Profile of Mr.Smith

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

General Information


Thread: Some QoL suggestions6 Dec 2016, 11:11 AM I'll bring this thread to Kyle's attention, and we'll see which ones we can already fit in for the balance mod. Don't expect any changes for this week's updated, but perhaps we can do something, given that the balance mod trials are expected to last until February. In: Lobby
Thread: Winter Balance Preview Changelog6 Dec 2016, 10:22 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Dec 2016, 04:05 AMZombiFrancis Hurting vehicles? What if the enemy doesn't field a vehicle for a long time, if you field your AEC first? Yes, the Puma has the acceleration and range and sight to kite medium tanks. It does require a bit of effort though, and it's not all roses. The Puma is the most expensive light vehicle in the game (for a good reason; since it can nullify all other factions' light vehicle investment). The AEC has neither the acceleration nor the range to kite medium tanks. If the AEC doesn't have the smoke when the medium tank the field, then it can do absolutely nothing. You might as well never build the AEC in the first place, which is what will precisely happen. I would be up for swapping the veterancy requirements of Treadbreaker with Smoke. However, doing so means that the AEC would never, ever be built before fielding a Cromwell. Although, that would make a late-game AEC a very interesting proposition, and would address some of the issues Brits have with snares, in a buzzword asymmetric buzzword way. Again. I thought that the issues that people had with light vehicles is their shock value, and how they can force/wipe squads off the field. The AEC and Puma can do neither of these. What is the issue with letting the AEC and Puma be more survivable than their murder-oriented counterparts? Live and let live. In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update5 Dec 2016, 17:55 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2016, 16:23 PMButcher And what are you planning for the near future, especially the lategame and weak doctrines like Defensive (Ost + Soviet), Soviet Industry, OKW Firestorm etc.? I can´t judge the current balance preview patch not knowing the context of other stages of the game. I don´t know why this is all kept a secret. It´s going to be a community created patch after all. You can be vague. Are you planning to nerf Brits, or buff Ostheer or none of that? And are you planning to redesign doctrines or just adjust their abilities? Please don´t give me the "we will see after the early game has been adjusted" filler. I wouldn´t believe, that you haven´t at least thought about the lategame and doctrines already. Some of the late-game topics that we have discussed that we want to address are: - Striking a balance between OKW infantry scaling and availability of armour - OST T4 living in the shadow of T3 - USF over-reliance on certain OP doctrines and abilities to carry it in teamgames (e.g., Calliope) - Certain over-the-top British units and abilities (as a function of the Power Curve) Regarding commanders, there are certain no-brainer picks for every faction. We should obviously address those first. Certain underwhelming commanders we can easily fix by adjusting the cost/availability of some of the abilities unique to them (e.g., Commando Glider spawning commandos, giving a niche for the Flamehetzer etc). Other commanders can be helped by expanding the stock army. We cannot determine the full extend of the impact, but we expect several 2nd or 3rd-tier soviet commanders to become actually viable now, with PTRS penals. However, certain commanders are irredeemably bad (e.g., community defensive commanders), in the sense neither are the contained abilities decent, nor are they coherent. Obviously, those will require the biggest amount of interference, thus we have to leave those for last. None of this is going to happen this patch, though. Since, we indeed want to evaluate the impact of the choices we've made. It is very difficult to get people to play the mod in 1v1, let alone 4v4. Thus, I guess we have to wait for it to go live before we can evaluate the impact, e.g., squad formations will have on the late-game. However, all of this is wishful thinking, since we do not determine the scope, nor can we determine in which order we want to attack these issues. It is safe to say, though, that if I were to set the agenda, I would leave unredeemable OST/Soviet commanders all the way down in the list of priorities. In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update5 Dec 2016, 09:32 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2016, 08:35 AMBartonPL I've been just thinking, is every mod creator, like miragefla working on this patch or so? cuz i have an idea for a mod that is more realistic in like every term but still keeps it's mechanic There's only Miragefla, The Machine and myself that are working on the balance mod. You can post your mod ideas here: https://www.coh2.org/forum/43/modding-and-tools There are many talented modders around here, and I am sure that at least one of them will be able to help you. If nothing else, we can also have a look over your ideas and see which/how many of them we can include in the live game. I liked your idea about slot-weapon bonuses and types of infantry (conscripts/regulars/elite) etc. I also have a similar approach to this. However, until Relic gives us the green light to do a cleanup of veterancy bonuses and modifiers, I don't think we can implement this yet. In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update5 Dec 2016, 08:00 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2016, 05:29 AMBartonPL that's why i said "on tank itself" just so yo know, historical measures? and aalso i think that aura is too strong, the P4 command tank has like -15% damage taken?that's so low It's -20% received damage. It's pretty damn strong since it negates AoE. This is definitely not as strong as UKF command aura though. I like your ideas. Though, we can't add any of that on the current patch, because out of scope The speed penalty is what prevents the command vehicle from being useful. However, without the speed penalty, and without an appropriate penalty of its own the AVRE will become the next no-brainer UC-style choice. In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update4 Dec 2016, 18:32 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 18:28 PM__deleted__ But engine damage is nothing if you can escape. Hovewer if you make more mistakes in row you should be punished 1st is getting snared 2nd is lacking any support aroun vehicle to protect it 3rd being near AT gun without knowing it or letting enemy get near your tank with infantry that have some kind of AT. Only problem that can happen is IS with snare and PIAT. I think once they get snare, they should get locked piats IS with PIATs have the steep reload penalty (+40%). We can easily offset the reload cycle (aim, fire, reload) to reload. Thus, Infantry Sections with PIATs can suffer the maximum amount of penalty. With the Vet3 Scoped rifle "bonus" Tommies are additionally even more unreliable than that. Though the Scoped Rifle thing will be the first thing we will trash if anything changes on Tommies. In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update4 Dec 2016, 09:44 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 09:36 AMVipper Only at vet 3, they need to lose 2-3 model before that. This is a game about unit preservation. The player has no input in this decision. Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 09:36 AMVipper Guards started with 2 weapon and could only upgrade with 2 more so they did not actually have a choice. In addition they started dropping after losing 2 model from Vet 0. I play the game I know how annoying losing weapon is, I also know that the most annoying weapon to lose is Shreck or Lmg34 especially to single explosion that wiped out your full health squad. In the end of they if you find so annoying do not double equip your squads, it is an option you have... I think the point that Hector is trying to make is that neither Tommies nor Guards have a choice about weapons. That's because both squads are being forcefully shoved a pair of rifles the player cannot opt out of. At least, for Guards, the PTRS rifles are, still, useful for something. Tommy weapon dropping is also completely different from dropping weapons when getting wiped. Weapon upgrades can become randomly unavailable to the squad, already by the time the squad drops to 3 members. LMG gren squads can rely on the fact that the LMG will be available to them, as long as there is 1 model left alive. Thus, LMG Gren is a no-brainer. Bren Tommies has a trade-off. This is a super frustrating mechanic that we want to get rid of. However, for the reasons outlined elsewhere, this would require a minor Tommy rework to keep balanced. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to make such a change for the time being. I like Barton's proposal about forced weapon drop on wipe, as this would solve a lot of issues (especially Soviet infantry being unable to procure weapon upgrades of their own). In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update4 Dec 2016, 09:35 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 09:22 AM__deleted__ So I run few tests about penals. They were always fighting against grens without cover in range something between mid and long (more long than mid, ussual range where units meet when they run few meters to get cover ) Vet 0 without upgrades Penals always won against grens without problems - I think its intended and I consider it fine Vet 0 penals with PTRS grens without upgrades This was most balanced match where both sides won often only with 1(OST)-2(SOV) members. I don´t know if this was intended that upgrades penals can still fight off grens. Vet 0 penals PTRS grens lmg In this match-up grens completely rekt penals, surviving with 1-3 models generaly 2 And now it becomes funny Vet 3 penals with PTRS vs Vet 3 grens with lmg This match favours to grens but only by a little. They often won with 1 member, Health from almost none to amost full health. I think this is not intended but it happen. Penals have so high acc bonuses so they PTRSes actually start hitting rather hard. And vet 3 penals with ptrs vs vet 3 grens without lmg Grens had no chance Conclusions. PTRS itself may be fine, but at vet3 it get huge acc bonus resulting into mini sniper rifle. Also having AT weapons will make penals vet like crazy because they will damage highly valuable targets like luchs puma or other light/medium tanks. How to fix it: Vet3 bonus shouldn´t apply to PTRS or maybe only increasing its acuraccy slightly. Please mod team, be aware of PTRS penals blobs because they get crazy once hit vet3 and with AT weapons they hit vet3 faster than before Thanks for running the tests Hector. At the very least, what we could do is nerf Penal PTRS accuracy even more, so that they still almost always hit all vehicles at all ranges, but miss infantry. We could for instance, change their accuracy from 0.25 (far) 0.69 (close) to 0.055 (far), 0.06 (close). And, if that still doesn't fix the problem, we can also further nerf their damage vs infantry. That will basically have the same effect you describe vs infantry; even a 70% increase of accuracy with the vet bonus will not be enough to render the rifles usable (which is the intended design). In: Lobby
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update4 Dec 2016, 09:18 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 09:16 AMVipper That is actually incorrect since UKF squad retain their extra Bonus from cover even at point blank Range as far as I know. And once more Tommies will beat grenadier to pulp in point blank fight. This is correct. The cover bonus I was referring to is the -50% accuracy -50% received accuracy bonuses that weapons suffer from when trying to attack a squad behind heavy cover; if they aren't close enough. Closing in, means equalizing the situation. Tommies do cost a ton more, and have no other utility apart from anti-infantry. If Grens want to win in a short-range fight, they probably should rely on the G43 upgrade. In: Lobby
Thread: Winter Balance Preview Changelog4 Dec 2016, 09:13 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 19:14 PMskemshead Isn't a puma more of a AT specialist. All smoke should be vet 1, unless doctrine selected or okw 251 Half-Track due to lack of mobility. You also increased AEC armour because of S-mines (which do nothing/had game last night where AEC drove through every s-mine field to clear it) and because of MG42 armour piercing rounds, so its survivability has increased again. Most vehicles that drive into the arc of double packs stand a good chance of dying. But the Aec has the speed and maneuverability to often get away without smoke guaranteeing it. Yes i can attack ground, but again speed and maneuverability make that difficult. It's not like a tank. Move it to vet 1 so at least the player has earnt the right to use that ability because atm if feels cheap when used in the first engagement. I support the direction you guys are taking the game but a number of changes you made were to reward micro and smart play and to punish players who just yolo around the map. If we lock smoke behind Vet1, how are Puma and the AEC ever going to be able to get enough vet to use the smoke? Both are now on a similar level with respect to infantry-hurting. Thus, they would never, ever, gain vet, until the enemy fields a vehicle. The situation you describe only applies to live-version AEC. In the mod-version, the AEC is not able to swoop-in, score a few kills and swoop-out. Thus, there is no need for Pak guns to be so tremendously lethal against either vehicle. In: Lobby