|
|
Rank is not really relevant, it's an argument from authority fallacy not to mention elitist.
What maters is the validity of the ideas, there has been plenty of good stuff said here.
We all thank you 1000x times mod team for your work and patience is Relic and the community but we would like some more feed back on some of the better suggestions if at all possible.
Rank is entirely relevant. It's a reflection of knowledge and experience. It's also a pretty good reflection of actual interest in balance.
If a doctor says "You have diabetes, you need a lifestyle change" and a fortune teller who sells chocolate says "nah, you need more chocolate", you take the doctor's opinion.
Rank > "I am human and deserve an opinion!" |
lol no, this is a l2p issue.
SU-85 don't have turrets and FF/Jackson are too slow if they get flanked, they also have paper armor so mediums are direct counters to them.
meanwhile Stugs reign supreme on the TD role and SU76 is a close second (the only downside of SU is that it has no turret movement at all unlike stugs that have a quite wide cone of fire)
I disagree partly. You're right that the FF and jackson are flankable and that's their weakness.
But the Jackson and FF have a similar advantage to the Jagd and Elefant. CoH2 maps are BAD for flanking. (narrow roads, lots of mine-spam) Very bad! So often you gotta go face to face. |
THe mortar pit is hard. Depending on game mode and map it is either tits OP or a waste of man power. It just seems difficult to make it work the way it needs to in its current form.
I really hate to see major changes but I think I have to say it needs to go and be replaced with some of the other suggestions we have seen through time. But I doubt Relic would let it happen.
I agree, it's just not possible to implement static defences with the "ebb and flow" concept of CoH. It's either too strong and spoils gameplay or too weak. |
While I haven't been in a balance discussion for a long time, I really have to voice my opinion here. Some of the suggestions are downright unsettling to me.
I can agree with a Moving Accuracy Decrease. But I believe it's Stationary Accuracy should be left alone. It fires very slowly already so you want that first shot to count.
Just the Moving Accuracy Decrease alone will make a huge difference since Kiting with it will become rather useless. So a British Player will need to support their Firefly to allow it to remain useful, such as supporting with PIAT Infantry.
No other change will be needed in my opinion. We should test how things go with the Moving Accuracy Nerf first before throwing anything else in the mix.
While I agree with the point that Crocs can be an annoying thing to fight in Team Games, I feel decreasing it's range and damage is going over the top. The Croc's Armour already sucks as it is so having to come in close is way too risky, especially since Axis AT in general is formidable. It's suppose to help you break down concentrated defenses towards the end game. If you can't do that reliably, why the hell would anyone want it to begin with? I'm willing to bet most British Players don't want the Croc to become a Generalist Tank, that's what the Normal Churchill is for.
So I have an alternative proposal. Let's decrease the Rate of Fire instead (Like the rate of fire of a Firefly.) and change the Rate of Fire Vet bonuses it gets into something else. This allows it to maintain it's Fear Factor with powerful streams of fire that players call it in for but still give the Axis more time to counter it or maneuver their infantry. This also make sense when you look at the size of the fuel tank on the Croc. I imagine that the crew in real life wouldn't dream of firing it as fast as in the game, since they would burn through the fuel quickly.
Preferably, I would say make it fire a 5 Second long stream of fire and let it cool down for at least 10 Seconds or so.
I believe this should be reasonable while allowing it to remain a desirable tank to get. Just ask yourself, do you see yourself ever getting into a position where you will feel you NEED a Croc once you nerf it's damage and range? I feel it will never see the battlefield again after that. I IMPLORE you, Mr.Smith, to consider a heavy rate of fire nerf instead. It's an endgame unit after all and should remain a desired unit for the player to use.
No, no, NO to the range nerf for the Mortar Pit. The Mortar Pit is Immobile and CANNOT be broken down. There is absolutely no fair reason why the auto-attack range should be nerfed. Once the British Player builds one, he can't move it to somewhere more useful once he pushes the enemy back, unless he break immersion and kills his own men. It needs that extra range to remain useful, especially on larger maps. As long as this limitation exists, a range nerf is not something I'd recommend.
I do have an alternate proposal for this too, however.
