Flanking is back!!!

hey look! nullist ranting about mg42 and low health in yet another thread!

Not to be rude, but it would actually be fun to find out how many % of your posts are mg42 squadsize-related.

The MG's seem quite fine to me now. Imo Nullist should improve his micro, but I know that's not going to happen, because he's not even playing the game.

Personal attacks everywhere.

I thought this was a balance discussion forum, not a popularity/personality contest.

At a 25% reduction, if calculated as a flat hp pool reduction, results in the following:
Sov: 480-120= 360 effective hp.
Ost: 320-80= 240 effective hp.

The hp difference is still the same, the "difference" has not become smaller.

Before the difference was 480-320= 100 hp difference.
Now the difference is 360-240= 100 hp difference.

what? look at your numbers. the differences are 160 and 120. not sure why both say 100. those arent even the right numbers though.

ive explained this like 5 times now. this is my last attempt because honestly im getting sick of this. your mistake is thinking its a 25% reduction in hp. instead, its a 25% increase in incoming damage. an 80 hp entity used to take 80 hp to kill it. now it only takes 80/1.25=64 damage to kill that entity. youre assuming it takes 60 damage, which is incorrect. that would be a 33% increase in incoming damage.

the point is soviets lost more effective hp. sure, the german is now "closer to the grave" but technically it always has been because its always had less hp.

You are right. I miscalculated the dmg received increase, as a flat hp change, which gives the wrong figure, since it divides the hp pool, rather than correctly dividing the incomg dmg from it.

Howverm I still maintain that that effective 16hp loss per model is systemically more soakable on a 6 model unit, than on a 4 model unit, owing to concentration of fire on fewer models in the smaller unit.

At stat level, it may appear that the loss in survival is proportional, but in pragmatic and ingame terms, its brought the Ost teams closer to the grave, in proportion, than it has Sov teams.

Due to the nature of targetting, and concentration of fire on fewer models, the Ost team suffers more from this, as the chance of attrition on any given model is higher, because incoming fire is less distributed due to fewer models as potential targets to soak the hits.

The spectre behind this, is the 4/6 vs 6/6 nature of these units.
As a smaller unit to begin with, this change has made Ost teams even more vulnerable than they where before, in direct and pragmatic comparison.

It "hit" Ost teams harder, than it did Sov teams, due to the already existing smaller model count, as enacted by the existing and concrete factors involved with that, such as concentration of fire on fewer potential targets.

Sov 6man can soak the 25% dmg increase, as a coherent and functioning unit (also including death of the weapons operator and subsequent "shuffle" to reman it) far better than the Ost 4man can.

In order for this change to equally have affected both Sov and Ost teams, the dmg modifier should have been prpportionately higher on Sov teams, in direct correlation to the larger model count. As it now stands, the flat reduction favors the already larger Sov unit, over the smaller Ost unit, above and beyond what the status quo was before this change.

To return to my earlier analogy, 6 guy team with one hand tied behind their back, are proportionately less handicapped by that, than a 4man team with one hand tied.

Actually nullist, that depends. Say a mortar is firing at you from afar, the scatter will more likely hit a soviet team-member than a ostheer one (as for loosing the entire unit in 1 shell, igree that ost might have a disadvantage).

This adds mp loss, and or relevant micro to get reinforced. Additionally what you havent covered in the 4 vs 6 man squads is the ease to reinforce as ostheer. You have more options you can build a bunker OR a Halftrack giving the ostheer more flexibility. Heck, you can even heal your units on the field (from bunker OR medpacks) compared to soviet who have to get back to base to get the same bonus, sacrificing field precence. This is something that I really miss when playing as soviet, and that I really utilize when playing ost. There is much more to balance than just a unit in a vacuum.

I noticed a lot of this too. My conscripts don't even half to flank half the time because it takes the MG42 too long to turn in its arc - I just Oorah, run up, molotov, and profit.

Neither of the MGs suppress very fast anymore - I'm not sure if this was the intended effect. I think a sight range nerf and suppression buff to both MGs would be better overall as right now both MGs are easily overwhelmed if the enemy is not charging from maximum range through their arcs (for the sake of argument, let's ignore the 10% suppression bulletin when talking about unit functionality - bulletins are a whole other ballgame...).

If you're standing in front of an MG, I'd expect you to be suppressed fairly quickly (IRL you'd be torn to shreds, but I digress). The sight range nerf instead would emphasize scouting for your MGs with frontline infantry, maintaining their support role.

MG is supposed to be supported to survive unlike before the patch where MG could just go alone.

Actually nullist, that depends. Say a mortar is firing at you from afar, the scatter will more likely hit a soviet team-member than a ostheer one (as for loosing the entire unit in 1 shell, igree that ost might have a disadvantage).

Yes. Im aware of this.
Thanks for the post, but this isnt anything new to me or something I havent had in mind in my comments.
You believe me when I say that, dont you?
You are completely correct, and that is definately an relwvant example of how things "actually" happen.
Larger units more likely to take a wing hit. Smaller units more likely to get nuked.

A This adds mp loss, and or relevant micro to get reinforced. Additionally what you havent covered in the 4 vs 6 man squads is the ease to reinforce as ostheer. You have more options you can build a bunker OR a Halftrack giving the ostheer more flexibility. Heck, you can even heal your units on the field (from bunker OR medpacks) compared to soviet who have to get back to base to get the same bonus, sacrificing field precence. This is something that I really miss when playing as soviet, and that I really utilize when playing ost. There is much more to balance than just a unit in a vacuum.

Now your stretching it.

I think Merge and HT reinforce are in a relatively unilateral situation.
One costs a vehicle, but meh, Sov has to wait for M5 for the direct vehicular equivalent.

But bunker? You know as well as I do, this simply doesnt happen.
Ive watched a ridiculous amount of top level replays, casts and streams, and can assure you, this simply is not a valid argument in relation to the 4/6 vs 6/6 Support teams.

Medkit, even moreso. It has the potential, when its changed, to fulfill such a role, but its blatantly shit atm.
As much as I appreciate your civil tone, as a nice change feom all the personal shit I have to hear, Im sure you also recognise that trying to suggest a shit and unused ability as a reconciliation, just doesnt pan out.

Ive made suggestions regsrding Medkit, in order for it to fulfiill that function you endorse it as, but it just flat out does not deliver that atm, and is not a valid counter argument as the game stands atm.

I repeat, I am not one of those guys who considers units in "a vacuum". I take pains to run through as many real and theoretical ingame variances as possible. I may not always list each single contingency and exentusting circumstance, but I do consider them in my final result.

On the issue of Support team survival, however, I think its significance is seriously understated, and deliberately misrepresented by a lot of people.

The survival difference is an outstanding and very serious difference.
The extent to which that affects meta, is a matter of personal perspective.
That it exists and is a very serious difference, is not.

The Maxim was total shit last patch. That being said, I don't think these types of comments are warranted as it's just going to further fuel the raging flame war between faction fanboys.

This is true. Point taken.

Now your stretching it.

I think Merge and HT reinforce are in a relatively unilateral situation.
One costs a vehicle, but meh, Sov has to wait for M5 for the direct vehicular equivalent.

But bunker? You know as well as I do, this simply doesnt happen.
Ive watched a ridiculous amount of top level replays, casts and streams, and can assure you, this simply is not a valid argument in relation to the 4/6 vs 6/6 Support teams.

I know Im stretching it, but for my gameplay, I still feel that it has a certain point. It might not weigh up the 4-6 squadsizes (and also tried give an example that hasnt already been posted a hundred times in this thread or others), but it adds some stayingpower. If you get hit in the face, it wont matter, Im more reffering to the times when you actually get a unit out half health, half manned and can heal and recrew it 15 meters from wher it got hit, keeping veterancy etc. Something that is easier for ostheer as a faction than soviet. Having a fully manned but extremely low health Zis isnt all that fun since its a pain to get home and back out for healing.

