Login

russian armor

The age-old double soviet sniper conundrum

16 Mar 2018, 05:06 AM
#81
avatar of brosras

Posts: 224 | Subs: 1



Why? Soviet sniper can still come faster than others and clearly your reading comprehension is ass because it would still have 2 models.1 sniper isnt the problem, its ass hats who double or triple up. The only way to make that more risky without butchering single sniper use is to make it more expensive.


The problem is not the models (all except the soviet they could survive the mortar) and the specifics of the snipers in the game, as well as the soviet, snipers of the other factions, as hard to kill(unless you use a counter sniper) I above, has already proposed a solution.

Most often snipers kills infantry (in the early stages of the game), everything else can only send them to the base. Therefore, in cases when you are flanged by 1 squad, the Soviet risk of bleeding is greater than that of any other faction.
16 Mar 2018, 05:43 AM
#82
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 05:06 AMbrosras


The problem is not the models (all except the soviet they could survive the mortar) and the specifics of the snipers in the game, as well as the soviet, snipers of the other factions, as hard to kill(unless you use a counter sniper) I above, has already proposed a solution.

Most often snipers kills infantry (in the early stages of the game), everything else can only send them to the base. Therefore, in cases when you are flanged by 1 squad, the Soviet risk of bleeding is greater than that of any other faction.


That would be the price of not being able to be counter sniper out. The soviet sniper counter the ost sniper and weapon teams, mobile infantry flanking would cause bleed. There would be little change from a player using a single sniper with their attention microing it, but should they decide to go multiple their attention would be slightly spread, meaning bleed more likley.

The sniper would have the exact same EHP as now, but less likley to *poof* and be gone (something other snipers dont worry about)

Still has the advantages of a second man, but slightly more taxing for bad play (like other snipers)
16 Mar 2018, 06:30 AM
#83
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Seems like this topic gets brought up once every few weeks.

Early Feb
Late Feb


The summary of those threads seemed to be that keeping it at 2 models is the problem. It doubles the chase-RNG for the 222 (has to take out 2 models), makes counter-sniping impossible, and results in mortar RNG (since they can 1-shot) being the most viable counter, all while giving the Sov player a '2nd chance' for a mistake on a 360mp unit that's supposed to be very high risk.

Unfortunately, other than reducing it to 1 model at 82hp, there's isn't a lot that can be changed. ROF can't be increase because it would be OP vs. OST, LOS can't be increased because it already has flares, survivability can't be increased because we're decreasing it, cost can't be decreased because it would be spamable. The only 'fix' is just a straight nerf, which isn't exactly great.
16 Mar 2018, 07:37 AM
#84
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Seems like this topic gets brought up once every few weeks.

Early Feb
Late Feb


The summary of those threads seemed to be that keeping it at 2 models is the problem. It doubles the chase-RNG for the 222 (has to take out 2 models), makes counter-sniping impossible, and results in mortar RNG (since they can 1-shot) being the most viable counter, all while giving the Sov player a '2nd chance' for a mistake on a 360mp unit that's supposed to be very high risk.

Unfortunately, other than reducing it to 1 model at 82hp, there's isn't a lot that can be changed. ROF can't be increase because it would be OP vs. OST, LOS can't be increased because it already has flares, survivability can't be increased because we're decreasing it, cost can't be decreased because it would be spamable. The only 'fix' is just a straight nerf, which isn't exactly great.


And it isn't going to be a one man ever, because relic will not allow it.
In addition, it would create one of the most cancerous coh1 gameplay, sniper wars.
I do not know a singular Person who enjoyed sniper wars of coh1 and inb4 camo argument, it would only be that much more micro Stretch in coh2, making it even more tedious Thing to do.

Ist bad enough brits have a sniper at all, where this sniper war cancer can flourish.

Was it up to me, snipers would never be in game and if they had to be, it would be something akin to coh1 recon section or pathfinders or OKW JLI, with longer range, but much lower combat potential when there are no other squads softening targets first.

