Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Two approaches for faction design19 Nov 2018, 16:26 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 15:55 PMEsxile So when it comes to the argument of Riflemen, you're first to say they don't need smoke back if we remove the mortar because other mainline infantry don't have it, but when it comes to the brummbar we easily turn your argumentation the opposite way. Uniqueness and faction design seems to be an argument only when it serves your ~~logic~~ argumentation. I have to repeat myself once more. Either faction become similar and they get to play with the same toys and that might includes smoke for all mainlines infantry and brumbars for all factions or faction remain with different designs and different toys. Do USF need smoke on riflemen with the current live implementation? No Do USF need smoke on riflemen with proposed changes to USF tech? No Will the USF need smoke on riflemen with proposed changes if the mortar is moved from T0? Probably not (but requires testing) because the grenades/smoke grenades have become more accessible with lower price of officer, lower price of the grenade unlock and generally an improved tech tree. Now please stop using the mentality of specific users that engage in flame wars and focus only on proving that their "opponents" are wrong. Making personal comments in balance threads it is simply counter productive. It would be far more productive if you focused on how to make the game better. In: Lobby
Thread: Two approaches for faction design19 Nov 2018, 14:31 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 14:27 PMLago The Sherman Bulldozer is and always has been a turreted Brummbar. The patch simply made it good at its job. Stormtroopers were redesigned to be Commandolike because short-range ambush infantry's the only thing Ostheer doesn't have. Everything else but stealth is redundant with a non-doctrinal unit, and stealth for all Ostheer infantry is available doctrinally. We can talk detail all day, the bottom line is that a faction units should fit its design and not be modeled according to what another faction has, unless you make all faction similar first. In: Lobby
Thread: Two approaches for faction design19 Nov 2018, 14:17 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:44 PMsherlock "almost" is not identical, is it? No one will dispute that the ost mortar is the strongest. Check Patch notes there are very few units that "more" identical, difference here is distance near 0.75-1 and distance far 1.5-2 which is there because of the difference in entities you already have mentioned. MORTAR CHANGES A number of general changes have been applied to a number of light indirect-fire options to reduce their squad wipe potential, improve anti-garrison counterplay, and reduce their range in the late game. • Damage to garrisoned squads increased from 0.25 to 0.5 • AOE near damage multiplier decreased from 1 to 0.85 • Veterancy barrage range bonuses replaced by barrage scatter reduction for the majority of light indirect fire options. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:44 PMsherlock Your original post made it out to be the fact that rifles are stronger was the reason why the mortar in usf hands was too strong, when it is clearly the mortar that is too strong period when going up against smaller squads, that was the thing I was pointing out. Can we avoid palying the "you said" game. As I have clearly explained if the USF mortar was at same power level as the Ostheer mortar was at the time taking into account 4 men squad, USF would be in better position since they have the option to go for mobile game while Ostheer are better suited for static play (unless they go G43s). It has also to with faction design. The hot-fixed USF mortar serves as example why cloning across faction can cause problems. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:44 PMsherlock I quoted your original statement in my response. Your exact words were: "Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam)" Can we avoid playing the "you said" game. Penal with flamer that where modeled after riflemen with flamers (which where OP) where proven to be completely broken. This serves as another example of how cloning/modeling across faction can cause problems. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:44 PMsherlock Using a established and known unit to describe how a unit will perform doesn't mean they are the same, it simply means they use it to describe it with something that is known. They also highlight the difference to the brumbar in the very part you highlight, it is less potent (the gun), all other differences (health, armour) are still the same. Patch not are perfectly clear, according to the moderation team their goal for the Dozer is a less potent brumbar because it has the advantage of turret. They do not take into account the difference in faction designs or the tech cost. It served as an example of how modeling/cloning across faction is becoming trend. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:44 PMsherlock I was responding to you, when looking as to the origin look at the origin And since you continue doing so I took the liberty of moving you response that is irrelevant to the topic of USF tech in this thread. Again this are all detail that are rather pointless. As I have explain "modeling/cloning" units across faction can be problematic is factions are not similar. A far better approach would be for units to follow faction design. In: Lobby