We know that once buffed by a garrisoned squad or a Foward Assembly, the Mortar Pits becomes extremely potent killing machines. This is because the Rate of Fire for their Auto-Attack gets a huge buff. I believe this is where we should divert our attention. I believe the bonus should no longer be applied to their auto attack and should instead be limited to their barrage commands, making it fire at a quicker rate and sooner. And while we are at it, I feel it should also speed up it's abilty to deploy their smoke barrage. That way they get a meaningful buff elsewhere in exchange for removing their overpowered rate of fire when supplied. If it's not enough, decrease the Auto-Attack rate of fire to match the Soviet 120mm Mortar.
You're already paying a whopping 400 Manpower. It has to remain useful. I'm sure as hell not going to pay that for a normal range mortar I can't move. The British are a Pop Cap heavy faction and can't field a large force like the others, especially when you dare to build emplacements. Being able to get fire support in a wider area of the map makes up for their small numbers. My proposal allows them to keep this without being overpowered.
As for the ISG, I believe it's range should also be left alone. I agree that it's a real pain in the ass to deal with but I feel that since it can only fire within an arc, it need that extra range to compensate not being able to engage in a 360 Degree angle. Not it mention it doesn't have a big splash. Accuracy is where it might be a problem.
If something REALLY had to be done with it (Even though I think it's fine as is...), I'd say make the Auto-Attack Scatter Radius wider. But again, not really a big issue to me.
So basically - "Don't nerf my awesome Brit units!"
"You're already paying a whopping 400 Manpower. It has to remain useful. I'm sure as hell not going to pay that for a normal range mortar I can't move."
A mortar that has DOUBLE the firepower, is much harder to kill and can brace when it needs to. That justifies the extra 120MP and shorter range.
It needs a slight nerf. I'm sorry, I am sure you enjoy using it and splurging mortar shells across half the map but it's too much. |
You cannot use maxim like support weapon, coz cons are bad support unit, coz have poor long range potential.
Why soviets need defend maxim if conception of soviet are attack ? I just cannot undestand it ?
All faction who have starting hmg, have best line long range infatry, that make support hmg work better.
Maxim now with this stats, are bad, setup time are long, damage and supress are bad, even if you do some burts into squads, thay just leave maxim arc wihtout any problems. Make reinforce 20 mp are to bad idea, its cost more then another HMG. Folks just run into maxim without any problem and fact that maxim are supported with cons dont change anything.
Vet1 ability are bad, i dont see any change of maxim shoot with ability or not, diffrent are not big.
Onlu good thing that maxim are 6 model, but still poor squad formation where he can be wipe like another 4 crew HMG.
BEfore patch maxim was too good, now he are to bad.
Maybe you're just too bad and weaker Maxim has made you seen it?
But you don't want this to be true. So you claim "Maxim bad, pls buff"
But the dark reality is everyone except you and a few other maximschpammers are happy with the changes.
No more ruined tourneys with boring maximspam games. But for you it means less cheap victories.
You disagree even with pros. As if you could possibly understand the game better. You can't. Stahp your trolling and lies. |
That's true. That's what I do as brits, but the problem with usf is that to get one asset, you usually have to sacrifice another. If you go lt and get .50, you got no (great) indirect and no at gun, but if you go capt, no suppression. Calliope, or Pershing (or for me airborne lol). Still, always good to be reminded
So go Lt for 50 cal, get 50 cal, then go Captain
The fuel timing will be perfect for axis vehicles and you'll get 2 squads while teching up, one with a bar, the other which can be given zooks. There's no problem at all but 3 minutes of wait time. |
The only thing you've proven is your own incompetence in conducting simple research tasks.
Check the above conversation - agreement made to both I and Voltardark play 10 games as opposite faction.
"research tasks" were never mentioned. You're showing your own incompetence at "READING" and "CHECKING THE CONVERSATION BEFORE MAKING DUMB COMMENTS"
You wanna do research tasks, go get a job in science. This is a forum about a game, we're just having fun. Relax, man. Research tasks, lol. |
Maybe problem with boring are coz you dont have hight ranks with allies, coz dont play with them ? 
That's exactly why I put "boring". No reason for anyone to watch such simple games.
What did you think, I was talking about allies? Not everyone is a faction-fanboy troll like you |
|
Uploaded to prove a point in forums. |
soviets
ostheer
Fortune
sins_Bulgakov
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
