Profile of DietBrownie

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 308

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/dietbrownie


Thread: Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire13 Dec 2013, 19:06 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2013, 18:50 PMNullist No, my post was aout Sov Team survival. You seem to have misread. I agreed about the Soviet's survival that's why I never brought it up. I just disagreed about giving Ostheer's support weapons 1.5 armor, because it only causes more issues. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire13 Dec 2013, 18:45 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2013, 18:05 PMNullist Sov Support teams are too resilient, especially on infantry flanks. Sorry, but thats really what it boils down to. They can soak both small arms on a successful flank, as well as explosives from near or far. If people agree that Ost Support Teams are ok at 4 man with zero armor, for reward for flanking, how can they then not consider Sov Support Teams too resilient to exactly the same flanking action? If Sov shouldnt have to invest in Molovs or Nades against an improved OsT Team, as you say, which is valis, why does Ost CURRENTLY have to invest in an RNade or Nade to achieve the same result? Furthermore, Ost Support Teams are more expensive to reinforce per man. Why..? Its the same shitty 0 armor guy with a nerfed DPS personal weapon, same as Sov. Except there are only 4 of them who each cost more than a single guy from the 6man Sov teams. Again Nullist if the problem is that Grenadiers are having issues killing Soviet Crews, "buffing the armor for the german mg42 crew is not going help with that, and it doesn't solve the problem since it only adds another problem." If we buff MG42s, that still won't fix the issue, it wont make grens kill support weapons any faster. Your thought process right now is that, "soviet support team are too strong, lets make German's ones stronger. Why do we have to bring up Ostheer support weapons, they are fine at the moment. Soviet Support Weapons are the ones causing issues. Giving Ostheer 1.5 is a bad idea, I don't think anyone would want this, and I'm sure as hell Relic won't implement this. Damage modifier could be fine, making all crews 4 man maybe, it depends on the changes. Also you are forgetting that Soviet's support weapons are in a different building, while the German support crews are included with t1. Look I'm fine with some nerfs, but buffing the opposing side's weapons wont do anything besides creating more balance issues. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire13 Dec 2013, 17:49 PM Nullist, all support weapons need to be vulnerable if they get flanked. Not everyone upgrades to molotovs, your acting as if all soviet players have it. If I flank the MG, I shouldn't have to waste 45 munitions (Guard's Nade and Shock Troops) to actually kill it or make it retreat. Giving them 1.5 sounds good on paper, but it will ruin the game. Like Jin said, "support weapon crews are supposed to be vulnerable when flanked." Hell vcoh had Mgs perfect, it was easier to kill MGs because they were 3 man squads. Plus like Jin said again, "buffing the armor for the german mg42 crew is not going help with that, and it doesn't solve the problem since it only adds another problem." I wouldn't mind for a radical change of making them 4 man squads, but I like I said earlier, they need to change a lot of stuff such as rifle nades etc.. But then again Relic won't take the time to do that. Maybe the Maxim should just get a nerf on its undeployment speed, then it would give grens more time to kill it. If there is one issue, no need to completely modify the system. And to be honest, I really have no issues countering maxims now, they are easy xp for my mortars or snipers. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire13 Dec 2013, 07:45 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2013, 07:36 AMlink0 When I play soviets, I almost never float over 100 munitions. I also don't use any commanders with artillery call ins. I VERY RARELY even use Horrrah, because it's too expensive now. Almost all of my munitions go towards mines, molotovs, and guard rifle lmgs, and nades. Soviets are almost as munitions hungry as ostheer, IMO. Same thing for me, I actually never have enough for OP strafe. I wouldn't say as hungry as Ostheer though. But I do agree some strats require just as much munitions availability, while Ostheer needs all the munnies they an get regardless of strat. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: German Light Vehicles in Current Meta12 Dec 2013, 23:24 PM Flametrack is still good. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Popcap and units spamming12 Dec 2013, 21:31 PM No one remembers the airborne. No one.... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: PTRS as an optional upgrade on Guards12 Dec 2013, 21:10 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2013, 21:00 PMNullist Have a look at DP stats here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=0 Its the "DPS including Reload" column you want to look at. Remember to multiply the stat by x2, cos you get two per upgrade. (and ofc to subtract x2 Mosin stat from the units total DPS, cos their weapons are replaced) One DP is roughly equivalent of one Shock PPSH. For its cost, its really quite shitty. Remember when you had to upgrade shock's ppsh for 60 munitions. At that damage, the cost should be 20 munitions lol. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: PTRS as an optional upgrade on Guards12 Dec 2013, 20:34 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2013, 15:29 PMNullist I think DP needs a DPS increase. Its very lackluster for cost. However, as related to PTRS on Guards, Guards are actually "cheaper" than they should be in terms of conventional cost equivalencies (but thats OK, I will elaborate), due to several factors: -Guard are a 6man 1.5 armor unit -Guard have light AT, essentially for free, compared to the above. -Guard are not building related. Especially now that they are 1CP call-in, they are extremely cheap (in terms of requiring no building) and also very early. -The Nade part is asymmetrically aligned with PGrens, and included in cost. Guard and PGren Nade are, in almost all ways, identical. What you are suggesting, is unworkable. They are already cheaper than they should be (which is ok). The PTRS they carry indirectly reduces their effective AI, and that is one of the reasons that helps justify their cheapness. Once you put it that way it makes sense, I guess the DP-28 needs a DPS buff. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire12 Dec 2013, 17:59 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2013, 15:59 PMNullist Tbh its either increase Ost team armor, or decrease Sov crews to 4. Thats really what it boils down to. I say that as the bottomline after long consideration and as the bottom baseline that has many facets as I could consider and include, eventually, invariably, boil down to. I dont say it "just because", I say it because when I threw everything I could that was even remotely related to this, and stirred it for many many many hours of consideration, while it boiled, that is whats left at the bottom of the pot, as a simplified common denominator conclusion. Though the Crew survival and the weapons efficacy are interlinked, and should be asymmetrically aligned, they are still two distinct elements and need consideration independently too. Using my cooking pot analogy above, the weapons actual stats negated each other, are aligned, and boiled out of the pot, leaving the crew differential as the primary leftover. There really is no rational reason why Ost teams are so undermanned and unarmored, compared to Sov teams, when the cost is the same, and the weapons effects are largely asymetrically aligned already (with the notable exception of Mortars). The Support team weapons, actual weapons, efficacy needs to be considered as one thing, and the crew survival as another. They are "different" things, even though they are superficially interlinked and dependant on each other. One mediates the effectiveness of the unit, the other how effectively it is countered. The former is relatively aligned, the latter is not. One very serious meta result of this, is its impeding Ost combined arms play with Support Teams. It forces Ost into Gren builds, because Ost Support Teams are so inherently low survival. But it doesnt end there. It also ENCOURAGES Sov Con spam, not because their Support Teams have better survival (which they do), but because they can better leverage those Cons against Osts inherently lower survival Support Teams. TLDR: A flanking Con is much MUCH more dangerous to an Ost Support Team, than a flanking Gren is to a Sov Support team. We arent talking about small decimals too small to care about here, we are talking about a 1/3 survival difference. Not only to small arms, but also explosive effects (and Molotov in particular, which is an automatic forced de-setup. Infact you dont even have to actually throw it, you can just fake it and cancel it when the unit moves, while DPSing its 4man crew the entire duration and nulling its main weapons effect). ______________________________________________________________ For the benefit of new readers, if you want explanations why, read over my earlier post. I dont want to have to repeat myself in no doubt what is the shitstorm of misunderstanding, personal preference and general reluctance to even consider this perspective, that may result from this. Its not something I say lightly. I have considered this stuff at great length and for a long time. Since pre-launch beta infact, when Ost Teams used to be only 3 (THREE)man, and Sov dedicated resistance was absolutely decided that 4 man was out of the question. Imagine that, 3 man Ost support teams vs 6 man Sov Support teams. So forgive me I'f I am somewhat jaded and extremely critical, analytical and cynical of dedidated Sov responses to this issue, cos I've already seen not only the Support Team balance at its worst, but also really seriously destructive and wrong discussion on it at its worst too. If you disagree, by all means, present what specific parts you disagree with, along with explanations of why. I will respond with the same respect and format. We dont have to be enemies, nor do I want that. Lets discuss the topic, informedly and as respectfully and constructively as possible. We all want a better game. If you dont, fuck off. For the rest, lets see if we can't figure out what is best, together, not against each other. This is why I want Soviet Support Weapons 4 man squad, keep it 6 for TOW and Campaign. All Support Weapons need to be 4 man, because they are supposed to be very vulnerable when flanked, but this really doesn't occur with Soviet Support Weapons. Vcoh had it perfect, all support weapons had the same crew number but they had their differences. In vcoh, when support weapons were flanked, they were mostly likely kaput or they retreated instantly, and hell those were 3 man squads lol. Conscript and Gren spam was so common during SNF because one, MG42 sucked before so Ostheer never built them, which allowed script spam. Now that MG42 is back to normal, I tend to ignore script spam and build t1 instantly and grab snipers or M3s. I feel like we came into agreement Nullist about making every crew 4 man squads,but others would feel like these changes would be radical. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire12 Dec 2013, 15:50 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2013, 13:02 PMNullist We have to remember what the most practical and IRL counters usually are, and what they entail. Usually in the 6man vs 4man issue, there is an armor differential to mitigate small arms. OR, a cost one, such as on Guard at 1.5 aemor, or Shocks at 2.25. This is not the case with Support Teams however. For the same cost of purchase, Ost gets only 4 0 armor guys, whereas Sov gets 6 0 armor guys. And when reinforced, Sov gets 1.5 guys for every 1 guy Ost reinforces, at cost. While its true that RNade has range, Sov Support Teams have extra models to soak that. They also have those same extra models to soak small arms fire on a successful infantry flank. On Osts side, however, not only does Molotov roast the units, which are tightly packed and have to categorically desetup to avoid certain eventual death from standing in it, but a successful infantry flank only has 4 0 armor models to deal with, rather than 6. Basically, this means Ost Support Teams are not only more vulnerable to the standard infantry applied counter (Molotov/RNade), but they are also much more vulnerable to standard infantry flank small arms. This imbalance however, extends from small arms fire, all the way to explosive later game effects, where even armor wouldnt matter. You can, simply, soak 1/3 more dmg from these as Sov, than you can as Oat, due to being only 4 man. It wouldnt make any difference to a Molotov if they had armor. It wouldnt make any difference to Grenades, Mortars or other explosive effects either if they had armor. All these conventional counter methods would still have full effect. But it doesnt end there. Becuase these counters have MORE effect, categorically and indisputably, on a 4 man unit as co pared to a 6 man unit. But unfortunately, in addition to that, they are also more vulnerable to small arms flanks. Not just a little either, but a full 1/3 more vulnerable. How does this apply to spexific Support Teams? Well, Im glad you asked. Its true that many Ost Suppoet Teams have beneficial stats on their main weapon. But, are these not actually asymmetrically already balanced on Sov Teams? PaK/ZiS: The primary difference is rate of fire. Osts is faster. But Sov has Barrage. MG42/Maxim: Osts arc is matched by Sovs setup time. Osts DPS is entity based, Sovs is flat. Osts Suppression is now arguably inline with Sovs. 81mm/82mm: This one is more problematic, and most complicated of them. I think Osts fire rate is too high, compared to Sov. As far as I can tell from looking at stats, they are IDENTICAL except for the fire rate. Same AoE, same accuracy, same dmg. Ost Mortarnis infact categorically overperforming. It can be argued that the Vet abilities differentiate them, with Precision Strike being superior to Counter Barrage, and that may be true enough. But I think the baseline output should be adjusted. Vet can be dealt with later. Nonvet Ost Mortar is overperforming in comparison. My primary suggestion to asymmetrically align this, is to give Sov 82mm a wider suppression AoE. This provides an indirect utility, so that even though you fire less shots (at the same dmg and accuracy) you can also force infantry down around your mortar hits. Now, having gone over the actual Support Weapon stats, and demonstrated that they are in and of themselves asymmetrically aligned (except for Mortar), I am sure it is clear that the Crew survival differential is superfluous to those. The Weapon stats are aligned, but the Crew differential is an extrenuous unecessary imbalance. Not only are the 4 man crews more vulnerable to simple small arms fire, but also to conventional early game counters, as well as later game explosives. I cant find a justification for this. For the same cost, and as I demonstrated, for the same asymmetric value of the weapon itself (except for Mortar), Ost are operating at a 1/3 Crew survival deficiency against everything the opponent throws against them. The least that could be done, is to make them less vulnerable to small arms at least. Molotovs and Explosices will still own them at a 1/3 less survival quotient than Sov equivalents, because infsntry armor has no effect on those. Not only that, but Ost Support Teams also cost MORE to reinforce per man, even though those men themselves have no more value than an equivalent man in a Sov Support Team. Sov reinforces 1.5 models, for the same price Ost reinforces 1 model from an already undermanned weapon team. Add to this the games faction asymmetry when it comes to the difficult task of reinforcing Suppoet teams on the field, especially the PaK, which cannot retreat. What are our options? For Ost, they involve specialised builds, either a HT or a Re-inforce Bunker. For Sov, the option is only one, but all the more ubiquitous and readily at hand, Merge. Now, I think this is a good alignment. I have no issue with Sov/Ost onfield reinforce potential, as such. But when there is only 4man, with the vulnerability I have detailed above at length, it becomes somewhat of a real prarcial problem, especialoy in terms of reinforce costs. Atleast make them more durable to small arms. Is that so unreasonable to suggest, discuss and ask for? You have good reasoning, but I feel like its going to cause more issues. Giving an MG 1.5 armor is going to cause more issues. Hell before when the MG was the god weapon, before they implemented the damage modifier. Scripts had trouble with killing it if they got behind it. All support weapons shouldn't be like that, if you get behind it, you should be able to kill it fast... not instantly of course.Your making it seem like scripts will kill the new 1.5 armor mg easily, but when they implement it will take drastically longer. Your giving a support weapon same survivalist as a normal infantry squad. Again I feel like this is going to cause even more issues and ruin matches, since it will recreate overpowered support weapons. 6 man squads are an issue, but I doubt that Relic would ever make it 4 men per squad. So they are going to most likely ignore the issue. In: COH2 Balance