And you got me, im not a top lvl player, im more of a casual player. check me out all you want (steam: starkprod). You will also see that I have mostly played teamgames where I do think that bunkers etc are more valid than they might be in 1v1s. Top lvl play is fun to watch, but I will never get there myself, im to old and have to little spare time.

I have read alot of your posts (hard to avoid someone who has 1100+ posts) and I do feel that you take many things in consideration when posting. And you might be very correct about this particular subject. However, having a personal crusade against 4 vs 6 man teams on theese forums might still not give the desired effect. I think many ppl on this forum have understood your point of view by now, and Relic (claiming they read the forums alot) might be as well. The big problem here as I see it is that this is a design desicion, not balance. They designed the factions so one team has more dudes on the field than the other, and it had consequences. 6 man crew, 2 man sniperteams etc. I think that they are more likely to use stats to balance, than change the team-design.

On the issue of Support team survival, however, I think its significance is seriously understated, and deliberately misrepresented by a lot of people.

The survival difference is an outstanding and very serious difference.
The extent to which that affects meta, is a matter of personal perspective.
That it exists and is a very serious difference, is not.

Why is this "Survival" thing on every thread possible on the forum?
And why only after the patch?

Relic chose to design ost support teams as squishier than their soviet counterparts. You'll have to ask them about that design decision.

The increased survivalabity of the Soviets is off-set by the increased DPS of the German weapon teams. So in Nullists example, he brings 6 friends and I bring 4. The only difference is he brought knives to a gun fight.

So in Nullists example, he brings 6 friends and I bring 4. The only difference is he brought knives to a gun fight.

Nullists has 6 friends?

The increased survivalabity of the Soviets is off-set by the increased DPS of the German weapon teams. So in Nullists example, he brings 6 friends and I bring 4. The only difference is he brought knives to a gun fight.

Since you mention me specifically.

Ost Weapon Team: 8.85 / 4.83 / 0.81
Sov Weapon Team: 5.54 / 3.47 / 1.4

Yeah, you are right.
They do have increased DPS, except at far range, if these numbers are correct.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=0

Nullists has 6 friends?

Since you mention me specifically.

Thank you for the personal insult.

___________________________________________________________________________

Ami has asked me to refrain from balance discussion for the time being.

Id appreciate if people didnt force responses by referring to me, let alone deliberately insulting me, till the request is lifted.

Thanks.

well mg had to be nerfed, but at this point i think relic overtried with it, and sometimes it leads to comical situations, where a engineer squad takes full burst into the face and doesnt get supressed

Ost Weapon Team: 8.85 / 4.83 / 0.81
Sov Weapon Team: 5.54 / 3.47 / 1.4

Yeah, you are right.
They do have increased DPS, except at far range, if these numbers are correct.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=0

sorry, i just found out some of our dps numbers are actually incorrect. namely, certain burst weapons with incremental accuracy. this will improve the mg42 dps substantially, while not changing the maxim.

sorry again for the bad numbers. im working fix it right now. im going to have to add a new tab on the spreadsheet for incremental accuracy weapons.

well mg had to be nerfed, but at this point i think relic overtried with it, and sometimes it leads to comical situations, where a engineer squad takes full burst into the face and doesnt get supressed

Replay or it didn't happen.

Replay or it didn't happen.

sorry but i dont save any replays, most my games are random 2v2's 3v3's its not educational or interesting to watch, wanna recreate? setup mg behind house walk your engies into it, walk back hf

sorry, i just found out some of our dps numbers are actually incorrect. namely, certain burst weapons with incremental accuracy. this will improve the mg42 dps substantially, while not changing the maxim.

sorry again for the bad numbers. im working fix it right now. im going to have to add a new tab on the spreadsheet for incremental accuracy weapons.

I absolve myself of any error in mg numbers as I pointed out incremental accuracy to Wooof several weeks ago after which he proceeded to file it under 'I don't understand dis shizzle' and swept it under the rug.