Vehicles at 45-50 wouldn't be changed, so that match-up would stay exactly the same. Vehicles that were at 60 would now be at 55, which is still 5 more range, as you said.
As for 5-range increments being 'bad on vehicles', I disagree with that. Firstly, if 5 range increments feels like basically no difference at all, then -5 range on 60TDs should feel 'like no difference at all'. Secondly, the Rak43 ATG was recently buffed by exactly 5 range, to (coincidentally) 55 range - exactly where the new TDs would be, and by the same difference some are asking for. Thirdly, there's currently several vehicles balanced around the '5-range increment' at 45-range: Tiger, Tiger Ace, KT, Comet and Pershing. It's also important to note that the last 3 (KT, Comet, Pershing) do not gain any range with vet, meaning they are permanently at 45 range.
Lastly, this really wouldn't change that much in the vehicle ecosystem. With the current "10 range increments", we have a bunch of vehicles with 60 range that out-range a bunch of vehicles at 50 range. Lowering those 60TDs to 55, still means they'll out-range those 50-range vehicles - there's just a smaller margin for error.
1- I consider bad that heavy tanks gain range.
2- 5 range difference between TD and the targets they are meant to counter, is not enough as had already been tested when Jackson got their range cut down. Sander has already said that this change won't be implemented overall at all.
3- 55 rak is basically 60 range for all that matters. It's not getting kitted by 60 range tanks with AI.
4- All the +5 range ended up IMO been mistakes in retroespective. They had been given as hotfixes to vehicles which had been nerfed too hard and made irrelevant units which are hard AT at 50 range.
|
Heavy tanks would still have only 40-45 range; 10-15 less than the range-reduced TDs. This wouldn't really change anything provided you micro the TDs well enough. It really just decreases the margin of error for those TDs, to make them a bit less trivial to use.
And what do you do with vehicles which are balanced around having 50 range? Also those same heavies unlock 50 range at vet 2.
This change will never be applied, because then you need to start adjusting the whole vehicle ecosystem. I'll even argue that 5 range increments on vehicles is bad, cause it feels like there's basically no difference at all. It's basically there to give the vehicle with advantage the first shot but not necessarily to play around been able to shoot without retaliation.
|
|
Whenever this games achieves 15 to 20 times the current playerbase.
|
snip
That would be right, if games were ending before they got into the late game.
So basically do something to help LV phase Ostheer and UKF and we have balance.
Yep. Kinda. That's 1 problem solved.
I did mention that it was a small sample size, and would need more analysis - and also that we shouldn't buff OST. However, even with a small sample size, the stats are still extremely strange. A +/- 5% or even 10% result isn't too surprising, +/- 21.4% is a lot. As I explained above, even in an unlikely scenario of the better player always playing Sov in the Sov/OST matchup, the stats still don't make sense.
For fun, if you calculate the standard deviation for all the match ups, you get almost exactly 11%, with a margin of error around 3.48%. That means all of the matchups are pretty unremarkable, falling within one standard deviation; in fact even the margin of error calculations gives us only a meager 0.95 - 1.3sigma; i.e. very unremarkable. OST/UKF is a bit larger at 2.87sigma, so it's sticking out a fair bit more, but still nothing crazy. Then there's OST/Sov, at nearly 2 standard deviations from normal, and at 6.14 sigma. If CoH2 balance were a scientific field, I could say with around 90% confidence that UKF was UP, but with OVER 99.99966% confidence that Sov is OP.
I was just saying that people shouldn't ALARM and that the stats were incomplete. And while the numbers seems alarming for Soviets, people are probably gonna scream USF OP once the full data set is released. |
So basically;
1. Sov OP (game-breaking vs. OST)
2. USF slightly OP
3. OKW slightly UP
4. OST UP
5. UKF trash (almost no one even played them, let alone won)
This lines up closely with what people voted for a little while ago; although I don't think anyone expected that level of dominance in the Sov vs. OST match-up.
I think this warrants a fairly serious discussion about MP balance; in particular the state of Ost and UKF. It's been well known for a while that UKF has been in a pretty bad state, but I think many (myself included) will be surprised by the poor state of OST.
Obviously, we'll need a much more in depth analysis of games, so we can narrow down exactly what needs nerfs/buffs - and I believe SiphonX is working on something like this - but needless to say, the balance team has an interesting task ahead of them.
The sample size for those OH vs SU numbers is 14 games (10 W / 4 L). Syphon sample is 18 games (12 W / 6 L).
Then you have to take into account WHO was playing each faction. For example: Luvnest was the one who played the most soviets (11 games) compared to the following players Isildur/Happycat/Jove at 4 each. Luvnest only drop a game against Von Ivan till the finals against Noggano.
Rather than panicking on small sample sizes comparisons i would rather at least take a look at overall performance and even better how most games played out.
For example: i think it's more clear how to tone down SU than doing so with USF or toning up OH.
|
I'll say you guys should wait a bit more for SyphonX article. Numbers are slightly different as more games are considered, which is still a small sample size compared to other articles.
I think the biggest axis problem was almost everyone going Tiger doctrine only, which seemed to be autolose since 1 SU85 or 2 ZiS guns countered it pretty effective.
Surprised that people didnt try other docs like Hans did vs Nicko successfully in G4 (Elite Armor vs Pershing doc)
OH:
Spearhead, Mechanized and Lighting were the most staple OH picks across the different match ups and still they were the most successful for them compared to other choices.
OKW:
Grand Offensive was the most successful pick for OKW and it was the most effective against SU. You could argue if WR was dragged down by people going Luftwaffe.
SU: Armored assault was mostly picked against OH. On the other hand, against OKW, commander pick was mostly things that countered P2 + Puma. Urban defense and Guard Motor.
USF: it was basically either mechanised or heavy cavalry. |
Either the StuG has to reload TWP, or the StuG can double tap.
Same with the Pershing.
This is the correct answer.
The only sensible change is making it a 160dmg shot as the disable component has been reduced to 5s. It would also be a different way for the Stug to tackle down heavier armored vehicles.
|
|
First issue: UKF unit repertoire is limited compared to other factions. Exacerbated by lack of specific roles and over relying on things like emplacements or their base Howitzers.
Any hole in the faction was filled by either OP non doctrinal (release Bofor, bolstered IS, original PIAT, OG Comet, etc.) or doctrinal units (flamers, commandos, Croc, PArty Cover, Land Mattress).
Having less units available means it's harder to fix a problem in a more granular way.
Lack of elite unit (see issue n°2), either good light AI vehicle or stalling light AT (Been a Puma which then stall for Hammer/Anvil), indirect fire/non gimmicky flamer.
Issue 2: never really fixing scaling through Bolster, Grenade, Rack weapons, healing.
Compared to Rifles, they already start as 5 guys so it has been easier to balance them. We are still pretending here that Bolster is an optional rather than a mandatory upgrade.
Giving UKF a new unit or reworking RE to fulfill that role (without going back into been a problem in a similar fashion to old RET spam) fixes a single problem but not sure that would fix the faction if the solution remains balanced. It's like saying that somehow OH was fixed once they reworked PGs.
|
|
The only way for people to stop complaining about snipers, is that they not appear anymore in the game.
Even if they were niche and not strong, there would be still people complaining about them (hence this thread).
A sniper doesn't necessarily need to be killed in order to be countered.
If we were living in a sniper meta, OH and UKF would had seen much more use. I don't think we saw that many snipers in the last 1v1 tournament.
|
55 is still more than 50/45...
The +5 range advantage is on top of other sweet td stats.
I just cant see losing 5 range makes them halpless..
Its like some saying u dont dive with just panther, you need to cover it with ATg & infantry. Why should allies td sit comfortably at 60 alone?
Bump for more pro players comment. We need to test it for sure
5 range difference doesn't cut it when we are talking about vehicles.
If you want to cut down TD range distance, then you should scale everything down as well. All tanks should lose 5 range as well as infantry snares, AT and AI weapons.
Therefore the idea is back. If the issue is that it's hard to engage on heavy tanks once they gain extended range, i would start by just removing it from vet2 at all or making it work only as spearhead. |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
