New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

naizarak
Captain
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue 25 Dec 2012 12:53
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby naizarak » Sun 28 Jul 2013 10:38

on the topic of helis, they still don't fit properly into gameplay

a)in the beta they were too weak. easily outranged by AA and killed by jets in a single strafing run

b)now they're too strong. i've had plenty of games where nato players just parked a line of seahawks in front of my troops and i had literally no way of dealing with them. without tunugska m's, my AA was totally outranged by the helis, and immediately destroyed. using artillery doesn't work on them either. it basically comes down to either using kamikaze jets, or deploying extremely elaborate smokescreens in order for your AA to close the gap and actually have a chance to HIT the choppers.


i've had plenty games myself where i just parked a line of mi24v's in front of nato troops and they couldn't break through at all.


also doesn't help that they'll arbitrarily buff random units with no regard to accuracy or realism. the zsu57 has 2800m range now? really?

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby DoktorvonWer » Sun 28 Jul 2013 10:41

naizarak wrote:b)now they're too strong. i've had plenty of games where nato players just parked a line of seahawks in front of my troops and i had literally no way of dealing with them. without tunugska m's, my AA was totally outranged by the helis, and immediately destroyed. using artillery doesn't work on them either. it basically comes down to either using kamikaze jets, or deploying extremely elaborate smokescreens in order for your AA to close the gap and actually have a chance to HIT the choppers.


This goes both ways, especially with the particularly tough Pact gunships. They're currently the ultimate defensive tool, as they cannot be safely attacked unless you can magically destroy all the AA that's hiding behind them.
Image

Chesnok
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 22:01
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Chesnok » Sun 28 Jul 2013 11:10

naizarak wrote:also doesn't help that they'll arbitrarily buff random units with no regard to accuracy or realism. the zsu57 has 2800m range now? really?

From wikipedia (easiest source to find on the ZSU-57-2).
"Maximum horizontal range is 12 km (with an effective range against ground targets of up to 4 km / 2.5 miles. Maximum vertical range is 8.8 km with a maximum effective vertical range of 4.5 km / 14,750 ft). Fragmentation rounds have a safety-destructor which activates between 12 and 16 seconds after being fired so the maximum slant range of anti-aircraft fire is 6.5–7 km."

User avatar
HaryPL
Lieutenant
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2012 01:41
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby HaryPL » Sun 28 Jul 2013 12:36

Gopblin wrote:
HaryPL wrote:Split Mi24s availability into 2 cards each, just like in case of seahawks :ugeek:


Yep, Mi24 ATGM are pretty underwhelming, and the rest of their armaments aren't that useful (sure, you can kill things with FFARs, if the enemy didn't bother to bring AA).

1 armor only protects against small arms fire, which again only comes up in weird situations such as clearing a forest with helos.

High availability per card is one of the few reasons they're worth taking at all, that and the lack of useful helos overall on PACT side.

I'd much rather have a few TOW2/Seahawk that actually kill stuff, than have to spam 4x more Mi24 just to kill heavies as effectively. Not to mention helo blobs are basically flying pinatas against a competent opponent.

Best wishes,
Daniel.



One thing is what you would rather have, other thing is what you actually have and how it is.

I'm totally sure that most of pact players would want ''something like TOW2 / Seahawk'' to kill off whatever OTAN Heavy Tank may endanger their T80s but I'm almost sure that's the reason why PACT get none of them.
It's not your thing and trying to use it when discussing balance changes is unwise at most.

OTAN has specialized AT choppers to score some hits& kills on PACT heavies so own heavy tanks can move up and take care of the plausible swarm of low-mid range tanks of PACT.
PACT has own heavy tanks capable of overwhelming OTAN heavies with multirole ( means "not that" capable at single given role yet really not far behind ) Mi24 to enlarge the margin by which their tanks are better than OTAN ones + to take care of whatever light&medium stuff OTAN has by stunning the crap of it with numerous FFARs and killing whatever medium supports are there with Kokons and any infantry with HMG / Autocannon, thanks to 10HP and armor that provides protection against becoming "2sec killed" by any but most elite infantry


Their role isn't mirror but is fine.
They're capabilities against their supposed targets are balanced after last patch.
(Against each other and AA there is still a lot work to do but that's not the topic)

What is NOT balanced, is the numbers they come with to battlefield.
It can't be that fe. Seahawk is as successful in his task as is Mi24V/VP in his yet one of them has double availability of the another.
It's just extension of SeaHawk change and it is just as right and good for balance.

OTAN needs AT it takes Lynx/ Seahawk, multirole he takes AH-1. So does PACT, needing genius multirole it takes Hinds and needing direct AT it takes Mi28.

Using argument that Mi24 ATGM is weaker than I-TOW of AH-1 ( TOW2 of Lynx) and thus you need DOUBLE of Mi24 per card is as dumb and biased as fe. validating I-Hawk / Roland 2 buff because Buk-M1 is better.

User avatar
BTR
General
Posts: 6298
Joined: Fri 9 Dec 2011 21:16
Location: Россия
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby BTR » Sun 28 Jul 2013 17:27

Hob_Gadling wrote:
BTR wrote:
thehitman009 wrote:In a game with such an emphasis on realism, statistics, and values, you can't flip all the math like a pancake two months into the game.


Why not if it makes the game more diverse?


There's the unspoken assumption that actual research went into creating the unit statistics in an effort to model them close to reality. You know, like real strategy games do. Bad news to Hitman: the numbers are pulled out of a Stetson, meaning they can change at any time since they're not really based on anything.


Unit cards and activation points (what he was talking about) are not based on realism and serve only to balance out the game.
Image

thehitman009
Corporal
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat 27 Jul 2013 17:44
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby thehitman009 » Sun 28 Jul 2013 21:40

BTR wrote: From W:EE people had to adjust to at least six different metas (excluding the beta's) and if anything that shows that the devs are willing to take risks to find the best balance, not just the one that suits a single playstyle with one deck.


So you're basically saying that they have a track record of doing this kind of thing. Perhaps you like it, I don't prefer it personally. This is based off my opinion that the game was already reasonable balanced, although PACT already had a slight overall advantage. Still, I could deal with that as my decks were enjoyable to play and I could win with solid tactics.

Xeno426 wrote: For USSR they also have the Ka-50 and the Mi-28, but the Ka-50 suffers from being very expensive and only having two missiles that have a good chance of missing, while the Mi-28 is fairly decent if a bit overpriced.


Exactly, you're making my point for me. Without PACT having many viable attack helicopter options, the helo slot point increase has really only effected one faction here.

CommissarDornez wrote: Pact players not calling in gunships... Have you actually played ALB? Mi-24s and Akulas everywhere.
To be honest if you're really this mad at a few changes which were neccesary and actually hurt Pact a lot, (Losing the BTR-60PAI) then I don't think the player base will miss you.


Mostly Mi-24's everywhere, which I actually have NO PROBLEM with. They are a workhorse of soviet arsenals. And again they are multi-purpose while NATO has more specific use helicopters. My main issue is that PACT can call in Hinds from cheaper infantry slots, while NATO has just lost significant helicopter capability with this latest patch because their helicopters come in the helo slots (which just got more expensive). The point I'm trying to make is that the patch's balances are severely biased against NATO.

On a side note, I hope you're not under the illusion that the internet player base will miss any one person who quits playing. That's what having friends in real life is for. We may be operating under too different of assumptions here to have any meaningful dialogue.

Radioshow wrote:Problem with the PACT AA buff is that the units are 20point 2800m AA and they get enough of them to spread them all over. They still fire fast enough and do enough damage to kill Seahawks/Lynx before they can get away. Same with Recon, you cannot spot them before they open fire, you lose Kiowa. Infantry recon is just as hard to get close if they have recon+bmpt.

If there is any cover on the map good luck using any helo's now without spamming arty to counter all the AA, if you can find it.


Ding ding ding! Exactly. The game was made with deck creation for customization (which was extremely awesome, I never played EE so this was new to me.) But now we're at the point where NATO is getting pigeon-holed into certain deck/unit uses just to keep up with PACT buffs. Sad.

I'm not going to quote Radioshow like three times in this post, just assume I agree with everything else he says too. He obviously gets it from a NATO perspective.

Hidden Gunman wrote:As a primarily Pact player, with a focus on mech inf builds, I'm rubbing my hands with glee on this patch.

ArtyomVDNH wrote:Just now coming back from a Latin convention in Vegas, and I cried manly tears of joy when I saw this patch.
I love playing USSR Mechanized and Armored, and the availability on the T80BV is quite nice.



Not to pick on these guys, but this is just one example of MANY posts to the same effect within this thread. How are we even arguing that this patch is fair when every PACT player posting on here talks about how epic it is for their decks? You can practically see them drooling over it. Do you see any self-identified NATO players talking about how awesome this is?

More importantly, what was unbalanced before this patch? PACT couldn't shoot down NATO helos? I don't think you can honestly say it wasn't a balanced game before this patch. Maybe I'm just not good enough at playing NATO.

I'm admittedly a pretty average gamer, I don't care about my win % or "fanboy this, fanboy that". I play mostly NATO because I found no challenge in PACT decks when I began playing in June. My statements are not meant to be attacks on PACT players, I hope that is clear. You paid for the game just like me and should play whatever faction makes you happy. We're all gamers here, and I would hope we could unite under that to make gaming a fair and enjoyable experience for everyone. I think that we took a big step back from that with this latest patch.

User avatar
eMeM
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat 24 Nov 2012 00:26
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby eMeM » Sun 28 Jul 2013 21:58

thehitman009 wrote:PACT couldn't shoot down NATO helos?
Why should PACT players be upset because of that? Hehehe, silly them.
Image

User avatar
Mr0Buggy
Brigadier
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon 27 May 2013 15:57
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Mr0Buggy » Sun 28 Jul 2013 22:05

BTR wrote:How are we even arguing that this patch is fair when every PACT player posting on here talks about how epic it is for their decks?


You should have seen the comments under the previous patch which pretty much lowered availability of Soviet Armor. NATO fanboys were waggling their sausages left and right over it. I guess it's just right that it's PACT homeboy's turn to be doing the same now.

It's an never ending circle of sausage fest !! :U

Also, I'm not saying either patch was right. Balance is a b*tch to achieve and it's a long process. I trust that Eugen can make the right choices for us.

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Gopblin » Sun 28 Jul 2013 22:16

Actually, this patch did wonders for my NATO spamdecks. Not a big fan of heavies, I actually enjoy playing NATO a lot more now that PACT actually can put up a fight.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

User avatar
Vasto
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat 1 Jun 2013 19:26
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Vasto » Sun 28 Jul 2013 22:32

thehitman009 wrote:
Hidden Gunman wrote:As a primarily Pact player, with a focus on mech inf builds, I'm rubbing my hands with glee on this patch.

ArtyomVDNH wrote:Just now coming back from a Latin convention in Vegas, and I cried manly tears of joy when I saw this patch.
I love playing USSR Mechanized and Armored, and the availability on the T80BV is quite nice.



Not to pick on these guys, but this is just one example of MANY posts to the same effect within this thread. How are we even arguing that this patch is fair when every PACT player posting on here talks about how epic it is for their decks? You can practically see them drooling over it. Do you see any self-identified NATO players talking about how awesome this is?


I assume from this statement that you are new to the game.

The earlier balance patch was considered to be a huge blow to the PACT. For sure it was more harsh PACT nerf than supposed recent NATO nerf. In a similar thread roles were reverted, NATO players were enjoying changes and PACT players were crying.

Probably we will see it a few more times, so I advise to not dramatise too much about it. if everyone uninstalled the game after some unwelcome changes, game would be dead ATM.
Image

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests