Login

russian armor

I strongly oppose the Soviet sniper change

PAGES (8)down
20 Apr 2018, 17:46 PM
#41
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

Just want to point out few stats, since coh2 stats is down for some reason.

Ost sniper
Cooldown: 3
Reload: 4 - 4.5
Frequensy: 9
Ready aim: 1

Soviet sniper with new stats:
Cooldown: 3.5 - 4
Reload: 4 - 4.5
Frequensy: 9
Ready aim: 1.5


I didnt check camo stats, but I'm pretty sure they are matching with ost sniper.

So compaining that soviet sniper IS SO MUCH WEAKER is kinda strange tbh. Took them from attrib edditor. Point me if I used wrong stats , but it seems like I used correct ones.
20 Apr 2018, 18:08 PM
#42
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Just want to point out few stats, since coh2 stats is down for some reason.

Ost sniper
Cooldown: 3
Reload: 4 - 4.5
Frequensy: 9
Ready aim: 1

Soviet sniper with new stats:
Cooldown: 3.5 - 4
Reload: 4 - 4.5
Frequensy: 9
Ready aim: 1.5

So compaining that soviet sniper IS SO MUCH WEAKER is kinda strange tbh. Took them from attrib edditor. Point me if I used wrong stats, but it seems like I used correct ones.


1- Cooldown , reload and frequency is fine.
2- Ready aim time is bad, cause you need to multiply it by it's aim_time range. You are also missing, fire_aim time.
OH sniper also get's ready aim of 1.5 (all snipers get it)
3- Also missing wind up/wind down.

So Ost Sniper:
Ready aim: 1.5 > 2.625
Fire aim: 1.5 > 2.625
Aim_time_multiplier: 1.75
Wind up/Wind down: 0/1.625

Sov Sniper:
Ready aim: 1.5 > 2.625
Fire aim: 1.5 > 2.625
Aim_time_multiplier: 1.75
Wind up/Wind down: 0/1.6


20 Apr 2018, 18:19 PM
#43
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1


snip

So pretty much the only difference is in cooldown?
20 Apr 2018, 20:34 PM
#44
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Im not saying its alot worse, im saying its worse. Worse vet (flare vs incendiary shot) and worse rof but costing the same. Im not saying make it fire rifle gremades here or to double its ROF im saying it needs a little something because being the same but worse isnt good balance. Hell, knock off say...30mp and call it good, but it shouldnt cost the same without a single advantageous trait
20 Apr 2018, 20:43 PM
#45
avatar of c0mpl3x1ty

Posts: 399 | Subs: 1

Give the soviet sniper the ability to literally autosnipe for 30 seconds and make sure that flare reveals OST sniper

it's literally the perfect fix
22 Apr 2018, 06:58 AM
#46
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Unfortunately, it's required.

The current meta in basically every mode for soviet is Guards/Penals + 2 snipers. The MP drain early on is too high for axis to fight the infantry, and it delays T2 long enough for the 222/FlamerHT to the useless when they show up due to PTRS/Satchel/AT nade.

Making it one man is the easiest, and most logical solution. It allows for Axis T1 to counter snipe (removing the problem) and for OST to chase more effectively.

While the sniper team was an interesting idea, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work; it's just surprising that it took this long for the change to be made, when the problem was evident in alpha/beta/1.0 release.
22 Apr 2018, 07:30 AM
#47
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Make spam unachievable. Make the sniper 82hp, spotter less, and make it 400 or more MP. Getting 2 snipers and a single support infantry is then minimum 1040mp. Thats 4 mainline squads and a lil smidge extra reinforcements. Flanking will still be rewarded because the spotter is squishier (plus buffed counters) sniper is still unique. Idk why they keep trying to fit units into special cookie cutter moulds when its clearly different when its clearly not designed to fit. Embrace its design and make the price fit the unit instead of making the unit fit the price
22 Apr 2018, 07:34 AM
#48
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Make spam unachievable. Make the sniper 82hp, spotter less, and make it 400 or more MP. Getting 2 snipers and a single support infantry is then minimum 1040mp. Thats 4 mainline squads and a lil smidge extra reinforcements. Flanking will still be rewarded because the spotter is squishier (plus buffed counters) sniper is still unique. Idk why they keep trying to fit units into special cookie cutter moulds when its clearly different when its clearly not designed to fit. Embrace its design and make the price fit the unit instead of making the unit fit the price


The problem isn't the buy-in cost, it's the reinforce cost. With your changes (82hp sniper, lets say 41hp spotter), it's still a 90mp reinforce cost COMBINED with the ability to 'save' your vet. Your change could work, but the reinforce cost would need to be around 200mp for it to work, otherwise the ability to save a 360mp squad + vet for 90mp is going to be imbalanced.