Thread: Two approaches for faction design19 Nov 2018, 13:50 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:34 PMSander93 So you want Stormtroopers to be a utility disruption squad, which is what I suggested too but the balance team said they decided against such a change. Like I mentioned. So Commandos approach was the only option left. Again like Sherlock said, it's not the Brummbär's AOE profile that makes it considered OP (it's less wipey than ever) but its combination with high armor and free barrage ability. But this is going offtopic. Yes we are going off topic, so I started another thread. Imo there two distinct approach (there more I am just mentioning 2): Faction are similar. In this approach one can "clone" units/abilities from one faction to another with little problems. Factions are differently designed each with its own strengths and weakness. In this approach taking the best a faction has to offer and clone it to another faction will probably causes that unit to over perform. One has to take into the specific of the faction when "transferring" the unit. The storm troopes and dozer fall under this categories. Commandos work for UKF since they base infantry is extremely bad at fight on the move, that is less of an issues for Ostheer who already have option including the doctrinal g43. ST where introduced for encirclement commander and they should be design to work for that commander else that commander simply need a revamp. Turning Dozer into a Brumbar is questionable since USF have allot of AI and the dozer does not have Brumabar's high tech cost, becomes available earlier and so on... These are used as examples to explain the two approaches and clinking to details is nor productive. If faction remain different changes to units should start from faction design and not from what other factions have available to them. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 13:22 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 13:06 PMSander93 Also Stormtroopers were changed because they were pretty identical to Panzergrenadiers and served no real distinct role, with the Commandos approach basically being the only viable option to rework them (except for a utility disruption squad that was apparently decided against). Dozer AOE changes are nothing more than a logical step after the Brummbär experiment, and it should be implemented for other HE (and heavy) tanks too. The M4C changes are comparable to the Stormtroopers situation as moving towards T-34-85 charactaristics was the only way to give it a more distinct role alongside the normal M4. Stormtroopers modeled after commandos is not the only viable option, that is simply incorrect. Stormtroopers should be designed around the "encirclement" commander, else that commander needs to be redesigned. Dozer being modeled after Brumbar is anything but logical since most people complain brumbar is OP. What makes it even less logical is the fact that it can become available by a simply MU upgrade of the normal Sherman. I brought up these as examples to explain why units should not be cloned across faction without taking into account the particular weakness and strengths of each faction and not start a debate about them. Can we now pls return to the topic which is USF tech? In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 12:59 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PMsherlock The stated examples are somewhat poor and there is quite a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation contained within. The Ost mortar is still the strongest. That is simply incorrect, currently in live Ostheer and USF mortar are almost identical. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PMsherlock The issue did not arise because USF had strong mainline infantry but because a mortar that was designed to go up against 6 man squads now went up against 4 man squads and for that reason, understandably, overperformed drastically. The same way the ost mortar somewhat overperforms against squads that are smaller than 6 men. As others have stated it was also an error on Relic's part and not the right mortar was implemented initially. The bugs where fixed by "July 28th Hotfix", yet by March 28 it was deiced ti was op and it was nerfed. Even if one toned down USF to be a "wer clone" vs 4 entities the USF would still have an advantage because their option to flank an enemy position if much better than wer who is forced in more static type of game by faction desing. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PMsherlock Penals were never given flamethrowers, they had them when the game launched, you can see them in IGN's original review (https://youtu.be/QH7kFOrnYoo?t=158). I never claimed that Penal where given flamer (those where available for year with no problems), I said Soviet where given a "rifle company riflemen" type of infantry in the patches penas only more powerful since 6 men entities, flamers and ourah combination. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PMsherlock The DshK, sherman call-in meta was when Penals had already lost the flamethrowers in the run-up and during GCS 1. The dshk was then addressed only last December after what, after GCS, became a dominant meta. Penal had flamer for 7 month until march, so regardless when it become a meta it was available. Of course there was no need since they could rolfststomp everything even without lend lease. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PMsherlock "grass is greener on the other side of fence" I see this expression being tossed around ad absurdum to oppose any and all changes. I can not speak of other, but I use the expression when someone does a comparison without taking into account all relevant factor. As an example in this thread it was claim that faction that have to build base structures have an advantage because they gain XP when having to actually built basestructures is more of disadvantage. Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:29 PMsherlock While I do agree that not everything should be homogenised between factions, the two examples made are rather poor again since they only focus on one aspect while completely ignoring all others. In the case of the dozer, the only thing considered is the projectile and aoe profile, completely ignoring, health and armour which are the other aspects that make the brumbar powerful. For the m4c it's again only its potency against tanks while completely ignoring the bigger health pool the t34 85 has or the fact that it is a toggled ability that lowers reload. If anything the unit is more distinct from the t34 85 than ever since it also loses its soviet veterancy (which is stronger) for the usf one. The claim that Dozer is not mine it clearly stated by the moderation team. Sherman 105mm Dozer The intention has been to give this unit a more devastating anti-infantry and emplacement profile. Stats reflect a less potent Brumbar, with the upside being that the 105mm is turreted. -AOE damage from 1/0.35/0.0.5 to 1/0.35/0.175 -AOE distance from 0.325/0.75/5.5 to 0.425/1/5 -Range reduced from 40 to 35 -Distance scatter max from 4.8 to 2.5 -Veterancy 2 Bonuses from +20% speed, +20% rotation, +30% Accuracy, +20% Accel/Decel, to +160 health, -15% weapon reload, +20% rotation -Veterancy 3 Bonuses from 3: +35 weapon rotation, -20% Reload to +35% weapon rotation, -10% weapon reload, +30% Accel/Decel -Now deals 50% damage on deflection; akin to Brummbar Changes to units/abilities should reflect on what a faction needs according to its design taking account strengths and weakness and not what another factions has. Now I am not sure why are going off topic which is USF tech proposed changes. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 12:37 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 12:08 PMLago The USF mortar was broken because Relic patched in some sort of heat-seeking nuke launcher instead of the mortar they actually tested. As a unit, it exists as USF's HMG and garrison counter. Before the USF mortar, your first tool to fight a bunker was the Pack Howitzer, and if an HMG got into a building over your fuel or cutoff you just had to leave it there. OKW has Incendiary Grenades for the exact same reason: to get units out of garrison cover. That bug was fixed in by "July 28th Hotfix". By march 28th it was finally realized that a wer clone mortar for USF was OP and it was redesigned with 65 range. OKW incendiary grenades where introduced as answer a the specific tactic of maxim spam. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 11:30 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 07:20 AMAarotron I've always found argument that: "they make factions too same" weird, as its often only refered towards things like, having mortar team for faction or lack of sniper or flamethrower or etc. I myself believe, that every faction should have access to same basic tools avaiable, mortar, hmg team, flamethrower or hell sniper could be considered as a tool. With units like vehicles, elites and tanks and maybe basic infatry/engineers you can go assymmetrical, like with current medium tank lineup (cromwell most mobile, t 34 cheap, okw pnz4 most durable, ost pnz 4 decent allarounder and sherman very adaptable infantry support vehicle. I hate the idea we need to keep for example brittish crippled when it comes to mobile indirect fire, forcing its mortars be stationary as it would be "too simular" or force flamethrowers as only doctrinal tool so they are not "too simular". The problem is not making faction the same, the problem is taking the best a faction has and giving it to another faction without taking into account the weakness of the faction that had it. Prime examples: Wer had the best mortar because it suited its combined arm/defensive style, a similar mortar was gives to USF and was completely broken since USF already had the best mainline infantry. Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam) Moving to your example with UKF now, adding a mortar to UKF even at Soviet level will also prove disastrous because UKF will be better than Ostheer defensively (Tommies with heal, spot, duel lmgs, emplacements...) will have indirect fire support and powerful "off maps" like base howizters and doctrinal abilities/units. If one gives a mortar to the UKF faction one has to tone down the rest of the faction to Ostheer levels. One has to either make all faction very similar and start rebalancing or makes changes keep in mind the strengths and weakness of each faction. What one should not do is go with "grass is greener on the other side of fence" approach taking the best of faction and giving it to another with a completely different design. (see turning Dozer into a Brumbar, Stormtrooper into commandos, M4C into T-34/85 and so on...) In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog19 Nov 2018, 11:16 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 10:41 AMaerafield Do you get XP (= progress on commander points) now when you tech as USF at least? It is quite a disadvantage if your opponent has 1-2 commander points more just from building tech structures. You still get a free squad tho so I guess it's fair... Having to return you engineer in base to spend time to built structure is a disadvantage also. Having to spend resources researching in battle phases is a disadvantage also. The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog18 Nov 2018, 21:59 PM Jump back to quoted post18 Nov 2018, 21:58 PMKatitof ... At this point I will simply ignore any personal comment you make. Have a nice day. Returning to topic and suggestion there no real reason for the howitzer to be buffed. In: Lobby