batttlegruppe HQ.


Let me paraphrase you and edit your walking stuka a bit.

Personally I see no problems with calliOP wipes because next barrage will happen after long recharge + calliOP costs a lot of fuel. Mortars is worse because the unit inflicted it can continue to fight. Same with Land Matress. If you retreated your volksblob to the Batlegruppe and forgot about it don't blame the UKF call in ability - blame yourself, puddinghead.


Isnt it the same ???


The less onewipe lul/rng abbilities in game the better.

(Not counting nades, because balanced nades(not commando yolo charge) are fine they are only a micro thing,core concept of coh)
18 Jul 2017, 16:38 PM
#93
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

but doesn't the cover absorb the projectile of tank too ?


It can collide with the AT gun but factors such as AoE still applies.
18 Jul 2017, 16:41 PM
#94
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jul 2017, 06:40 AMEsxile
• OKW Battlegroup unable to reinforce if cut-off from friendly territory.

Finally...


Fina fucking lly
18 Jul 2017, 16:42 PM
#95
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jul 2017, 15:27 PMAlphrum
since your bringing OKW's FRP cost in line with USF, do you still have to pay for the actual retreat point? or is it free like the USF's one


It actually costs 240 MP and 120 Fuel~
1 of 2 Relic postsRelic 18 Jul 2017, 16:44 PM
#96
avatar of Kyle_RE
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 48 | Subs: 23

I love how clueless Relic is in understanding how to unfuck their games


Please, teach us. Grace us with your knowledge.
18 Jul 2017, 16:46 PM
#97
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

Changes seem good to me. However, why have the needed Ostheer Panther changes not been included? This unit still underperforms for its cost with its subpar accuracy and low rate of fire.
18 Jul 2017, 16:46 PM
#98
avatar of skyshark

Posts: 239

The only thing I really want to see added is the change of the starting sturmpioneer to either volks or a unique (weaker) sturmpioneer, and maybe the starting infantry section to a royal engie. But, over all this is very good.


if you did this, brits would walk all over everyone in the early game.

honestly, the fact that any faction starts with an engineer vs an infantry unit is retarded. it'd be one thing if it was scout infantry, but engineers? please. hated this in coh1 and still hate it here.
18 Jul 2017, 16:51 PM
#99
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jul 2017, 16:44 PMKyle_RE


Please, teach us. Grace us with your knowledge.

Your idea of periodic small patches taking care of predefined, singular problems (A.K.A. the scope) has failed miserably. You may maintain the view that it is to prevent huge imbalances that would be difficult to predict and fix, but in the end it blocks very meaningful changes; I remember huge patches years ago, not talking about redesigns, but the patches before Western Front Armies. The patchnotes pages long and of quality, not quantity. Where is your ability to balance so many things at once now, where did it go? I am very glad you saw my harsh comment, so you can consider what I wrote now.

Also adding conscripts to the scope would be sweet.
18 Jul 2017, 16:53 PM
#100
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

You people can't be serious. Relic actually introduces the things we asked for (allowing community members to have some control over balance chances) and now you are bashing Kyle for it. Get real....
PAGES (17)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

474 users are online: 474 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49883
Welcome our newest member, Hovingtrik7
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM