|
A number of Suggested Changes:
Increase the utility of the unit, like vet 1 ability a timed ability that suppress but does little damage, increase performance vs enemy light vehicles...
Replace Ostwind with Stug so that Ostheer get an indirect fire support unit in T3. Move Ostwind to T4 and buff so that it can be used to support Panthers. Make Brumbar doctrinal similar to KV-2 maybe (it was superior). These solution will fix a number of units and problem.
Remove minimal range |
I'm talking about this supposedly golden age pre USF and OKW. The game was a lot worse then balance wise than it is now.
The fact that grenadier, conscripts (even Riflemen,) and many other units have seen very little changes especially at early game suggest that they where balanced.
The majority of changes that have to do with balance and not with removing cheese or homogenizing factions had to do to counter balancing design changes that where made.
And again my point is that there no indication that the principals provided in these articles are wrong or that the game is better balanced because they moved away from those principals. Actually in the patch that redesigned OKW/Soviet the game was in broken state. |
Forgive me if this sounds a little confrontational, but what stock does being a part of the alpha or beta feedback group have? Unless I'm misremembering, balance and faction design was all over the place for COH2's release, so being a part of the group responsible for that doesn't seem like a selling - quite the opposite. I guess I'm also confused as to why you're implying that previous, early COH2 design decisions that happened to coincide with a pretty unbalanced game should be what we aim towards. Fair enough, Relic had THESE design principles early on in the game's life...and look how well that turned out. If anything, examples of previous Relic design principles seem like an example of what doesn't work and what we shouldn't be aiming towards. From what I can tell (I want to emphasize the fact that it's hard to tell for sure), people generally seem to think that the past 6 or so months of balance have been the best in the game's entire life (...perhaps ignoring the time right before WFA were released, but I'd say that's not relevant since they only had to balance a single matchup, not 6). Does that not suggest that moving away from these design decisions has been for the better?
This is the part where I get especially confrontational/personal. You were a part of a test group that happened to launch what was a pretty poorly balanced and awkwardly designed iteration of the game, at least in my opinion. Maybe you gave great feedback and were ignored. You could have been a great asset that got talked over by others or ignored - thus resulting in a poor game state in spite of your feedback. If that were the case, however, why were you not further personally consulted with on the game? I could be mistaken - you could have been asked to contribute beyond that, but were too busy with other things to accept...though I do personally doubt that was the case with just how active you are on the forums. But if you were a valuable alpha/beta tester with good feedback that led to or would lead to positive changes, why were you dropped/not brought back on to a feedback group? And to restate my first paragraph, why look to design decisions from an era of the game that people hold in disdain?
There is nothing to forgive and you are not confrontational...
The alpha and beta groups I took part where the "closed" one that come after the release of the game (I also was in open ones), if you want more details it probably has to be in private because I have singed a NDA, so feel free to PM.
(I also do not like posting personal staff in balance forums)
The game was balanced quite just good before the WFA release...
And no moving away from this principals has not actually help balancing the game. The improvements had to more do with reducing the asymmetry of factions (make things allot simpler), lowering the RNG and lowering cheese which is competently irrelevant with these principals.
|
They're not.
You might think they should be, but you only need to look at the 450 MP Infantry Section in CoH 1 or the equally priced MG42 and Maxim in CoH 2 to see that's not how Relic thinks.
They don't price Riflemen based on Grenadiers, because you never have a choice between building Riflemen and building Grenadiers: they're in different factions. Riflemen are priced against .50 cals and Rear Echelons.
Same with Soviet: the Maxim is priced against Conscripts, Penal Troops, Snipers, Mortars. Not against the HMG42.
The M10 Wolverine isn't competing with the StuG or the JPIV, it's competing with the Jackson. It's never been a bad unit, but it got buffed up to its current level because it has to compete for fuel with the M36.
The Vickers didn't get a price drop a few patches ago because it was weaker than the MG42, it got a price drop to make it more competitive against the Infantry Section.
When balancing factions against each other, you look at the entire army and its dominant strategies. Nothing exists in isolation.
Since I have been part of all the alpha and beta groups, I am actually in position to know and not just "think".
You should probably check this articles and get more informative opinion:
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeterQumsieh/20150115/233644/Balancing_Multiplayer_Games__Intuition_Iteration_and_Numbers.php and some other of his articles... |
Where did i say anything about number of usf commanders with 640+ hp tanks? I was talking about realistic scenario of usf late game unit composition which mostly consists of jacksons with some shermans or scotts. The only realistic addition to it is single pershing or single bulldozer. Sure you can draw pictures of usf player spamming bulldozers and easy8s but its not something you will see from good player trying to win. The number of usf commanders with 640+ hp vehicles is irrelevant here since 2 out of 4 are useless/situational gimmicks. The fact that there appear some 640+ hp vehicles in usf unit roster doesnt make my claim inaccurate since i used term "ALMOST exclusivly", taking into account rare exceptions.
Exactly here:
Operating almost exclusivly 640hp tanks with 160 armor (which is paper thin) that have little chance to deflect anything, ...
Either USF use their tanks and since the have access to tanks with more HP they do not "operate almost exclusively with 640HP tanks" or they use M36 instead in which they still do not operate with 640 HP tanks.
USF have the choice to have armor with more HP and you claim is simply inaccurate. If they choose to M36s is because those are OP and not because their armor is bad.
|
Internal balance.
Individual units are balanced against other units in the same faction, because that's what they compete with.
The faction as a whole is balanced against other factions, and that's strongest strategy versus strongest strategy.
OKW Battlegroup being weaker than OKW Mechanized doesn't make OKW as a whole weaker, it just means OKW always goes for Mechanized builds.
Likewise, nerf the AAHT and USF'll just always go the already stronger Lieutenant strategy. It does nothing to their external balance. It just reduces strategic diversity within the faction.
No individual unit are balanced around a benchmark unit. |
Early game is quite similar. USF simply have nothing to breakthrough OkW + OST combo that camping at the middle fuel point before LV. The only different is that you have a bigger room for LV in 2v2 which is the only chance for you to turn the table.
If only they had access to an early mortar, smoke grenades or where good at flanking...
Oh wait they do... |
Nerfing the AAHT just means even more LT builds. That does nothing for external balance, and makes internal balance worse.
USF have the option to choose their building, Ostheer and UKF do not and that does not make them less balanced.
If both build where equally good it would be plus but trying to make both build orders equally good is chasing a chimera especially across different maps.
Most importantly units should not be balanced around that concept having units made OP or UP just to achieve equal strong build orders.
And there other solutions like, one could move the mortar to Captain and make the Pak howizter doctrinal. |
Are you joking ? USF is nearly unplayable in team game without infantry company. The time when you having the arguable best team weapon that you claimed, the stuka comes immediately. And I really can't find any OP T0 call in infantry that can actually win an OKW engineer in 1v1 engagement. Are we playing the same game?
No you are playing 4vs4 which is an arty fest and I am playing 2vs2. |
I don't know why people are saying being able to rush a FF is such an amazing perk. (Also I'm pretty sure Ost can field a stug faster even if UK player deprives himself of 5man and brens)
People rush AA tanks or mediums because they give you a shock factor to punish infantry and light vehicles. Jackson, FF stug or SU85 just gives you a panzerfaust target, these units are responsive counters, rushing one is just a waste of fuel and pop cap before your enemy has heavy armour
There is little point in rushing a FF.
On the other hand it has been claimed that it does not have lower tech cost than other heavy TD and it has been suggested that it fuel cost could go down.
Thus the low tech cost has been highlight to explain the problem that might derive from a fuel cost reduction. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
