Since this stuff mainly pops up due to Volksgrenadier StG 44s and Penal SVTs that I had worked on and designed, I'm just going to leave this here on why I said these things were to be done:
...
I feel the need here to clarify that my I am not attacking anyone who has worked in improving the game even if I disagree with the changes they come up. They obviously had their own vision of how thing could improve and they goal was to improve the game. On the contrary I am grateful to them and I offer them my congratulation of their effort to improve a game which I love.
I also do not believe that any one from the moderation team is responsible for the changes in the patches. Relic and Relic alone has that responsibility since they set the "scope" and utlimatly decide what goes in the game or not.
Having that said the case of Penal went thru many changes and the original concept was to have them with flamers and 2 ppsh as far as I remember.
I would like to go any deeper about ST44 and Penal since will probably end up in derailing the topic which is more about design issues than specifics. |
US Unit Preservation Company:
...
2CP: A scout Counter-Sniper hits the field. A sniper who cant kill anything else than the wehr sniper, but insta-hits him and has double the LoS of his prey
(not sure if makin him able to only kill/attack a single type of unit would be possible/easy enough to implement, if not would only gonna be a dedicated scout)
....
that could be a possible utility changes for Pathfinder/JLIR a hold fire option that would make allow to fire back only on snipers. |
|
Actually their is already a knife weapon in COH 2 that if I understand correctly was meant to be used by commandos. That where the sprint while camo bonus came from. Unfortunately someone forgot to changes when the knife was scraped as an idea.
If you go to weapon/test/melee you will find a mechete with range 0-3 and damage 80. |
I don't mean to be rude, but you more or less said a whole lot of nothing.
You are not being rude when you ask for more clarification.
Your first block was stuff that's overly technical and besides the point. There are classes of weapons. I simplified it to 2 classes, you described 5 classes. I understand these weapons classes (more than were listed) exist. I understand how they function and interact. But what about them? Like you said, the new DPS curve allows for relative positioning (between classes of weapons). Since that's the case, thats good and there shoudl be no issue? (Also, as I've outlined in my previous post, relative positioning isn't necessarily that interesting of a gameplay dynamic).
...
Also something I just noticed now, you ask that weapons be made to follow the categories more closely (in order to increase the importance of relative positioning), but that has nothing to do with relative positioning at all. You just throw it out there and expect us to think that it will make relative positioning more important...because you said so? You imply that buffing a weapon's DPS gets rid of the rock paper scissors dynamic, but that's just not true. The weapon still performs relatively better at the same ranges it did before now matter how much you scale up the numbers.
The purpose that classes serve is to simply the system for the user. If a unit uses a weapon from specific class the user should have some idea how to best use the unit against what he is facing without having to memorize stats.
High DPS make fights last less giving less reaction time thus allowing less player input making the game more arcade than tactical.
Your second block asks that relative positioning become more important. Alright, great. Why is relative positioning underutilized currently (you never actually explain how this is the case, you just say it is the case). Why is having a weapon that is good at all ranges worse for relative positioning than it is for any of the other weapon types listed. You never concretely outline why things that you claim to be issues are actually problematic.
Also, that Relic quotation is besides the point. Cool, units should be advantaged at different ranges, and the advantage in a specific matchup should switch based on this range for most similarly costed units. I agree with this. You never provided any explanation for how this is currently not the case, why weapons that are good at all ranges don't fit into this model, and how your suggestions work towards this dynamic. You're throwing out statements with no other backing than "I said this, so it's true."
When weapons with "curved" profiles face each other the impact of range is greater. Best example LMG with negative close DPS vs SMG, an SMG squad managing to get to close range will suffer less from an lmg.
Weapon with linear curves behave good at all ranges and thus reduces the affect of range. The player using such a unit can choose his range at will and suffer less for being caught out of position.
This is not something I said this is something Relic has come to the conclusion after testing the game:
"The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat ("Flat" in other words linear) and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad"
(also pls check PMs)
|
Making another post so that its more organized.
So if I'm understanding this correctly:
All/most weapons used to have the same/similar profile. Due to there being very little diversity in weapon curves, there was little decision making, which was bad. Relic introduced a LOT more variety to weapon profiles, which made decision making more important and it no longer boiled down to a dps race since weapons differed in what ranges they were good at.
Not that is incorrect. The idea behind it was that weapon would separate into categories with similar characteristics:
Lmg high fire rate low damage negative DPS curve good long range bad at close
Bolt action slow firing high damage weapon suited for long range fights
Carbine (semi automatic actually) less damage higher fire rate suited for to far to mid
Assault rifles (although not official designation) lower damage high fire rate suited for mid
Smgs high fire rate low damage good at firing on the move
The reason behind it was that range made little difference in the out come of fight between to squad. The new DPS curve allow for player to make use of "relative positioning" in order to improve their unit performance (not necessarily win a fight).
In theory if 2 unit of the same "cost" fought a unit at the optimum range of higher unit the top unit would win.
lmg>bolt far
Bolt> semi auto far
semi auto> assault far
assault>sgm far to mid
and the other way round
In order to further increase the decision making, youre suggesting we decrease the diversity in weapon curves, making more weapons have the same/similar profile...
No that is incorrect. I am simply suggesting that "relative positioning" become more important, so that a player can use specific squad as counters.
Part of that change would be to reduce the number of weapon that are good at all ranges and keeping weapon profiles inline the categories so that player can easily recognize the performance of weapon instead of having to memorize DPS curves of weapon that behave inconstant (ST44 for volks ST44 for other unit). Basically stop buffing the DPS of unit to make them more attractive, there should a "paper, rock, scissors" logic in the way squads interact.
Again from the patch notes Relic:
"Small Arms Weapon Profiles
The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad. Now, a Pioneer squad with a MP40 submachine gun has a very high damage output at close range but a substantially lower damage output at max range. The distribution of damage is no longer blended between ranges; this combined with the increased weapon lethality should reduce the tendency to rush infantry at one another.
Keep in mind the weapon profiles represent the damage output of only a handful of units in live. Each profile will see an increase or decrease in damage output depending on the squad’s value. For example, a 100 manpower pioneer squad might do less close range damage than a 300 manpower Grenadier squad despite the pioneer MP40 submachine gun being a close range weapon. Hence, the value of a unit scales the weapon profile accordingly."
------
Grenadiers
Intended to excel at long range
Highest long range damage output for its tier
Abilities load out geared towards long range combat
Vulnerable at short range to all other unit types
Versus Conscripts
Advantaged at long ranges
Even at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges
Versus Riflemen
Slightly disadvantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges
...
Volksgrenadiers
Performs moderately well at long range combat
Extremely vulnerable at short range, moderately vulnerable at mid-range
Versus Riflemen
Disadvantaged at long ranges
Extremely disadvantaged at short-mid ranges
Versus Conscripts
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges
...
Sturmpioneers
Excels at short-mid ranges
Vulnerable at long ranges
Versus Riflemen
Disadvantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges
Versus Conscripts
Disadvantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges
...
Conscripts
Performs modestly at mid to short range, does not excel at any range
Ability load out geared towards short-mid
Vulnerable to long range units
Versus Grenadiers
Disadvantaged at long ranges
Even at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges
Versus Sturmpioneers
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges
....
Riflemen
Performs moderately at all ranges; excels against other rifled units at short-mid
Vulnerable at long ranges
Versus Grenadiers
Slightly advantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges
Versus Sturmpioneers
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges"
|
I don't want to get into this because it's not the point of the thread, but you bring it up anyway in a lot of threads, regardless of its relevance.
You always say these units are bad design-wise because they diminish the impact of relative positioning, which is a mechanic that you seem to be placing on some kind of pedestal. Stuff like (not actually quoting) "grens with LMGs are good because of relative positioning," "smgs are good because of relative positioning," "volks are bad because they're okay at every range and diminish the importance of relative positioning, turning fights into a dps race." A weapon profile that is okay at every range is no worse for relative positioning than any other weapon profile is. I have yet to see you argue why this is actually the case for, say volks and penals, and not for grens or any other unit in the game.
Put grens against guards. Where is the relative positioning there? They're both best at long range and are bad at short, so it's just a DPS race. Same thing for grens against LMG rifles, or against LMG tommies.
Rangers against assault grenadiers? Rangers against panzer grenadiers? Any close ranged unit vs any other close ranged unit? No relative positioning, its just a DPS race.
Long ranged weapons are not affected by relative positioning any significant amount more than weapons that are okay at all ranges.
When volks face a long range unit, they want to be in close range. When they face a close range unit, they want to be at long range. when they face a unit thats good at all ranges, they stay at whatever range they're at and it becomes a DPS race.
Just like how when lmg grens face a close range or mid range unit, they want to be at long range. And when they face a long range unit, they stay at whatever range they're at and it becomes a DPS race.
As long as two weapons are good at similar ranges and bad at similar ranges (or universally okay at the same ranges), relative positioning will not be a factor. Given how many weapons there are, you just can't have every weapon be unique enough so as to preserve relative positionings importance for every engagement.
On a different note, you refer to high lethality units, but as far as combat infantry is concerned (no engineers, vehicles, scouts, etc.), the only low lethality unit would probably be conscripts. I don't know why you refer to volks, penals, and guards as if they were some exception as high lethality units when every other unit is too. Fair enough if you dislike high lethality and want to bring most combat infantry down a bit using conscripts as a baseline, but I just don't understand why you single out volks, penals, and guards as if every other unit wasn't similarly high lethality too.
Took the liberty of moving to this thread since I have gone out of Topic.
Things worth mentioning. Weapon curves and relative positioning is not my idea but Relic's.
"Infantry Combat Tuning
The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another. We wanted to better define how each core unit should engage their perspective targets. For example, in a Grenadier vs. Riflemen match up, the Grenadiers want to maintain range. This is now a valid tactic, where in the past it was not. An integral element to this iteration is the introduction of received accuracy in place of raw damage. This was used in instances where additional fire power was not necessary in maintaining the established unit relationships. For example, Grenadier long range fire power is high enough to establish the unit’s relative relationship with other units, allowing us to increase their durability instead. As a by-product of this shift, short and mid range units should have an easier time closing in on their target. "
Weapons uses to have linear DPS and the main factor of of their DPS was price. Then Relic realized the potential of specializing weapon for specific ranges and create "relative positioning" for mainline infantry.
Unfortunately imo this was not expanded to rest of the units and to make thing even has started to be toned down gradually.
Having weapon squad with linear DPS curve reduce the effect of relative positioning since the DPS ration is affected mostly from oen weapon profile.
As for mentioning specific unit "as high lethality" that has probably to do with the fact that they are the ones that have changed the most (although my comment applies to other units also).
Penal got a very big buff in DPS, Vg got ST44 and Guards got also buffed (mostly when stopped dancing around and their real DPS become available). |
....
Didn't double check my calculations. Even counting the difference in utility (flame nades, and sandbags) and rack costs, to me, these numbers justify rifles costing 12% more. If you make rifles 260/26 as some have suggested, then ask yourself whether or not the utility that volks bring is actually equivalent to these combat advantages rifles have.
From a design point of view and imo if one keep the current USF tech design, riflemen have to be the best mainline infantry in the game and giving the USF player the option to either invest in riflemen upgrades or go for light vehicles. Unfortunately other units like Penal, Guards... have also be buffed considerably and are now comparable to riflemen. Which volks also need to be very strong.
Since high lethality units make the game less tactical and more arcade/rng I would suggest toning down VG and then also toning down allied infantries like Penal and Guards (and lowering their price).
Else one will probably have to change the USF faction tech making faction more similar, while not solving the problem of lower tactical play and "relative position" having a small impact. |
...
T3:
StuG E
...
Going slitly off topic:
That is also a good approach although StuG E tends to become obsolete in late game with the high accuracy of 60 range allied TD.
Imo unit like the Brumbar need a redesign that might include:
High armor/HP to spear head assault.
Low but consistent damage to AI, new lasting critical effects like "shell shock" units suffer -15-25% accuracy -15%-25% speed
Very good damage vs units in garrison, heavy cover and vs building/emplacement.
Low damage vs Tanks lasting critical like "injured gunner/driver".
Or/and barrage mode or KV-2 indirect fire capability.
Emphasis here being utility (reduce the effectiveness of blobs, anti garrison anti-building, soft AT) over wipe potential.
(on another note I have no idea why mod team want to turn dozer into a mini Brumabar since so many complain about brumabrs performance. The idea that faction X has a great/OP unit lets give similar unit to faction Z (Riflemen/penal, USF mortar/Ostheer mortar, Guards/Obers, commando/storm-troopers, Croc/KV-8,...), seems bad to me) |
Hi everyone.
I have a question about www.coh2db.com/stats:
There is an update info which makes wonder: since it's last updated on May 2017th, are the recent balance updates counted in this stats database?
As far as I see it, the database is somewhat outdated, cause there were 2 or even more major balance patches since that time... Or am I getting it wrong?
Think the guide is updated just compare a value that has changed in the latest patch with the one provided to be sure. |
Soviets are my favourite faction, and I do not think IS-2 is bad. I tested it in some CheatMode duels "Tiger vs IS-2" and it's about 50/50 win for each, maybe slightly even favouring IS-2. IS-2 can hit infantry really hard (well, if it doesn't miss), and has good armor. The only thing I would change about IS-2 is the doctrines where it's available. Maybe take IS-2 from that doctrine with t34/85 and IL-2 and put it somewhere else.
From a commander design point of view a powerful call-in like the IS-2 and a powerful off map like Il-2 should not be available in the same commander.
Same goes for things like Tiger and stuka AT or Elephant and stuka dive bomb.
IS-2 and T-34/85 are a rather poor combination mainly because one will probably lack the fuel to build both unless in 4vs4. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
