But it's okay guys, I know this forum is mostly Allies biased and any substantial discussion is senseless. I just wanted to point at a balance issue.
Have a nice day abusing Pathfinders as weapon crews and upgrading them with BARs and Zooks!
The thing is, trying to engage in a substantial discussion with people who mistake their lack of skill and/or perspective with balance issues is indeed senseless. |
[...]
Rework veterancy, especially radio net, as 800 hp with 240 armour could be OP en-masse.
[...]
thought that's already been addressed in the latest patch, hasn't it?
as to the rest, buffing armor and giving it 800 hp isn't a bad idea per se, but i doubt that would even be needed against the p4j if performance against mediums is the only concern. the tank's AI on the other is severely lacking, no matter how you spin it, so i fail to see why adding a mun based ability to help out in that regard would be pointless. |
|
the unit itself isn't even that bad for its cost and timing. for me the more glaring issue is that getting one instead of a p4 is risky as it leaves you exposed without a proper counter to a quick tank by your opponent. and contrary to a rushed ostwind the AI performance isn't that stellar either, especially since you can't really engage moving targets effectively or circle-strafe an AT gun.
i guess if the vet1 ability were to get some love and could actually provide some meaningful support against tanks the stug e would see more widespread use. |
I'd take away the WP off map and give the E8 WP. that fixes its AI issues without making critical mass OP like the old E8 that was an AI monster.
One could also try a fragmentation round (sorta like the is2 has but smaller obviously) or perhaps an ability to suppress a target area. So it's low AI is instead overcome by strong support ability that let's rifles shine
The idea should be that the E8 supplements the stock line up, not replaces it.
Yeah, an AI skill shot would also be my preferred solution, though I understand the concerns that too much AI on the Easy 8 might lead to a lot of problems down the road. However, a WP or fragmentation shell could easily be balanced to provide strong anti infantry firepower, especially against blobs, without being too oppressive by tweaking secondary stats like mun cost, cooldown and aim time accordingly.
I also like the idea of adding some suppression to the Hull MG (akin to Spearhead) when Focused Gunnery is active. This could be an interesting solution to give the E8 a bit more of a supportive role against infantry at least in case a direct DPS buff is not in the cards.
|
[...]
i can somewhat understand the historical reasoning of widespread smg utilization in the soviet army for having both ppsh cons and shocks in the same commander; however, gameplay-wise this never made much sense for me. at most i'd get one or two cons upgraded in the early game to have a viable close-range squad for flanks and frontal assaults with oorah, but shocks fill that role arguably better anyway. having more close-range oriented squads usually feels unnecessary and starts backfiring rather quickly due to the increased mp bleed. i guess it could make sense to use both shocks and mass ppsh cons on a map with lots of sight blockers that let you close in without dropping models like flies, but i'd probably still opt for a solid backbone of 7-men cons instead that allow me to pick some long-range engagements every now and then if i need to.
hence i'm not really sad to see the ppsh upgrade replaced for something arguably more useful in that commander.
on the other hand, the synergy of ppsh cons and the long-range focused guards in guard rifle combined arms was much more obvious and valuable in my opinion. really a shame this has been axed in the new patch... |
[...]
agree, the E8 can easily deal with any axis medium without breaking a sweat, the extra range it gets with focused gunnery in the most recent patch is just the icing on the cake.
what i'm more concerned about is that it still has mediocre AI at best. imho this should have been addressed instead of improving its AT - the very aspect it didn't have too many problems to begin with.
i'd also say putting the m3 halftrack into the freed-up commander slot feels a bit like a wasted opportunity to make rifle company a bit more viable without putting too much weight on the e8 alone. maybe that's just because i fail to see a way to make good use of it, but for me literally any other unit than the m3 would have been a better addition. the mortar ht, as proposed somewhere above, or even the m5 could have made the commander much more interesting imho. |
Meanwhile literally every single match is Soviet B4 cancer. Previous patch had more commander diversity than this patch.
Also from a design perspective they should be trying to make each Commander possibly Meta material. If something is considered meta they should bring up other commanders to match that same level of strength. Instead they half ass some commanders to make them "middle ground" intentionally causing commander imbalance and forcing different meta like how they forced the current B4 Meta or the OKW Jaeger Light Infantry meta some time ago.
give it some time. right now everyone and their dog may have jumped onto the b-4 bandwagon, but after the initial surge settles there will be more build diversity than before. i think the balance team did a decent job in drawing some of the meta commanders out of the spotlight and making others more viable in return. that arguably doesn't apply to all retouched commanders across all game modes, but overall i feel i have more options than before even though there are a couple of changes i don't agree with/don't go far enough imo. |
Jeez, this is terrible, tell us more!
So you were saying they are not underpowered early game, have a solid mid-game tank and they EVEN GOT OPTIONS in the late game?
And on top of that, you even have to face them regularly? I thought one of the two oldest factions and the only allied faction available without premium content is not played by anyone?
You poor soul, this is outrageous!
what else did you expect? this is, after all, the balance forum and the OP isn't exactly known for elaborate and thoughtful contributions, either. |
|
Pathfinders OP? That's certainly a new one. |
|
The new B-4 is certainly more deadly vs infantry in situations where you can't just move out of harms way fast enough after the 1st shot (i.e. when fired onto a FRP or inside the base sector).
That being said, the performance against vehicles is much worse now, especially since the increase of the near AoE distance to 2 m in one of the later beta iterations has apparently been scrapped for the final patch. That means, outside of very rare direct hits the new B-4 will probably deal even less damage vs tanks per barrage than the ML-20, so there's definitely a trade-off.
Furthermore, the far AoE damage was also lowered compared to the beta version so that it falls below the 40 HP threshold, as suggested in the beta feedback thread. As a result, the B-4 will no longer two-shot any infantry models unlucky enough to even just scratch the outermost region of the AoE blast twice, which would have been absolutely lethal for barrages into the base sector.
All in all I'd say the changes look good on paper at least, but I'll reserve my final judgement until I've seen more in-game footage. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
