Login

russian armor

Rifles overperforming?

PAGES (13)down
24 Sep 2019, 11:57 AM
#21
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1


USF had similar performance for most units during GCS2. Stuart was the same, AA HT the same, 50 cal (iirc) the same, m1 AT gun the same, sherman the same, mortar was the same, REs were nearly the same (same DPS anyway), pack howitzer was stronger, the jackson was stronger, scott was stronger, LT was stronger by virtue of the fact that it came with weapon upgrades, and the m20 was much costlier though I would say better performing.

Considering USF's performance and presence in GCS2, I'd say having "every usf unit better than their counterparts AND giving them free squads" isn't quite the issue as you paint it to be.

(Also consider that a lot of the units the above would be compared to were the same or weaker - mg42 was the same, maxim was weaker; AT guns unchanged + raketen buffed; p4 and cromwell buffed; indirect fire was the same; TDs were the same, etc.)


Wow. Are you really ignoring that GCS2 was before the big USF tech revamp patch?
24 Sep 2019, 12:07 PM
#22
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2



Wow. Are you really ignoring that GCS2 was before the big USF tech revamp patch?

Absolutely. Look at what he said again.



You mean making every usf unit better than their counterparts AND giving them free squads makes them overperform?

Woah


I'm ignoring the tech revamp because that's exactly my point. If the issue were simply about USF supposedly having each of their units better than their counterparts, and having free squads, then USF would have been fine in GCS2. Those two things were clearly not no-brainer factors that will instantly make a faction overperform. I was trying to suggest that there were other factors (maybe like some tech revamp or something) that undermine the sarcastic quip.
24 Sep 2019, 12:15 PM
#23
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3


Absolutely. Look at what he said again.



I'm ignoring the tech revamp because that's exactly my point. If the issue were simply about USF supposedly having each of their units better than their counterparts, and having free squads, then USF would have been fine in GCS2. Those two things were clearly not no-brainer factors that will instantly make a faction overperform. I was trying to suggest that there were other factors (maybe like some tech revamp or something) that undermine the sarcastic quip.


Like I said, I worded it completely wrong.

As for GSC2, again, the usf meta has shifted dramatically multiple times, from Armour Company and ass engineer opening meta to the Recon Support and IR paths meta, so the free squad they receive for teching up plays in a different context as to whether it’s balanced or not. As for the tech revamp, it benefited the faction tremendously and I still agree with it, I don’t think basic tools like mgs and AT guns should be locked behind mutually exclusive tech.
24 Sep 2019, 13:16 PM
#24
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


And increasing riflemen close range from 3 to 6 isn't going to make or break the early game either... Oh wait.

Editing to be more productive: The point is that even seemingly small changes can have large impacts. Sections saw a ~10% durability decrease outside of cover, and around 5% less DPS all around (due to overkill) and some people are saying they're too weak now (and keep in mind they were considered pretty strong prior...).

I am glad to see the people from balance team have noticed what I have been saying for years. Even small changes can have a big impact. Maybe now the trend to overbuf/overnerf units will stop.
24 Sep 2019, 13:24 PM
#25
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2019, 13:16 PMVipper

I am glad to see the people from balance team have noticed what I have been saying for years. Even small changes can have a big impact. Maybe now the trend to overbuf/overnerf units will stop.

Look at this patch.
Falls aside, very small changes were made and these changes are already considered overbuffs/overnerfs.
Rifles being prime example here.
24 Sep 2019, 13:46 PM
#26
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I know rifles are not nearly as independent as volks but they do cost more and also need more to be invested to scale to their full potential (they don't get it all in a lump when they build their first tech)

The small close range dps buff and game long total of 10 second delay volks hardly throws the balance for a spin. Volks will still beat them from cover and still have sturms to dissuade rifles from closing (until they build their first building and can do it themselves while also improving their long range damage slightly). It just means now in the early stages of the game if rifles with their semi auto rifles get close without taking too much fire they will win.
24 Sep 2019, 15:20 PM
#27
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818

I know rifles are not nearly as independent as volks but they do cost more and also need more to be invested to scale to their full potential (they don't get it all in a lump when they build their first tech)

The small close range dps buff and game long total of 10 second delay volks hardly throws the balance for a spin. Volks will still beat them from cover and still have sturms to dissuade rifles from closing (until they build their first building and can do it themselves while also improving their long range damage slightly). It just means now in the early stages of the game if rifles with their semi auto rifles get close without taking too much fire they will win.


The biggest difference is that you don't fight 4 volks and a sturm with 3 rifles and an RE. Doing so could lead to a lot of bleed, a slow m20, a loss of map control, a fast luchs, a hard game.

Now- Game is relatively even early, You don't bleed as much, The m20 comes normally, you can push them off with the m20 or you can start building a stuart like before a luchs comes out. Its a totally different midgame because of the parity early

I think probably the free officer and m20 make the biggest impact because the situation is essentially reversed from last patch, just the unfair part of the game is 3-5 minutes later and that's what we need to solve for. A light vehicle comes out to push off your infantry than an AT unit like stuart pushes off the counter.
24 Sep 2019, 15:22 PM
#28
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

Why the balance team buffed them is a mystery, they did it just after Devm rant but assume they already had it planed before. Riflemen didn't needed a buff but small readjustment.
They could have
- move some of their vet3 RA to vet1
- reduce officer build time by 10/15 sec allowing USF to close the 4th unit build gap and maybe increase .50 build time by 10 sec in exchange.

OKW
- reduce their starting mp
- move sandbag behind vet1

I guess the issue today for OKW is the early bleeding. Not that OKW bleed more than before the patch, they probably bleed a bit more due to riflemen buff but they have less early manpower to replace the losses.
24 Sep 2019, 15:27 PM
#29
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2019, 13:16 PMVipper

I am glad to see the people from balance team have noticed what I have been saying for years. Even small changes can have a big impact. Maybe now the trend to overbuf/overnerf units will stop.


If even small changes can have huge impacts, wouldn't that mean it's pretty hard to nerf/buff units at just the right amount? Climb down off your high horse
24 Sep 2019, 15:54 PM
#30
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

This game in its history of patches is plagued by units going to OP status until their being hit by the Nerf hammer to oblivion.

Having a members of the MOD acknowledge that big nerf and big buff are not necessary is simply good news.
24 Sep 2019, 17:26 PM
#31
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Another thing I personally don't get is the mine laying speed. Why can Rifles lay mines as fast as pioneers/engineers now?


This change (engineers from 2 to 4) has made them lay mines a bit too quickly (when I tested they were a bit slower than Sturmpioneers, but now in real matches it turns out that it feels like they lay mines too quickly). It will be reduced to 3 in one of the bugfix patches, as this didn't make it into the final patch build, so it will end up 50% faster than before (as opposed to +100%) but should still feel noticeably slower than engineer units, to compensate for the fact that you'll have a lot more squads available to lay them with.
24 Sep 2019, 17:43 PM
#32
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

Why not consider placing Stuart back with Captain and AAHT with Lieutenant?

A big piece of the issue, I think, is 50 cal + m-20 + stuart = everything you need for that phase of the game. And since you only need to partial side tech for AT gun, you're not at a HUGE loss to get that (and you get an extra squad which can help offset the cost).

Switching it around now means you have to full tech for m-20 and stuart, which will be a more significant delay to go major.
24 Sep 2019, 17:45 PM
#33
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 211

Rifles are the new sections lol

People are complaining about Volks vs Rifles but imagine if you're ost and now your Grens lose even harder.

I'd agree that rifles pretty much win every fight they get into close range. Even volks in light cover lose to charging rifles now.

However I don't think OKW players really adjusted to all the changes that came with this patch as well. I still see people bum rushing my cut off with their early units and expect to win every fight like prepatch.

Sturms can't charge anymore but their utility went way up with concussion grenades and their role is more of an anti CQC and anti blob unit now. Firestorm is a good doctrine now somewhat since Mp40 volks still shred rifles at that close range. Kubel destroys rifles out of cover and win against rifles even in cover. Falls are obiously being abused right now.

I think there's more ways to deal with rifles even though direct Volk spam was nerfed.
24 Sep 2019, 18:02 PM
#34
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

Why you are always comparing RM vs Volks?
What about RM vs Grens?
RM vs Grens prepatch difference was big, but now in this patch is even worst. They absolute rape Grens.

24 Sep 2019, 18:05 PM
#35
avatar of thekingsown10

Posts: 232

Yes I noticed how over-performing rifles are now as well. They are just dropping men way to quickly especially when fighting 4 man squads.
24 Sep 2019, 19:03 PM
#36
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2019, 18:02 PMLeo251
Why you are always comparing RM vs Volks?
What about RM vs Grens?
RM vs Grens prepatch difference was big, but now in this patch is even worst. They absolute rape Grens.


They are counter parts volks and rifles.
Plus it's unfortunately the way it is. Remember volks got stgs because with a side tech and a boat lod of munitions rifles would massacre volks with little regard for the fact that now volks mulch cons.

Look at 1 match up in a vacuum and buff them to parity and watch all the balance cock ups that come
24 Sep 2019, 19:55 PM
#37
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

Rifles have always been better then volks, BUT okw managed to outnumber USF since min 1 and it would just snowball from ther. With the early game nerf to OKW and rifles small buff, its completely tipped in USF's favour.

Previously as USF u had to hold on until late game where once riflemen wer vetted and upgraded they would stomp all over volks, but now at all stages of the game ther getting stomped.
24 Sep 2019, 20:06 PM
#38
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

They are counter parts volks and rifles.
Plus it's unfortunately the way it is. Remember volks got stgs because with a side tech and a boat lod of munitions rifles would massacre volks with little regard for the fact that now volks mulch cons.


That's because over the past year or two [Relic/MOD Team] adopted the idea that Conscripts are not combat units, they are support unit intended to cover other units and replace losses with merge, therefor should not be given any upgrades to withstand Volksgrenadiers or Grenadiers. Recently they gave them a late-game upgrade intended to synergize with Merge, granting a larger squad and cheaper reinforcement, and a cover bonus to encourage static play with sandbags.

Personally I don't like that idea because it just feels so incredibly wrong to me that the Soviet faction relies on a small cadre of Penal Troops as their backbone to fend off the hordes of cheaper and more numerous Volksgrenadiers.
24 Sep 2019, 20:11 PM
#39
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

Conscripts just need some of their vet 1/3 abilities transferred to vet 0... id reduce the vet 1 and 3 RA by half and put it to vet 0 for example...
24 Sep 2019, 20:26 PM
#40
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2019, 20:11 PMgbem
Conscripts just need some of their vet 1/3 abilities transferred to vet 0... id reduce the vet 1 and 3 RA by half and put it to vet 0 for example...

They already did something like that.
What they need is to not be shit on entirely at every stage of the game when fighting okw.
Volks with flame nades and stgs just render cons completely non-combat by cause they can't close, they can't run, they can't delay. They can't outlast via cover because they will be scorched out from a mile away. Seriously I think moving the flames from volks to sturms would fix cons and make maxims use able again. But volks are independent and despite having 2 other infantry units to supplement them, a light vehicle for everything and most support weapons handed to them they are set to do everything you could want in a match all by themselves. I'm surprised they havnt been given smoke yet tbh...

At any rate this is off topic.
PAGES (13)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

807 users are online: 807 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49070
Welcome our newest member, Blesofsk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM