New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

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

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby thehitman009 » Sun 28 Jul 2013 22:34

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


That was sarcasm that didn't translate well. NATO helos were easily countered by PACT AA like Tusunga M with its radar off.

Mr0Buggy wrote: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.


Again, I could care less about who's a "fanboy" of what. Also, I wasn't on the forums during that time, so perhaps this is some sort of payback thing. Who knows. I don't really care if someone gets their much deserved chance to ooze all over a patch. These are childish, petty issues in my opinion.

I'm talking about balance here.

Gopblin wrote: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.


So what if I don't like playing spamdecks? Should I be forced to do that? Hell why don't we just get rid of the deck creation system and force everyone to play a certain way? I think this is against the foundations of the game.

As for PACT actually putting up a fight, who were you playing before? Our experiences are vastly different in this realm.

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 22:43

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


That was sarcasm that didn't translate well. NATO helos were easily countered by PACT AA like Tusunga M with its radar off.

And? If theye were easly countered, what have changed? Ah, and Tung-M is USSR only, basic Tung loses duels with hellfire choppers anyway, and 57-2 is even worse, because it has low vet and uses slow-firing inaccurate autocannon instead of missiles - but you know what? This buff and STROP-2 buff gives ANYTHING to decks that were almost unplayable before, because they had literally NOTHING to defend against helos - i.e. NSWP.
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 22:45

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


Yeah I think that was made pretty clear at the end of my post. Didn't play EE, didn't play this in beta, just picked it up at the suggestion of my cousins in June.

Vasto wrote: 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.


I would love to see some dialogue based off of actual balance and gameplay concerns rather than this sense of entitlement to a PACT buff because last time the roles were reversed. Again, childish and petty.

User avatar
Lorik Eolmin
First Sergeant
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue 11 Jun 2013 19:50
Location: Pella, Classic Macedonia, France
Contact:

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Lorik Eolmin » Sun 28 Jul 2013 22:50

Just gameplay, it would be nice enough. Why not starting one in another thread?

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 22:59

thehitman009 wrote:
Vasto wrote: 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.


I would love to see some dialogue based off of actual balance and gameplay concerns rather than this sense of entitlement to a PACT buff because last time the roles were reversed. Again, childish and petty.


Balancing game like ALB where you got over 800 units is complex and long process which has to be done in the iterative way. So obviously in the process, at some stages different sides will benefit more from changes, other will suffer. This is how the pursuit for the balance works. Trust devs, they for sure know better what the final picture should look like.

EDIT:

In the context what I wrote above, please reconsider definition of childish behavior looking at this:

thehitman009 wrote:I'm not dumb enough to think that I can get a refund for this game, but I do feel completely swindled at this point. Like my first games of ALB, I'll take this loss as a lesson learned. Uninstalling the game and avoiding future products will have to suffice.
Last edited by Vasto on Sun 28 Jul 2013 23:25, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Radioshow
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon 18 Jun 2012 00:40
Location: Canada

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Radioshow » Sun 28 Jul 2013 23:04

Mr0Buggy wrote:
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.



But didn't PACT just get some of that nerf availability from the last patch back? So, no PACT didn't really get nerfed much at all. Hell they got 1 more T80u, 1 more Mi-28 etc..

Also I would like to see these replays of Seahawks consistently taking out Tung's one on one. Hellfire is nice but certainly not a guaranteed hit and that's aweful risky. I can show Hellfires missing 3/4 shots multiple times, does that mean they always miss?
Using one on one scenarios with absence of any recon or other elements is useless as that is the only way you might do it. Getting that close means your in range of other guns too more than likely and we all know any gun can down a NATO helo.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Radioshow is not a troll, he is our resident Doom Prophet.

Image

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 23:10

Radioshow wrote:Also I would like to see these replays of Seahawks consistently taking out Tung's one on one. Hellfire is nice but certainly not a guaranteed hit and that's aweful risky. I can show Hellfires missing 3/4 shots multiple times, does that mean they always miss?
OK, I exaggerated here a bit... but if Tunguska have no problem killing Hellfire choppers why would someone take 57-2s in mixed PACT/USSR anyway?
Image

User avatar
Radioshow
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon 18 Jun 2012 00:40
Location: Canada

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby Radioshow » Sun 28 Jul 2013 23:23

eMeM wrote:
Radioshow wrote:Also I would like to see these replays of Seahawks consistently taking out Tung's one on one. Hellfire is nice but certainly not a guaranteed hit and that's aweful risky. I can show Hellfires missing 3/4 shots multiple times, does that mean they always miss?
OK, I exaggerated here a bit... but if Tunguska have no problem killing Hellfire choppers why would someone take 57-2s in mixed PACT/USSR anyway?


And this exaggeration is a problem from PACT. They use untrue or exaggerated examples to say how something is OP when it isn't. How many other arguments have used false information to garner acceptance?

Also AAA co-ordinated fire keeps me from using them at all if there could be AAA hiding all over. It may not kill the Seahawk outright but will either stun or cause it to miss/bug out.

Mixing types of AA and having them spread out and in cover makes it very dangerous to get helos anywhere close.

Also PACT has the fastest AA around and can easily cover the short range needed to get in range.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Radioshow is not a troll, he is our resident Doom Prophet.

Image

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 23:48

I wasn't talking about OPness of anything. Quite the contrary, it was about ZSU-57-2 NOT being OP.
You can have 2 cards of basic Tunguskas for 12 of them total, and they will KILL instead of scare off those Seahawks because they have 2800 m accurate missile, not inaccurate cannon like ZSU.

Radioshow wrote:Also PACT has the fastest AA around and can easily cover the short range needed to get in range.
Actually ZSU-57s are slower than chapps, gepards, rolands, veak, adats... Tunguska and Striela-10 are comparable. Or maybe you are talking about... I don't know, Striela-1? Have you ever seen it in game?

Radioshow wrote:Also AAA co-ordinated fire keeps me from using them at all if there could be AAA hiding all over. It may not kill the Seahawk outright but will either stun or cause it to miss/bug out.
And not coordinated fire of single SAM launcher will kill it. And, you know, AAA are made to kill/scare off choppers.

Radioshow wrote:Mixing types of AA and having them spread out and in cover makes it almost very dangerous to get helos anywhere close.
Because NATO has no 2800m AA(A) at all. And NATO don't spread them all over the place. But hey, my Mi-24 will take 10 Roland's missiles and fly away safely, because they have 1 ARMOR and 10 HP!
Image

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

Re: New balance & campaign patch (v1404)

Postby naizarak » Sun 28 Jul 2013 23:50

Radioshow wrote:
eMeM wrote:
Radioshow wrote:Also I would like to see these replays of Seahawks consistently taking out Tung's one on one. Hellfire is nice but certainly not a guaranteed hit and that's aweful risky. I can show Hellfires missing 3/4 shots multiple times, does that mean they always miss?
OK, I exaggerated here a bit... but if Tunguska have no problem killing Hellfire choppers why would someone take 57-2s in mixed PACT/USSR anyway?


And this exaggeration is a problem from PACT. They use untrue or exaggerated examples to say how something is OP when it isn't. How many other arguments have used false information to garner acceptance?

Also AAA co-ordinated fire keeps me from using them at all if there could be AAA hiding all over. It may not kill the Seahawk outright but will either stun or cause it to miss/bug out.

Mixing types of AA and having them spread out and in cover makes it very dangerous to get helos anywhere close.

Also PACT has the fastest AA around and can easily cover the short range needed to get in range.


Yes but again this is assuming that NATO is on the offensive and the AA is setup in defensive positions. Now flip it around. How exactly is pact AA supposed to deal with nato helis that are playing defensively? It's impossible without the tunguska m.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests