I don't think the winter balance patch team is touching anything about the IA, its a 100% multiplayer patch
We did receive some modifications to AI behaviour from relic to include in the WBP. That is to say, somebody went ahead and modified the necessary files, and then they shipped that file, ready, to us to include in the mod.
I believe we integrated that file around v1.1 or v1.2. I don't know what the file contained exactly, but I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with what you mentioned, though.
|
|
I don't know the precise date of when the balance patch will hit live, but I really highly doubt that this is going to be anywhere near early February.
That's partly due to the fact that we lost 2 weeks of playtesting due to Steam shenanigans, partly because the process was supposed to be thorough anyway, with multiple iterations, and mostly because it will take some time for Relic to implement the sheer amount of changes needed to implement the patch.
|
Just because killing misinformation at its cradle is important, I will leave one last response here.
How about a buff to conscripts instead so that what's supposed to be main infantry can finally stand up as this is a very common complaint ?
Conscript changes have been deemed out of scope; not by us, but Relic. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Nerf PTRS against infantry after it was already nerfed (that will already render tank hunter useless) is a good idea?
If you had even taken the time to even install the mod, you would have noticed that Conscript PTRS have not been affected by the PTRS changes.
This is because only Guards PTRS have been affected by changes:
- They are now weaker vs infantry (-25% off; PTRS still better than Guards Mosins at Vet3, though)
- Stronger vs medium+ tanks
Penal PTRS are the ones that have had anti-infantry nerfs piled upon them.
Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to understand this, since you've obviously not even taken the time to trial the mod.
|
I have no better precise nerfs than those
You have no changes more precise to Penals than "nerf Penals"? Then shut up, and stop wasting our time.
I'm done with this thread.
|
Why is there a need to change tier 1 other than nerfing penals?
Correct me if I am wrong, but we have already nerfed Penals in WBP. What is there to complain about?
How about you give us the precise nerfs you have in mind for penals?
Was it bad until now? Only noobs complaing about the lack of AT tool in tier 1.
Is it that hard to build both Tier 1 and tier 2?
Playercard, please.
|
The very devs that made the game are like you said the ones that make the game.
They know how the game is designed, this is the difference.
You don't get the idea then just see this:
With the changes for penals, who will ever pick conscripts?
The Devs would never have made a mistake like this, but now that you let imbeciles balance the game, this clear illogical change is made and will render commanders (I paid for) useless, and the mainline infantry even less picked that it is now, when the idea what to give some importance to it.
The devs knew well that tier 1 without AT tools is part of soviets design, GG and Mr.Smith don't understand it.
Alright, we're all stupid, I admit.
How about you give us a solution about how to rebalance Soviet T1. Go ahead, type it out in this thread. The solution should be as precise as possible, so that I don't have to waste more than 10 minutes to type it out in a mod.
|
Time delay not a good solution, because you're just delaying the heavy alpha strike wipe damage to a later point.
Maybe.
On the other hand, you have no guarantee that:
- The building will not be garrisoned 20 seconds into the future (which means lose your spawn)
- That your AT partysans won't be facing pgrens when they exit the door
- That your infiltration squad will not spawn right on top of a tank that's going to crush-wipe them to oblivion
|
Unfortunately I can't, because the new patch erased all my previous replays.
But I'm willing to play you in a 1v1 tomorrow, how about that?
I mean you seriously think you can beat me with your level?
You admit yourself that you rarely ever play 1v1, yet you are able to influence the balancing of the game?
Where is the logic here?
"I PLAY 1V1 FOR THE LULZ"
This guy is balancing the game, give me a break...
I updated my post with more info.
I could maybe play 1v1 with you in a month or so. Real life commitments and working on WBP means I don't have enough free time for you.
How about you show us which factions you play?
|
How? Have you ever seen him play? I did since I played against a certain Mr.smith, I won in not even more than 20 minutes.
And it was not very recently until he showed his player card, I had to look him up myself in the ladder to find out how good he was after how embarassed I was when I played against him.
How about you prove that statement of yours. I don't remember facing anybody with that name of yours.
I rarely ever play 1v1, because I can't be bothered with that mode. I only play 1v1 for the lulz (which means Ostheer-only, as of the last patch).
I don't bother queueing with randoms, anymore, either. Nevertheless, my rank with UKF and OST is in the top100. I mainly played with pre-arranged teams. Unfortunately, I play in multiple teams and the code for coh2.org doesn't allow it to display all of the games I've played, with all of the teams I've played in.
Finally, I wasn't chosen on the merit of my ranks, or playtime experience. I was chosen for being able to solve the bugfixes you get for free. You know, the ones you could gloss over in the changelog.
How about you also show us your playercard, too? Maybe that will help me remember if we've played before.
|
Sheesh now we know why balance issues took months or even years to resolve. Relic's attitude toward balance is "Why change it, when we could just do nothing?
The process might appear absurd at first glimpse, but, actually, it does make a lot of sense.
If we try to fix everything at once, there's no amount of WBP testing we will be able to pull off before we can be sure that we haven't messed everything up.
Also, changing everything at once means that people will have to learn the entire game, pretty much. For some people this might lead to quitting the game.
Thus, it makes sense to have an iterative process that you prioritise self-contained changes to high-priority things. Once this is fixed, you deploy, people play the game and you get feedback to fix the next batch of issues. That way you don't overcompensate for perceived issues. For instance if Axis UP and Allies OP and you buff Axis late-game while nerfing Allies early game too much at the same time might not lead to balance.
The process makes sense, as long as patches aren't more than a few months away, apart.
|
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
