If I'm understanding you correctly, you area saying that there is aim time that makes RoF slightly longer? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
...
Yes there other "times" than "reload time" involved when calculating ROF (ready time is one of them if I remember correctly).
But the main issue here how AP and HAVP round compare with each other has little to do with balancing the unit itself. |
Thats one of the reason I proposed to exchange "Combined Arms" with some sort of normal off map or area off map in my original post. The other reason was to remove the timing push from 2x 76mm with this ability in 1vs1.
The patch which changed Mechanized and Rifle company to current state came out at 1st of june, was rolled back because of performance problems and brought online at 16th of june finally. If you use a custom range to look at loadout picks from that date up to today you'll see that Mechanized ranks at 6th place at top200 and at "all" players in 1vs1. Rifle ranks at 4th place for "all" players and 3th place for Top200 in 1vs1. Rifle company placement isn't bad at all.
The three companies ranking below Mechanized in 1vs1 all have a mode were they are ranked as either first, third or fourth pick. So Mechanized ranking 6th at 1vs1 and last one at all other game modes really is the bottom of them all.
WC51 changes where done February 26th 2021 which some other users think it should be buffed. It was a solid change.
As for CP 0 Cav riflemen that has also been suggested the WC51/Cav combo has so much squad wipe potential that is a bad idea.
76mm AP round was firing around 75% better ROF than the inferior 75mm AP round and was simply OP. Bringing the ROF inline with other medium tanks it was a solid change.
If there a need for change for the 76mm one should probably try to balance it at lower price.
Replacing "combined arms" with the WC51 off map would probably make the commander more attractive in bigger modes. |
...
Your concept and math seem to have some issues, will point only the ones that stick out is:
1) You are comparing the two rounds that come with 76mm and claim that HAVP needs to fire faster because the AP round is "better" and that does not make sense. One needs to compare with alternative vehicle the 75mm Sherman which has slower ROF. HAVP has about the ROF of 75mm but with significant better penetration.
2) Reload does not equal ROF since there are times involved
ROF of 75mm Sherman should be around 6.05
ROF of AP 76mm should be around 5.3
ROF of HVAP 76mm should be around 6.35
3) Number of reload is number of shot minus one since the first shot does need reload.
(tools are not updated as far as I can remember) |
Yeah sure, someone has to be. But have a closer look:
Ostheer/Soviet: Their abiliites get used multiple times at a "hundred" commanders. The one with the least appealing mix of the recycled abilities lands at bottom. I don't care, because they add nothing to the game I can't get elsewhere.
UKF: Advanced Emplacement is ranked least. Emplacements never fitted this games, were either op or up and are somehow disturbing game mechanics. Good that this commander is ranked last place.
OKW: Scavenge Doctrine is at bottom. Youg get JLI, that you get at Overwatch too. Only unique OKW unit ist Ostwind, but of course it is just a direct copy of the Ostheer unit. Boring, deserves to be last.
USF: Three unique units and two units you only get at one other company in each case. One of the unique units (WC51) would allow different openings if it wouldn't have been nerfed that harsh (WC51), a second one (Cav Rifles) should allow different openings by getting CP requirement lowered to 0 (and upgrades bound to tech). Company adds five units to a roster which really needs some variation. No other company does that. Sad, that this one is last.
Yet the problem with commander seem to have little to do with the units themselves and more with abilities avaialbe. For instance Soviet lend lease that also comes with the 76mm is quite high in preference for 1v1.
Commands has no self propelled artillery (Calliope/Priest), no super heavy (Pershing), no normal off map (counter to static artillery pieces), no area off map (loiter/artillery), no Elite infatry (paras/rangers). That makes the commander unattractive from 2v2 to 4v4.
In 1vs1 the commander from 3/8/2021 to 9/11/2021 (commander was patched 26/2021) to 5 place right next to rifle company. (even if one looks at last patch it is in the same level as tactical infatry/tactical/mechanized with 4.099/4.087/4.081) |
Lmao, JLIs are much better then Paths. Paths are pure utility because of the bad scaling and mediocre base received accuracy, while JLI is a pretty good combat unit. Imo Jager Lights are amongst the best infantry units in the game.
JLI are irrelevant to Pathfinder balance. |
This is completely missing the point. Both of these are stupid and should be diminished as much as possible. Your good RNG is your opponent's bad RNG. Either way, the game has been decided by RNG and not by skill.
Just because there is RNG involved that does not mean that there is no skill involved. Coh2 is not like playing the lottery and knowing which risk are worth taking and which are not, is part of that Skill.
Anyway, my point is that there rarely are enough "RNG checks" in a single game to even out. You're not going to have 10 Panthers with each of them having 10 engagements so that one or two dying by RNG won't matter as much. You're going to have 1-2. If you lose one of them because every shot is penetrating (insert Hans meme here), that is game changing.
No one in this thread seriously suggested otherwise.
When it comes to tank combat, one will probably lose as many games as one will win due to RNG and that number will be significantly lower to number of games he will lose or win due to skill level.
RNG is there to make players adapt to the tactical situation else it will become more about the economic skill and less about tactical skill. If one does not like RNG one can play RTS games with little to no RNG factors.
|
You still get something for it: only a fraction of the full damage. Obviously armor is not AS important as before then, but deflection damage does not fully invalidate it.
The problem is that there rarely is a "over the long run" in CoH2. Single units are highly valuable, losing or keeping one due to some low probability RNG decides games regularly.
Making all tanks one-shottable and just differ in their armor value would also even out in the long run, but not in a single game.
That's why people flock towards higher reliability units. Panther instead of JP4 or StuG. This is why AoE profiles have been broadened on so many units, and also why in general units rather got HP and lost armor than the other way around.
Deflection damage would be another step into that direction. Is it desirable? Debatable, but it surely would make the game more reliable to play.
Yes there is. If a person plays enough games, he will get both "good" and "bad" RNGs. The problem is perception, since many people tend to remember only the "bad" RNG that "cost" the game they should had won by playing "better" and not the good RNG that give them a victory when they actually played worse.
Random events with great impact like crashing airplanes that destroy whole armies are bad for the game, on the other hand max range shots that always hit and penetrate are actually worse for the game since it does it does not promote different tactics. One can simply stay at max range and snipe at the enemy.
Vehicle warfare should follow small arms design and promote relevant positioning and give specific roles for units so the the perform better according to range and other parameters. Deflection damage could be added to certain unit or abilities that are specialized.
Imo introducing deflection damage on large scale would cause more issues than it would solve. |
Thing is, it might or might not solve the problem of TD overperforming. But I was talking about different problem. What I was talking about is that in CoH2, even with nerfed TDs, people would still play meta with multiple TDs\AT guns, because the only thing that matters is penetration, since non-penetrating shots can be equally considered as misses. Game has no middle ground in this aspect.
This essentially handicaps the balance options and makes armor balance an litteral equivalent of the most basic rock-paper-scissors, where paper cant do anything to rock just because its a rock.
CoH3 now has side-armor, which indeed might help sure. But at the same time we dont know how the game plays, because back in the day Jackson was also made as a "flanking TD", but in reality of CoH2 this concept didnt work, because flanking isnt always easy to do especially in 2v2+.
On the flip side when someone pays for armor one should expect to get something in return and deflection damage can negate that.
The fact that armor provide a hit roll might seem important in some cases and might look odd on extreme RNG rolls but in the long run over all the shot fired it works as intended since when enough number of are the odd even out.
As I have already post I am not against limited use of deflection damage and I have even suggested calculating deflection in relationship to armor so that armor would have the additional benefit of acting as damage reduction on deflecting shots.
One has to keep in mind that deflection damage effect different modes differently and in large modes with more unit firing the effects can be bigger. |
If you are speaking about accuracy it cant solve this problem. I have no idea what mambo jambo should have been done with target sized and modifiers to ajust TD perfomance against.
I can imagine what could have been done to LVs in order to make them less vulnerable, but I dont think that accuracy and target sizes alone can even slightly fix the issue of how TDs are effective against any other armored units in the game.
Because to stay resonable, TDs chances to hit medium shouldn't be lover then 70% imo and considering that pretty much all scored hits will be penetrating one it would hardly make a difference, at best it will increase chances of medium escaping.
Not to mention that even if TDs were nerfed and some perfect formula would have been found, people would have still used TDs just because you dont really have other options. Its either AT guns and TDs against anything heavier then medium.
There are plenty of solution and accuracy can be a part of them. Increasing the target size of super heavies by lets say 20% and decreasing the far accuracy of "heavy" TD by the same can contribute in keeping the performance the same vs super heavies but reduce vs all other vehicles.
Removing the accuracy bonuses from "heavy" TDs and fixing thing like firefly having mid range of 45 can also help.
And there are number of other solution like using switchable rounds for certain TDs so that one is designed vs Super heavies and the other mediums. |
And as I was saying, they can take everything, because their stats\penetration were balanced around the fact that they have to be effective in fighting and penetrating heavy tanks, since other then raw penetration there is litteraly nothing else.
I mean people suggested like increasing damage, lowering rof and so on. But it doesnt really change the core idea, that in terms of CoH2, unit either have reliable penetration against heavy tanks and in return becomes super effective against every other armored target or it is balanced around mediums but in return becomes useless against heavy tanks. And same situation happening with AT guns.
In order for a shot to do damage it must both hit and penetrate.
Thus increasing penetration does not mean that a unit would be good vs everything.
TDs have simply been over buffed and can now score hits very reliably and penetrate even at max range firing to small vehicles and big vehicles.
One can solve current issues even without adding deflection damage. Imo the current issues and deflection damage are separate issues. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
