Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby MarKr » 14 Mar 2019, 13:24

Warhawks97 wrote:Lol, so you are basically saying "There are already tons of units able to kill a Stuart, it doesnt matter if we have one more which can do that."
Not really, You use the "it makes light tanks useless" as an argument to remove or nerf or whatever the rifle and I'm telling you that light tanks in their current state are useless anyway and the change to the rifle will not change the uselesness of the light tanks and because of that the "it makes light tanks useless" is not a valid argument for the changes you request - if the GrB stays as it, light tanks will be useless, if the Grb cannot kill light tanks, light tanks will still be useless. That was my point there.

Warhawks97 wrote:Meanwhile WH just sticks with a stupid rifle that works during offense just as well as during defense. No special medium AT spending, no further offensive anti vehicle spendings... nothing... you go save untill shermans arrive.
And...which part of my post said that the rifle will keep performing as it performs now and absolutely no changes are needed? :?
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby Viper » 14 Mar 2019, 13:44

Tiger1996 wrote:
MarKr wrote:You compare Stormtroopers to different types of infantry, both are infantry, both can crawl and both can obtain handheld AT + you top it off with "both are elite and have muscles" so it sounds solid. Where it starts falling appart are the points where they are NOT similar - specifically their role in the game, HP and overall durability etc.
Storms are frontline infantry, they have the most HP of all infantry in the game (95 per soldier; Sabo squad has 80), they gain damage reduction later and have wide array of possible weapon upgrades which allow them to be long-range focused or short range focused, gain extra anti-tank capabilities or combine them somehow together. The other infantry (now you speak about the PE Sabotage squad, before you kept talking aboout Infiltration rangers) you mention has a completely different role - they are not a front line combat unit, their combat equipment is only effective at short ranges and even at short ranges the combat can go wrong due to limited number of squad members. They are there for infiltration, laying mines, sabotaging stuff and in general more of a hit-and-run tactics.

I get your point, MarKr.
However, judging their role is quite debate-able... I mean, yes! StormTroops are frontline infantry.. but only until the veterancy unlock, that's when they become infiltrative infantry units as well. And that's what you pay the Command Points for! They have better HP and so on, but they also cost more and require a lot of ammunition to upgrade them in order to become combat effective...
MarKr wrote:I don't see how shooting a schreck from a crawling position does not fit into the hit-and-run stuff, especially when the Sabo squad has just 4 soldiers so after shooting the weapon, they have to retreat anyway.

And I don't see how shooting a Shreck from a crawling position after paying 5 Command Points, is somehow a big deal...
Not to mention that - by the way - the Demo Storm squad (4 men) also loses the crawl ability as soon as they pick a Shreck!
You speak how it's justified for the PE Sabotage squad since they are only 4 men, well.. what about the Demo squad then?
There is clearly a flaw here, something is not right.

MarKr wrote:So your whole reasoning behind this has many holes - you basically say:
"they are both infantry, both are elites, both can use crawl so both should be able to crawl with schrecks"
If I apply same thinking to different two units I can say:
"Churchill and Tiger are tanks, they are both heavy tanks and both use a cannon so their cannons should perform the same"
I bet you would not support this suggestion (to make Churchill gun same strong as Tiger's or Tiger's same weak as Churchill's) and you would say that they are different tanks with different roles and purposes and I would agree, and same it is in the situation you brought up - different units, different purpose, different capabilities. The fact that you can find some similar or same features between units does not mean that the rest of what they can do must be the same too.

If their cannons are the same, they should behave the same... That's a totally different aspect.
My example on the other hand is more in this following direction;
If they are both heavy tanks, then they should both be able to crush hedgerows and trees.. just as they already do it now.

MarKr wrote:This is misinterpreted in the similar way. The purpose of the AT rifle squad IS fighting vehicles. They CAN do it in their current state (even too well, as this topic shows) and WILL BE ABLE to do it after the changes too. I said before that I would like to avoid turning the WM squad in "clone of BOYS" and I want to avoid it because, as already said, the WM AT squad CAN do its job. However, does it need the exatly the same abilities and options as BOYS squad to keep doing its job? Does it need to have static mode and camo to effectively counter vehicles? No it doesn't. So get your facts straight - nobody is talking about "role stripping", the role remains, only the way to fulfill the role can be different.

So, to make my point even clearer.. here is another example; You can't remove the camo ability from the Axis 50mm AT guns, under the excuse of "making them different" from the Allied 57mm AT guns of the same tier...

So, the WH AT rifle squad would be nearly useless without camo ability if the basic range and HP were reduced.. etc.
just imagine the CW AT Boys without camo ability and you would then quickly realize what I mean... They will never get the chance to catch the fast moving light vehicles or score any hits this way.. since they can never ambush them, and they also wouldn't have any range advantage either!

I hope you can get my point... I get yours, though.

the counter point of 57 mm anti tank gun vs 50 mm anti tank gun.....is very mature. i support it.

and as the other guy said..........
Beast Slayer wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:- I would remove both the "AT grenade" and the "anti infantry grenade" abilities, only the smoke ability would stay.
- I would decrease the basic range to 60 while giving this unit camo feature, just like the CW AT boys.
- I would also reduce the squad size to 3 men; 1 kar98, 1 MP40, 1 AT rifle, and cost unchanged.


I like these proposed changes a lot.

(..........)

Introduction of the ambush ability is also good idea because every other dedicated AT unit have it so why not this one?

and i want to add.......why is 517 not released yet? :mrgreen:

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby Warhawks97 » 14 Mar 2019, 14:01

MarKr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:Lol, so you are basically saying "There are already tons of units able to kill a Stuart, it doesnt matter if we have one more which can do that."
Not really, You use the "it makes light tanks useless" as an argument to remove or nerf or whatever the rifle and I'm telling you that light tanks in their current state are useless anyway and the change to the rifle will not change the uselesness of the light tanks and because of that the "it makes light tanks useless" is not a valid argument for the changes you request - if the GrB stays as it, light tanks will be useless, if the Grb cannot kill light tanks, light tanks will still be useless. That was my point there.


Recce :roll: ?

Further questions are other light tanks and the damage the rifle deals and this brings us back to the point Menicus said. AT rifles shouldnt act like AT guns with 360 degree fire arc bc many of these units suffer.
almost all CW vehicles rely on quick movment, flanking attacks etc, let it be daimler, tetrarch etc.

So you kicked out the light tanks like stuarts (even further as they already were) out of the game, you added a "easy counter" to a british core unit (Recce) which many now bypass and rush for cromwells, and you kicked daimler cars, staghounds and other stuff badly by having 360 degree two shot philosophy.

generally, coming back to the three types (guns, handheld, rifles), accuracy and damage per shot should go together and counterbalanced by mobility, fire arcs, reload times and so on.

This way AT guns act as a denial unit for a small area (at the direction it faces) which no player would try to enter knowing that the chance to die is high.


Meanwhile low accuracy/damage should be combined with rof and mobility/360 dgree shooting. This way you woudlnt create a total denial zone (360 degree shooting, damage, accuracy, rof does exactly this) but rather a "harming zone". A vehicle can operate there but its HP drains down the longer it operates there.

High rof, low accuracy but high damage leads to incredible RNG factors where nobody knows whether it is a denial zone or a "casino" where one lucky RNG decides between denial and uselessness.

Thats why i asked for AT rifles in general to follow a two shot philosphy vs jeeps/schwimm, 3-5 shot philosphy vs vehicles and no pen or low damage philosophy vs light tanks (depending whether they focus on armor or mobility).







MarKr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:Meanwhile WH just sticks with a stupid rifle that works during offense just as well as during defense. No special medium AT spending, no further offensive anti vehicle spendings... nothing... you go save untill shermans arrive.
And...which part of my post said that the rifle will keep performing as it performs now and absolutely no changes are needed? :?


When you said the rifle will keep its capabilties and the way high damage is dealed per shot.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1690
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby kwok » 14 Mar 2019, 16:52

Warhawks, the at rifle will likely get nerfed. The meta as is today was done over time and evolving meta. This unit passed like a month of testing and then months of playing in live, only being brought up now. Was there unintended events of the unit being introduced? Yes, that was already admitted. This is why we test though, but when people are so keen on NOT testing because something is shit or BS in the test version, then shit and BS gets put into the live version. The unbalances of this unit is as much on the community as it is on the devs. This is also why 5.17 is not released. Fear of flaming players for changes who had ample time to test and bring up issues.

When it comes to balancing the unit, what we’ve clearly learned from this is that big changes cause even bigger waves in balance. This is why it is NOT advisable to be making huge changes that you suggested but figure out slow tweaks. Just say your ideas, see who supports, respond to counter arguments but barely any direct counter arguments were made only that your suggestions were voiced unnecessarily aggressively. Restarting it problem doesn’t help. We all know the problem. Your analysis on the problem is normally 95% spot on. Where the issue is your solution. Everyone agrees with you to the extent of some of the changes, everyone has variations on what the solution is. Recognize that there is sometimes more than one way to skin a cat and that the intent of the devs is to make sure not to stab the cat’s organs in the process.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby Tiger1996 » 14 Mar 2019, 17:00

Viper wrote:and i want to add.......why is 517 not released yet? :mrgreen:

kwok wrote:This is also why 5.17 is not released.

it's released.

zhouhaiyang
Posts: 3
Joined: 25 Mar 2016, 09:34

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby zhouhaiyang » 14 Mar 2019, 19:41

Tiger1996 wrote:
Viper wrote:and i want to add.......why is 517 not released yet? :mrgreen:

kwok wrote:This is also why 5.17 is not released.

it's released.


only beta

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby MarKr » 14 Mar 2019, 20:09

Tiger1996 wrote:However, judging their role is quite debate-able... I mean, yes! StormTroops are frontline infantry.. but only until the veterancy unlock, that's when they become infiltrative infantry units as well. And that's what you pay the Command Points for! They have better HP and so on, but they also cost more and require a lot of ammunition to upgrade them in order to become combat effective...
Role of a unit is not debatable. Storms are front-line infantry, intended support other tanks in the doctrine during break-through operations. You pay the CPs to get more abilities and mainly the damage reduction which further helps them survive during assaults. The crawl ability is there to help a player get close before getting shot at - this has been there for years and it is a remnant of the times when Maultier was a lot weaker against emplacements so the crawl could be useful when you tried to get rid of an emplacement. The ability at Storms is not there to equip them with Schrecks, crawl to enemy tanks and blow them up. You don't really need that tactics in a doctrine which has access to PIV H/J, Panthers and Tigers. So as I said - roles of units are not debatable, it is set during the development process. If you use the unit for another purporse, fine, but don't complain that it is lacking in that role.

Tiger1996 wrote:And I don't see how shooting a Shreck from a crawling position after paying 5 Command Points, is somehow a big deal...
It is not a big deal, but it is not something we want them to be capable of and given their role and overall capabilities of the doctrine it is not even needed.

Tiger1996 wrote:the Demo Storm squad (4 men) also loses the crawl ability as soon as they pick a Shreck!
You speak how it's justified for the PE Sabotage squad since they are only 4 men, well.. what about the Demo squad then?
There is clearly a flaw here, something is not right.
You can see that I mentioned more factors than just number of soldiers - e.g. the HP which is also 95HP, they also get bonus damage reduction from unlocks, all the abilities of BK doc affect them too and the overall AT capacity of the entire doctrine. It's not like the doctrine has some limited amount AT options as it is.

Tiger1996 wrote:If their cannons are the same, they should behave the same... That's a totally different aspect.
My example on the other hand is more in this following direction;
If they are both heavy tanks, then they should both be able to crush hedgerows and trees.. just as they already do it now.
:roll: The point was that you take only some things that the units have in common and say that they should act the same in some situation, but you ignore all the things they DON'T have in common - these things make them different units and thus they DON'T have to act the same in same situations.

Tiger1996 wrote:So, to make my point even clearer.. here is another example; You can't remove the camo ability from the Axis 50mm AT guns, under the excuse of "making them different" from the Allied 57mm AT guns of the same tier...
Of course you can. Give to the unit a different advantage which outweights the lack of camo and it can work. Don't ask me "what" the advantage would be. For AT guns the options are limited but infantry squad has options.

Tiger1996 wrote:just imagine the CW AT Boys without camo ability and you would then quickly realize what I mean... They will never get the chance to catch the fast moving light vehicles or score any hits this way.. since they can never ambush them, and they also wouldn't have any range advantage either!

I hope you can get my point... I get yours, though.
I get your point but your presumption is false. BOYS without camo would be screwed but as I said - loss of camo would need to be appropriately compensated by another ability, options or some tweaks. For example if you tweak them that they actually can hit something withou camo and a hit would have a high chance of damaging engine, then one shot has high chance of limiting movement of the target and then you can finish it off. This is just quick example, not thought through too much so you will be able to come with some "this wouldn't work because (reasons)" but it shows what I mean.

Warhawks97 wrote:When you said the rifle will keep its capabilties and the way high damage is dealed per shot.
How so? I said "tweaks to accuracy and overall damage".
Even accuracy alone can change a lot. Let's say that you have a weapon which fires every second, has 100% accuracy, 100% penetration and deals 200 damage per hit. If you were to calculate "average DPS", it would be 200. Now, you can lower the accuracy to 80%, what will be the average DPS? 160. "DPS" does not really reflect CoH due to RNG but the lower accuracy already means that more shots will not hit, each miss is opportunity for the attacking unit to kill the squad (or at least make them retreat) and this would be easier because I said that drop in HP and possibly the number of soldiers in squad would be possible.

I noticed that your approach to topics often becomes sort of "there are two ways to do this: my way and the wrong way"...things are rarely this "black or white".

Tiger1996 wrote:it's released.
Is it released? I sent the files to Wolf but he hasn't let me know if he released it yet or not. Maybe he forgot, if so I will check it and make an announcement topic.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3547
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby Warhawks97 » 14 Mar 2019, 20:31

MarKr wrote:

Even accuracy alone can change a lot. Let's say that you have a weapon which fires every second, has 100% accuracy, 100% penetration and deals 200 damage per hit. If you were to calculate "average DPS", it would be 200. Now, you can lower the accuracy to 80%, what will be the average DPS? 160. "DPS" does not really reflect CoH due to RNG but the lower accuracy already means that more shots will not hit, each miss is opportunity for the attacking unit to kill the squad (or at least make them retreat) and this would be easier because I said that drop in HP and possibly the number of soldiers in squad would be possible.


yeah, i have been working with dps calculators in other games.

All i said is that when you have a unit with bad accuracy but oneshot capabilties things will get too much "casino like". All or nothing. It can oneshot but only if it hits. Thats bad for the user bc he has to prey that it hits as well as for the attacker since attacks are usually based on some sort of "in brain estimated calculation" which gives you an idea of the overall outcome. But in this scenario it would be all about luck then.

Thus high damage per shot is usually paired with high accuracy and compensated with reload time, squishy unit, lower mobility or in extrem cases very high cost (eg jagdpanther). Thats how snipers work, AT guns and other stuff. Here your estimated calculation tells you better not to get into the range of that weapon.

The other thing is high rof but continues damage over time which is usually achieved by lowering accuracy and damage per hit so both sides have an idea how a fight or move or whatever would end up.


Finally, i still dont really get if you want the weapon to be able to hurt light tanks just like that as if they are nothing more than vehicles or if you make them resistant to the basic shots so that recce doesnt get shot up in every occassion and forcing WH to get 50 mm AT guns or counter vehicles again or risk to get overruned. My impression is that you dont care about the light tanks whether this rifle can kill them or not.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Vehicle Extinction and AT Rifle

Postby Tiger1996 » 14 Mar 2019, 21:11

MarKr wrote:The ability at Storms is not there to equip them with Schrecks, crawl to enemy tanks and blow them up. You don't really need that tactics in a doctrine which has access to PIV H/J, Panthers and Tigers.

Well, this one part is true.. though; i'm not sure if it would remain to be so. Given that doctrines are going to be reworked...
So, i think allowing Storms to crawl with a Shreck, would be at least needed IF Blitz doc is going to lose some of its other tools.

MarKr wrote:Is it released? I sent the files to Wolf but he hasn't let me know if he released it yet or not. Maybe he forgot, if so I will check it and make an announcement topic.

Yes, currently v5.1.7 is live on the official branch of Bk Mod, he already released it ;)

zhouhaiyang wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
Viper wrote:and i want to add.......why is 517 not released yet? :mrgreen:

kwok wrote:This is also why 5.17 is not released.

it's released.


only beta

Not anymore.


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests