Why not just lock the amount of snipers youre able to have on the field to 1 per player(like with tigers in vcoh)? That will certainly help with sniper spam on both sides and balance the entire situation out on its own(except for clowncar snipers maybe, but that remains to be seen).
1 soviet snipers cant force an instant retreat but can still inflict a mp bleed on germans and force turn the tide of a battle cons vs grens or even cons vs pgrens.
And while less survivable, 1 german sniper can easily turn the tide of a battle aswell by sniping an mg or causing massive mp bleed on shocks if microed well enough.
Having more than 1 of those units at the same time will just make the game ridiculous. That is the case for both factions. And while this is less true for the german sniper than the russian one, due to survivability and the soviets massive AI capabilities, its still true on both sides to a certain degree.
Just limiting it to 1 per player will work wonders.
Limiting player options is not a good solution from a design perspective. The game should favor a diverse army composition but not enforce it.
|
|
I'm with PwnageMachine on this one. Balancing snipers is not a trivial issue and it's a very map dependent issue at that.
From a 1v1 perspective it's mainly the scout car + sniper combo that is problematic. I would further reduce their accuracy when on the move and when stationary to make them less reliable.
That being said, I think counters to this strategy still have room to evolve.
-There's the gren spam strat that PwnageMachine suggested.
-Ostruppen
-Mortar smoke to cover troops.
-Mine baiting is also rare.
-Also, wire. |
|
If they could implement such a function then there would be no need for such a function because it makes no sense for troops to ever be clumped up in the same unit space.
My guess is it's hard and or expensive to do so they gave up on it. |
|
I can see WWII skins being more restrictive but there's still a lot to work with. Custom animations and voice lines could be interesting too.
Anyways, I see these as tools to attract and retain more players because nowadays it's not enough to just have deep and satisfying gameplay. COH often gets compared to the SC series when balance and strategic depth is mentioned but despite doing everything better, SC2 is still losing players now.
|
|
I find it really surprising how well the workshop items work for DOTA 2 and CS:GO. I'm wondering if it would be possible for Relic to emulate that model to some extent.
Here are some thoughts:
-top voted player maps could be grouped into purchasable (but easily affordable) map packs and available to automatch in a separate category. Sort of like CS:GO's operations. Eventually some could be added to regular automatch.
-create loads of tank / infantry skins and make them trade-able items that sometimes drop after a game. Allow people to create and sell their own skins. This could provide some goal to the useless xp model currently implemented. For example, an item might drop every time a new level is reached.
-bulletins could become tradeable items as well and drop in the same way as skins.
|
|
I also like that the ppsh upgrade has a more significant impact but I think there should be more of a trade-off for picking it.
Specifically, I'd like to see their damage output reduced further at range so that upgraded scripts become nearly useless at medium and long range.
Upgraded scripts would then become dedicated close range units. |
I am a data guy.
After a game I like looking at which units I use, the stats etc for my game. Seems like there is a lot of value there. I can see what I damaged, what did the most damage to me, what units I used or didn't use.
Does anyone know if Relic consolidates this information and can determine what units are selected (indicating that those that aren't selected regularly) might need balances? Including Doctrines etc?
I ask the question because of another thread talking about the use of (or uselessness of) the StuG III AusF E. If this unit is NEVER used, it might need some love.
I know the comments about different play styles and even different game types but those could all be factored into the analysis and seems to be less random to help balance than what we see in patch and repatch work.
Anyone know?
Relic, want me to help you?
Yes, they have some data processing and analysis going on. They mentioned it in a few casts but they also mentioned they are not 'data driven' and that balance changes come mostly from the feedback they get (and from the beta version, I'm guessing).
|
Changes to the 222 were made to better balance the risk/reward aspect of the unit. As noted by many within the community, the unit is extremely fragile making a high munition investment much harder to justify as a player. By lowering the damage and cost of the upgrade, the unit has a lower associated risk but still performs its harassment role as intended. This unit is ideal for hunting down Katyusha's or supporting a defense against an early T70.
I'd be curious to learn how you guys measure the reward part of the equation. |
|
It actually sounds balanced. And even if it isn't quite there, it's probably a lot closer to balanced than previous releases, and free.
Good stuff, Relic. Looking forward to the patch tomorrow. |
|
Can someone confirm the actual in-game abilities for the soviet commander? |
RtN. Havoc
Strategos
Strategos
PanzerGrenadierAngreifen
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
