Login

russian armor

Simple Fixes: Tank Meta Issues

19 Dec 2019, 13:48 PM
#41
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 13:44 PMKatitof

Its brawler....
It outlasts everything within its firing range, excluding ONE allied tank.

You said it doesn't have a role in first sentence and highlighted its role in last...


And like I explained, that’s not a role. Every tank can be a brawler vs a weaker tank.

Hence why I gave two possible avenues for a Panther role:

Better moving accuracy, more top speed = hunt down tanks

Worse mobility, 210 fuel, 60 range, more armour, less health and turret rotation = expensive long range sniper
19 Dec 2019, 14:03 PM
#42
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


...
.1. Move all call-in heavy tanks back to CP-12

I had also pointed out the timing of Super heavies was to early even when OKW Tiger was firstly introduced.

Heavy tanks have too much shock value they should either be delayed (cp 12 might be late?) or have much less shock value by reducing their base stat/performance and moving to veterancy.


...
2. A more radical solution, but still one that does not involve much stat changing, would be to require heavy tanks be physically built from tech structure and with a long production time.
...

Replacing a lost Super heavy is an even bigger problem.

Making build-able is solution that I have also suggested, other option are the CD start after unit is lost (the can be moded as far as I know) and/or the unit does longer to appear after it has been called in.



1. A 75% or so decrease in TD accuracy via the target-table when being used on medium tanks via type medium_tank.


This is not good idea because it very difficult to check if thing work as intended when using target tables.

There are easier and "better" solution and even created a MOD of it. Greatly increase the target size of Super heavies. That actually has a similar affect.

Super heavies become easier to hit but not penetrate and mediums are harder to hit easier to penetrated.

This affect can also be amplified by creating 2 type of munition for TDs AP with high penetration
low accuracy (one can also increase damage and reduce ROF) and normal rounds with low penetration and higher accuracy vs mediums.

In addition the is little reason why ROF of TDs should not be affected by range, one of the main problems with TDs is ow effective they are at max range.


19 Dec 2019, 14:11 PM
#43
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

...
Heavy tanks at 13 CPs came way too late for teamgames, where resources are inflated and CP gain is deflated. This meant that they arrived at a time when there were already 1-2 vet 2-3 TDs around per every enemy player, making them mostly unviable to use. Moving heavies back to 12 CPs may benefit 1v1s, but it would not benefit 3v3s and 4v4s.
...

There many solution of these problem, like:
Change CP gain across MODs so that timing is closer (it can be moded)
Tone down the vet bonuses of TDs if needed
Tone down the base stat of Super heavies and move them to veternacy so that these unit have lower shock value when they arrive.



A possible solution, but not very intuitive, since they'd need to have both a CP requirement, a tech requirement, and a build requirement.
...

There also solution other solution like:
Unit does not arrive immediately when called in but after some time
CD starts when unit lost (can be moded)


Not a very elegant solution either. We are specifically moving away from invisible modifiers as much as we can to make the game more straightforward to everyone. Introducing artificial accuracy modifiers (on top of the natural accuracy modifier that is target size) is not a good direction to take.

Simply increase target size of Super heavies and adjust chance to hit accordingly.
19 Dec 2019, 14:56 PM
#44
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 14:11 PMVipper
There many solution of these problem, like:
Change CP gain across MODs so that timing is closer (it can be moded)

Relic won't allow such drastic core changes at this stage.


jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 14:11 PMVipper
Tone down the vet bonuses of TDs if needed
Tone down the base stat of Super heavies and move them to veternacy so that these unit have lower shock value when they arrive.

Messing too much with TDs is very dangerous given how much weight they currently carry.
Moving some vet 0 performance to veterancy is certainly an option, but we're currently exploring some other changes first.


jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 14:11 PMVipper
There also solution other solution like:

CD starts when unit lost (can be moded)

We are currently striving to implement this.


jump backJump back to quoted post19 Dec 2019, 14:11 PMVipper
Simply increase target size of Super heavies and adjust chance to hit accordingly.

That would increase the accuracy of literally everything that's firing at a heavy, not just TDs, which is unnecessary and unwanted. The current target size of 26 already gives TDs a 91-100% chance to hit at max range so I'm not sure what that's supposed to achieve anyway. It'd be way too much work to adjust the accuracy of every single weapon to accommodate this.
19 Dec 2019, 15:39 PM
#45
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

So what exactly is the Panther so good at? Which role does the current version excel at?


The same thing heavies do: medium armour superiority.

With the extra two hits it can take, it'll clobber any generalist medium at any range. It also has the durability to dive after them when they retreat.

It'll also beat unsupported tank destroyers with those extra two hits.

The problem is heavies: why get a Panther when, for 50 FU more, you can get a Tiger that can also blow infantry squads off the map like sand in a hurricane?

The IS-2 just makes this worse: its 375 frontal armour means only the Panther and Tiger can stand up to it. With the IS-2's new rushable timing, that means going straight for the Tiger is overwhelmingly your best option.

And like I explained, that’s not a role. Every tank can be a brawler vs a weaker tank.


Except the only enemy tank stronger than the Panther in tank combat is the IS-2. If you exclude doctrinal heavies, it's the top of the food chain.
19 Dec 2019, 15:44 PM
#46
avatar of Princeps

Posts: 214



Yes, it is fair, since you are given the tools for it.

How is this any different from lets say, early game USF vs OST infantry play? Why does USF have to flank OST HMGs and use smoke or light vehicles to counter them? Why can't they just win in a straight up fight?

Why should OST be able to make a heavy tank and just be able to A move and win, when the faction has Panzerschreks, high DPS AT guns, cheap Stugs, and P4s and Panthers with blitz?

Still if you can't be bothered to use these tools, you can always sit back with your own 70 range heavy tank destroyer and let the Allied player do all the hard flanking stuff.


1.oh and u have no pak, handheld At, mines, at strafing ... arty???

yes u have BUT its easy mode. like the typical A- move tactic.

2.make a lightvehicle.. tech up ? there are more opennigs than rifle spam

3.u mean pershing and vet 3 rifle + ranger?

4. the slowest fuckin tank in game.... witch u compare to the super agile jackson... ok

Just nerf the 60TD and l2p combiend arms. -_-
19 Dec 2019, 17:10 PM
#47
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1



1.oh and u have no pak, handheld At, mines, at strafing ... arty???

yes u have BUT its easy mode. like the typical A- move tactic.

2.make a lightvehicle.. tech up ? there are more opennigs than rifle spam

3.u mean pershing and vet 3 rifle + ranger?

4. the slowest fuckin tank in game.... witch u compare to the super agile jackson... ok

Just nerf the 60TD and l2p combiend arms. -_-


Cry that allies outrange you and can shoot you from a safe distance. Think it is unfair that you have to manouver to counter it, which is easy enough to do with Blitz.
Don't want to use 70 range TD because because the opponent might flank you with their mobile units...

Also, Pershing rangers Jackson OP. Obers KT JP4s are fine.
21 Dec 2019, 08:27 AM
#48
avatar of porkloin

Posts: 356




Heavy tanks at 13 CPs came way too late for teamgames, where resources are inflated and CP gain is deflated. This meant that they arrived at a time when there were already 1-2 vet 2-3 TDs around per every enemy player, making them mostly unviable to use. Moving heavies back to 12 CPs may benefit 1v1s, but it would not benefit 3v3s and 4v4s.


Why aren't team-game maps being slowly phased towards a more standardized resource income? As is the extra players add balance problems, but the extra resources on team maps is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Surely there's some reasoning behind this? Why not just convert the excess points into medics or mechanics as was suggested in another thread?
21 Dec 2019, 09:07 AM
#49
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 479

I would say Heavies with the exception of the Croc and Tiger Ace should require more tech at the moment. At least require all tech structures to be built similar to how the King Tiger is called in. At least this way it delays them but without making it as random as how CP's can be.
21 Dec 2019, 09:10 AM
#50
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Why aren't team-game maps being slowly phased towards a more standardized resource income? As is the extra players add balance problems, but the extra resources on team maps is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Surely there's some reasoning behind this? Why not just convert the excess points into medics or mechanics as was suggested in another thread?

Less resources and more points of interest would be great in team games. Mechanics, medics, even the watch towers add variety and more tactical depth as well as slowikg inflation a bit
21 Dec 2019, 17:17 PM
#51
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

I like heavy call in to remain as powerful as now. Their shock factor separates them from stock units.
Imo the role of heavy call in acts as hero units.

I am surprised to hear 4v4 is reason for this timing. I thought 4v4/3v3 was always easier to call in heavy.

But i agree they come too early, easier to stall for them. So how we delay them?

Simply make all tech structures need to get build. Like KT. Having all tech structures built show the hero qualities that you have the resources to call them.

This is enough delay.

However all tech structures timing may differ between factions. We just need to compensate with additional cp to bring them in line.
21 Dec 2019, 18:20 PM
#52
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I find this thread has good intentions, but it's not a simple fix if the problem is not addressed correctly.

Even heavy tanks vary pretty much in their role and stats, like mediums do aswell, pershing is not used like a KT or an is2 is nothing compared elephant. Even faction units contribute to this role definition and on top of that TDs make a mess of interactions and countering.

There is no simple fix but to break the current heavy + TD meta.

IMO The real issue comes from a competitive 1v1 units mixed up with team game strategy. It has happened before in other RTS but in this particular one, people complaint more often because they want a game only for 1v1 or 4v4.

Ingame heavy tanks are hero like units, their real counterpart was simply a technological advantage.
Heavy tanks were dominated by the TD meta, that's why they got buffed overall, but TDs dominated heavies because they were cancerous before that.

This is not a static balance issue, but how players react to units reliability.

My 2 cents are, TDs should be available after heavies can be fielded, whether it be at 12CP or 9CP.
21 Dec 2019, 18:23 PM
#53
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

The issue with heavies is power to cost ratio. Increase cost and increase cooldown of call in ability and they won’t be as OP.

For instance the Tiger 1 needs 230 fuel and you can build another one if you lose it. The unit would be a lot more balanced if it its cost was increased to 260 fuel and when the unit dies a 10 min cooldown on the call in could start.
21 Dec 2019, 20:35 PM
#54
avatar of Latch

Posts: 773

The issue with heavies is power to cost ratio. Increase cost and increase cooldown of call in ability and they won’t be as OP.

For instance the Tiger 1 needs 230 fuel and you can build another one if you lose it. The unit would be a lot more balanced if it its cost was increased to 260 fuel and when the unit dies a 10 min cooldown on the call in could start.


Exactly its just bat shit bull shit when you make a push against heavy and as you're trying to lick your wounds and get back on track, another appears instantly.
21 Dec 2019, 21:11 PM
#55
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

IMO The real issue comes from a competitive 1v1 units mixed up with team game strategy. It has happened before in other RTS but in this particular one, people complaint more often because they want a game only for 1v1 or 4v4.


Heavy tanks at 13 CPs came way too late for teamgames, where resources are inflated and CP gain is deflated. This meant that they arrived at a time when there were already 1-2 vet 2-3 TDs around per every enemy player, making them mostly unviable to use. Moving heavies back to 12 CPs may benefit 1v1s, but it would not benefit 3v3s and 4v4s.


My only question is:

If we can accept that super heavy tanks like JT, Ele and ISU152 are more than likely never gonna be viable outside of REALLY niche situations on 1v1, why can't the same line of thought be had regarding heavy tanks arriving slightly later on teamgames when there is a higher volume of units that could counter them.

I'm sure there is plenty of shuffling discussion going around and probably a middle ground CP wise is gonna be made.

I don't think that vet0 performance on TD vs heavy is problematic more so in the case once they get to vet2/vet3.
Are there any plans to adjust those down and then remove vet 2 vet range on heavies (which makes AT vehicles answers to IS2 as OH kinda weak)


I know there are other solutions been thought or tried (like implementing the cd on death for example) outside of straight balance changes, but i think this subjects at the moment will always become an issue to dance around if not address directly.
22 Dec 2019, 09:10 AM
#56
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Imo the heavy call in meta problem is overblown.
It benefits allies more but axis needed it more.

Just because we see GO and tigers in wc19, creates a half full impression.

Allies just need to have a 60td in their build and tigers cannot roam freely.
While Is2 is a real bonus for allies. The unit is very hard to kill in my 2v2, let alone 1v1.

Axis pretty much replaced the p4 with tiger. Something that hits stronger allies infantry and can stay around longer against 60td. Its rof vet is much needed.

The recent buff to allies infantry did not help things.

Basically the 60td have zone out axis late stock tanks. It is more efficiency to stall for tiger. GO tiger has arty too, much helpful.

Imo it is back to 60td in how efficient they stop axis late games in their tracks.

I also wondered if the heavy call in did not changed for wc19, what would be the faction win rates?

Imo tiger contributed a lot for axis even so they have lower wins.
22 Dec 2019, 09:24 AM
#57
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794



Yes, it is fair, since you are given the tools for it.

How is this any different from lets say, early game USF vs OST infantry play? Why does USF have to flank OST HMGs and use smoke or light vehicles to counter them? Why can't they just win in a straight up fight?

Why should OST be able to make a heavy tank and just be able to A move and win, when the faction has Panzerschreks, high DPS AT guns, cheap Stugs, and P4s and Panthers with blitz?

Still if you can't be bothered to use these tools, you can always sit back with your own 70 range heavy tank destroyer and let the Allied player do all the hard flanking stuff.


This not true anymore. In my 2v2, it is much easier for allies infantry to flank/wipe mg and team weapons

Then it is for panther to flank/kill 60td.

That's why so many calls to tone down the oppressive 60td meta

22 Dec 2019, 10:49 AM
#58
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

My only question is:

If we can accept that super heavy tanks like JT, Ele and ISU152 are more than likely never gonna be viable outside of REALLY niche situations on 1v1, why can't the same line of thought be had regarding heavy tanks arriving slightly later on teamgames when there is a higher volume of units that could counter them


Because heavy tank destroyers and assault guns are only in 5 out of 71 commanders. Heavy tanks are significantly better represented at 9 (15 if we count the KV-2, Crocodile and AVRE) commanders.

Furthermore, heavy TDs are problematic in 1v1s because of limited use/performance and not because of timing issues, while heavy tanks currently perform well across all gamemodes and (arguably) only timing is an issue. It's already been proven long ago that the heavy TDs would never work across all gamemodes, because they aren't versatile enough (without being OP), while there is still a lot of wiggle room left for heavies.

I see no reason to give up already and condemn another 9-15 commanders to go out of meta in some gamemodes (the most popular ones at that) when there's still a good chance that some minor adjustments will make them fit in more easily.
22 Dec 2019, 10:56 AM
#59
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



Because heavy tank destroyers and assault guns are only in 5 out of 71 commanders. Heavy tanks are significantly better represented at 9 (15 if we count the KV-2, Crocodile and AVRE) commanders.

Furthermore, heavy TDs are problematic in 1v1s because of limited use/performance and not because of timing issues, while heavy tanks currently perform well across all gamemodes and (arguably) only timing is an issue. It's already been proven long ago that the heavy TDs would never work across all gamemodes, because they aren't versatile enough (without being OP), while there is still a lot of wiggle room left for heavies.

I see no reason to give up already and condemn another 9-15 commanders to go out of meta in some gamemodes (the most popular ones at that) when there's still a good chance that some minor adjustments will make them fit in more easily.


Bet way to adjust between game modes is cost and CPs. 300 fuel in 3v3/4v4 is nowhere near as crippling as in 1v1 due to inflated income. Therefore you can make heavy tanks and heavy TDs into good units, then adjust their 1v1 importance via cost.
22 Dec 2019, 20:18 PM
#60
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Because heavy tank destroyers and assault guns are only in 5 out of 71 commanders. Heavy tanks are significantly better represented at 9 (15 if we count the KV-2, Crocodile and AVRE) commanders.

Furthermore, heavy TDs are problematic in 1v1s because of limited use/performance and not because of timing issues, while heavy tanks currently perform well across all gamemodes and (arguably) only timing is an issue. It's already been proven long ago that the heavy TDs would never work across all gamemodes, because they aren't versatile enough (without being OP), while there is still a lot of wiggle room left for heavies.

I see no reason to give up already and condemn another 9-15 commanders to go out of meta in some gamemodes (the most popular ones at that) when there's still a good chance that some minor adjustments will make them fit in more easily.


I'm not saying improve Heavy tank destroyers. I'm saying assume that heavies arriving slightly later in teamgames due to slower CP gaining is a reality and there is no need to push them so soon CP wise so that they can be become viable.

Vet 0 TD should be able to deal with/slow down heavies. MAYBE vet2/3 shouldn't shut them down so easily if that's the issue. Same with the other way round, vet 2 Heavies been at equal foot with TDs.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

Germany 19

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

848 users are online: 848 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49139
Welcome our newest member, vibhak
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM