Since you are always pulling numbers, code and stats as your primary source of arguments, this is what I find to be the problem:
As someone who know a thing or two about maths, and i hope you do to:
X=1+6 Y= 1+1
X>Y = true
X=Y = false
Y>X = false
Y<X = true
A= X x C B= Y x C
A>B = false
B=A = true
B>A = False
B<A = false
X x C = Y x C
in your attempt to be clever (like your thread, Patch is problematic. Relic, wtf!!!!) you ended up making no sense. if youre going to say you know math and be condescending you should atleast make your "math" correct. x>y so x*c>y*c. |
Do I think KV8 is OP, hell yeah. I hate seeing the damn thing on the field. It gives the biggest noob ability to force me to retreat/hide and forces me to tech/buy units I may not necessary wanted to go for.
Would I like to see KV8 nerfed? Yes, I would. Providing that commander it comes with gets properly balanced with nerfed KV8. Why, nerfed? for reasons I wrote ^ there.
Do I think KV8 makes commander, it comes with, OP? No, I don't. So far, other then pissing me off, I haven't noticed that I win or lose more games as direct result of KV8 being OP. In greater context of ultimately wining or losing the game, I haven't noticed that I lose 60%+ of games when I face Kv8 commander .
This to me, makes perfect sense. I simply can live with KV8, despite not liking to see it face me...
well is2 and shock troops got a buff and cost reduction this patch. so one kv8 commander is now much better. |
Though it's kinda funny that in battle reports somewhere is stated "ATGs had no problem hitting a 1x1m spot in 800m distance". Yeah, I see that.
Could it be, that somehow (unintended) cover modifier works for tanks, too? Sometimes it feels like Pak misses several shots on T70 standing still in bomb craters.
t70s are the smallest vehicles in the game (in stats). they are the hardest to hit with AT guns. you cant argue realism here, tank battles didnt happen at 40m either. |
|
my guess is collateral damage. if they wanted no overkill on snipers, theyd have to make all small arms a multiple of 40 rather than 80. |
I've had it kill 4 in green cover. The thing has a huge range and is almost 100% unavoidable due to command lag. Whereas the guy throwing the molotov has to do some huge wind up baseball-type throw, the rifle nade just... shoots. And even if it only kills 2 guys, it knocks the health off the other guys to the point that they have to retreat or die. It's not OP, but it's annoying to play against, mainly due to the lag.
rifle nade is actually a little over a half second slower |
Ive never understood the discrepancy in Support unit size between the factions.
On Mortars, the 81mm RoF is offset by 82mm greater AoE.
On ATGs, the PaK RoF is offset by ZiS Barrage.
On HMGs, the MG42 Arc is offset by Maxim setup time.
the mortars have the same aoe. zis barrage makes it better vs inf but its nowhere near as good against vehicles (barrage lowers it penetration to 60). mg42 pins faster than the maxim. you cant really compare like this.
How can you equal squad size when MG42 not only as a better arc but also suppresses better.
maxim actually suppresses better. mg42 only beats it within 20m, but maxim is very consistent at all ranges. mg42 pins much faster though.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=6
The rifle nade isnt that strong. Why is that being tossed around like its a game changer? It kills 1-2 guys at best..
the rifle nade is strong. its also more effective now with the 25% incoming damage increase. i think most people dont realize how AOE works, thats why they think its not very powerful or consistent. the large circle it shows when aiming doesnt all recieve full damage. only entities within 1m of the impact do. before the patch, only entities within that 1m would die in 1 hit (if they had full hp). now, that radius has effectively increased to about 1.2m. fairly minor, but its there |
@Wooof: At 4/6, compared to 6/6, its 2/3 survival. Sorry, you are right.
So 1/3 less.
Im a little surprised you misunderstood that, but its pretty prevalent overall in people overlooking the fact that MG42s are already systemically less survivable due to model count.
i understand what youre saying, i think you may be misunderstanding me. im not referring to squad sizes at all. im talking about the increased incoming damage for weapon teams. if they take 25% more damage, they have 80% less survivability.
I don't even know what the set-up times are. I know the Maxim sets up faster if pointed in the right direction, but otherwise it also wastes a lot of time spinning around. To be honest though, if you support your HMG and have a good leading scout or map vision, set up time is one of attributes that is easiest to nullify.
mg42 sets up in 3 seconds. maxim in 1.5125. but you have a point about spotting and the maxims motorcycle turn time.
|
Sorry bro, missed your post.
Sov has 6/6.
Ost has 4/6.
Im not sure what you mean. You are referring to the survival decrease ratio from the 25% in the patch?
yes im referring to the increase in damage. you were saying they have 3/4 the survivability which is slightly off. 25% more damage doesnt turn into 25% less survivability. 25% more damage leads to 20% less survivability. for my numbers, the numberator represents hp and the denominator is incoming damage.
before the patch: 1/1 = 1
after the patch: 1/1.25=.8
i know this doesnt change the relative survivability of mg42 and maxim, it applies to them equally, but other people have covered that topic. |
It may be that just mobile flame weapons are OP, as they are able to too easily chase down retreating units, or even get in their way, messing up pathfinding while constantly spraying flame.
Otherwise, the KV-8 seems fine. The same issue happens in early game with flamethrowers in M3s, thing is the M3 has a lot less health and armor.
Considering that in the balance patch stream yesterday, the balance designer specifically responded to a flame weapon question about retreating units, that's likely the bigger issue.
the issue isnt the armor or health. those are fine, its a heavy tank. the issue is it deals 40 damage per hit. it takes at most, 2 seconds to kill an entity. no other flamer is that powerful. im not claiming the kv8 is a one man army. it obvoiusly gets countered by other tanks. good players solve that by using the kv8 with su85s. now your p4 counter is getting sniped by an su85 while it bounces shots off the kv8.
no one seems to respond to the actual stats. do you guys honestly think 40 damage for 5 seconds, with AOE and flame crits (that can also be caused by AOE, not just the primary target) is balanced? thats not rhetorical, i actually want to hear a response on that. the fact it is countered by tanks doesnt mean its not too powerful. look at the flame ht from beta. it got killed in 2 hits by AT guns, but its damage was still op, so it got nerfed. flame ht was never even close to this dps.
brummbar is very powerful as well but its not as consistent because flamers never miss. brummbar has no turret, much less armor, and less hp. brummbar is better against vehicles though. however the brummbar now costs 5 more gas and 320! more mp. thats practically twice the mp cost. |
Something still doesnt make sense to me in all of this.
i could try writing up a response but id rather just quote milkacows response to this topic from the official forums. this explains why gren damage had to be changed from 20 to 16. let me know if you need more clarification.
"Prior to the patch overkill was low for most weapons (SVT may have been an exception), but the 25% incoming damage modifier for weapon crews changed this. As Matrick stated earlier - a Gren would need 4 shots (80/20 = 4) to kill a normal entity and support weapon (80/(20*1.25)=3.2 = 4), so that 25% incoming modifier would have done little for Grens and created a lot of overkill in that situation (20*1.25*4 = 100 => 20 dmg overkill). To balance that out the values of several small arms weapons were changed to reduce the overkill against support weapons while keeping it low vs normal weapons as well. For Grenadiers that would be
80 / 16 = 5 shots vs normal entities
80 / (16 * 1.25) = 4 shots vs support weapons
So no overkill at all for Grenadiers fighting any unit, that means DPS is still a good estimate. Now factor in the other changes which make the weapon fire 5/4 more effective (slightly faster, slightly more accurate etc) which exactly balances out the decrease in damage, resulting in the fact that Grenadiers still have the pretty much the same DPS. Does this mean there are no changes at all? No - the new changes do not affect gameplay on average, but in some cases Grenadiers are weaker. Old Grens had the chance to instantly kill a Conscript entity in the first salvo which new ones do not posess anymore. Since such a situation happens once in every hundred engagements (all 4 entities need to shoot at one Conscript entity and at highest they have a hit chance of 0.5^4 = 1/16), so this change has really an incredibly low overall effect on the old infantry balance."
|
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
