RIP Avre

[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

[TheWindCriesMary]

So when are the Tiger (Ace), (Super) Pershing, StuH, Sherman HE, 95 MM Cromwell and KT getting their splashes reduced to be equal to that of a Panther?

Don't forget the IST with a flame round.


But really, I'd love to hear the answer to this question.

[Jodomar]

I happen to like insta-gibbing devices since it adds flavor to the game. Why cater to the care bears, let them play hello kitty online. I never really used AVRE's but boo freaking hoo your vet died, go cry a river then build a bridge and get over it because you're slowing taking all the fun away from EIR. Wonder why most people don't play? Because the game play has gotten seriously dull and is just not as fun to play anymore. I'll play a few games when the new war map/cards go in but I doubt it will keep me around for long if things don't get seriously reworked here.

[XIIcorps]

Exactly jodomar

Vet is a privilege not a right. You earn vet just as quick as you can lose it.
 
Those few units that can insta kill are deterrants to those vet units combat effectiveness.

Needing the avre for no apparent reason other then it has the ability to "ruin vet" is just simply ludicrous

[pqumsieh]

How far apart are the crews you are attacking? The round was setup to destroy most crews in one hit, if its not then its likely a bug rather than the damage modifiers.

There could be a number of factors that would interfere with the results. Maybe the support weapon you attacked had some doctrine buffs that made it just strong enough to survive? Or are shells rolling misses? If they are rolling misses, they shouldn't be. That was the point of the changes with the AVRE, to take away the randomness.

I don't have time to look at the replays myself, so if someone could clarify by answering the questions above that would be great.

[Smokaz]

I have seen Mysthalin post alot and he seems very knowledgeable . He makes a very vaild point that there is no reason to Nerf a unit six months prior to it's final state being released.

http://www.notedco.com/wp-content/uploads/FeltHandPuppets_Lion.jpg


OT:
You're surprised that the AVRE round does not clear the MG in a church? Can you tell me what other explosions that attack the building from the outside that clears a mg in a church in one hit, instantly? Can't think of anything. The churches and chateau have always been hard to clear in single hits because the crew is spread out in the building that also gives big defensive boosts.

Other than that I agree that it seems weird that abilities like the AVRE shot do not fall in line with rest of EIRR if it is killing infantry above doing 75 dmg.  Plenty of good examples of other units doing it has been posted.

[Ahnungsloser]

WTF happen to that thread. Yesterday I made a post on page #2 and now we're going to breach page #6.
Beside from a few guys the most dodge the real numbers, don't understand what the changes did and try to legitimate them
with the bad experience they made.


To get it straight: A Tiger isn't as powerful as you try to make it look like. (The values in (..) are the AVRE ones)
Damage 137.5 (500), Splash Range 0.5/2/5.3/5.3 (2/5/8/10), Damage Modifier 1/0.35/0.2/0.2 (1/0.15/0.1/0.1)


Wind, I've seen a lot of replays from you (because they are awesome) and mostly you did a pretty good job with your AVREs.
In the most cases you go ~10 - ~25 and have killed certain key units to disable a lock down to create a possibility for your team to
start a push to the axis side. From the ressource perspective you will sometimes no get the real absolute value from a AVRE but mostly
it willl have a high relative value by killing the units who are real thread in a specific situation. (Your pretty good in understanding which unit
is a real thread in a specific moment)

The most times when you failed with your AVRE where times where you made a bad strategic decision (shooting at moving unit/covered in a huge emplacement/...)
or when you got to cocky and crushed it right into a heavy AT enviroment which turned it into shreds.

Doctrine buffs don't need to be considered because these buffs make you look better in a specific situation. Otherwise it would be stupid to pick a doctrine
when it has no impact on the battlefield. (Look at the AB doctrine - Nobody plays it beside me and Poppi/Dudi because we just like it and accept that we're mostly
going to lose the game even before the game have even started)


To get this thread going in the right direction:
Can you explain what are you're major issues or your main critic on the AVRE? (Like: It could improve the AVRE peformance by reducing XY because of Z..)

 - How would be a cool down change to make it possible to shoot more rounnds in a specific time period?

[Mysthalin]

- How would be a cool down change to make it possible to shoot more rounnds in a specific time period?

I'll let you figure that one out by yourself. I believe in you bro.

[TheWindCriesMary]

You're surprised that the AVRE round does not clear the MG in a church? Can you tell me what other explosions that attack the building from the outside that clears a mg in a church in one hit, instantly? Can't think of anything. posted.

Can you think of what other units fire once every few minutes, cost 410mp and 240 muni, are a doctrine unlock, are 8 pop, 12 pool, are limited to a range of 40, are slow moving, have a slow turret speed and a slow aim time and a slow projectile?

Can't think of anything.

Btw you might want to look into a hummel with flame rounds which fires multiple times with a recharge not far. Clearing a church is no problem with a hit.

[TheWindCriesMary]

To get this thread going in the right direction:
Can you explain what are you're major issues or your main critic on the AVRE? (Like: It could improve the AVRE peformance by reducing XY because of Z..)

 - How would be a cool down change to make it possible to shoot more rounnds in a specific time period?

1. The major issues with what has been done to the AVRE have already been explained by me, with helpful clarification from Mysthalin, Jodomar and XII corps ad nauseum.  It's mid-range damage, indeed one of the most important components of its abillity to fulfill its intended function, was cut drastically.

This nerf was made carelessly (without proper playtesting of the unit in question in order to determine the need for and indeed impact of such a change) and, as we have discovered in this thread, for illogical and unsupportable reasons (the bogus "design standpoint" argument). The team responsible for nerfing it have provided ludicrous reasons for the change in this thread when pressed -- an argument which has been pointed out by several people now to make absolutely no sense. That is a bad sign for how fast and loose balance was conducted at a fundamental level of procedure.

Perhaps the AVRE was the victim of a temporary lapse in judgement and oversight, but more likely it is systemic to the lack of a requirement for people to actually play with the units they vote on changes to (and to provide documentation). It should be a minimum of providing evidence of at least 10 games to be honest. There should be also be no pretend modicum of secrecy. Will these changes ever be implemented? Not likely. But it is a dream worth having.

[Ahnungsloser]

I'll let you figure that one out by yourself. I believe in you bro.

A bit means not a lot.  


Not sure what was the main intention of the changes but I think it was these times where the StuH had a buff and steamrolled around the fields
and all indirect fire vehicles got reworked.

I still cannot see why it's such a scandal to reduce that modifier from 0.4 to 0.15. A different damage modifier will not change the fact that you will still roll a misshit in when a unit sits in a big emplacement nor it will not help when the unit just walks out of the AOE. The only difference is that you now will be able to insta-gib full health Panzergrenadiere compared to the 0.15 modifier. With the old modifier they had just a few HP left and would die to any bullet which would came across them.


So when I understand you right, in your opinion the patch with the area of effect accuracy and the midrange damage modifier should be reworked, or do you suggest any other unit changes to make the AVRE a solid option for a company? (Like undoing the vet changes)

When you suggest any additional changes - What is/are the argumentation/reasons for these extra tweaks?

[TheWindCriesMary]

The reduction is a 62.5% reduction in damage. AKA - damage divided by 2.67

Ahnung all of your questions can be answered easily by previous posts in the thread. I appreciate your curiosity but it's setting the discussion backwards having to go and provide you quotes where you could easily solve most of the uncertainties you have just by reading the whole discussion.


The AVRE gets one shot every few minutes that now has "a chance" to kill a support weapon. Using it to kill infantry (one of its main purposes) is extremely more difficult because of the near perfect hit you have to get off with a slow moving, slow turret, slow projectile, slow aim unit. This was mitigated before by making the shot, when it did eventually explode, very powerful over a short and medium radius. By removing the medium radius' power,  the AVRE (a tricky unit to use) has been rendered comically impractical.

The unit should be returned to default. NO additional changes to improve it should be made until it can be rigorously playtested by a number of players in its default state to determine if more changes are needed.

How we got into this mess in the first place was by making changes without that basic rigour based on theory crafting instead of documented play testing in current meta game conditions.

[tank130]

I appreciate your curiosity but it's setting the discussion backwards

So what kinds of questions do you propose to move this topic forward?

[chefarzt]

Wind where did u learn to write your great essays, or were you just born that good?

[TheWindCriesMary]

So what kinds of questions do you propose to move this topic forward?

The topic is moving forward -- even more productively then I could have hoped. Mysthalin has taken up the task of analysing replays and we've gathered a few players already who have committed themselves to providing them in order to conduct a statistical analysis of the AVRE in the hands of players of various skill levels.

Also, a handful of people have effectively debunked the bogus "design standpoint" justification (as of yet the ONLY justification provided for the change) which has demonstrated that the reasoning behind the change was itself flawed. Once we get that critical data we're going to plug it into this ongoing discussion as evidence for or against the argument that the AVRE nerf has damaged the unit and the metagame. That will be a basis for repealing it and, hopefully, provide a staging ground for additional testing to see if other changes may be merited.

So what we have done is effectively shown why the change was a poor one and we're now working together to figure out just what the exact consequences of the misstep are.

That's certainly progress and a good sign that the thread's discussion (and sub discussions) is moving forward well.


@Chef: Sorry dude, on topic stuff only. Can't give certain people on the team any reason to lock this thread that is driving a very necessary discussion.

[TheVolskinator]

He's not implying you strayed from the point, he's implying you've engaged in an excessive amount of verbal masturbation, as per usual.

Sigged.

[tank130]

Sorry Wind, I guess you miss understood my question. I was not asking if you are capable of writing an essay on the productivity of your thread.

This is the question I asked:

So what kinds of questions do you propose to move this topic forward?

You have implied that you are unable to answer Ahnungsloser's question because it would be setting the discussion backwards.
I agree that all of the information you want reviewed is available in previous posts, but you can't blame a guy for not wanting to wade through 6 pages of essays filled with hyperbole, and grandstanding.

Are you saying no one is allowed to ask questions in this thread anymore? You have most certainly stated that any question who's answer may be buried in the walls of text may not be asked.

I simply asked what questions are considered appropriate now? We are assuming you want to have a discussion about the unit, but that is not possible if questions can not be asked.

If this thread is complete and there are no more questions & answers, then it serves no purpose except to grandstand. In which case it will be locked.

I would prefer to see the open question & answer discussion continue and the thread to remain open.

[Ahnungsloser]

Ahnung all of your questions can be answered easily by previous posts in the thread. I appreciate your curiosity but it's setting the discussion backwards having to go and provide you quotes where you could easily solve most of the uncertainties you have just by reading the whole discussion.

Short: I don't care how big the damage reduction is it can be even 10 or more, now it's still enough to kill the most target and if not it's makes them completly unfunctional because they can't survive a single hit from anything. The damn damage modifier has nothing to do with failing to hit your target or helping you out with doing wrong strategical decisions.


You don't get it that I want to help, don't you?
With the stupid questions I asked I wanted to filter the necessary/important information in this huge ass nearly eight page thread to have a good sumaration. Now
it's one of these normal-ass-normal-everything-except-balance-discussion-community-flame-thread.

The most of the people who have the responsibility for balance changes will not even read this drama thread because they just see (like always) that people bully around and blamimg them for bad works and refer to posts that the thread openers didn't made, (Because YOU don't really understand what certain changes in the past did so you need other people to legitimate/support your changes) while still having a nerve to anticipate to get stuff changed just for. (WTF!)

How narrow minded are you? Even if you're right, it doesn't mean that you get your rights. (Sometimes you get lucky but that is a different story..)
Nobody of them will care what you are saying unless you encounter these responsible people on a certain level of fairness and respect.

[TheWindCriesMary]

@Ahnung: I'll respond to your post in a moment, just going into a game so I'll read it over when I get back.

text

Please go back to the post in question and see that it begins by answering his question (with a direct quote from Mysthalin describing how big the math behind the nerf of the AVRE's damage is).

After answering his question I then stated that it does set the progress the thread is making back a bit if people come in on page 6 and ask things that have been answered in 8-10 earlier posts. This did not stop me from answering his question all the same and then going on to further elaborate on the main reasons why the change is perceived to be a poor one.


Please stop trying to take my thread off topic: it is about the AVRE changes. This is the fourth request.

[TheVolskinator]

Wind. ITS AN AVRE. If it's the centerpiece of your company, you're doing it wrong. Use it as a support tool. Do whatever. Bring an MMG carrier or a Vickers along and party away. It still causes an "oh shit" reaction and gets people to move out of cover. If you have, say, a Tommie squad tagging along, that almost dead squad of Panzer Grenadiers will evolve and become Fully Dead Panzer Grenadiers. MMkay?

[TheWindCriesMary]

Wind. ITS AN AVRE. If it's the centerpiece of your company, you're doing it wrong. Use it as a support tool. Do whatever. Bring an MMG carrier or a Vickers along and party away. It still causes an "oh shit" reaction and gets people to move out of cover. If you have, say, a Tommie squad tagging along, that almost dead squad of Panzer Grenadiers will evolve and become Fully Dead Panzer Grenadiers. MMkay?

Volksinator I think you might be operating on a whole slew of misinformation here: both about why the change to the AVRE was so poor and about how they are being used in-game in order to predicate this thread's discussion. Please watch the replays in the other thread to get a feel for how the AVRE is being used in order to better familiarize yourself with the basis and in-game circumstances of this thread.

Short: I don't care how big the damage reduction is it can be even 10 or more, now it's still enough to kill the most target and if not it's makes them completly unfunctional because they can't survive a single hit from anything.

What you are saying here is in direct contradiction to the extensive in-game evidence compiled in the replays thread. You are trying to work out what sounds reasonable in your head, and if we didn't have a growing repository of replays that would suffice, but we do. There are extensive examples now readily available for viewing of the AVRE recharging for several minutes, conducting an accurate shot against a support weapon or infantry squad, and failing to kill it (sometimes failing to kill more than 1 man and take the pak crew's health below 2/3rds.  Considering a stuh, tiger, pershing, HE sherman, artillery shell, goliath or 95mm cromwell can decrew a pak in <30 seconds, it is ridiculous for a unit that only fires every few minutes to so consistently fail to do the same.

 

The damn damage modifier has nothing to do with failing to hit your target or helping you out with doing wrong strategical decisions.

We are arguing that the damage modifier has significantly hampered the AVRE's petard abillity to do the damage it should with a direct hit... given the rate of fire, the turn rate, the turret turn rate, the projectile speed, the aim time, the cost, the doctrine unlock, the pop and the pool of the unit.

It is a statistically significant alteration (see Mysthalin's math) to the unit. You are arguing against the math of it.

You don't get it that I want to help, don't you?

If you would like to help, please add some AVRE's to your company and post a few replays to the AVRE replay gathering thread. Until you have played a reasonable number of games with the AVRE, it's likely you will not be much help in the discussion unfortunately. Also, while I understand it can seem undesirable to have to go back and read the long thread, it's not really the responsibility of the people actively engaged in the conversation to catch you up on what you don't feel like reading (though I have made some small effort to quote relevant answers). Just imagine if we kept having to repeat answers to questions made on page 1-6 each time someone new came into the discussion. Why is it OK that you don't want to take the time to read the thread to get caught up, but it's so incredibly offensive when someone is hesitant to take the time to do the work for you? That strikes me as counter productive thinking.


But if you really want to help, believe me your help will be greatly appreciated.

If you can post a few replays up where, with decent teams, you use AVREs it would really help the discussion figure out whether the AVRE change indeed was a poor one or a good one. That is the number one best way you can help us start to figure things out around this unit.

I hope you were sincere in your offer to help because this would really be appreciated.