|
+1, the input delay is really what gets me. It is terribly inconsistent too - sometimes it's fine, sometimes noticeable but playable, sometimes 1-2 full second delays. Does anyone else get a several second delay when you open the tactical map for the first time in a game as well? Relic pls. |
|
I really like the flame changes and how they punish turtling, they got the numbers wrong at first(see kv8, croc, dmg vs garrisons, etc) but the spirit of the changes made for a better mechanic imo. That said I agree it's probably not a good idea to give flamers to mainline infantry. |
There are good threads and posts on how to balance emplacements. These are the suggestions that I like:
-Buff HP
-Tweak Brace by using target tables: Light artillery pieces (mortars, ISGs) should do minimal damage to Emplacements, even without brace (something like 50% damage reduction) and even more when using brace. Heavy artillery pieces should do decent damage, even when braced (100% without brace and about 50% with brace).
-Small arms should be able to damage mortar pits when not braced. Getting close to mortar pits should be encouraged.
-ATGs should do decent damage to Bofors and Mortar pits even when braced (50-60%) but not 17pndr.
-Nades should do decent damage even when braced.
-Incendiary weapons should do decent damage when NOT braced, but reduced damage when braced.
-Brace could be a Toggle ability with small cool down.
Still, as you said Emplacements are kinda hard to balance, but I think some of these suggestion (Which I've gathered from different posts) might be a step forward. Needs testing though.
Yea I've seen the threads and don't disagree one or more of those could work, I'm just saying until Relic finds the sweet spot I rather have them underperforming than overperforming |
|
Emplacements are probably the hardest thing in the game to balance and at the moment it just so happens they are way underwhelming. It sucks for the British since a lot of their design is about playing around emplacements but I honestly prefer them being somewhat weak tbh, it makes for more interesting games |
|
A little late in the game for this question considering we only have a few days before a major patch. |
|
I think the Jackson is fine as is, it's fits it's role perfectly as the AT glass cannon. The regular Sherman is fine too, you just have to play to it's strengths (AI and support AT w/ smoke for utility) instead of a all-purpose tank like the p4/t34/cromwell/m4c/etc. |
|
Nice patch, pretty much just nerfing blatantly over-performing units and fixing a ton of bugs. Can't ask for more. |
|
I guess it can't hurt but I'm afraid this pretty much cements the notion of paid commanders. I suppose hoping the system would be overhauled alongside the war spoils system was too much to hope for. |
|
I honestly don't think the new commander will be all that good. Sure it looks awesome with rangers and pershing and it looked op when they announced it but after seeing the stats and gameplay on stream I really don't think it's that much, if at all, better than rifle/armor/infantry.
I'm concerned the pershing will make players shoot themselves in the foot by saving for it instead of investing in early/mid game pressure. I'm also concerned usf has too much bleed to afford more than 1, max 2 rangers squads and that if you lose one to mine/rng/nade it may well be gg. Also consider that getting rangers likely means not enough manpower for a .50 cal, pak Howie, safety at gun, or whatever else you want to get at around the 3 CP mark.
All that said I love to have both those units in the game. I just dont think they'll be all that amazing. |
|
Any chance we see demos added to rangers? Just a grenade seems kinda meh. I'd rather have demos than the additional weapon slot tbh, I think of utility more than firepower when I think rangers |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