Snipers are a massive balance problem ever since coh1 and will remain even in coh3 and beyond due to massive risk vs massive reward they offer.
16 Mar 2018, 09:16 AM
#85
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


still using cruzz's forumla?

I use both, as you can see the DPS I provided is at different range than yours.

In addition the number you provide say the same story. M3 DPS is superior to that of the m20 in many ranges.
16 Mar 2018, 09:20 AM
#86
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 04:51 AMbrosras


222 ineffective for this purpose, the same as the m3 because of its fragility, especially if you went to the T2 return T1, very painful for soviet, unlike the ost, the output of T2 is needed, at least for AT

But nobody forbids you from doing 251, which I'm doing against snipers, by the way.

Glad we agree.

I have to point out thou that given the difference in tech cost and cost 222 should be more effective than m3 that actually has the extra utility of being a flamer transport.

And that is why as a solution I suggested the reintroduction of 221 as a cheap specialized vehicle which also open they way of better balancing then 222.
16 Mar 2018, 09:28 AM
#87
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 07:37 AMKatitof


And it isn't going to be a one man ever, because relic will not allow it.
In addition, it would create one of the most cancerous coh1 gameplay, sniper wars.
I do not know a singular Person who enjoyed sniper wars of coh1 and inb4 camo argument, it would only be that much more micro Stretch in coh2, making it even more tedious Thing to do.

Ist bad enough brits have a sniper at all, where this sniper war cancer can flourish.

Was it up to me, snipers would never be in game and if they had to be, it would be something akin to coh1 recon section or pathfinders or OKW JLI, with longer range, but much lower combat potential when there are no other squads softening targets first.

Snipers are a massive balance problem ever since coh1 and will remain even in coh3 and beyond due to massive risk vs massive reward they offer.


I agree with you, sniper units are leftover game-design elements paired with even worse game-mechanics from the late 90s C&C Tanya type units as seen in many RTS. I wish there was a better way to have snipers/heavy recons implemented without having to massively rely on the one-shot mechanics. However, considering that Relic implemented UKF Sniper using old-fashioned game-design elements (whilst patches still having to fix constantly fix it), I doubt they'll come up with something better for CoH3. I could be completely wrong - Perhaps we may see interesting sniper type units in AoE4, which then may influence their design in CoH3.
16 Mar 2018, 09:46 AM
#88
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 09:20 AMVipper

Glad we agree.

I have to point out thou that given the difference in tech cost and cost 222 should be more effective than m3 that actually has the extra utility of being a flamer transport.

And that is why as a solution I suggested the reintroduction of 221 as a cheap specialized vehicle which also open they way of better balancing then 222.


222 is not exactly AI only unit either.
Its ultimate Generalist light vehicle, durable for its cost and able to engage infantry, light armor and aircraft.

If you want actual AI firepower, use the literal firepower of upgraded 251.
221 wont happen because it was never a good idea, not in coh1, not in coh2 as well as relic won't allow putting back a unit they have removed, because it creates a whole lot of Problems like cost, Performance, durability, Upgrades are muni only, so would it be M20 on steroids with muni AT/AA upgrade? It could end up too cheap or too expensive extremely easily and it would only create more problems for balance.

Only way it could be implemented would be as separate stand alone unit and there isn't any Chance for that, but I could see coax of 222 being buffed a bit with vet scaling being cut.
16 Mar 2018, 10:09 AM
#89
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 09:46 AMKatitof


222 is not exactly AI only unit either.
Its ultimate Generalist light vehicle, durable for its cost and able to engage infantry, light armor and aircraft.

If you want actual AI firepower, use the literal firepower of upgraded 251.
221 wont happen because it was never a good idea, not in coh1, not in coh2 as well as relic won't allow putting back a unit they have removed, because it creates a whole lot of Problems like cost, Performance, durability, Upgrades are muni only, so would it be M20 on steroids with muni AT/AA upgrade? It could end up too cheap or too expensive extremely easily and it would only create more problems for balance.

Only way it could be implemented would be as separate stand alone unit and there isn't any Chance for that, but I could see coax of 222 being buffed a bit with vet scaling being cut.

I am sorry but I can not take seriously your "Relic insights", not after your predictions have been proven wrong time after time.

Say like predicting that Pershing and Calliope will never become available to USF.
16 Mar 2018, 10:15 AM
#90
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 10:09 AMVipper

I am sorry but I can not take seriously your "Relic insights", not after your predictions have been proven wrong time after time.

Say like predicting that Pershing and Calliope will never become available to USF.


Well, then don't take his ideas on-board. Nobody forces you to. You've been wrong countless times as well. No need to dig down to Pershings/Callipoe comments from years ago. No need to remind people that they may be wrong once, so therefore they must be wrong all the time. He's not being a troublemaker, or spreading misinformation, he's just making a valid point as addition to this topic.
16 Mar 2018, 10:19 AM
#91
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 10:09 AMVipper

I am sorry but I can not take seriously your "Relic insights", not after your predictions have been proven wrong time after time.

Say like predicting that Pershing and Calliope will never become available to USF.


Well, I can not take seriously half of the stuff you write, being 4v4 examples from a player who struggles hard for 50% win ratio despite massive 'experience', yet I am not reminding you of that in every single post.

Relic removed stuff from the game, because it was either non functional or created balance problems.
That stuff is not coming back outside of mods.

You are asking for re introduction of massive balance problem.
I am telling you this will not happen and if it will, most certainly not in a way it used to be.
You remain by your conviction.
16 Mar 2018, 11:25 AM
#92
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 10:19 AMKatitof


Well, I can not take seriously half of the stuff you write, being 4v4 examples from a player who struggles hard for 50% win ratio despite massive 'experience', yet I am not reminding you of that in every single post.

Relic removed stuff from the game, because it was either non functional or created balance problems.
That stuff is not coming back outside of mods.

You are asking for re introduction of massive balance problem.
I am telling you this will not happen and if it will, most certainly not in a way it used to be.
You remain by your conviction.

Pls elaborate why in your opinion the 221 is a "massive balance problem".
16 Mar 2018, 11:41 AM
#93
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 11:25 AMVipper

Pls elaborate why in your opinion the 221 is a "massive balance problem".


jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 09:46 AMKatitof


221 wont happen [...] a whole lot of Problems like cost, Performance, durability, Upgrades are muni only, so would it be M20 on steroids with muni AT/AA upgrade? It could end up too cheap or too expensive extremely easily and it would only create more problems for balance.



Just a few posts above, if you didn't just stop reading at the one sentence you disagreed with.

I agree with previous posters though, 221 did create loads of problems, especially against USF. I still recall the days where 221 spam was an valid tactic in 2on2s. Its best not to go back to that, it'd be bringing back countless new balance issues. Sadly, changing the resulting the 221 into what we have now did open up another can of worms, especially against Soviets. And now we're back full circle back to CoH2 release when double snipers wrecked havok on Axis.
16 Mar 2018, 11:58 AM
#94
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Just a few posts above, if you didn't just stop reading at the one sentence you disagreed with.

I agree with previous posters though, 221 did create loads of problems, especially against USF. I still recall the days where 221 spam was an valid tactic in 2on2s. Its best not to go back to that, it'd be bringing back countless new balance issues. Sadly, changing the resulting the 221 into what we have now did open up another can of worms, especially against Soviets. And now we're back full circle back to CoH2 release when double snipers wrecked havok on Axis.

Pls elaborate why in your opinion 221 will create "loads of problems, especially against USF."

Do you have any links to any games or videos when the 221 being spammed was a valid 2vs2 tactic?

16 Mar 2018, 12:03 PM
#95
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

I will not provide links to videos to tactics which were used, discussed and abused years ago. It's pretty pointless, utterly petty and disrespectful to have to request a fellow community-member to have to go back through countless materials just to satisfy some player-experience based-anecdote. Additionally, it drags things off-topic. Also, you could have also asked for videos for when double snipers were used before WFA to satisfy my quote - and I believe there's absolutely no point to show videos of that either, as it's just old stuff from years ago that people just did alongside experienced higher ranked players with countless CoH2 recalling the validity of such tactics.

In either case, you may firmly remain by your conviction that player experienced things may have not happened before unless proven to you - and I do not wish or intend to change your stand on things.
16 Mar 2018, 12:49 PM
#96
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I will not provide links to videos to tactics which were used, discussed and abused years ago. It's pretty pointless, utterly petty and disrespectful to have to request a fellow community-member to have to go back through countless materials just to satisfy some player-experience based-anecdote. Additionally, it drags things off-topic. Also, you could have also asked for videos for when double snipers were used before WFA to satisfy my quote - and I believe there's absolutely no point to show videos of that either, as it's just old stuff from years ago that people just did alongside experienced higher ranked players with countless CoH2 recalling the validity of such tactics.

In either case, you may firmly remain by your conviction that player experienced things may have not happened before unless proven to you - and I do not wish or intend to change your stand on things.

It's a simple request made in a polite manner.

There is nothing "petty" or "disrespectful" about it. You brought up 221 spam as an argument not me.

Feel free not to provide any evidence of 221 spam.

Only I don't remember 221 spam being a valid 2vs2 tactic or even in the meta and allot have changed since then especially early option against armored cars.

Actually the only time when there was an issues was when the 221 was removed and replaced by 222 and it was the 222 that was being spammed.

Patch notes:
"222 Scout Car

The 222 also wasn’t scaling with veterancy as well as other light vehicles and suffered from inconsistent damage output preventing it from tracking infantry properly. We also felt that the auto-cannon was too reliant on AOE for damage. Another concern with the 222 was that it was too cheap relative to its performance,

Manpower cost increased from from 210 to 250
Fuel cost increased from 15 to 30
...."

The 222-221 is hardly off Topic since OP clearly says that 222 does not seem to be a good counter to sniper.

The question still remains why in your opinion 221 will create "loads of problems, especially against USF."
16 Mar 2018, 12:52 PM
#97
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

I've answered your question in previous posts already anyway. Scroll up and have a look :)

However, If I use your arguments against yourself, the topic of 221 especially against USF is hardly of Topic since OP clearly states that 222 does not seem to be a good counter against sniper, which USF does not have.
16 Mar 2018, 12:53 PM
#98
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

If I use your arguments against yourself, the topic of 221 especially against USF is hardly of Topic since OP clearly states that 222 does not seem to be a good counter against sniper, which USF does not have.

Then you are off Topic since you opened the issue of USF vs 221.

Have a nice day, bye bye
16 Mar 2018, 12:54 PM
#99
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2018, 12:53 PMVipper

Have a nice day, bye bye


Errr... OK? It's completely irrelevant, but thanks, I guess? Bye to you too?

:wave: :S :S
21 Mar 2018, 20:13 PM
#100
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 868 | Subs: 5






Just a few posts above, if you didn't just stop reading at the one sentence you disagreed with.

I agree with previous posters though, 221 did create loads of problems, especially against USF. I still recall the days where 221 spam was an valid tactic in 2on2s. Its best not to go back to that, it'd be bringing back countless new balance issues. Sadly, changing the resulting the 221 into what we have now did open up another can of worms, especially against Soviets. And now we're back full circle back to CoH2 release when double snipers wrecked havok on Axis.


Cunundrum is the right word, isn't it?



Errr... OK? It's completely irrelevant, but thanks, I guess? Bye to you too?
:wave: :S :S



He's flirting with you, how cute :)
10 users are browsing this thread: 10 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

578 users are online: 578 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
32 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50069
Welcome our newest member, king88reisen
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM