December Balance Preview

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:33 PMMarkedRaptor

I want to help clear up a few misconceptions. People realize that Piats don't actually have the range normal anti-tank weapons have right? So a squad has to run out in the open in a vain attempt to hit a light vehicle. Additionally the Luches comes in a faction that has an incredibly oppressive early game. That's the reason why it's timing needs to change. If it was on say, Wermacht then it's current timing would be fine. Since OKW can shut you off your fuel near the very start of the game, then seal the deal with the luches, that needs to be changed.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:33 PMMarkedRaptor

I can agree that USF light vehicles force a response, just like luches forces a response. The difference is USF banks on the fact they win early, cuz if they don't they aren't going to win at all. OKW still has an amazing late game to fall back on compared to USF. The Luches also just ruins any sort of diversity in build orders for USF and UKF. There can be an argument that Wermacht is forced to respond to threats with little in the ways of build orders but that's a separate problem then the Luches build time.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:33 PMZombiFrancis

You should probably explain target size and RA to people, or at least use consistent descriptions then.

You describe RA changes and target size changes synonymously, which is confusing to those who don't spend hours in the attribute editor.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:33 PMZombiFrancis

You should probably explain target size and RA to people, or at least use consistent descriptions then.

You describe RA changes and target size changes synonymously, which is confusing to those who don't spend hours in the attribute editor.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:42 PMMr.Smith

Said player could have figured the changes out for themselves by launching the game and playing DBP. The difference in performance a day-to-night difference. Unfortunately the ignorant ones turn out to be the ones that have the loudest of mouths. That's a global phenomenon, which I am not qualified to treat.

Ideally I would like to have infinite time to rewrite the patchnotes completely with consistent notation, etc. However, with the 1580-ish files that this patch modifies/introduces that's out of the question.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:42 PMMr.Smith

Ideally I would like to have infinite time to rewrite the patchnotes completely with consistent notation, etc. However, with the 1580-ish files that this patch modifies/introduces that's out of the question.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:01 PMjagd wölfe

Where did I say it was improved over live version ?

Lol you are trying so hard...so:


So...? Improved in everything but doesn't get a situational RA cover bonus

The earlier patch: was reducing the normal target size, and consequentially their veterancy target size, both way better than any other mainline including same cost rifles.

The lastest version, that you claim being the "big muh nerf" was actually an improvement, with less situational cover bonus, but retaining the much better dps.

After that, I listed all improvement/nerfs from LIVE to 2.0
Better moving accuracy, better bren reload, better pop to avoid low mp income with pop.

This pretty much DESTROY your claim that IS are worse, those aren't worse at all.

Since turning others post over to put stuff people have never said in their mouth seems meta more than luchs, i'll be more specific so you can stop playing dumb:
NO CHANGE MADE NO BREN IS WORSE.

-Moving accuracy bonus ? Blessed manna for IS rifles, especially in early game
-Veterancy nerf in RA ? Late game RA was broken anyway, but it doesn't even matter if we speak about early game.
-RA in cover ? Maybe, but...
-kubel armor was nerfed, hardly will have the same combat role as before
-flame grenade can be avoided, that pretty much outweight alone the additional cover RA.

And still, your pathetic attempt to put stuff in my mouth and strawman about "worse spot" IS continue..

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 14:54 PMjagd wölfe

"Nerfs" means better out of cover performances for a minimal durability nerf of 0.9 RA ?

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:01 PMjagd wölfe

Where did I say it was improved over live version ?

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:02 PMMr.Smith

> Implying that Infantry Sections were OP outside cover in live version.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:02 PMMr.Smith

> Implying that Infantry Sections were OP outside cover in live version.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:07 PMFantomasas

At some point, you just have to accept the fact that it is impossible to make everyone happy and stop wasting your time.

Most people see the patch as a big net benefit and there is no need to spend 90% of your forum time arguing with a single low-rank user. Thank you for the work that you are doing.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:38 PMBIH_kirov_QC

dont you think that mr smith is doing already enough for this game?

doing this for free

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:25 PMZombiFrancis

Like I've said being dragged through all their patches, if they just stuck to QOL changes and Bug fixes, they'd be unassailable in having produced excellent patches improving the game.

But once the Jr. Game Dev hats get put on, we start running into endless issues.

You can't balance, fix, or (re)design this game without either improving the game engine, or opening up what is available to the mod tools. (Or what relic is willing to do.)


A lot of people would give a lot for the opportunity to do what they're doing. But more than that many of the people involved with this patch find it very important how this will go on their CVS/resumes. This is still technically a AAA game. This is one of the most worrying aspects of this process to me.

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:32 PMStug life

leaving asisde the luch issue ,mr smith can you please respond about the ppsh cons perfromance ? they seems a bit too strong even without hurra

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:32 PMStug life

leaving asisde the luch issue ,mr smith can you please respond about the ppsh cons perfromance ? they seems a bit too strong even without hurra

Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 17:36 PMMr.Smith

We're looking into it (and also hit-the-dirt performance). Perhaps, we'll reintroduce the 10% accuracy nerf to PPSh.

However, while that nerf was in-place PPSh performance seemed extremely underwhelming.

What we do know however is that Fallschirmagers aren't the right benchmark to measure PPSh cons performance (due to falls flat DPS), and neither are Conscript PPSh are a good benchmark to evaluate Falls performance (for the same reasons).

they maybe can't fix the game, but they can improve things, or atleast test stuff for maybe coh3.

and when mr smirth and mirage started to doing balance stuff, the game just got better.