You know what i'll do some more test and get back to you.
I'm gonna do this,
Wanna give me any particular test you wanna suggest to me.
There aren't any rests you need to bother with, really. The spreadsheet i provided has all the information you need to do calculations as to how effective 20% DR is vs 160 damage tank cannons. |
I have bad news for you if you play 1v1 mostly. OH right now is at it's strongest when you play whatever of the meta strats.
Enjoy Osttruppen/Assault Grens/5VSL at their peak.
At least AssGrens havent been nerfed, I suppose?
Which is just as well, as a friend of mine basically "needs" them to prevent himself being a complete dead weight in our 2v2s. |
You.. do realize that vet does absolutely nothing for any infantry against tanks main cannons?
Disparity you see stem from MGs, squad formation and RNG.
Vet0 osttruppen or vet3 shocks, all die equally fast to tanks main gun if hull and coax won't shoot.
So not exactly sure what is the point of this thread.
Also, you made a critical mistake.
You don't compare vsl grens to rifles, because ost can't build rifles.
You compare them to lmg grens, because that's the alternative to vsl.
Received accuracy bonuses from veterancy do benefit infantry VS tank cannons, if only minorly. It makes it less likely that the cannon is able to make a direct hit vs an infantry model.
This isnt a particularly huge benefit, but it does increase survivability somewhat.
Also: Zerozeroni: The reason that Gren veterancy only makes a minor difference vs tank fire is that the 20% DR doesnt stop the tank being able to oneshot infantry models. It doesnt even breach breakpoints for allowing a model to survive an extra mid-distance shot. It DOES mean models can survive an extra "far" damage AOE shot from some tank cannons, which do 8 damage at that range... but this assumes they're only being hit by "far" damage, and never close or midrange.
Have a look at the spreadsheet and you can see for yourself why 20% DR doesn't really matter vs a tank in most cases. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H5z6szCfhmAAnDprmgwLzc-viZg4HPhKZshNLErvnck/edit#gid=1619743570 |
I also agree with the reason behind the change but not with how they decide to change it.
In COH 1, The system they had in place was a bit complex but it worked. Essentially all Infantry was placed into certain armor classes. There was I believe 6 Armor classes (Been a number of years since I played COH1)but essentially you had Infantry, Soldier, Elite, Heroic, Airborne and Sniper armor types. Essentially this allowed a system where certain units where strong/weak vs other units based on what type of armor that they have.
For example a Mortar could do say 100% damage to regular infantry while against Team Weapons (the things its supposed to counter) it would do extra damage.
At this point in the game it would be too late to add a system like this into COH 2 but what we can learn from this system is that you can/should tweak units based on unit matchup rather than apply broad buffs/nerfs that have unintended consequences that create further balance issues down the line.
Here is how a typical COH2 balance issue plays out as an example:
-OKW Volksgrenadiers struggle vs Maxim Spam.
-Community Agrees Maxim Spam is a problem
-LEIG gets buffed to deal with Maxims while Maxims get nerfed at the same time
-Maxims become useless and cannot fulfill its role, then LEIG turns into ranged sniper with suppression and gets spammed where it rains death and no single infantry squad could survive if they stopped moving for 0.5 seconds.
So rather than create a situation like that, looking at COH 1 system, it would be easier to simply just add a modifier to LEIG. Say a random number like 20%. So LEIG does 20% more damage vs Maxim, it gets tested and seems to work well/adjusted to the proper number. Now OKW can deal with Maxim Spam without a nerf to maxims and without making LEIG into ranged terminators.
Anyway back to Grenadiers. Grenadiers usually fair well vs Soviets. It is USF/British that they struggle with. Rather than come out with crazy upgrades like the 5 Man Grenadier and then nerfing it into the ground when the Units are able to take out more expensive call in units, it would have made more sense and be better overall if Grenadiers instead got say 15% (any suitable number) damage buff or damage resistance buff vs just Rifleman/Infantry Section and adjust the number so that each squad is fairly even in terms of performance/cost.
