Spring Update - Balance thread

Has no one touched on the M3 supply halftrack yet? Now on top of the 100 mp and 25 fuel you need to pay 300 mp and 30 fuel just for a halftrack with some sweet weapons (Also a ton of munitions sink)! I know double brens/vickers can be very frustrating to play against, but really relic? Show Spoiler

Can anyone explain what the new 222 armor numbers mean?

Is the 222 FINALLY, after YEARS, going to be an actual ARMORED car that is immune to rifle fire?

Or is this just some symbolic buff that won't actually affect damage taken from any practical sources, in the same way all changes to the 222 over the past two years have been entirely pointless and failing to make it viable as pseudo-light armor?

If you want a P2, T70 or Puma type of vehicle, you are up to keep been disappointed. It's a 200mp 30f which arrives fairly early in the timing between scoutcars and light tanks.

The armor increase means that it practically got a ±50% increase chance on deflecting bullets frontally. Most small arm fires coming from infantry, have a pen of 1. Light armor vehicles benefit fighting low RoF high accuracy units as opposed to say SMGs. This is due to accuracy not been an issue. It's easier to fight off a scoutcar with a Pio/Rear echelon rather than grens or Rifles.

So, let's say you are getting shots by Rifles. 10 rounds per mag, 2.5s (it's 2.45avg but it's easier that way) reload. You can round the RoF at 1s or 2s (either near or far range) straight to account for the reload every 10 shots. 8dmg. 222 has 320HP.

You'll need 40 shots to pen. Before, frontally, it took around 360 shots to kill (1/9). Now you'll need 560 shots (1/14).

If somehow the Rifle squads are not losing models, not moving or been pushed around (old vs new)
1 Rifle will take near: 72s/112s. Far: 144/224s

I was more wondering why the small edits to non-overperforming units made it into the initial scope. Fixing the OKW tech fork, reworking indirect fire and tuning down some overperforming units and abilities are all high priority changes I understand and can get behind.

There are a lot of little edits to units that don't seem to be high priority, however. I don't personally understand why the little nerfs to non-overperforming units (the Brummbar, Katyusha and SU-85 for example) made it into the first set of patch notes when what I'd assume to be higher priority changes, such as fixing the USF tech fork, didn't.

I'm not saying there isn't a good reason for it, I just don't understand what it is.

Brummbar is overperforming in 2v2 right now

Has no one touched on the M3 supply halftrack yet? Now on top of the 100 mp and 25 fuel you need to pay 300 mp and 30 fuel just for a halftrack with some sweet weapons (Also a ton of munitions sink)! I know double brens/vickers can be very frustrating to play against, but really relic? Show Spoiler

Already went over this change earlier in the thread, if you read what I put and still disagree i'd love to know why

Brummbar is overperforming in 2v2 right now

I'll take your word for that.

Is there a similar justification to the changes to SU-85 focused sight? It looks to me like it simply makes the ability less responsive which isn't ideal.

Already went over this change earlier in the thread, if you read what I put and still disagree i'd love to know why

I'm actually wondering now if the Bren rework will balance out the viability of the Resupply HT. Vickers Ks are a way for double equipped Infantry Sections to get their old power level back.

I'll take your word for that.

Is there a similar justification to the changes to SU-85 focused sight? It looks to me like it simply makes the ability less responsive which isn't ideal.

I don't agree with the change, Tank Destroyer nerfs were part of the scope. Seems it just fell in with the rest despite not really over-performing in a meaningful way.

I don't agree with the change, Tank Destroyer nerfs were part of the scope. Seems it just fell in with the rest despite not really over-performing in a meaningful way.

It doesn't seem like much of a nerf to me. It's more of a QoL reduction.

Just overall on the patch notes so far there are some decent hits, and there are some very large misses. I'd elaborate but no one listens to my recommendations anyways

Not trying to sound condescending (though thats probably exactly what I'm doing) but there are a lot of extremely good players who have already offered their opinions on most of these subjects. A lot of the changes that many people have ridiculed (whether theyre blatantly biased players, rank 2000+ 4v4 players, decent players, forum members that dont even play the game anymore, etc.) were made under the advisement of or were suggested by the literal best players that this community has; this includes players from all game sizes (1v1, 2v2, and 3v3+4v4). With these kinds of balance threads generating a lot of...noise, and with almost every other person having directly opposite impressions and opinions of the changes, its kind of natural to place the most importance on feedback from top players who, quite frankly, have shown that they actually understand the game. Given how large the skill/knowledge gap is between the tournament winners and, well, everyone else, they kind of earned the credibility that was given to them. And yes, that unfortunately means that a lot of people's opinions will go under the radar.

I'm surprised the Valentine didn't get a well deserved damage buff.

I'd call that one a slippery slope.

Not trying to sound condescending (though thats probably exactly what I'm doing) but there are a lot of extremely good players who have already offered their opinions on most of these subjects. A lot of the changes that many people have ridiculed (whether theyre blatantly biased players, rank 2000+ 4v4 players, decent players, forum members that dont even play the game anymore, etc.) were made under the advisement of or were suggested by the literal best players that this community has; this includes players from all game sizes (1v1, 2v2, and 3v3+4v4). With these kinds of balance threads generating a lot of...noise, and with almost every other person having directly opposite impressions and opinions of the changes, its kind of natural to place the most importance on feedback from top players who, quite frankly, have shown that they actually understand the game. Given how large the skill/knowledge gap is between the tournament winners and, well, everyone else, they kind of earned the credibility that was given to them. And yes, that unfortunately means that a lot of people's opinions will go under the radar.

While I agree, taking from only the top players ONLY is honestly just a terrible idea. This is exactly what happened with the luchs nerf in DBP. Smith asked Luvnest and Dave specifically what needed to be done about the luchs and they said it needed to arrive later. While arguments can be made for right and wrong there, that turned into the 85 seconds build time (now 75 second) of the luchs, something we now are seeing in these notes which was too much.

I think top players have definatly a place in balance discussions, but I've talked with many top players and most of them barely know the actual stats that run the game, and just know the engagements through thousands of games experience. I'd could very easily pick out 3 top players who have won tourneys and money who know virtually zero on unit stats. But I'm not going to publically name them for obvious reasons.

Its frontal armor is being increased to be more than the current Universal Carrier, which is basically immune to rifle fire, so it should finally be an actual armored car. So, Ostheer will finally have access to a light vehicle that can actually block something.

What? The Universal Carrier is not immune to rifle fire. At all. It's a tier zero light vehicle.

The 222 is a tier two vehicle that can't do ANYTHING unless it's COMPLETELY immune to rifle fire just like the Greyhound and all light armor, because that's the only reason to ever bring out light armor: to harass enemy infantry while staying away from their AT.

If the 222 can't do that (and it can't with the terrible accuracy it has on top of everything else), it's worthless.

While I agree, taking from only the top players ONLY is honestly just a terrible idea. This is exactly what happened with the luchs nerf in DBP. Smith asked Luvnest and Dave specifically what needed to be done about the luchs and they said it needed to arrive later. While arguments can be made for right and wrong there, that turned into the 85 seconds build time (now 75 second) of the luchs, something we now are seeing in these notes which was too much.

I think top players have definatly a place in balance discussions, but I've talked with many top players and most of them barely know the actual stats that run the game, and just know the engagements through thousands of games experience. I'd could very easily pick out 3 top players who have won tourneys and money who know virtually zero on unit stats. But I'm not going to publically name them for obvious reasons.

They didnt specify a build time, so its not exactly a great example (in fact, Dave himself told me he was shocked at how much they chose to increase it). You could argue it was a case of right idea, poor implementation, which kind of voids that specific example.

That said, obviously theyre not taking feedback only from top players. The point is that theyre taking feedback with context ("why do we trust what theyre saying/why do we know this feedback is valuable" = who gave the feedback, in this case).

They didnt specify a build time, so its not exactly a great example (in fact, Dave himself told me he was shocked at how much they chose to increase it). You could argue it was a case of right idea, poor implementation, which kind of voids that specific example.

That said, obviously theyre not taking feedback only from top players. The point is that theyre taking feedback with context ("why do we trust what theyre saying/why do we know this feedback is valuable" = who gave the feedback, in this case).

Indeed, which is why I still don't understand why my ideas are unheard. Are my ideas so radical that making the cromwell or KT not miss blindly every 3/4 shots too extreme? Not trying to attack miragefla, but him stating "the kt is fine, it just needs a small cost reduction" is absolutely laughable when you look at past tourney usage. KotH and SCC combined there was only 1 usage to my knowledge. And the person who used it was you, and you lost with that unit.

Indeed, which is why I still don't understand why my ideas are unheard. Are my ideas so radical that making the cromwell or KT not miss blindly every 3/4 shots too extreme? Not trying to attack miragefla, but him stating "the kt is fine, it just needs a small cost reduction" is absolutely laughable when you look at past tourney usage. KotH and SCC combined there was only 1 usage to my knowledge. And the person who used it was you, and you lost with that unit.

Dont recall building a KT in either of those two (my memory could be failing me though). And tbh, yes. Any change to the cromwell's or KT's scatter can massively swing their effectiveness. Buffing scatter can easily change a tank into a wipe machine.

Furthermore, I've said much the same thing that miragefla has, the KT probably needs minor adjustments because the reason why the KT isnt built doesnt even really have to do with its performance. Floating 280 fuel against another top player just doesn't work. Any situation where you can float that much fuel without losing is a situation where spending that fuel in any other way would have closed out the game already.

Let me illustrate it with an extreme example: what if you had a vehicle that costed 400 fuel, and it basically won you the game if you got it. It would still never be used. The effectiveness of the unit is irrelevant, the point is that any situation where you could have floated that much fuel is a situation where you could have just won without getting that unit. And to be honest, 400 fuel isnt even THAT far off of how much a KT costs. Mech costs 65 fuel, so the KT's effective cost is around 345. This cost increased since the last patch, which could be a compounding factor in why its not used as much/at all. Since mech was the meta last patch, you already had mech, battlegroup, and schewerer up when you were getting your first tank; therefore, the KT effectively costed 280 fuel (and 720 manpower). Since most players wont have mech when they get their schwerer up, the KT now effectively costs 345 fuel (and 1020 manpower).

Dont recall building a KT in either of those two (my memory could be failing me though). And tbh, yes. Any change to the cromwell's or KT's scatter can massively swing their effectiveness. Buffing scatter can easily change a tank into a wipe machine.

Furthermore, I've said much the same thing that miragefla has, the KT probably needs minor adjustments because the reason why the KT isnt built doesnt even really have to do with its performance. Floating 280 fuel against another top player just doesn't work. Any situation where you can float that much fuel without losing is a situation where spending that fuel in any other way would have closed out the game already.

Ah my ideas are flagged as radical. This is also why I asked on the offical forum what the objective of the patches were, and since no response there I have the benefit of saving my breath.

Ah my ideas are flagged as radical. This is also why I asked on the offical forum what the objective of the patches were, and since no response there I have the benefit of saving my breath.

Updated my previous post in case you want to check back to see what I said.

Ah my ideas are flagged as radical. This is also why I asked on the offical forum what the objective of the patches were, and since no response there I have the benefit of saving my breath.

Yes. Your ideas probably are radical. Changing scatter is a radical change. You don't know how many times a change has been suggested where we were told (and imo, rightfully so) that the change is too high of a risk. A lot of people (not referring to you, really) suggest whatever changes they want because they don't have to actually think of the consequences; there are WAY more consequences to a change than anyone likes to admit.

Updated my previous post in case you want to check back to see what I said.

I see good reply to notify. Isn't mech 50F IIRC? 65 with the truck cost.

I see good reply to notify. Isn't mech 50F IIRC? 65 with the truck cost.

Botched it, youre right.

Botched it, youre right.

Regardless though, since my opinions fall on deaf ears I don't think i'll be helping this patch anymore.

Yes. Your ideas probably are radical. Changing scatter is a radical change. You don't know how many times a change has been suggested where we were told (and imo, rightfully so) that the change is too high of a risk. A lot of people (not referring to you, really) suggest whatever changes they want because they don't have to actually think of the consequences; there are WAY more consequences to a change than anyone likes to admit.

tbh unless I'm missing some major outlying factor, copying and pasting stats from 1 unit to another should have minimal consequences.