For the future patch that balances other factions.

OK so I've heard somewhere that future EF patches will attempt to balance the other factions until Relic does so themselves.

Currently the biggest IMBA unit in CoH is the Kangaroo; it is almost an instant-win unit.  If EF is really going to attempt to balance the other factions, here is my 2 cents.

1) Forget about a fuel cost increase.  Often times what limits the British player is manpower; not fuel or munitions, since they can leech off the resource points like effective parasites.  In my opinion, increasing the fuel and calling it part of the nerf is not effective.  Manpower is the way to go.

2) Remove infantry crush and/or lower speed.  Given the speeds of these things, two well microed empty kangaroos can still crush whole squads or at the very least force them to retreat.

3) Causing more casualties to passengers when the kangaroo dies is not a good nerf either, because the British player can simply exit the kangaroo before it dies.

4) In regards to the possible nerf of vulnerability to flamethrowers or sniper fire: What about Panzer Elite, who have no such tools?  Normal rifle fire should be also able to deal damage to passengers to be fair to PE.

5) In regards to the button ability unavailable inside Kangaroo nerf, a good British player can simply drive next to the victim tank, drop off the Bren-Tommy squad, and continue to kill it with the PIAT sappers that are still inside the kangaroo.  Not an effective nerf in my opinion.  Again, perhaps a kangaroo speed decrease would help.

ALTERNATIVE) Replace it altogether with another British tank like the Comet or something.  The British should support their tanks with vulnerable infantry just like everyone else.  I simply don't believe the kangaroo carrier even fits in CoH.

I completely agree that the kang doesn't fit with the spirit of company. However, most of those nerfs are still plausable because they increase the skill requirement to use the thing. I also agree that the fuel increase is insufficient, but a good start. It needs to have reduced speed or health, either one, to make it slightly less effective. At the moment, the first 2-3 kangs to hit the field are the most dangerous, because you are unprepared, and the fuel cost increase doesn't stop this. This measure only decreases the long term efficiency of these vehicles.

I don't remember where I read a nice suggestion for this unit besides those listed here:

Remove one slot for transport.

I agree with the increment of it's cost and decrease of speed. Also their should receive damage from normal and sniper fire. I think the flamethrower should deal damage to them but lesser than PE, after all it has tank armor.

The british are already underpowered why the hell do you want to nerf the stats of a kangaroo

That thing is best for using british infantry offensively

Since the british have no multipurpose infantry like the americans or wehr or even the PE

Nerfing the kangaroo is not a good idea

"As a british player i dont support it"

British are up and Cangaroo is simply the most op thing in the game by far, and that is really undisputed.

If you think they're underpowered then its a simple case of you being inexperienced/new player and a self confessed fanboy of that faction. This isn't meant as a nasty criticism but rather as an explanation as to why your recommendation is not going to happen

The changes we're making to the vanila balance are based on the collective recommendations(list) from expert GR players who are FAR better in the game than us.That list was sent to Relic.
We don't make any changes based on what we or anyone else will suggest.
These are the recommendations that Relic would have used for a patch. The reason we're implementing them is purely because Relic has not released a patch of over a year and there is no sign of one ever coming out

ps. Its good to know not all GR experts have Sepha's attitude and are willing to help us, themselves and the community in general  ;D

Last edited July 10, 2010 at 2:58 PM by Zerstörer

Wait, your changeing regular CoH fractions?

They've stated that they will be fixing things like the pak bug, and some others, so it seems they are, which might actually attract more people to retrying the mod, so it sounds pretty promising. 

Kangaroos ARE stupid in their current incarnation.  I wouldn't want to nerf them into oblivion, because I think they were an interesting concept, but they should be made more interesting.  Units should take major casualties when inside a destroyed ROO.  this would force some harder decisions, like exiting and continuing to fight in the more vulnerable open, or maybe roo hopping(forcing more to be employed at a given time).  Button could be disallowed from a roo as well, forcing some units to emerge from the vehicle, and rely upon cover fire to do their thing. 

I don't know if it could be coded, but I would find it acceptible if roo's had a "primary unit"...that would be the unit that could use it's abilities from the roo.  It could be the LT with his artillery(but brens could not button and piats could not fire), or it oculd be a bren team and its button, or it could be the piat team(which could not fire unless it was the primary)

And I agree, crush does seem to be a problem for a cheap vehicle like this--I would reccomend, wait... you said the experts were informing your decisions?  damn you experts!

---

Post Merge: [time]1278781408[/time]

---

just a question as to pios, are you guy's looking at maybe changing the benefit they get from vet or at least toning it down?  It is pretty damn silly watching two vet 2 pios exterminate a 450 point tommy squad(unflamed)

Last edited July 10, 2010 at 5:03 PM by Joshua9

QuoteWait, your changeing regular CoH fractions?

You really need to ask after what I posted?

Pios are getting a certain adjustment yes. You'll see the changelog before release...probably

And as I said those changes haven't been dictated by us, but a bunch of experts who know quite well what should be changed

Sorry to be alittle offtopic, but just somme bug fixes and a little tidy up or some big change?

Bugs and little tweaks that are needed. Nothing too dramatic or major, no.

Thanks!

Allright MR "Developer" aka Zerstörer do as you like , i dont care unless its costing me money

AbhMkh wrote:
Allright MR "Developer" aka Zerstörer do as you like , i dont care unless its costing me money

lol... that's what I call a "nice attitude" ::)... chill out dude. IMHO Brits aren't UP/OP, they are just broken atm; PE is UP.

I'm eager to see the changelog for the next patch ;D!!!

Meawwwww
Big Brother | BB7 - Who is She?! | Channel 4

blackbishop wrote:
IMHO Brits aren't UP/OP, they are just broken atm; PE is UP.

I'm eager to see the changelog for the next patch ;D!!!

+1 me too, looking forward to next patch boys

PS: hope some slight buff changes would be done to PE too :)

Are these changes to the other factions going to be implemented in the next patch (1.2) or the patch after that?  Or is it too early to tell?

wordsmith wrote:

blackbishop wrote:
IMHO Brits aren't UP/OP, they are just broken atm; PE is UP.

I'm eager to see the changelog for the next patch ;D!!!

+1 me too, looking forward to next patch boys

PS: hope some slight buff changes would be done to PE too :)

And some nerfs to Wehrmachts vet 3 infantry, higher reinforce cost of Engiees and Pios, and a buff to riflenades.

They'll be in this patch

QuoteAnd some nerfs to Wehrmachts vet 3 infantry, higher reinforce cost of Engiees and Pios, and a buff to riflenades.

Nope....

QuotePS: hope some slight buff changes would be done to PE too

Yup...

Those tweaks sounds good...im eagerly waiting for it. I hope at least now the PE AT halftrack would be for some use...

Chancellor wrote:
1) Forget about a fuel cost increase.  Often times what limits the British player is manpower; not fuel or munitions, since they can leech off the resource points like effective parasites.  In my opinion, increasing the fuel and calling it part of the nerf is not effective.  Manpower is the way to go.

PE shrecks and Wehrmacht Packs also cost no fuel. Roos are the elite armor of Tommies so they should cost more fuel (MUCH MORE THAN 10). 300MP is a price of an M-10 with a gun included! It should Cost 280MP like half of things in the British Army. 40 or even 50 fuel is what I want.

Quote
2) Remove infantry crush and/or lower speed.  Given the speeds of these things, two well microed empty kangaroos can still crush whole squads or at the very least force them to retreat.

Hope that if this hapenes Marders and M-10s will also loose infantry crush. IMO only Mine flails/plows should kill infantry (my choice) or M-8s Scout cars and BREN Carriers should be able to do it too.
Whats the difference if you were run over by a 30 ton tank or a 3,7 ton BREN carrier?
A hull and coaxial MGs should be more efective too.

Quote
3) Causing more casualties to passengers when the kangaroo dies is not a good nerf either, because the British player can simply exit the kangaroo before it dies.

The whole point of Armored Personnel Carrier is to save those that are inside.

Quote
4) In regards to the possible nerf of vulnerability to flamethrowers or sniper fire: What about Panzer Elite, who have no such tools?  Normal rifle fire should be also able to deal damage to passengers to be fair to PE.

Is it fair that kangaroos cant reinforce troops or suppress infantry with their MGs.

Quote
5) In regards to the button ability unavailable inside Kangaroo nerf, a good British player can simply drive next to the victim tank, drop off the Bren-Tommy squad, and continue to kill it with the PIAT sappers that are still inside the kangaroo.  Not an effective nerf in my opinion.  Again, perhaps a kangaroo speed decrease would help.

A BREN Tommy in a Kangaroo costs 690MP. More than anything that the Germans can build.
This will be an efective nerf becouse Tommies outside a vechicle can be killed by smallarms light guns and flames.
I agree with a Speed nerf (Should be same as Firefly) + a HP nerf (550HP like a Firefly or even less).

Last edited July 10, 2010 at 10:00 PM by Paciat

I'll be a spoil sport and say.....

* Kangaroo Manpower cost increased to 300 from 240.
* Kangaroo Fuel cost increased to 45 from 10.
* Kangaroo Health decrease from 650 to 550.
* Kangaroo Build time increased from 35 to 45 seconds

Nice. And what about the PE AT halftrack? Will that one have some tweaks as well or not? Frankly its quite useless now...but im sure youre aware of it. ;D

What are you on about? AT half is one of the only useful PE units right now. Maybe decrease the cost of treadbreaker to 30 though.

Just because of one ability it doesnt mean its good. Treadbreakers is good...but what if your low on munitions? The basic damage of that unit is ridicilous...it should be a counter to quick tanks such as Stuart. Yeah its cost means you can build like 3 or maybe 4 of those AT HTs against one Stuart...but that Stuart will most likely win. I dont see any point of building that unit and i play as PE for 3 years. Ill rather build a single Marder III than these pieces of scrap-metal.

Strayker wrote:
Just because of one ability it doesnt mean its good. Treadbreakers is good...but what if your low on munitions? The basic damage of that unit is ridicilous...it should be a counter to quick tanks such as Stuart. Yeah its cost means you can build like 3 or maybe 4 of those AT HTs against one Stuart...but that Stuart will most likely win. I dont see any point of building that unit and i play as PE for 3 years. Ill rather build a single Marder III than these pieces of scrap-metal.

Well i would really like to disagree with you on everything you said. The unit isent build for straight on combat like fx i have the biggest gun combat ...
IMO the at-half track is a superb unit, i mainly use the AT-Halftrack to immobilize enemy tanks so my AT-nades or Marders fx can take care of them.

With a little skill and micro this unit is very deadly ...

your 3 years experience dosent really bring you in any better position from my point of view, it just makes your whole argument pretty pathetic (no offense).

I hate pe and all there little halftracks and silly little cars are just rubbish agaisnt my riflemen and my mighty sherman. No vechile in pe is caple to knock it when well surported.

Strayker wrote:
Just because of one ability it doesnt mean its good. Treadbreakers is good...but what if your low on munitions? The basic damage of that unit is ridicilous...it should be a counter to quick tanks such as Stuart. Yeah its cost means you can build like 3 or maybe 4 of those AT HTs against one Stuart...but that Stuart will most likely win. I dont see any point of building that unit and i play as PE for 3 years. Ill rather build a single Marder III than these pieces of scrap-metal.

Stuart a quick tank?
You need 45 Fuel to get an AT HT and 110 Fuel to get a Stuart.
Stuart is a counter to quick halftracks and armored cars.
Not the other way around. AT HTs are Churchill stoppers.

... what did you spend youre ammo on? AT nades, upgraded PzIVs and shrecks can destroy Stuarts.
If you spend it all on youre MP44 blob and flame nades than dont expect to have quick counters to Stuarts. Just kill all youre enemies infantry and he wont recover.

---

Post Merge: [time]nie 11 lip 2010 08:09:23 GMT+8[/time]

---

Seeme wrote:
I hate pe and all there little halftracks and silly little cars are just rubbish agaisnt my riflemen and my mighty sherman. No vechile in pe is caple to knock it when well surported.

I played a game today vs a lower lvl PE player (me as US) so I went Tier I, Medic station (2 free rifle squads  ;D), BARs, Stickies, Triage center, Tier IV. I wanted to give him hope in mid game and later run him over with a Sherman.  :P

I was pretty suprised when AT HLs + Hotchkiss sniped my infantry and could quite quickly destroyed an M-10 or even a Sherman.

But I outcapped him anyway so he finally run out of ammo to upgun his Hotchkiss an tradebrake me.

Last edited July 11, 2010 at 4:13 PM by Paciat

Zerstörer wrote:
I'll be a spoil sport and say.....

* Kangaroo Manpower cost increased to 300 from 240.
* Kangaroo Fuel cost increased to 45 from 10.
* Kangaroo Health decrease from 650 to 550.
* Kangaroo Build time increased from 35 to 45 seconds

OK so this is all the nerfs?  They can still button inside the Kangaroo and it still has the same speed and inf crush?  Automatch ranked level 15+ players decided on this?  (not trying to sound sarcastic and rude, its just the text)

Also will the AT HT be buffed particularly against the Stuart?

Last edited July 11, 2010 at 9:54 PM by Chancellor

QuoteWell i would really like to disagree with you on everything  you said. The unit isent build for straight on combat like fx i have the biggest gun combat ...
IMO the at-half track is a superb unit, i mainly use the AT-Halftrack to immobilize enemy tanks so my AT-nades or Marders fx can take care of them.

With a little skill and micro this unit is very deadly ...

your 3 years experience dosent really bring you in any better position from my point of view, it just makes your whole argument pretty pathetic (no offense).

...No offense taken...in fact i didnt understand your first half of the post anyway. I will not argue with you...its your game style, be it. But for me this unit is useless. Yeah it can do a nice treadbreaker move, but please have in mind you have to build buildings in some order, that means Logistic Kompanie and/or Kampfgruppe Kompanie and then Panzer-Jager Kommand and/or Support Kommand and ill rather build Panzer-Jager Kommand and upgrade it to build Marder IIIs rather than build the Support Kommand and build this (from my point of view and its my point of view so dont crucify me) useless unit.

QuoteStuart a quick tank?
You need 45 Fuel to get an AT HT and 110 Fuel to get a Stuart.
Stuart is a counter to quick halftracks and armored cars.
Not the other way around. AT HTs are Churchill stoppers.

Dont get me wrong, but when you are not chosing RE support how can you get a Churchill? I am talking about basic factions now...not about their support trees.
In any way Stuart is a quick tank, like it or not...american M8 which is basically not a tank comes to battlefield later than Stuart (prove me wrong, but as far as i know you need more fuel to get to it), not to mention that Brits can more effectively harvest fuel (or munitions) as Americans, if they want.
And i dont see why AT HTs shouldnt be a counter to first enemy armored units in game...what is their purpose then...swating flies? ;D
Again seriously for 125 fuel you can have a single Stuart (not 110) and for 65 (not 45) fuel your first AT HT can be out, that means for 125 fuel as PE you can have 5 AT HTs, that cant destroy a single Stuart or you can have a single Marder III for 130 fuel or combined AT HT and Marder III for 175 fuel...which will be out sooner, the Stuart or these two??

QuoteAlso will the AT HT be buffed particularly against the Stuart?

Probably it will not be buffed/nerfed/changed at all...it was just my suggestions for this thread...not the devs decision...

...So all in all i have my opinion on this unit and you guys have your own...that is how life goes. Thanks for your posts.

Strayker wrote:

QuoteStuart a quick tank?
You need 45 Fuel to get an AT HT and 110 Fuel to get a Stuart.
Stuart is a counter to quick halftracks and armored cars.
Not the other way around. AT HTs are Churchill stoppers.

Dont get me wrong, but when you are not chosing RE support how can you get a Churchill? I am talking about basic factions now...not about their support trees.
And i dont see why AT HTs shouldnt be a counter to first enemy armored units in game...what is their purpose then...swating flies? ;D

Im talking of countering a Churchill, not about choosing a Brit docrine.
A Churchill shows up and you need a unit to stop it.
You have a PE PzIV but that wont do you any good. The little halftrack comes to the rescue.
Its also usefull at fighting other tanks. Pershings gun has only 40 range. Its also a great counter to MMG carriers and US ACs if they outcap you in early game.
Stuart is a counter to PE vechicles that can rape any infantry.
PE should tech up more than only building 2 tiers and 1 upgrade to win the game. Shrecks, x2 Marders/1 Marder and AT nades and PzIVs/Hotchkisses are counters to Stuarts. How many more do you need?

Paciat made some good points. I'll also point out some things. 5 AT halfs would easily beat a stuart but that's not important because you would NEVER get 5 of them. 1-2 is optimum and are very effective at killing enemy vehicles. The survivability of vehicles at higher levels of play comes from the player kiting, and with treadbreak you can negate this and destroy it VERY easily.

Paciat mentioned it as a quick counter to churchill which was only an example of countering a fast vehicle/tank. Because it is so cheap it is easily produced in an emergency. It also fits into any build order involving T4 nicely for this reason. The reason why it isn't so good against the stuart is that the stuart has MASSIVE modifiers against halftrack armour (it 2 hits mortar halftracks). This factor is probably the only thing that saves it from being a completely useless unit. Stuarts are hard countered by shreks which can 2 hit it back (with lucky crits) and have excellent accuracy against it's armour type.

AT halfs are also very accurate against infantry. Even without focus fire they can kill weapon crew quite quickly. With it on, they are death to all low man squads.

There are loads of factors that make this an excellent unit. It just needs to be used in conjuntion with other units and not slug it out with an enemy. If you need to though, you can treadbreak and kill him by outranging him, though this is rather slow.

QuotePE should tech up more than only building 2 tiers and 1 upgrade to win the game. Shrecks, x2 Marders/1 Marder and AT nades and PzIVs/Hotchkisses are counters to Stuarts. How many more do you need?

I was not saying that i would build only those two tiers and then build a single Marder and its an instant win...or did i?? I was saying that i would rather build a single Marder III than 5xAT HTs (5 is just a comparison of price to a single Marder, it doesnt mean i would build that many) to counter early armored threat...that means a Marder and some TB squads. Later in game youll need to build those other two tiers as well...thats true, but i dont need them at start.

And i dont need more than 2 Marders and/or some TB squads to deal with enemy armor...no AT HTs needed.

QuoteThis factor is probably the only thing that saves it from being a completely useless unit.

This is what i was talking about GodlikeDennis...someone finds one unit good, the other guy thinks its a rubbish. Thats how it goes and differs gameplay of different people. Thats why COH is so much fun, because all of us have unique play style. That said i find Stuart very useful in early game, to tackle enemy HTs as Paciat said and with its canister shot to counter groups of infantry.

Once more thanks for your posts...

Sure we can put it down to personal opinion on the unit but it's ridiculous to say it needs a buff. It is a very useful unit (personally I much prefer one of these to a single marder) and to say otherwise simply means you aren't using it that well.

In your stuart example you are using it for exactly it's intended purpose (which only works against PE) therefore it's ok at the job but only has a very limited niche to work in. Despite it's massive damage to halftracks it's still worse against PE than an M8 due to it's awful armour type that leaves it incredibly vulnerable to shreks. Using an AT half in conjunction with a shrek squad/marder you have an almost guaranteed kill on the enemy vehicle, even against good players. As I stated before, his mobility is the thing keeping him alive and without it you can turn him into scrap.

EDIT: The AT halftrack is also extremely effective against kangs in their current state. Their mobility is what makes them deadly, which is why I actually agree with Chancellor in that the list of nerfs were not enough. They also need a speed nerf or a reduction in crush capability.

Last edited July 12, 2010 at 1:12 PM by GodlikeDennis

QuoteSure we can put it down to personal opinion on the unit but it's ridiculous to say it needs a buff. It is a very useful unit (personally I much prefer one of these to a single marder) and to say otherwise simply means you aren't using it that well.

Its always based on personal opinion, from my point of view it needs a buff, from yours not and you even say its ridicilous...for that reason there are these "balance experts" on these forums which devs actually listen. Neighter i nor you are one of them, that means this whole discussion is pointless in some point, but im glad to hear some advices/suggestions from you guys.

QuoteIn your stuart example you are using it for exactly it's intended purpose (which only works against PE) therefore it's ok at the job but only has a very limited niche to work in. Despite it's massive damage to halftracks it's still worse against PE than an M8 due to it's awful armour type that leaves it incredibly vulnerable to shreks. Using an AT half in conjunction with a shrek squad/marder you have an almost guaranteed kill on the enemy vehicle, even against good players. As I stated before, his mobility is the thing keeping him alive and without it you can turn him into scrap.

This is another example of personal opinion (now yours precisely)...i think the Stuart is ok as it is and proves to be valuable addition to Brits at early stages (not just against PE, but against WH as well). As you said his mobility is keeping him alive...but thats all you need, fast tank with ability to hunt down HTs and infantry.

QuoteThe AT halftrack is also extremely effective against kangs in their current state. Their mobility is what makes them deadly, which is why I actually agree with Chancellor in that the list of nerfs were not enough. They also need a speed nerf or a reduction in crush capability.

In this one ill agree with you and Chancellor...kangaroo is way OP at the moment...it seriously needs some changes.

Honestly IMO if the nerfs listed were all there is to the formula, I agree with Dennis that they are not enough.  Yes, their price has increased, but only making them effectively 180 manpower more expensive (the ideal number of kangaroos is 3 at a time, so 60 added manpower times 3 is 180), and 100 hp less each.

The rest of the nerfs are useless, because again, fuel is not a problem for Brits, 45x3 is only 135 fuel per wave; if the Brit bus humped the high fuels with his multiple leech trucks it wouldn't take a long time at all to regain the lost fuel.

Also the slightly increased build time is absolutely useless and an excuse of a nerf.  Any player that doesn't know how to continue making kangaroos while his 3 active ones are already in combat and then gets caught with his pants down after his 3 active kangaroos die deserves to lose.  Most of the time after you kill 1 wave of kangaroos, another set of 3 are already waiting for his infantry near his base.

Of course, as the devs stated, its not up to us, its up to the GR folks.  If the high level players (ranked +15 automatch) such as kot, DevM, CharlesDarwin, Tomitoma, etc really did indeed come up with this as the nerf list, I will surely give the benefit of the doubt, but as of right now I am doubting.

PS: BTW I've played Dennis before, he's definitely not a noob; this guy knows his game.

Last edited July 12, 2010 at 2:08 PM by Chancellor

Good thing I dont have ToV, so I wont be whineing about my troops changing.

To be honest I originally thought the nerfs to the Roo aren't enough....but like you said...the experts know best.

On the other hand, the Roo is replacing the Cromwell which is an extremely useful unit so it must be able to compete with that as a choice.
Most importantly, for 300mp/45FU you're still only getting a transport which needs to have troops in it to do something....all in all the changes only really reduce the spamability of the unit to perhaps more acceptable levels...

I'm just worried about the crush as well as the abilities from inside remaining. But of course we'll see soon enough. It's not like you can't change it again if it doesn't do enough.

I've played TOMITOMA before and he strafe spams like a mother****.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
I'm just worried about the crush as well as the abilities from inside remaining. But of course we'll see soon enough. It's not like you can't change it again if it doesn't do enough.

+1
Well said.

But I would speed instead of crush. UK has the worst offroad mobility ingame. At least let them crush those that are dumb enough to stay on roads when this 30ton thing.

Chancellor wrote:
OK so I've heard somewhere that future EF patches will attempt to balance the other factions until Relic does so themselves.

Currently the biggest IMBA unit in CoH is the Kangaroo; it is almost an instant-win unit.  If EF is really going to attempt to balance the other factions, here is my 2 cents.

1) Forget about a fuel cost increase.  Often times what limits the British player is manpower; not fuel or munitions, since they can leech off the resource points like effective parasites.  In my opinion, increasing the fuel and calling it part of the nerf is not effective.  Manpower is the way to go.

2) Remove infantry crush and/or lower speed.  Given the speeds of these things, two well microed empty kangaroos can still crush whole squads or at the very least force them to retreat.

3) Causing more casualties to passengers when the kangaroo dies is not a good nerf either, because the British player can simply exit the kangaroo before it dies.

4) In regards to the possible nerf of vulnerability to flamethrowers or sniper fire: What about Panzer Elite, who have no such tools?  Normal rifle fire should be also able to deal damage to passengers to be fair to PE.

5) In regards to the button ability unavailable inside Kangaroo nerf, a good British player can simply drive next to the victim tank, drop off the Bren-Tommy squad, and continue to kill it with the PIAT sappers that are still inside the kangaroo.  Not an effective nerf in my opinion.  Again, perhaps a kangaroo speed decrease would help.

ALTERNATIVE) Replace it altogether with another British tank like the Comet or something.  The British should support their tanks with vulnerable infantry just like everyone else.  I simply don't believe the kangaroo carrier even fits in CoH.

Well, on checking 1.20 and 1.21 - It os on note that not only were Kangeroos nerfed, but a host of brit things were too.

I agree the kangeroo was potent. However, people always bad calc on kangeroo. The low cost of it was fine, because to load up a kangeroo with LT (250/15) sappers (320/75) and bren squad (450/whatever) costs a bloody fortune. And thus they only come in as a desperate stop early midgame, or in bulk late game. They could have been limited to one officer and one squad - or similar.

The kangeroo is being unfairly amended. If the brits are to stay as they are, then you need to accept the late game mobility and hitting power they provide OR provide some alternatives.

In a global sense, the brits are unbalanced. They cost too much in too many places, and are only occasionally viable in game.

All that being said. The change log only basically shows a long lists of nerfs to the brits, and no real changes to amend the lack of imbalance with them.

People used Kangeroos mainly because they have so very few actual options, especially late game.

(For the record, I play and raid with Kangeroos, and I can accept the change as its clear there was an element of OP, but seriously, the brits needed some changes elsewhere in terms of buffs to rebalance them.)

This thread should be locked, seeing as the patch is out and it's no longer relevant.

Brits were buffed in more subtle ways, like the nerf to piospam. Brits are already OP T1 when piospam is not involved therefore they don't need a buff. And it's not like kangs were slightly OP. They were the single most OP thing in the game by a long shot.

I agree with paciat completely ..

The kangaroo did not require tht nerfing

besides wht abt the bren section , tht bloody thing is totally unfair , how the hell do you expect the brits to handle early game  PE HTs , PE gets HT and i have a recon and a bren section , and probably a bren carrier too , with whom are they going to fight with the PE infantry or PE Ht's , with the bren nerf its totally unfair.

Paciat agrees that the Kang deserved the nerf. He also suggested we nerf it's speed as well.

There's very little actual difference in the brit early game. Just learn to use the units how they were originally intended without abusing bugs/imbalances.

END THIS THREAD!

I think he meant  "amended incorrectly "not unfairly amended , I'm sorry , if take English literally  :P :D

I knew you guys were gonna attempt balancing the main game as well, in your next patch, but I hardly expected so many changes  :o

Sooo, here we go (Will only comment on things that I disagree with):  :P

1- Not sure about adding both a delay and smoke to the SR. Maybe either of them would be good (I prefer the delay, not the smoke BTW) but both? I guess I'll have to strafe the Hell outta someone's ass to check it. So be it  8)
2- Decreased cost of M26 and Tiger?!? I've playing the game since day 1 and noone ever complained about it. Why mess with things that aren't broken in the first place...? Same goes for the TD cost decrease, Engi suppression and Croc (Which, if memory serves me correctly, receives benefits from its upgrade) ???
3- 2.301 Pak was OK. Why not revert to it instead? 3 Camoed shots BUT only the first gets the bonuses. Noone was complaining about the Pak back then, so why not go for something proven?
4- Pioneer changes break the basic formula of the game and the consistency of the Wehr faction. I can understand why you did it, but I'd rather see it addressed through more "indirect" ways and defo not like that
5- Why mess with things that aren't broken in the first place, vol 2: LMG42 was obviously made like that on purpose and hardly anyone ever complained about that. Again what did you guys do there? Def bunkers: I’d agree with the change back in 2.301, but now it’s more of a not very-well-thought change: The new rifle vet has changed the meta-game immensely: Haven’t you guys watched any replays lately?
6- Marder: no, No, NO!!! The Marder is essentially PE’s AT gun! It’s not a tank God damn it and it cannot be used like one. It was always meant to work like that (An AT gun on wheels). I’d really like to have a word or two with the guys that gave you feedback about balancing >:<
7-Muni HT. Don’t disagree, but don’t agree either. Will have to test it first.
8- Luft: Although I never understood why they needed so much time to reinforce, it was obviously done on purpose and not particularly game-breaking. Again, was it THAT bad that you had to address it?
9- Goliaths: I guess the change also includes the Wehrmacht Goliath right? Also, since they’re detectable now, I think that Yurdle’s reduced price of 100 munis is better after the change :o
10- AC won’t detect snipers now. OK, I don’t agree, but I know that many people were complaining about it. BUT the SC will still be able to detect them I hope cos snipers are a pain for PE. If not, then I disagree.
11- ATHT focus-fire: Again, was it THAT bad that you had to address it?
12- Sniper moving accuracy: No. This makes the difference between players that are microing and players that aren’t. If someone bothers moving his sniper he should be rewarded in some way vs a guy that just sits back and takes shots don’t you think?
13- Medic health: What’s the exact number of the new health? Grenades: You mean they’re targeting ground instead of entity now?

Below are some of the things that I changed in my under-development balance patch and I consider important. Just in case you like any of these ideas, feel free to use them: J

1- Stuart: reduced dmg modifier vs PE IHTs, ACs and Marders to 1.2. It currently has a modifier of 2 I think, acting as a WTF-pwn everything vehicle vs PE :o
2- Little john penetrates a bit too often the “very-heavy class” vehicles don’t you think? ;)
3- I tried making dropping PE shrecks not turn into wehr shrecks. I failed, so I changed the PE shrecks’ stats to match the wehr ones, as I didn’t think that it was ok for brits and amis to be more effective than the creators of the weapon (In the case of PE ofc)
4- I added a 0.9 instead of 1 dmg modifier of strafe vs soldier armor. I don’t mean to brag, but I believe it’s near-perfect. It causes casualties to PE early game, but upgrading to zeal and 4-man squads, actually makes a difference (Just like vet 2 for wehr) but unvetted PGs, still have worst stats than Grens, as it was intended in the first place!

For reference, there was no smoke added to Strafe and the Delay is 1 second, without anything to alert the opponent that its been used.

Its basically just a tad bit harder to aim, but essentially the same exact Strafe as in 2.6.

There are a lot of points where I agree there was a problem, but feel the change to address it was very...off the mark.

The one thing I disagree with is that Defensive Bunkers needed that nerf. Like Basileus says, that was back in 2.301 and in the early days of 2.4/2.6 when the meta-game was still adapting. They go down easy to 105's and Democharges same as regular bunkers.

BasileusHotshot wrote:
3- 2.301 Pak was OK. Why not revert to it instead? 3 Camoed shots BUT only the first gets the bonuses. Noone was complaining about the Pak back then, so why not go for something proven?

I was complaining that germans with their ninja packs, defensive bunkers and offmap arti were far better at forming a defensive line than Engineer UK emplacements.

Quote
4- Pioneer changes break the basic formula of the game and the consistency of the Wehr faction. I can understand why you did it, but I'd rather see it addressed through more "indirect" ways and defo not like that

Are you a piospammer? Than I hate you. :D
Pios didnt loose anything. They gain bettlefield repair at lvl 2 so you can repair early pumas under fire.

Quote
6- Marder: no, No, NO!!! The Marder is essentially PE’s AT gun! It’s not a tank God damn it and it cannot be used like one. It was always meant to work like that (An AT gun on wheels). I’d really like to have a word or two with the guys that gave you feedback about balancing >:<

All AT guns have weels for transport. But Marders are faster (max speed, not rotation) than tanks so they should used differently.

Quote
Again, was it THAT bad that you had to address it?

Dont understand posts like that.
People complained, and devs changed it.

Quote
1- Stuart: reduced dmg modifier vs PE IHTs, ACs and Marders to 1.2. It currently has a modifier of 2 I think, acting as a WTF-pwn everything vehicle vs PE :o

The whole point of that Stuart is to counter halftrack/AC spam and MP44 blobs. You still can destroy a Stuart with Marders, Shrecks and PzIVs.

Quote
2- Little john penetrates a bit too often the “very-heavy class” vehicles don’t you think? ;)

Thats the point of a 5CP, 450MP vechicle upgrade "don’t you think? ;)"

Quote
3- I tried making dropping PE shrecks not turn into wehr shrecks. I failed, so I changed the PE shrecks’ stats to match the wehr ones, as I didn’t think that it was ok for brits and amis to be more effective than the creators of the weapon (In the case of PE ofc)

Is it OK to have doctrinal double shrecks and AT infantry weapons that cost no ammo and are not doctrinal?

Paciat wrote:

BasileusHotshot wrote:

Quote
4- Pioneer changes break the basic formula of the game and the consistency of the Wehr faction. I can understand why you did it, but I'd rather see it addressed through more "indirect" ways and defo not like that

Are you a piospammer? Than I hate you. :D
Pios didnt loose anything. They gain bettlefield repair at lvl 2 so you can repair early pumas under fire.

I’m more of a PE player, but I’d like to consider myself objective with all factions. What I have in mind when implementing changes, is to make sure that this was a mistake by the devs, not something they did on purpose. Things that the devs did on purpose, I’m only changing if there’s a general consensus that they are too up/op. For example, in mod, I added a 0.9 modifier of flamers vs soldier armor. I don’t agree with the change, but since so many people were complaining about flamers vs soldiers, I implemented this minor change nevertheless. I also tried switching the order of Glider HQ and mandos HQ for Brits in order to give em mgs early to better counter piospam and although my fellow “colleagues” like that change, I voted to reverted, again cos it was breaking away too much from something that was obviously done on purpose. Hope I gave you to understand my reasoning behind what I’m posting, cos if you end up making so many changes, you’ll eventually lose some people’s support and the community will shrink, leading to an unsuccessful project.

Quote
6- Marder: no, No, NO!!! The Marder is essentially PE’s AT gun! It’s not a tank God damn it and it cannot be used like one. It was always meant to work like that (An AT gun on wheels). I’d really like to have a word or two with the guys that gave you feedback about balancing >:<

Quote

All AT guns have weels for transport. But Marders are faster (max speed, not rotation) than tanks so they should used differently.

I’d rather have 1 atgun than 2 marders. Seriously. Marders were a bit OP in 2.301 cos of the lockdown los bonus that was taken away from them in 2.6. Now they need a dedicated spotter to work correctly, something that the PE lack (Which is why I agreed to the los increase of PE capping units) In any case, an Atgun is cheaper, more difficult to target and can be remanned. If Marders SHOULD be used diffirently, then they should have different stats, to which I disagree. This change is VERY bad seriously.

Quote
Again, was it THAT bad that you had to address it?

Dont understand posts like that.
People complained, and devs changed it.
Copy-pasted: I have in mind when implementing changes, is to make sure that this was a mistake by the devs, not something they did on purpose. Things that the devs did on purpose, I’m only changing if there’s a general consensus that they are too up/op. If people complained, then I guess I’ll have to pass. I just didn’t happen to witness any of these complains when I was asking for feedback for myself, which is why I posted what I posted.

Quote
1- Stuart: reduced dmg modifier vs PE IHTs, ACs and Marders to 1.2. It currently has a modifier of 2 I think, acting as a WTF-pwn everything vehicle vs PE :o

The whole point of that Stuart is to counter halftrack/AC spam and MP44 blobs. You still can destroy a Stuart with Marders, Shrecks and PzIVs.
In theory you’re right. Practically it just doesn’t work like that since you always need 2! kinds of AT defense at an given time to be secure. You just try it with a friend: The stuart currently rapes ¾ of the vehicles in PE’s arsenal acting like a light tank with a big gun, not representative of its price or its time of arrival in the game.

Quote
2- Little john penetrates a bit too often the “very-heavy class” vehicles don’t you think? ;)

Thats the point of a 5CP, 450MP vechicle upgrade "don’t you think? ;)"
No I don’t, but I won’t insist either, since I’m getting mixed reactions with regards to this thing.

Quote
3- I tried making dropping PE shrecks not turn into wehr shrecks. I failed, so I changed the PE shrecks’ stats to match the wehr ones, as I didn’t think that it was ok for brits and amis to be more effective than the creators of the weapon (In the case of PE ofc)

Is it OK to have doctrinal double shrecks and AT infantry weapons that cost no ammo and are not doctrinal?

Double shrecks have a quite high chance of dropping. Isn’t always good IMHO. No ammo option is paid in the form of higher MP cost. How many players prefer the latter option anyway? I’m watching like 1-2/replays a day and everyone (As I do BTW) is preferring the muni cost rather than pay extra MP.

Couple of extra things that I forgot in my previous post:
1- I think it’s fair for troops inside a Bren to take dmg just like PGs inside an IHT.
2- Some other bugs that can’t remember of right now. I guess I’ll make an extra post later :P

---

Post Merge: [time]1280796316[/time]

---

ROFL I messed up the quoting in my post above. Can't be bothered to change it. I think it's still readable and understandable right? ::)

Last edited August 3, 2010 at 10:57 AM by BasileusHotshot

wow gotta love the fact u call the 1v1 egosentric bastards "the pro's" the roo isnt op bcouse it has 1 little mg
its nothing whout inf that costs 300 / 450 mp a squad
in the end u will have a vehicel that will cost  1290 mp 175 ammo and 10 fuel atm pure on u can build 4 pack of that will easely own that.

but i agree whit the most of the ppl the roo does not fit in company of heroes just like the infantry ht

No, that's a foolish statement. You have the infantry already and they don't die with the kang. Ergo, their cost is not important in the calculation.