Addition vs Multiplier Buffs

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Tymathee]

Just my observation. I feel that multiplier buffs are part of what break some doctrines rather than the doc ability itself.

Put it this way. Say you add 25% damage to all tanks on allies right.
Shermans do 87.5
Hellcat & M-10 112.5
Pershing 137.5

when you put in 25% damage, it will clearly benefit the pershing more than a Sherman because 25% of 137.5 is a much greater buff over 25% of 87.5, which i feel is part of what makes heat rounds so horrid among other things.

so that would give you
109.375 for Sherman (+21.875)
140.625 for TD's (+28.125)
171.875 for Persh (+34.375)

Now, you may say you'd pick the Persh out of this but alas, no. If you're killing tanks the m-10 has a reload of 4.2, pershing 6 and sherman 7 (75 and 76mm)

so if  you're taking the dmg buff to takeon tanks, you cleary go with the tank destroyer because you'd get more bang for your buff, the Sherman would be useless and the Persh you'd go if you expect heavy tanks but even then taking a TD may benefit you more.

So I feel in a lot of doc abilities instead of a percentage buff you do like the RCA Marksman training and give addition buffs.

ex. rifle nades are +.2 not +20%

Now, some abilities need percentage buffs like the incremental on teh marksman training, penetration, AoE, etc but for things like damage, sight, accuracy, health and others they need to be addition buffs so you dont have over stacking with vet, lock down abilities, officer buffs etc.

[AmPM]

You are away that +.2 is +20% right?

Anyway, your number only take into account DPS, not pop efficiency or dual roles.

HEAT rounds sucks because the damage it adds does not reduce the number of hits required to kill anything, and the penetration is so low that it doesn't make units like the STuG or P4 reliable AT.

[NightRain]

HEAT rounds sucks because the damage it adds does not reduce the number of hits required to kill anything, and the penetration is so low that it doesn't make units like the STuG or P4 reliable AT.

+999999

[Tymathee]

You are away that +.2 is +20% right?

Anyway, your number only take into account DPS, not pop efficiency or dual roles.

HEAT rounds sucks because the damage it adds does not reduce the number of hits required to kill anything, and the penetration is so low that it doesn't make units like the STuG or P4 reliable AT.

did u not note i said "among other things"

the point is. multiplier bonuses skew things in favor of certain units over others making certain units a lot more useful compared to those along with it.

Like a 20% acc bonus benefits a tiger more than it does a p4
or a 20% health buff benefits grenadiers over volks (80-96 over 60-72 from +20 to +24)

but if say you do +10 health to grens and + 15 to volks u get 90 and 75, it makes both appealing.

and no it's actually + .1 look at the rgds

normal piat 1.0, .65 and .3 acc
rifle training piat 1.1, .75 and .4

Gren .5, .25, .05
RT .7, .45, .25

so it's an addition multiplier not multiplied multiplier.

[Mysthalin]

+20% generally means 1.2 multiplier.

+.2 means x+0.2 (I.e. 0.45+0.2=0.65).

I'm fairly certain the full reload cycle for the M10 is 5.2 seconds and the sherman is just 6, btw.

Oh, and you need to realise that to, say - a pershing, +12.5 damage would be far less useful than it would be to a sherman.

[AmPM]

Tym, it's not doctrine buffs that make units unappealing, the P4/STuG for instance are not as good as a Tiger for multiple reasons.

1) They do not effectively dual role
2) They take much less to damage or destroy
3) They require a heavy Munitions investment for what you get out of it
4) They take up Manpower that is more valuable as additional Infantry or Support

Those are what makes it not worth taking, not buffs that affect them.

Lets take your 75hp Volks vs 90hp Grens, example. Grens are the better option still for cost. For slightly more MP you get same squad HP, don't have to worry about getting one shotted, and have better offensive firepower Not including much more useful upgrades, like a Grenade.

Would it matter either way if the numbers and costs of units balanced, no.

Fix unit pricing, balance doctrines, and this won't even matter.

[Unkn0wn]

the point is. multiplier bonuses skew things in favor of certain units over others making certain units a lot more useful compared to those along with it.

They don't really, all units affected by a buff are getting buffed proportionally. It's only fair that a unit that has higher base damage (and is likely more expensive) gets a doctrine buff that is proportionate to its base damage.

For a sherman that 25% buff is just as significant as it is for a pershing.

[RikiRude]

I think you guys are focusing more on the numbers he's given rather than the actual point he's making.

It's a good point, and should be addressed, look at infantry doctrine, allied grit gives +5 hp to rangers, but gives rifles 10% less incoming accuracy which benefits both.


Also I one thing that I think needs to be looked at (which I'm sure we are all well aware all this is probably on the back burner while they have other more important things to balance) infantry T2 steady sights gives rifles, rangers, mgs, snipers, +15% accuracy in all types of cover, RE T2 defenders of dunkirk give -10% incommunicado accuracy in all covers, AND give an additional 15% accuracy if in green/trench cover. Not to mention tommys are better main line infantry than rifles, but that's a much better T2. I'm not saying they have to be mirrored either, give Steady Sights a faster reload or something as well to balance.

[AmPM]

That has to do with doctrine balance though, and not the way the numbers are put together like Tym is saying.

For instance, if a doctrine buff gives the Sherman +25% HP and the M10 +25% HP and the Pershing +25% HP, then each tank is getting a 25% increase in its HP, giving you an equal increase in cost/effectiveness as long as that HP is useful.

A 25% increase is a 25% increase, they get an equal increase in effectiveness.

[Unkn0wn]

Also I one thing that I think needs to be looked at (which I'm sure we are all well aware all this is probably on the back burner while they have other more important things to balance) infantry T2 steady sights gives rifles, rangers, mgs, snipers, +15% accuracy in all types of cover, RE T2 defenders of dunkirk give -10% incommunicado accuracy in all covers, AND give an additional 15% accuracy if in green/trench cover. Not to mention tommys are better main line infantry than rifles, but that's a much better T2. I'm not saying they have to be mirrored either, give Steady Sights a faster reload or something as well to balance.

We're well aware there's some significant imbalances within and in between various doctrines, bringing them up in the balance forums is definitely a good idea. We have a thorough review of existing doctrines planned, which is going to be a lot of work, after the remaining doctrines are implemented. In the meantime, while we work on implementing these remaining doctrines, we'll also be addressing some of the more obvious problems in existing doctrines left and right.

[Tymathee]

I still think you guys dont' get it. I only state numbers to try and make it clearer but i guess it didn't.

My issue is not with the doctrines themselves but because of multipliers you can get multiplier upon multiplier upon multiplier and get higher than intended final results.

Using numbers again, just dont get caught up in it and look at the point i'm trying to make which is that I think there needs to be less doc buffs that give a base multiplier (like 100x10% or 100+(100x.1)=) but rather buffs that do addition (100+10)

the main issue this comes up with is with accuracy i find.

If you have a tank that does 80% accuracy and gets a 20% bonus multipler thru doc buff you get 0.96 and at vet 2 it gets 20% acc thats 1.152

then if you add in the possiblity of an officer that can give tanks an accuracy bonus of i think 25% right? i forget the exact number then you can see where it gets out of control.

so its not the doctrine itself that i'm talking about, its the stacking of doc buff + ability + other abilities that need to be addressed.

More doctrine abilities need to be looked at not only by what it can do for that unit but what outside influences can add into it like vet, officer buffs, teammate doc buffs etc.

[Unkn0wn]

Well that's a whole different thing entirely from your opening post it seems
It is a fair concern however, definitely worth the discussion.

[AmPM]

I still think you guys dont' get it. I only state numbers to try and make it clearer but i guess it didn't.

My issue is not with the doctrines themselves but because of multipliers you can get multiplier upon multiplier upon multiplier and get higher than intended final results.

Using numbers again, just dont get caught up in it and look at the point i'm trying to make which is that I think there needs to be less doc buffs that give a base multiplier (like 100x10% or 100+(100x.1)=) but rather buffs that do addition (100+10)

the main issue this comes up with is with accuracy i find.

If you have a tank that does 80% accuracy and gets a 20% bonus multipler thru doc buff you get 0.96 and at vet 2 it gets 20% acc thats 1.152

then if you add in the possiblity of an officer that can give tanks an accuracy bonus of i think 25% right? i forget the exact number then you can see where it gets out of control.

so its not the doctrine itself that i'm talking about, its the stacking of doc buff + ability + other abilities that need to be addressed.

More doctrine abilities need to be looked at not only by what it can do for that unit but what outside influences can add into it like vet, officer buffs, teammate doc buffs etc.

That is where number changes come in, if you did it additive, you would have 80% +20% = 1.00

Add in Vet and Officer and you get something like 1.40 accuracy.

So this basically has nothing to do with HOW the numbers are put in, and more to do with you complaining about too many buffs affecting one stat on a unit?