Show Posts
1
Balance Discussion / Re: [1.510] Sublime Balance Concerns
« on: October 29, 2011, 12:57:56 PM »
Zerstorer is cockblocking Snug and I from the balance team, so I cannot see the current balance changes for the next patch. I will post all of Sublime's balance concerns for 1.510 here instead. I will update this original post as new concerns arise as I play.
If you decide to post here, please READ THE WHOLE THING and think over what you are going to write, especially if you are a newbie player. I don't want to see some irrelevant compstomp comments. When you post, please quote the specific balance concern you are going to address or reply to.
FACTION BALANCE:
Concern 1) In 1v1, early Soviet 1 CS, 3 Conscripts mix is stronger than 4 PG, and is OP against PE.
Reasoning: Although they lose more men, the PE player needs to kill 3-4 conscripts per every lost PG to win the manpower war, and this is not happening at all. If USSR decides to get a 4th conscript, PE will lose map control very quickly. Like USA, Soviets also cap faster than PGs, and the tank hunters that come later actually add to the rifle fire, making the pressure on the PGs too much to handle.
Solution: There needs to be some sort of slight nerf to CS, conscript, and TH rifles versus PGs.
Concern 2) In 2v2 early game, dual Soviets are at a severe disadvantage to both Wehr and PE.
Reasoning Versus dual Wehr, multiple MGs is guaranteed to lock down the high fuel, no matter how many conscripts come. Even if you flank, it will not be enough, since MGs change directions, and any player worth their salt will have volks guarding. Versus dual PE, PG spam just dominates the conscripts. I know I just said PGs were underpowered versus CS and conscripts in 1v1, but apparently in 2v2 where there are large numbers of the squads, this is how it is. In 2v2s, dual USA is valid because one player goes riflemen, while another can go WSC for snipers and MGs. Soviets do not have this.
Solution: Make both barracks and the support center cost fuel, but also give the Soviets starting fuel, but only enough to build either the barracks or the support center. Make the sniper and mortar available right after the support center is built (no upgrade needed). Put the TH and AT gun together and make them cost an "Anti-tank Upgrade" that costs 2x the current cost of one of the support upgrades, and also make it reduce conscript reenforce cost by 4.
Concern 3) The KV2 is somewhat overpowered.
Reasoning: This is supposed to be an anti-blobbing tank like the StuH, so I understand it is supposed to do major damage to blobs. However, it even does major damage to individual squads that aren't even blobbed together. It 1-hit killed an entire volks squad once. It is also very immune to panzershrecks, which I can kind of understand, since its an anti-infantry tool. However it is also very resilient to PAK rounds too. With such a strong gun and strong armor, its too much IMO.
Solution: Make its gun equal to the StuH's, OR make its armor more vulnerable to panzershrecks and PAK shots.
Concern 4) Katyushas are slightly too cost-efficient.
Reasoning: IIRC katyushas cost roughly 1/2 the manpower of a callipope. The manpower price of the katyushas were based off of the number of rockets each shot. However, katyushas have much higher damage per rocket and also less scatter. Admittedly, katyushas have less armor and health and range than a callipope, but a good player will protect them well anyways, so that disadvantage is mainly negated.
Solution: Make the katyusha's manpower price in between 1/2 and 3/4 of a callipope's.
Concern 5) Tank Riders should be vulnerable to small arms fire.
Reasoning: They are currently as bad as kangaroos: 4 men shooting out and are invulnerable when they are on the vehicle. Tank riders are more expensive than kangaroos, but they also come with guards, and the vehicle has a 76mm cannon attached to it.
Solution: Make the riding guards vulnerable to small arms fire.
Concern 6) Soviet snipers shoot too fast in respect to the other faction snipers.
Reasoning: USA snipers shoot slightly slower than Wehr snipers, since USA has more men per squad and have generally lower reenforce cost per man than Axis squads. The USSR sniper currently shoots as fast as the USA sniper but the USSR has even more men per squad and generally even lower reenforce cost per man.
Solution: Make the USSR sniper shoot 30% slower than the USA sniper, but let it shoot faster by 15% at vet 1, and another 15% at vet 2, in addition to its current vet bonuses.
Concern 7) Partisans are currently slightly too strong.
Reasoning: They cost more than a single gren squad, so I understand if they can beat a vet 0 gren squad. But even at vet 3, grens will still handily lose to partisans. PGs also get pushed around.
Solution: Please check the combat power of the partisans.
Finally, to end this post, I would like to thank my friends at the balance team: GodlikeDennis, Killar, CranialWizard, and of course, the Sublime-in-training Apeman.I feel the current balance team has totally turned this mod around under GodlikeDennis's leadership, and has moved EF one giant step forward into a credible and competitive mod. This post is in no way meant to insult the balance team's efforts; only to point out minor balance problems that were probably unintended or missed. Thank you for reading.
I haven't been on for a while so its good to be back ^^
OK now 1) Would having 4 scout cars be a more visable option to stopping this? I've seen it work vs riflemen shouldn't it work vs conscripts and CS?
2) I agree with this, though If you changed it wouldn't it change the 1v1 balance?
3) I think of the KV 2 as an AVRE, since churchills show moderate resilience to Paks why not the KV 2? Making it a Stug H would be a joke (since you can just use SU 122 for that.) Why not add a munition cost to the call in?
4) Maybe, I wont comment on this... yet
5) I feel Tank guards are weaker than Guards, I feel they should be snipable (like the Bren carrier) but not to small arms fire.
6) Yeah, that makes sense. Also annoying is it only gives 3 xp when it dies instead of 9 xp to the player who lost it. Not sure if the enemy recieves less xp either but that should also be changed.
7) Leave it to GLD...
OK Im done, Good to see everyone is still here ^^
.