By creating a band-aid upgrade (5 man grenadiers) to help solve a problem, they ended up creating more problems when higher end units and even Machine Guns get death looped when charged in the front.
I believe it's possible to give units bonuses against particular other units, I believe various scout cars have bonus accuracy vs snipers, for example.
The issue is that using this system a lot leads to some issues with people understanding what's happening. There isnt feedback that states "X unit does bonus damage to Y unit", for example, and this inconsistency causes some issues. |
While true, they did have many good ideas and instead of refining them they half changed em leaving the measures in place to make those things work either OP or UP.
Can you give some examples? I'm not certain which things you're referring to precisely. |
It's a faction with exploitable weaknesses but riddle with extreme inconsistent powerspikes.
Don't I know it. They still crutch heavily on a few units (Primarily IS, Comet, and Commandoes, in my experience) But can basically do nothing against some tactics (Dual LeIG for example).
I'm concerned that Lelic won't let the Balans team take the hatchets to them to try and salvage a real faction out of the gimmicky mess that UKF currently are. Bolster seriously has to go. |
Some design-problems are made by balance-team. It is a committed and skilled group, but also with some trash ideas. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Let's see. ;D
Lelic are hardly the paragon of good game design either, to be fair. |
It's not about balancing the game but providing quality feedback. It's more likely that the high ranked player knows WHY he is losing and what's good and bad during a meta vs the really low ranked players who is still struggling to use the basic units.
It's all about reducing the amount of "white noise".
Going by that analogy, do you want to discuss football team strategy with the drunk guy in the bar or the ex professional player.
Execution, knowledge and analysis are all different skill sets. But if i have to pick a sample size of people to discuss a topic with, i'll rather have the highest % of having decent feedback if we are been pragmatic.
This has been discussed. Too late for this forum unless many users poke red/black/oranges and ask for a change to be applied.
There's no correlation but it's a matter of been pragmatic. Would you rather pick 100 persons from the top200 to provide feedback or the top4000.
At the end of the day rank is only a simple filter to know what kind of gameplay experience the user has. Same as which faction or mode he plays.
Still the feedback they can provide is infinitely more useful. They don't need to know the solution to the problem, rather than identifying or presenting it.
Here's the thing, I wouldnt want to talk Football Team Strategy with a Footballer either, I'd want to talk to the Coach/manager. It's the same as a professional player; They're good at playing, but not necessarily strategy (Or in the case of a videogame: Balance).
EDIT: Though, of course, what the "good" players have to say regarding which units/strategies are strong is another matter. This is useful information, but it takes other minds to parse that into an useful set of changes to be made for the game. |
1-
https://www.coh2.org/news/102660/world-championship-match-stats
2- Not sure if there are stats for WC2020. The claims comes from both, multiple champion and current best player Isildur and one of the staples UKF players Ashaboy. Someone who has won tournaments this year with UKF (one if not the best UKF player) and brought it to (semis? Q?) this year to WC2020 is telling you that it's not worth playing the current preview version of UKF on 1v1 at all.
Nothing short of a major rejiggering will solve the UKF question, honestly. They need a factional rework. I think the Officer has a lot of potential, incidentally, but I think it should be an upgradeable rifle squad that UKF begin the game with, that can upgrade into several directions.
IS need major changes.
UKF are STILL without a stock mortar.
Etcetera. |
That's the problem with the community. I would love to see an hybrid system, keeping the functionalities of the forums while having a voting system that highlights the "hottest" comments in a thread based in votes and timeframe.
If there's a will, ad hominem can be moderated. It's WAY MORE LIKELY that someone who is high ranked UNDERSTANDS the game that someone who is low ranked. This is not SC2 or CS:GO where you need high levels of physical input in order to perform well.
The same points you bring now has been brought in the past. This "fear" of hurting people's ego and gatekeeping is why you don't have quality discussions been done. You need some kind of filter so you have a more selected discussion been done while keeping it public so people can see. At the same time you give the space in the same forum but another sub section so everyone can discuss freely.
A "good" player knows how to play the game, and use information within the framework of a match. It doesn't necessarily mean they're more capable of balancing the game, unfortunately. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
