...
Its not about the point of the heavies, its about the fact that heavies still can possibly suck ass because everyone is spamming TDs, for exactly this reason alone....
Reason why people spam TD like Panther/Su-85/M36/FF is not because they can take Super heavies but because they can take most vehicles from car to a Super heavy.
I personally I am not against deflection on some unit or abilities as long as there are restriction in play.
As solution for COH3 I suggested testing deflection damage that depends on armor so that heavily armored vehicles take less deflection damage.
This solution would add value to armor. |
What's the problem, count how many Tetrarch you required to effectively killing a panther. One or two mines is enough screwing up the Tetrach swarm.
COH1 was designed like Allies using lighter, cheaper, faster tank swarming the Axis cats, same with M10 and M18 Hellcats, but not dumb thing like SU-85 you just sit there and A-move. You can kamikaze a M8 with mines to the panther, blocking it, blowing up his tread and finish up with M10s. 1-2 M10s frontal A-move assualt will never work. That's what COH2 had dumped down the whole standard of gameplay but I guess it is Eastern Front and the German & Russian doing it in that way.
If you micro correctly in COH1 you should be able to circle strafing the Axis cat which your lighter tank moving faster than the cat's turret. Of course it only works if the axis player didn't have Grens and Pak support.
Pre-OKW/US COH2, we did it the same way with T-34/76 /85. Guess the gameplay meta wasn't as stall and boring like nowadays that every single game are like mainline infantry -> 2 MG -> 2 ATG -> medium tank -> late game tank.
Yep, back in those time, (huge T4 cost) Panther was a waste of manpower, isn't fast, rigid like a Leopard 2 in current state.
Maybe I was not clear enough. In you opinion should unit like T-70, Luch, Stuart, 222 should have deflection damage ? and if yes how much should that be? |
I'm suggesting one possible outcome because you repeatingly asked for it. My first post only was about making the abilities the same, which way ever. There would be many other options too.
Regarding damage reduction: If you have a problem with reducing incoming damage from 25% to 20%, go with 25%. I really don't care about that. KV-1 would need 9 penetrating hits either way so there is no real change.
Regarding range: Panther and StuG go from 62,5 to 60 range (still enough), all other lower ranged tanks tanks stay the same. Its only a real nerf for Elephant, but it would still have 80 range and could kill 7pdr emplacement with attacking ground (which it shouldn't do). Are you okay with an Elephant with 87,5 range? You would cry out pretty loudly if you could hull down the ISU-152 that way. If I remember correctly 80 range was already too much. So again, i'm asking you directly: Do you think a Super Heavy TD with 87,5 range should exist in this game?
This is the first time you have asked this question so I am not sure why you claim that you are asking again.
I have clearly posted that imo the Ostheer version should provide different bonuses to different units and that included the Elephant.
On the other hand I do have to point out (since you have not) that casemate hull-down units have a very small area they can fire and thus are only viable in certain lane maps.
If in your opinion the main problem comes from the Elephant maybe you should be suggesting that is should not be available in the same commander. Although I do have to point out that Fortified doctrine seem to be less popular than Jaeger armor doctrine.
I also have to point that asking to change the bonus to +10 range would result to buffing the hull down Brumbar.
PLS avoid imagining my reaction if ISU-152 could hull down, it is non constructive line of arguing. PLS try to stick to what I have actually posted.
I explained with examples already why I do think RoF is better in 1vs1 and it is a nerf for 1vs1. In 4vs4 it would be a needed buff if I look at allied winratio in that game mode.
And I simply not agree with your examples. I personally would rather have a KV-1 with 50 range instead of 15% reload bonus regardless of mode. |
6 upgunned Hotchkiss killing a Pershing in 10 seconds?
Yes, I definitely did that around 2007, but dude, you misunderstood the concept, mass upgunned Hotchkiss meant to be able to penetrate and vaporizing any US armour, not even the Pershing able to withstand this. Nothing to do with deflection damage here.
And, no matter how many "Faghounds" Brits built, he just can't beat a Panther. This prove you are wrong about those Panzer II / IS2 example.
Hmm, just like the 57mm (the same gun) shooting the KT would do SOME damage if it is not penetrating, what else?
PLS explain exactly which unit in your opinion should have deflection and how much that damage would be and which units should always hit their targets.
Both armor and accuracy are key mechanics of the game so pls explain why and how you would like to change them.
In COH1 Tetrarch swarms would easily kill a Panther and that was bad design. |
Yep, I was there when Tetrarch spam was a thing and I shamefully admit to having lost the occasional KT to an M8 as well back in the day. I think no one here disagrees that stuff like this shouldn't have a place in CoH2. However, I'd also wager that it pretty much depends on how and for which units deflection damage gets implemented to prevent scenarios like that from happening again.
LVs, for example, wouldn't need to deal DD at all. This could be restricted to mediums or above where the spam potential is already comparatively limited due to popcap. Also, having a deflection damage multiplier of 0.5, as it is now for most (relevant) units in CoH2 that still have it, would clearly be excessive and could be dialed down to maybe 25% at most. Of course this might also mean that most of the armor/pen values would need an overhaul as well in order to keep the relative power levels of the affected tanks roughly the same. A whole lot of work for sure, but I'm pretty convinced this would both be possible as well as have some benefit - if implemented properly. If it would be worth the time that late in CoH2's life cycle is another story of course.
Glad that we agree. |
I acually like the idea of making the armor-pen system a bit less binary by introducing deflection damage as Hannibal and others suggested. Of course the exact value would have to be chosen wisely in order for the game not to become too arcadey, but sth like 1/8 to 1/4 of the regular damage on penetration could be reasonable. Not only would this reduce the reliance on high-pen AT vs heavily armored tanks somewhat and keep mediums relevant in later stages of the game, but it could also kind of break up the rigid HP tiering a bit. Especially the latter would be interesting as it would give other AT options that don't operate by the 80/160 dmg formula, such as some hand-held AT and snares, a bit more room to shine.
Obviously, such a radical redesign is pretty much out of the question for CoH2, but it might be an option worth considering for the sequel nontheless.
From my experience from COH1 I can say that giving all units deflection damage it would be a bad change.
Have you even seen or used Tetrarch spam? When units like that get a critical mass they simply overrun everything.
One could give specific units or specific abilities to unit that provided deflection damage but that should be limited. |
So lets break it down to balance if that is your argument:
I do think KV-1 in general is more impactful on 1vs1, because it can hit the field quite a bit before a Panther shows up. If your opponent went for a PZIV you are safe a long time before a Panther shows up. In this situation I do think KV-1 is way better off with the faster RoF. Backed up by double ZIS it doesn't need 50 range, faster ROF will do better at killing infantry and fighting advancing medium tanks.
But I do think more range instead of RoF is better at 3vs3/4vs4, there you will quickly see the first Panther after you got a KV-1 and the extra 10 range help more than some faster RoF in that situation.
I would give all tanks that are hulled down something about a fixed +10 range instead of +20% (partly fixes the elephant problem) and a -20% damage modification.
On the bright side of this change KV-1 would be better in multiplayer and worse in 1vs1. If I look at current winrates in 1vs1 and 3vs3/4vs4 that is excactly how it should be.
So are suggesting that KV-1 should trade 10 more range for relaod. Glad that we got that out of the way.
It seem that you are also suggesting to nerf the Ostheer ability.
In this case since this now balance issue imo the two issue are separate and should not linked is any way.
Imo the extra range for KV-1 would be a straight buff buff for both 1vs1 and 4vs4 and a buff the unit that simply does not need.
As for Ostheer hull down I would rather have it rename to "defensive stance" redesign it so that it provides different bonuses to different units. For instance in the case of Stugg it could simply provide camo/extra sight/rotation speed buff. |
To be clear: I never said soviet hulldown should be buffed to Ostheer hulldown level. I only said I want to have them the same. So transforming Ostheer one in soviet one would do the trick too. You were the one who first assumed that I meant it that way at post #9.
So why don't you simply say what are actually suggesting?
In you opinion should both abilities provide +15% reload speed -20% received damage or that abilities should provide +25% weapon range -25% received damage.
Either way you are suggesting balance change (either a buff to KV-1 or nerf to Ostheer hulldown) and you main argument is "quality of live and transparency" and that simply does not make sense. A simple name change of the abilities would solve the issue without upsetting balance. |
Who said that's not also frustrating? And how does this have anything to do with Hannibal's idea?
If anything his idea seems like it would help the p4. He's literally talking about reducing the dominance of TDs...
I find your line of arguing non constructive so I will not respond to it.
If you have suggestion to make about which unit should do deflection and how much pls make it.
If you disagree with my point of view that making all shot from vehicles do damage to all targets even from to T-70 to KT pls explain why.
Regards. |
Fair, but he didn't state that KV-1 "needed a buff" either.
I am not sure why we are focusing on what he did say or did not say. The line of arguing is simply not constructive.
It is my opinion that changing
+15% reload speed
-20% received damage
for
+25% weapon range
-25% received damage
would be a buff to the KV-1 (it seems that general_gawain also thinks it would be a buff but I can not be sure, he can clarify his own opinion on matter if he wishes.)
Asking for buff on KV-1 (balance change) for "quality of live and transparency" reason simply does not make sense to me. If the issue is "quality of live and transparency" changing the name of one of the abilities is a better/safer solution. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