The only "no design change" I can think of, that would allow for the Sov sniper to stay how it is currently, is to make losing 1 model stun the squad for 2+ seconds. That way it couldn't self-counter snipe, it couldn't save vet by retreating instantly, and having multiple would be risky, since they could all be caught easily. Of course, that would be an incredibly frustrating mechanic to play with.
22 Apr 2018, 07:47 AM
#49
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



The problem isn't the buy-in cost, it's the reinforce cost. With your changes (82hp sniper, lets say 41hp spotter), it's still a 90mp reinforce cost COMBINED with the ability to 'save' your vet. Your change could work, but the reinforce cost would need to be around 200mp for it to work, otherwise the ability to save a 360mp squad + vet for 90mp is going to be imbalanced.

The only "no design change" I can think of, that would allow for the Sov sniper to stay how it is currently, is to make losing 1 model stun the squad for 2+ seconds. That way it couldn't self-counter snipe, it couldn't save vet by retreating instantly, and having multiple would be risky, since they could all be caught easily. Of course, that would be an incredibly frustrating mechanic to play with.

Buy in cost is part of it. It allows for ratger quickly getting them out where they can do the most damage. I agree reinforcement would have to be increased as well. But for lets go with 440mp, not being countersnipeable isnt as big of a deal because even forcing them off is then a massive 2 squads worth of MP off the front (assuming we keep the reinforcment cost to the formula (440/2)/2= 110, total being 550mp, thats a penal and a con squad worth of MP so as a soviet player you fucking well better take the care that that doesnt happen. Youll need to kill 15 gren models just to break even and double the snipers more or less completely forfeits the map/micro, even in team games.
Delaying the snipers delays enemy map control meaning you yourself are in a better position to counter it
22 Apr 2018, 08:20 AM
#50
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Make spam unachievable. Make the sniper 82hp, spotter less, and make it 400 or more MP. Getting 2 snipers and a single support infantry is then minimum 1040mp. Thats 4 mainline squads and a lil smidge extra reinforcements. Flanking will still be rewarded because the spotter is squishier (plus buffed counters) sniper is still unique. Idk why they keep trying to fit units into special cookie cutter moulds when its clearly different when its clearly not designed to fit. Embrace its design and make the price fit the unit instead of making the unit fit the price

That would not make spam unachievable.
That would make getting a sniper at all a retarded idea.

Recon team often escaped on 1 model and that 1 40hp model bleeds 90 mp each time. While the sniper was still present, it also suffered heavy attrition if you went for it.

However the problem is existence of snipers in CoH all together.
I never understood why they went with super expensive very high risk and reward unit for early game instead of specialized squad or light vehicle.

PE ATHT anyone? Now THAT was a sniper done right, potent, very counterable, fun to play with and unique.
22 Apr 2018, 08:41 AM
#51
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 08:20 AMKatitof

That would not make spam unachievable.
That would make getting a sniper at all a retarded idea.

Recon team often escaped on 1 model and that 1 40hp model bleeds 90 mp each time. While the sniper was still present, it also suffered heavy attrition if you went for it.

However the problem is existence of snipers in CoH all together.
I never understood why they went with super expensive very high risk and reward unit for early game instead of specialized squad or light vehicle.

PE ATHT anyone? Now THAT was a sniper done right, potent, very counterable, fun to play with and unique.

obviusly its an idea in the rough. proof of concept if you will. its no worse an idea than the half baked lazy ass one they are planning on implementing

1 model dealing something like 40 damage and the other critting at 50% might be an interesting support sniper route, regualar RA, force multiplier kinda thing. make flares non vet and vet 1 be a sniper shot like pathfinders in th AA campaign
22 Apr 2018, 21:32 PM
#52
avatar of swordfisch

Posts: 138

Relic removing every element that made the game interesting or diverse, soon UKF, Soviets and OSt will be mirror factions.

We now have the old kubel turned into a generic light vehicle without the suppression cone, American mortar, 222 becoming a premium vehicle like the T-70, Volks getting a generic AI upgrade losing their AT role, one man soviet snipers.

Single BAR rifles and brit mortar squad mirroring the wehr one coming the patch after next you heard it here first.

22 Apr 2018, 22:15 PM
#53
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Relic removing every element that made the game interesting or diverse, soon UKF, Soviets and OSt will be mirror factions.

We now have the old kubel turned into a generic light vehicle without the suppression cone, American mortar, 222 becoming a premium vehicle like the T-70, Volks getting a generic AI upgrade losing their AT role, one man soviet snipers.

Single BAR rifles and brit mortar squad mirroring the wehr one coming the patch after next you heard it here first.



Yes, I think that in the urge to ballance the game, part of the community forgot that the primary goal and struggle has always been increasing the playerbase. People like to play ballanced games, but not if they are not interesting and shallow. In fact, most of the playerbase doesn't care about ballance and most of people who do really shouldn't. Interesting, deep and diverse design is much more important. Especially as you can always allow mirror matches in tournaments if competitive players complain about lack of ballance.

Ballance is important, but these changes invalidate its very purpose. And they are even questionable when it comes to ballance itself.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't like to watch mirrored tournaments, but if competitive community is going to force everybody to play mirrored factions instead, then it is the better solution.
22 Apr 2018, 23:51 PM
#54
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Relic removing every element that made the game interesting or diverse, soon UKF, Soviets and OSt will be mirror factions.

We now have the old kubel turned into a generic light vehicle without the suppression cone, American mortar, 222 becoming a premium vehicle like the T-70, Volks getting a generic AI upgrade losing their AT role, one man soviet snipers.

Single BAR rifles and brit mortar squad mirroring the wehr one coming the patch after next you heard it here first.


And I hope you're right.

While the massive differences in design are fun to play with, it's obvious that the ability (or even possibility) to balance some of those design choices was never there (see "sniper in scout car" near release). As a result, we have inherently OP/UP units that can't be balanced due to their design.

For example, the mortar pit is basically a 400mp sink against decent players, since it's incredibly easy to counter. However, since it can't move, the only way to make it effective in combat is to either increase its ability to deal damage, ability to take damage, or cost. Increasing its ability to deal damage would result in it massively over-performing, due to its double-mortars. Increasing its ability to take damage makes it incredibly difficult to counter (see before DBP), and increasing its cost would make it nonviable in any competitive sense. In this case the only solution is to replace it with a normal mortar, since it is much easier to balance.

The same goes for the soviet sniper, due to the soviets early game AT capabilities thanks to AT nades and PTRS.


This doesn't mean that all the factions need to be identical, though. The dynamics between 4 man squads and 6 man squads, specialized tanks vs. generalized tanks, various indirect fire, and faction specific strengths and weaknesses give a lot to play with. The intention of these changes is to simply lower the variance between these differences to make them more manageable.
23 Apr 2018, 01:19 AM
#55
avatar of #12345678

Posts: 69

Unfortunately, it's required.

The current meta in basically every mode for soviet is Guards/Penals + 2 snipers. The MP drain early on is too high for axis to fight the infantry, and it delays T2 long enough for the 222/FlamerHT to the useless when they show up due to PTRS/Satchel/AT nade.

Making it one man is the easiest, and most logical solution. It allows for Axis T1 to counter snipe (removing the problem) and for OST to chase more effectively.

While the sniper team was an interesting idea, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work; it's just surprising that it took this long for the change to be made, when the problem was evident in alpha/beta/1.0 release.


Dude, have you ever played two Soviet snipers? You go two snipers and you don't have MP for penals to hold the line. Then Axis just rush to your base with more Grenadier and Volks. That's why I hate Soviets go for two snipers and leave the burden of holding line to his teammate.
23 Apr 2018, 08:35 AM
#56
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609



Dude, have you ever played two Soviet snipers? You go two snipers and you don't have MP for penals to hold the line. Then Axis just rush to your base with more Grenadier and Volks. That's why I hate Soviets go for two snipers and leave the burden of holding line to his teammate.


Against wehr there’s no need to hold the line provided the map has good open sight lines for the snipers. Every time the twin snipers fire a wehr unit has to retreat to base or be wiped.
23 Apr 2018, 16:35 PM
#57
avatar of #12345678

Posts: 69

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 08:35 AMArray


Against wehr there’s no need to hold the line provided the map has good open sight lines for the snipers. Every time the twin snipers fire a wehr unit has to retreat to base or be wiped.


With all due respect, we are not in the same level on the discussion nor in the game ladder.

Please, no more comments on my thread. Thank you for your cooperation.
23 Apr 2018, 16:59 PM
#58
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

I take your point, I hadn’t looked close enough to realise you were talking about 4v4 where I agree snipers are a poor choice
23 Apr 2018, 17:03 PM
#59
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

If this thread is exclusively about 4v4 it probably should say that in the title.
23 Apr 2018, 20:48 PM
#60
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 868 | Subs: 5



Yes, I think that in the urge to ballance the game, part of the community forgot that the primary goal and struggle has always been increasing the playerbase. People like to play ballanced games, but not if they are not interesting and shallow. In fact, most of the playerbase doesn't care about ballance and most of people who do really shouldn't. Interesting, deep and diverse design is much more important. Especially as you can always allow mirror matches in tournaments if competitive players complain about lack of ballance.

Ballance is important, but these changes invalidate its very purpose. And they are even questionable when it comes to ballance itself.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't like to watch mirrored tournaments, but if competitive community is going to force everybody to play mirrored factions instead, then it is the better solution.


I used to play a game called StarFleet Battles.
A Star-Trek based Starship tactical boardgame with dice. Basically a simulator.

You had 'regular' play with campaigns, scenarios and so forth. Which were balanced on points.
Each ship costing a given amount of points.

And then you had TOURNAMENT PLAY. Which actually had it's own ships, calibrated around mirror
stat balance (with a touch of flavor thrown in). This way, "E-sport" tournament balance didn't
have to upset the regular game.

... Here... well... people want the regular play to be balanced for e-sport tournaments,
which inevitably pushes the entire game into bland generic "tournament balance".

Learn about Star Fleet Battle's "Tournament handbook". It's all explained in there.
I've been saying it for years.

COH2 needed it's own Tournament-balanced factions. To save the actual game.
Red Queen hypothesis balance will drive people completely insane in context to
tournament. Or even Ranked pvp play.

Put Tournament factions in PVP automatch, and there you go.
T34/85 with Panther stats.
Sherman E8 with Panther stats.
Churchill with Tiger stats.
IS-2 with Tiger stats.

Wehr having 5x men squads
Soviets having 5x men squads
British having 5x men squads
All having exactly 1x LMG upgrade of equal value, stats, and price.

Then the game can be purely about skill :)

We already know we can have 'tournament' commanders, too, as those exist for TOW.
(3 commanders for soviet and 3 for ostheer, I believe?)

And don't tell me my idea is stupid. It's already going in that direction.
Except of having a version with flavor, and a bland tournament version, everything
is turning bland mirror stat version.

That's what we've been going towards. The mirrorification of all factions.
OKW wanting bunkers, snipers, mortars and cheaper, better tanks
USF wanting snipers and stronger armored Pershing
OST wanting 5x men squads and STG44s and cheaper, better tanks
SOV wanting in-field healing.

Every faction wanting every tool. And no in form of commanders. In form of core.
Exemple : Soviets wanting T34/85 as non - doc
USA wanting E8 to be non-doc
OST wanting Tiger to be non-doc and to come earlier
OKW wanting King Tiger to be cheaper, faster, double armor and to 1 shot allied tanks.

We have those who want balance at all price.
And we have those who want flavor to be retained.

Two different communities. As for splitting the community, it's already split.
And these people do their own thing already.

Custom people who hate that PVP people get all the attention.
And PVP people who are annoyed that the non-PVP people don't exclusively do PVP.

PAGES (8)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 8
United States 42
United States 13

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

772 users are online: 772 guests
0 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49124
Welcome our newest member, hello88tube
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM