Login

russian armor

Scale caches to game mode

22 Oct 2019, 16:45 PM
#21
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



Exactly this. The idea of scaling either caches, prices, upkeep or ability cost has been brought up numerous times, but (iirc) the problem is there is no way to change any stats on a per-game-mode basis. Any stat in 1v1 is going to be exactly the same as it is in 4v4, etc.

At best, it might be possible to create new "ultra-low" resource points, and then use them exclusively in the larger maps. It would be require a TON of work to replace all the resource points, though.


If they made any changes, I'd like to see that caches benefit only the builder, and that people can build their own cache on top of someone else's cache, including being a different type of cache.

This would probably be a significant rework and I'm not sure it would affect balance so I doubt anyone will work on it soon.
22 Oct 2019, 17:34 PM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2019, 13:57 PMLago
...
But so do territory points.

Caches are competing with units. Caches get built when they become a more manpower-efficient source of income than map control.


Territories and caches are different cases, caches are an MP investment with no upkeep and in 4vs4 the investment returns more fuel thus its paid of earlier than 1vs1...

This part of the reason why cashes are uncommon in 1vs1 and common in 4vs4, you invest a smaller part of total manpower/army for more fuel returned.
22 Oct 2019, 17:41 PM
#23
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2019, 16:45 PMGrumpy


If they made any changes, I'd like to see that caches benefit only the builder, and that people can build their own cache on top of someone else's cache, including being a different type of cache.

This would probably be a significant rework and I'm not sure it would affect balance so I doubt anyone will work on it soon.


This was my suggestion which is more likely to only be possible on CoH3.
22 Oct 2019, 17:45 PM
#24
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954


Not true, the amount of sectors is similar across all gamemodes, although some maps (across all modes) have more than others. A map like Red Ball Express has 5 standard territory points per side (and 1 fuel and 1 munitions point), Essen Steelworks has 6 standard territory points per side. That's actually less than maps like Crossroads and Nexus, that have 5 points per side, but an extra two interchangeable ones in the middle.



Territories are capped faster in larger game modes so the income reaches max value much faster. I think this is why people think there is more income in larger team games. Even large maps get capped faster because each side starts with 4 capping units instead of 1.
22 Oct 2019, 17:49 PM
#25
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Oct 2019, 17:45 PMGrumpy


Territories are capped faster in larger game modes so the income reaches max value much faster. I think this is why people think there is more income in larger team games. Even large maps get capped faster because each side starts with 4 capping units instead of 1.


I think this gets offset a bit by the size of the maps.

Caches are a problem but they are not the main problem of 4v4 economy.
22 Oct 2019, 17:54 PM
#26
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



This was my suggestion which is more likely to only be possible on CoH3.


Sorry for not referencing your post. I remembered the post but not the author and couldn't find it. It was the only suggestion that I liked. It would fix a couple problems that I run into.
22 Oct 2019, 21:43 PM
#27
avatar of porkloin

Posts: 356



If caches had a noticeable impact, we would see OKW winrates in teamgames plummet. And yet, double OKW is considered as the strongest Axis matchup for 2v2 (https://www.coh2.org/news/92866/automatch-stats-factions-teams-and-maps; OKW/OKW had by far the highest win rate in 2v2s), and 3x or 4x OKW teams never have much of a disadvantage (no statistics available though sadly).

With the exception of some maps, like Hill 400 (where most of the fuel resources are continuously contested), I think the influence of caches is overrated. Their influence can usually be compensated by stronger map presence giving stronger map control, as demonstrated by OKW doing fine without them.

Ultimately, caches provide +3/6/9 fuel per minute extra, which isn't neglectable, but also isn't a whole lot in comparison to periodically losing ~20-30 fuel income by cutoffs or losing most of the map control in 1v1s. Thus, as I said, most of the resource inflation in team games comes from the fact that most territory isn't contested and players always have a steady income of at least ~20-25 fuel throughout the entire match. Caches do add up to the resource inflation, but not so much that I'd consider them the problem.


OKW win rate do trend down with increased game mode , and OH win rates trend up yes? Or is this something you'd dispute.

I was trying to make a nice little chart to show this, but I don't have good software for it.

OKW is an interesting problem. Forward retreat on the battlegroup, and the flak on the panzerheadquaters translate into greater map control, or more accurately, less area to defend and travel.

I'd argue that the current cache scheme makes OKW a problem for the balance team. Their economy tends to be weaker in the team games, and so their units are over-tuned to compensate, but this throws off 1v1 balance. Just comparing the armies I'd expect OKW to be the better team game army than OH due to the core infantry size, indirect fire options, and building differences.


I don't think caches are the single source of balance issues, but I do think their affect is over-looked. Ultimately I'd just like to see a bit more complexity to the game's economy to open more options. Fixing caches so that they're an interesting option in all game modes is the first step towards diversifying the economy decisions.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread: what I'd also like to see, probably even more than a fixed cache scheme, would be special points like medics/mechanics replace some of the resource points in team games.
22 Oct 2019, 22:07 PM
#28
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818



I agree not having caches does affect OKW, It's a bit unrewarding to preserve manpower as OKW when your only expenditure is an infantry blob which doesn't scale as well into late game as vehicles. Since they also have the weakest support weapons it's not like they are really a great alternative.

It also hurts that there are only 2 axis factions and 1 does not get get caches, meaning about half of your teammates cannot contribute in this regard.

I don't think caches in general are a problem, but only 1 faction not having access to them is a disadvantage. (Don't say salvage is the same as like +9 fuel a minute :romeoPls: )
22 Oct 2019, 22:48 PM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

One could try lowering the value of sector resources in large mods and make the cashes return x resources.

The could fix both problems and bring economy across MODs closer.
23 Oct 2019, 17:49 PM
#30
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



I think this gets offset a bit by the size of the maps.

Caches are a problem but they are not the main problem of 4v4 economy.

Laughs in Kuble
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

739 users are online: 739 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49077
Welcome our newest member, juliavargascom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM