Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: LMG Aim time14 May 2016, 10:14 AM Jump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 09:53 AMMr.Smith ... - Or make LMGs a downgrade for short distances ... Some Lmgs already use a reverse weapon profiles losing DPS at near ranges. The gren Lmg is not that much better than K98 at point blank ranges. I have made some comment in this type of issues in a thread about small arm fire. https://www.coh2.org/topic/52782/suggested-improvements-to-small-arms-weapons Imo LMG upgrade should also come at the price of utility. For instance no more grenades, smoke grenades rifle grenades or AT snares. Another change implemented could be introducing defensive stance for LMG units (like what riflemen had, but without the suppression) and making LMG effective only in defensive stance. This change not only will stop A moving LMG blob but would also make these unit vulnerable to grenades and mortars. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Suggested improvements to Small arms weapons.14 May 2016, 09:25 AM 2) Normalize weapon profiles according to weapon type. For instance: A) The Paratroopers Thompson compared to Sock PPsh is 133% more effective up to range 10 than suddenly jump to 559% more effective at range 15 and scaling up to 899% range 20%. If Paratroopers need a weapon that is good at mid range they should not be using an SMG but assault rifle (maybe BAR). B) The Sock PPsh compared to conscripts PPsh is 133% more effective up to range 10 than suddenly it drop down in range 15 becoming less effective by 0.80 down to 0.6. If conscript need a mid range weapon their upgrade should give them SVTs and not PPsh. In: Lobby
Thread: Suggested improvements to Small arms weapons.14 May 2016, 07:50 AM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 23:13 PMMr. Someguy You're thinking of the World War I and interwar variants. M1918A1 was adopted in 1937 just one year before the M1918A2 both variants saw action in WWII. A large number of M1918A2 (mostly used from USMC) was converted to have semi auto fire selection. For all purposes in game even with not semi auto mode the BAR in slow selection can represent an semi automatic and BAR in full can represent a assault rifle. Or even some other roles. But we are drifting out of topic currently. In: Lobby
Thread: Suggested improvements to Small arms weapons.13 May 2016, 22:06 PM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 19:28 PMMr. Someguy I don't think the BAR has a semi-automatic mode,... although drifting out off topic here, the M1918A1 BAR has trigger mechanism with a selector lever with 3 positions: S safe F semiautomatic A Auto fire. The M1918A2 had no semi automatic mode but 2 Full auto modes, Slow and fast. Many M1918A2 where converted to have semi automatic mode (mostly used by USMC). Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 18:02 PMferwiner Ranges under 10 are the deadly ones, there is not really much importance in small changes to DPS of bolt-rifle... Most weapon have different DPS fro ranges 10 to 0, mostly SMG have them same DPS from 0 to 10. The same discrepancies apply to other ranges also. Having different close mid far range for the same type of weapons servers little or no purpose. If a unit need more DPS at a specific range they should be equipped with different type of weapon. In: Lobby
Thread: Suggested improvements to Small arms weapons.13 May 2016, 17:46 PM This are some suggestion for improving small arm fire. I will categorize small arms to sub machine guns (smg like PPsh, Thompson,Sten, M40), assault rifles (AR like STG44,4 BAR full auto), semi automatic (G43, SVT, M1, BAR, STg44) bolt action and light machine guns. (In game BAR and STG44 are using only full auto mode but implementing full auto and semiautomatic modes is any easy way to add 2 new weapons or make units more versatile or create abilities for units. But I will go on to this later). Suggestions: 1) Standardize distance near mid far for all weapons 2) Normalize weapon profiles according to weapon type. 3)Avoid mixing weapon with completely different optimum ranges. 4)Avoid weapons with good DPS at all ranges 5)Simplify weapon upgrades With these changes squads will have more a normalized behavior, estimating optimum range will be easier and taking advantage of relative positioning easier and more rewarding. 1) Standardize distance near mid far for all weapons or bring them very close per weapon type. Suggested values (open for discussion): Smg 5---10---15 Ar 7---17---20 Semi 14--22---26 Bolt 0--20---28 (using reverse profile bellow 20) Lmg--0---20---28 (using reverse profile bellow 20) Reason having different mid near far ranges makes choosing distance to fight very difficult since one has to estimate distance and have a rough idea of the close mid far ranges for all weapons. It also has some even more confusing affects. Currently most SMG use as close range as 10 so they do not benefit from moving closer to 10 units. On the other hand many other weapon use as close the range 5 which mean that moving closer to 10 with an smg unit not only does not provide any benefit to the Smg but can actually hurt them since the opponent will benefit from closer range. With change player will have an easier time estimating their optimum range and the DPS ratio will not change unfavorably. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Mod: Trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer.13 May 2016, 06:23 AM Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 00:53 AMeasierwithaturret In a game like CoH where resources are so scarce and map control so important, if a unit is not cost-effective then building it can cost you the game. If a unit is hardly ever worth building, what's the point of it even being in the game at all? If unit A is more cost efficient than unit B of course people will built unit A. If one want to make unit B more attractive compared to unit he can buff unit, nerf unit A do or both or increase the utility of unit B. This patch mostly buffs unit B and that in my opinion will upset balance... Su-85 redesigning is actually in a right direction, imo the unit is simply too cost efficient having more range, accuracy, sight, far penetration while begin cheaper than it opponents. (I don't really want to into detail on specific units balance because this not a thread on balancing units, but a thread on patch direction) Jump back to quoted post13 May 2016, 00:53 AMeasierwithaturret Sov reliance on doctrinal units wouldn't be bad if they had access to a greater number of viable doctrines, or if doctrines had more variety within them. However the reality is that nearly 3 years on there are at most 3-4 viable doctrines for sovs, and with the linear CP system there is little variety in how to employ those doctrines. And that is why one of the thing I proposed was to have a look at commander abilities. My point once more is that for year now balancing was done Relic way, very big buffs, very big nerfs this is the first patch that is not made by Relic and really worth trying something new lots of small changes fixing long lasting issues. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Mod: Trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer.12 May 2016, 21:05 PM Jump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 18:32 PMelchino7 I'll argue that, at least for SU and to some point USF, that the changes are not a redesign as the role of the units are not changed. ... This is my personal opinion and you do not have to agree with it: Soviet faction design (imo) was to have average stock units and very cost efficient call in units. 5 stock units come out better from the patch (+1 doctrinal), that imo is redesign because SU depend allot less in doctrinal units to fill the Gaps. USF faction design (imo)had them with most cost efficient mainline infantry (and some other stuff like best heal/FRP)and the least cost efficient support weapons. Buffing the HMG, introducing a mortar (that is better than wer one and some other changes)imo redesigns the faction allowing to play defensive game with support weapons. OKW are all over place and I can't really see what their design is after the patch that removed FU penalty... ---- I call these change faction redesign ,you can call it something else, it is not really not that important. The point I making is that all these changes will have a very serious impact on the game, and will probably take several patches to smooth out imbalances. I also doubt that some of them will increase diversity, for instance for the OKW I suspect that instead of volks and PF blob you will volks and SP blob... The other road, of fixing long term issues, can actually help with diversity allot more imo, it is easier, safer and will yield result faster... For instance Guards saw many balance changes and remain underused but it was the quality of life changes (more responsive, weapon drops) that lead them to be used more. If the issue as stated in the patch noes is diversity and not balance or bad faction design trying to increase diversity with so drastic changes is imo like trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer... In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Mod: Trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer.12 May 2016, 13:55 PM Jump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 13:00 PMdrChengele ... Relic starts...welcome to Relic's patching process. It's nothing new... Only its actually very new. This patch is not Relic patch's. This patch Relic's version of Miragelf's mod, since most of the changes are included in his MOD. That alone is proof that Relic is open to community feedback. In addition the have made surveys and opened feedback thread indicating that this patch is influenced more from member of the community than any previous. Redesign 3 faction and introducing the new war spoils indicates that they have not forgotten COH2 over DOW III. The prospect if that is the case are also very gloomy, because if they go ahead with this patch there will be need for allot more to being the game in current level of balance... In the end of the day, it is my opinion that long lasting issues, some of them 4 years old, should be fixed before attempting to redesign 3 factions, so that we don't have to wait another 4 year to seem them fixed. Feel free to think either-wise. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Mod: Trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer.12 May 2016, 12:08 PM Jump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 11:54 AMpugzii LOL Vipper please just stay on official forums. Thanks for taking the time to contribute with your useful input. In: Lobby
Thread: Balance Mod: Trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer.12 May 2016, 11:48 AM Jump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 11:40 AMKatitof USF HMG arrives the latest,... Details pls avoid them. Jump back to quoted post12 May 2016, 11:40 AMKatitof I see your further point, but we have a chance to break most limiting chains off certain factions, there is no reason not to go that way. And it going to take several patch to achieve the current level of balance. In the meantime will be stuck with medic kits and trip wire flares. It time to fix these issues not go thru another bigger circle. In: Lobby