Because you allude to gamemode: Are they considered OP in all gamemodes? Asking because while they clearly see more use nowadays, it's not like everybody is going for a T1 start, far from that. Yes, commanders that provide some means of light AT seem to be used predominantly, but it doesn't seem like penals overshadow everything else...
I don't play 1v1 often. Yet, to me it seems that Penals are already okish-balanced for 1v1 purpose. Except for the flamer for certain maps.
Nevertheless, there is the pertinent issue of the flamer in a sprint-capable longrange 6-man squad, and that would make Penal spam an auto-pick for garrison-heavy maps. I don't know if your stats show a correlation between the two.
But, that's kind of okish. (putting aside the performance of the T-70), T1 is indeed a high risk, high-reward tier, due to the lack of AT. People supplement this with guards, that are kind of stationary, and things work out. In the live version, people don't have any expectations regarding OST infantry, and things take the usual route; MGs, sniper, and an early 222.
In teamgames, the high-reward part stays, because you have flamers on a fast-moving 6-man squad. Due to their veterancy bonuses are also pretty damn good at gunning down lmg-grens at max range with ease. Short-range squads first get shot up by the SVT rifles, and then bbq'ed by the flamer. Resource inflation also means that you always have enough munitions to kit up every single squad with a flamer, form early on. Moreover, due to the resource inflation in teamgames, people can also afford 120mm mortars along with the guards. And, there you have it; the Penals - Guards Motor - deadly embrace.
With respect to risk, that goes out of the window. Again due to resource inflation, the light-vehicle phase of the game lasts shorter. Thus, even though light vehicles might seem OP in 1v1, in those gamemmodes they are kind of balanced (with the exception of a team that coordinates well enough to put out enough of those vehicles at the same time). Even if the Soviet player goes greedy on T1 units, their teammates can help supplement their complete lack of AT (especially USF with bazookas/AT/snares).
A question regarding the risk-reward thing, just so I'm on the same page there: What I think the idea is that a player picks a risk by going for penals. He has to be fairly aggressive with them, push other units off the field. If he manages to do so, he is ahead and probably can bring out his first T3 unit before the other player starts to have a significant impact with his LV (if he manages to field one). If he fails, he is confronted with a LV early and has to fall back on guards, partisans or even build T2. So, he is not out at that point, but at an disadvantage. Is that the same concept you have as well?
This is a correct interpretation. Though, if a Penal opening is forced to backtech to T2 a very large portion of the games (say 60% of the games; I'm making this up), people will realise that T1 isn't worth it, and there is a very high risk that Soviets will revert to Maxim Simulator 2017™. Personally, I'd be happy if the least dominant opening for each faction is used at least 20% of the time.
If so, this whole thing is about that you mean that it will no be possible to get to the sweet-spot in the balance to this risk/reward thing by tweaking the current penals a bit? Or did some other dynamic (re LVs?) change that required the further changes to penals?
We are kind of tweaking Penals a bit. People are welcome to try out the WBP mod, and give us feedback about how their PTRS-free builds look like (and are very welcome to provide replays). Are they happy with the risk-reward mechanics of T1?
Simply banning the PTRS upgrade from the WBP because of the ongoing mutiny means that the people that did want to experiment with PTRS will not have the chance to do so.
Re: If Penals & Guards is the prescribed solution, how can PTRS Penals ever cause an issue? (in other words, what are you even complaining about?)
Valid point, but crossreading these comments I have the impression that the main issue is that once you settled for penals, there is nothing wrong in spamming them, because if things don't work out, you can transform them into whatever the situation requires.
Like, if somebody overcommits to penals now, the opponent can punish him by calling in a LV, to which you react by calling in e.g. guards which in turn costs popcap and manpower. With PTRS, one can simply turn one penal squad into a PTRS squad and be done with it. Similar to like if PGs would be available from OH T1.
Also, for guards at least you need to commit to a commander and buy a separate squad (granted, the "committing" part is not that hard since GMC overall is pretty good).
This snowballing is an issue that we are very well aware of.
That's also the reason why the anti-infantry performance of Penals has a
91% penalty vs infantry compared to Guards PTRS in the live game.
Early-game Penal PTRS is not something you
want. It's something your opponents needs to
force you to pick.
You can always call Guards premptively, and Guards perform fantastic vs infantry. Their only downside is that they are too stationary vs infantry.
If you upgrade PTRS Penals, that squad is out of the game for a long time. The only way to reclaim your investment is to reach T4 and buy a 3rd PTRS.
However, not everything is rosy with PTRS Penals. If there is one combo I truly fear that's PTRS Penals & Lend-Lease. All other combos PTRS Penals sound fun and exciting. Lend-lease Penals might be cheesy though.
Re the part "I don't agree with the Anti-infantry direction of current Penals because..."
In the points below that one, most of your comments are along the line of Penals scaling too well. Also you say that the penals in v1.0 where perceived as too weak. Well, ok, in v1.0 it seems like penals received four nerfs: No flamers anymore, reduced accuracy at vet3, increased pop-cap and higher vet requirements. The first point I'd say is related to their impact on the game, the other three (arguably) relate to their scaling.
Later you address the point of "take away flamer". Now, I know that flamers on inf are a sensitive subject, but looking at this more pragmatically: When people say penals feel too weak, they likely mostly mean the missing flamethrower because early game we are not at vet3, regardless of the requirements. So, what would you expect to see if you left the flamer, but applied the other three nerfs? Like, this would not decrease the chance to get the reward, but would up the risk a bit, no? Also, this would make roving late game penal blobs less effective and more expensive...
This is a difficult choice to make. If T1 is to remain a high-risk tier, the units coming out of it should already be strong (so that you won't get curbstomped by a vehicle, when it comes).
Without a flamer and without a grenade ability, Penals would have issues standing their ground when elite infantry hits the ground (Obers/PGrens). Given the performance of the other 2 T1 units. Given that both units will hit the field regardless (1v1 is a special case, since a certain mechanic allows people to bypass teching), people would rather avoid taking that T1 risk altogether. Why build a Penal squad only to be gunned down by a PGren squad, that can also wipe other things with their bundle grenade, while the Penal gets... a 4-second-fuse satchel!??
I don't think it's a good idea to keep the flamethrower in its current form:
- Good long-range dps (SVT)
- Good short-range dps (flamer)
- Ability to engage enemies regardless of cover (oorah! + flamer)
No matter the risk, this is too much reward to have. And, as I hope I have convinced you earlier, the risk part can be trivially mitigated by teammates.
Overall, I'm very content about the WBP v1.3 implementation of the flamer; except for a minor detail that will be fixed in v1.4. You purchase an upgrade that makes your squad stronger in short range, but you sacrifice long-range. You also make the squad more proddable by MGs. The fact that the flamer is an upgrade means that you can give it to a vet0 squad you want to use as a buffer (Penal veterancy does NOT mesh well with the flamer, anyway; you want to keep your vetted squads unupgraded).
With respect to unupgraded (long-range penals), I find the molotov a useful ability to be used defensively. I know the lolotov has a very bad reputation regarding its efficiency. The wind-up time makes it bad to be used offensively. However, you can still throw the molotov as the enemy comes to you (since you have long-range superiority). The molotov is also less cheesy than oorah (+satchel), and gives Conscripts a niche that only they can fill.
(Apologies I haven't responded to all your comments yet; I'll do it at a later date. Now I gotta run!
)
?
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
