Poll: should there even be a major balance patch right now?
Posts: 2439 | Subs: 6
I'm personally of the belief that the balance in this game is great right now, and am super scared by the size and effect of the proposed Spring Balance Patch changes. However I'm very intrigued whether I'm in a minority or a majority, please help by voting
Posts: 471 | Subs: 1
Should probably be more like I dont like some of the changes in the balance patch.
Most people are finding issue with the exact same things and those things are probably going to be removed anyway
Posts: 328
The patch notes for this upcoming patch make me hope it never gets released. It will cause problems and change things that don't need to be changed.
Posts: 2439 | Subs: 6
I don't like the changes in the balance patch, but still want a patch of equal scale and effect.
Should probably be more like I dont like some of the changes in the balance patch.
Most people are finding issue with the exact same things and those things are probably going to be removed anyway
Can change it to "some" sure. However I'm trying to gauge whether it's something people actually want right now.
Posts: 264
Like the changes to snipers and their counters.
But there are also many changes where I am asking myself, why are they changing this.
Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41
Posts: 3260
Not keen on the kicking UKF in the teeth part of the patch.
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
Especially following changes should be reviewed beforehand:
- PackHowitzer change
- LeiG change
- Sniper
- Panther
- Jackson
- 222
- PPSh
- Katyusha
- British Infantry/-Upgrades
And then we have a bunch of nerfs that seem rather odd to me - the Katyusha nerf being the most prominent example, but also Centaur, M2, Sturmtiger/AVRE, TankHunters and PTRS.
Posts: 3260
Posts: 2885
I definitely want a patch to remove squad AI and the building dances. Some adjustments to indirect fire would be nice too. Doesn't need to do anything else really.
+1 This and nothing more is exactly what we need changed.
They are reviewing the changes. Previous patches have had several iterations before they go live.
The difference is that in case of previous patches most of us could agree with most of the changes in the initial notes, the rest was just fine tuning. Right now, community seems to disagree with ballance team even when it comes to the size and scope of the changes. Most of the changes are actually considered harmful for the game. So no, this is not the same situation.
Posts: 3260
Posts: 5
Posts: 5
Posts: 960
CoH2 is by no means a perfect game; there are still glaringly OP/UP units and strategies that need to be ironed out. This patch seems to address a good amount of them (but not all), and will hopefully move the game closer to being 'fully balanced'.
That said, I would guess that we'll need at least 2-3 more patches after this one to address everything, including likely over-performing stuff added by this patch (it's likely that the 222 meta will be back).
Posts: 62
Posts: 1276
The balance patch itself has a lot of weird changes in it but I don't necessarily mind its scale/or scope. The problem I have is that Relic's approach to balancing (or their Scope) always seems short sighted while the community (and the community patch creators) have have a larger scope that they'd like to take it.
As it stands the patch feels off there are a few changes that look promising (mortars).
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Honestly we are going to be stuck with CoH2 till 2020 so we might as well make the most of it.
The balance patch itself has a lot of weird changes in it but I don't necessarily mind its scale/or scope. The problem I have is that Relic's approach to balancing (or their Scope) always seems short sighted while the community (and the community patch creators) have have a larger scope that they'd like to take it.
As it stands the patch feels off there are a few changes that look promising (mortars).
Nah, Iron Harvest comes out next year
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
Either way the big changes that need to happen are squad spacing. Indirect shouldn't need as adjusted as it is. The easiest and best change, imo, is that indirect fire should only be able to kill 2 models MAXIMUM of a full health squad, much like the change that happened to mines some time ago, I still really don't get why this hasn't been changed as I feel its a pretty safe and straight forward fix.
Would require players to use smoke more, and it would punish potato's that just sat in a barrage just the same as right now. Current state of indirect fire can potentially win engagements randomly by dropping 3+ models at a time out of nowhere with no chance to react.
But that's just my two cents. Good steps in the right direction overall.
Posts: 495 | Subs: 1
Secondly, I believe that many of the proposed changes are overkill. Sniper vs sniper play is what ruined vCoH for meback in the day, and I think the Soviet-Wher-UK sniper situation is interesting to counter play because it is asymmetrical. Buffing sniper counters is good to that end, but the massive changes to the Soviet sniper are not. A counter snipe should not be the go-to way to deal with a sniper as that will hurt factions that don’t have one; ie, US and OKW. This could result in high level play being dominated by Soviet vs Wher matches because of their superior counter sniping ability much like vCoH tournaments being almost exclusively US vs Wher sniper fights. Look up some of the old SNF matches with Ami and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Thirdly, too long, didn’t read. FNG.....
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
The problem is relic likes to limit scope to much, which keeps bad faction design in place that can't be worked around.
Livestreams
108 | |||||
89 | |||||
126 | |||||
33 | |||||
16 | |||||
14 | |||||
12 | |||||
3 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger