|
Since you are trying to fix Penals imo you should fix their vet bonuses. They still vet in the original role as a long range infantry gaining accuracy that is not suited for their weapons and role... |
All the units here are ridiculous.
1.Penals
Have 0 accuracy, cost almost as much as riflemen but miss all the time and have the same health as conscripts. ''An effective anti-infantry squad'' what a joke. Needs serious accuracy buffs and a moderate health buff. Right now 90% useless.
Actually some of you data are incorrect...
Penals accuracy is only low far. Their close accuracy is pretty close to Riflemen. Their squad DPS is actually better than riflemen at close. The are cheaper to buy than riflemen, cheaper to reinforce, and have more HP and more effective HP...(they seriously luck utility compared to riflemen)
Compared to conscripts the have the same "health" but they have more effective HP, so they are more resilient than conscripts.
Having that, said I am not arguing that they are a great unit simply that I am not sure you have identified the problem with them correctly. Imo their problem is that they come with a tech cost and luck utility.
They are supposed to be specialized unit with a kit (flamer and satchel)that help them against bunkers and garrison.
But on the other hand conscripts can also be very effective against garrison while maintaining more utility with the molotovs and mortars and zis can deal with bunkers if one chose to t2 over t1. |
The problem in bigger maps and team games are that the time from early to late game comes much faster than 1v1 games. Caches in 1v1-2v2's are risky, in 3v3-4v4 are safe income. It should be interesting to rework the amount of std points from bigger maps, and / or limit the amount of caches that a map can have. That will make early and mid game much longer in team games, while remaining the same in 1v1 games.
Imo the issue has more do with the efficiency or cashes than anything else. Cashes return more resources the more player you have in the game. That means that in a 4vs4 the investment in cashes will payoff 4 times faster than in a 1vs1.
Instead of messing with the number of point of cashes one should start with lowering the return of cashes according to number of players, that would slow down pacing a bit and bring 4vs4 game closer to 1vs1... |
Glad you've asked this, because in fact, I am game designer...
I am Glad to learn that, any games we might have heard of that you have worked on? Any of them RTS?
Not for relic obviously, but it doesn't matter...I can verify player feedback with actual data and let me tell you this: about 99% of player feedback is useless player whining about stuff they don't know anything about, but that 1% is valuable input worth listening to and at times even following, just like relic does.
And when you communicating with your game's player data base and getting this feedback are you acting so obnoxiously, insulting others, acting as "Mr.Know it all" and never admitting you have made mistake, as you are in the forums or are do you have better manners showing respect to them and thanking them for there feedback even is useless?
|
See, this is where you're horribly wrong.
...
Balance is based on complicated relations between game mechanics, units performance, army concept, its performance alone and in team games against usual opposition, the popularity of units or the lack of it, but it most certainly isn't based on anyone's opinions.
...
Because that is how it works, always did and always will.
According to you, the balance of the game should be around the top players. But then again, if only the expert should be involved in such matter and the opinion of the "poor" slobs does not matter, what make you an expert on how to balance a game?
Why do you write as if you are an expert on this field? Do you work for Relic on the balance department? Have ever worked on any game on the balance department? Have you followed some sort of college course on how to balance games? Have you read some book about?
Or is it that everything you write is, just the opinion of non-expert and should be treated the same way, you want to treat the opinion on anyone bellow rank 300? |
Thing is, players who can't get to rank 300 at least can't really be considered decent, expanding the statistic through the whole population would skew balance graphs, because there is much more people who can't play and have no idea what they do then players who are above average.
You seem to be using terms with little knowledge about them. Average is defined by the middle aground and in order to be set at 300 there should be 600 players. If the number of active players is around 2.000 the average would be around 1.000.
In Gauss distribution, as this seem to be, you cant have: "much more people who can't play...then players who are above average." |
For some reason these are the some of the few direct-fire units that have a minimum range making them vulnerable to units that charge directly into them to avoid damage.
SU-152, KV-2 indirect and 88 have also minimum range, in KV-2 the minimum range is quite big actually...
Elite Vehicles Crews
Ability given to RE due to increase its utility. It was not given to Rifle due to their grenades, smoke, and the potential they have at Veterancy 3 with their low received accuracy modifiers. Did not go with the chance for the crew to survive due to either RNG nature or being too powerful late game where a potentially high vet crew could be impossible to kill and make any vehicle they man Vet 3.
-Rear Echelon can now be equipped with Thompson SMGs.
Such a powerful weapon on Rear can actually prove problematic. Especially when they are in garrison or even a fighting position, CP should at least be 2 or 3....They now cost as much as pio and have an SMG 3 times better making the flamer upgrade looking pretty bad in comparison...
Maybe allow crews to survive half health vehicle destruction but reducing their to vet 1 if higher, then allow crew to merge to get rid of superfluous crews?
This will allow crews to be killed if the vehicle is deep in enemy territory, will not break the rule of gaining veterancy without fight and will justify the name of ability...
If use get a mortar then it probable that smoke and frag grenades might need to become less effective...Maybe reduces smoke radius? or become unusable once suppressed |
I actually believe Katitof's posts are entirely relevant, so please OP, stay on topic and don't engage even if you feel provoked.
If they are relevant lets start over:
Imo (as OP) UKF emplacement, 88s, Fighting positions, Bunker and OKW T4 truck are fortification.
Imo (as OP) ST, ISU-152, KV-2 indirect, Avre, Dozer, Brumbar are assault guns.
Historically these units where designed to fight fortification. In game this units can take such a role and become better at dealing with fortification increasing the immersion without upsetting balance.
|
Because it actually is a con unlike the other weapon upgrades. A con that can be dealt with along aside other factors including a distinct pro, but a con nonetheless. BARs improve DPS at all range, LMG42s improve DPS aside from like range 3 (lul), Conscript PPShes however reduce their DPS for around a figure of 20 in the ranges they can shoot at infantry. Other factors can easily alleviate this con, but it exists nonetheless, distinct from other AI weapon upgrades.
Like the flamer that reduces range to 20 and most LMG that reduce moving DPS to 0, or Thompson upgrade that reduces DPS far, or the Bazooka, shreck, or the G43 that does nothing to far DPS of Gren and reduce the close DPS of PG....actually is rather common for weapon upgrades to come with a drawback...
Different weapon profiles are better at different ranges thus upgrades that change weapon profile might reduce effectiveness in some ranges that does not make a con. Simply a different profile. |
Except the very patch note stating it this way you mean?
The very same patch that made con PTRS worse then guard PTRS.
Official forums are down and I don't remember any patch note general thread in here, so you'd have to dig it up yourself as I'm not going to.
Is this another way of saying I am typing B.S. but you have to do all the work to prove (and even if you do I while just shrug my shoulders and continue)?
Unless you find these patch notes, it did not happen.
And since you seem to have some trouble find patch notes here is some help:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/4307/company-of-heroes-2-changelog/page/2 |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
