Login

russian armor

State of Heavies

PAGES (7)down
13 Jan 2020, 15:56 PM
#61
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 15:49 PMVipper
Point here the unit is designed to be UP at spawn and vet 0 and better once up-gunned and vetted.

A similar design could easily apply to Super heavies.


They're designed to be weak relative to Volks, which are units that start strong but scale badly.

As for applying this to heavies, I think it'd exacarabate the problem. If a heavy needs to accumulate veterancy to be effective, players are going to deploy it as quickly as possible so it can do that before it's facing vetted tank destroyers.

Given heavies being rushed all the time is the entire problem, I don't think this'd help.
13 Jan 2020, 16:11 PM
#62
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 15:56 PMLago


They're designed to be weak relative to Volks, which are units that start strong but scale badly.

I brought PF as an example of unit starting weak and become better than other units with time.
If you want to debate PF and the success of their implementation we can do so in an appropriate thread. Imo their use in the latest tournament is an indication that there are issues with them thou.

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 15:56 PMLago

As for applying this to heavies, I think it'd exacarabate the problem. If a heavy needs to accumulate veterancy to be effective, players are going to deploy it as quickly as possible so it can do that before it's facing vetted tank destroyers.

Given heavies being rushed all the time is the entire problem, I don't think this'd help.

No the problem is not that heavies are rushed.

The original problem they tried to FIX was:
Tech skipping
Peromance in large MOD



Part of the current problem is their shock value and toning down the vet 0 performance would go along way in reducing the Super dominance. One would have to vet his super heavy before getting his weapon worth and that would make rushing them a bad investment the same way that one will find himself in very difficult spot if he decided to spam only PF.

In addition the idea that unit should be balanced based only on their vet 0 performance as suggested by exsile is problematic.
13 Jan 2020, 19:07 PM
#63
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 16:11 PMVipper

I brought PF as an example of unit starting weak and become better than other units with time.
If you want to debate PF and the success of their implementation we can do so in an appropriate thread. Imo their use in the latest tournament is an indication that there are issues with them thou.


No the problem is not that heavies are rushed.

The original problem they tried to FIX was:
Tech skipping
Peromance in large MOD



Part of the current problem is their shock value and toning down the vet 0 performance would go along way in reducing the Super dominance. One would have to vet his super heavy before getting his weapon worth and that would make rushing them a bad investment the same way that one will find himself in very difficult spot if he decided to spam only PF.

In addition the idea that unit should be balanced based only on their vet 0 performance as suggested by exsile is problematic.


And PF have seen their price reduced because they were too expensive. Obers have finally seen OKW T3 more affordable for their deployment.
And both unit are good at vet0, PFs have utility volks are lacking when hitting the field and this solely make for their initial price. In definitive every unit is designed to be better with vet, nothing new here.

Dedicated heavy AI or AT are not the problem since they have downside. Generalist are the problem, if even the Balance team could implement for any of them the amo switch as they did for the ISU, at least you know that Pershing or Tiger is only going to counter your tank or your infantry if you do a general push on it.
13 Jan 2020, 19:12 PM
#64
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Panzerfusiliers suffer from having to reinforce after their G43s weapon upgrade. They’d be a lot better if G43 Panzerfusiliers and Panzershrek Panzerfusiliers were different units.
13 Jan 2020, 19:31 PM
#65
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Heavies not PFs pls.

PF arrive at beginning of the game. Obers can arrive at what, 8-12 mins? They both have enough time to fight and get vet.

HEavies shouldn't be arriving before 20mins/11 CPs.
Vehicles as opposed to infantry, need to be worth using at vet 0.

IS2, Pershing and Tiger are more than fine at vet 0. Tiger and IS2 doesn't need to get to vet 2 to be worth. At that point they just become "hero" units which bullies everything in the field.
13 Jan 2020, 22:36 PM
#66
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Heavies not PFs pls.

PF arrive at beginning of the game. Obers can arrive at what, 8-12 mins? They both have enough time to fight and get vet.

HEavies shouldn't be arriving before 20mins/11 CPs.
Vehicles as opposed to infantry, need to be worth using at vet 0.

IS2, Pershing and Tiger are more than fine at vet 0. Tiger and IS2 doesn't need to get to vet 2 to be worth. At that point they just become "hero" units which bullies everything in the field.

If Super heavies are only limited by CP than the problem will continue to exist:
They will either be strong in 1v1 or too weak in 4vs4 since CP speed is different across modes.

And one of the current issues is that they are too good vs all targets even at vet 0, the currently do the job of both AI and AT comparable to dedicated units. For instance a single Tiger can substitute a Brumbar and Panther for lesser pop and cost.

I doubt that simply changing CP would be enough to fix the Super heavy dominance meta.
13 Jan 2020, 22:54 PM
#67
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 22:36 PMVipper

If Super heavies are only limited by CP than the problem will continue to exist:
They will either be strong in 1v1 or too weak in 4vs4 since CP speed is different across modes.

And one of the current issues is that they are too good vs all targets even at vet 0, the currently do the job of both AI and AT comparable to dedicated units. For instance a single Tiger can substitute a Brumbar and Panther for lesser pop and cost.

I doubt that simply changing CP would be enough to fix the Super heavy dominance meta.


Heavies have always been viable on 1v1, even before the implementation which made them more reliable. The change to AI + CP made them good enough for 2v2 to 4v4.

I'll rather see them push back a bit so they don't dominate 1v1 as much as now and then see if further changes are needed.
After that 2 allied TDs (Su85 - Jackson) can see their vet penetration bonuses lowered so they don't make the armor irrelevant.
Finally IS2 and Tiger should lose the vet range at vet 2 so the IS2 doesn't make all OH non doctrinal vehicles irrelevant.
13 Jan 2020, 22:58 PM
#68
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Heavies have always been viable on 1v1, even before the implementation which made them more reliable. The change to AI + CP made them good enough for 2v2 to 4v4.

That was because they where tech free.


I'll rather see them push back a bit so they don't dominate 1v1 as much as now and then see if further changes are needed.

They will be needed...


After that 2 allied TDs (Su85 - Jackson) can see their vet penetration bonuses lowered so they don't make the armor irrelevant.

I have been pointing out TDs performance for years now but I doubt that the only problem is vet penetration


Finally IS2 and Tiger should lose the vet range at vet 2 so the IS2 doesn't make all OH non doctrinal vehicles irrelevant.

I see little reason for that especially since Tiger is facing range 60 TDs and IS-2 is facing range 50 TDs.
13 Jan 2020, 23:17 PM
#69
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Heavies not PFs pls.

PF arrive at beginning of the game. Obers can arrive at what, 8-12 mins? They both have enough time to fight and get vet.

HEavies shouldn't be arriving before 20mins/11 CPs.
Vehicles as opposed to infantry, need to be worth using at vet 0.

IS2, Pershing and Tiger are more than fine at vet 0. Tiger and IS2 doesn't need to get to vet 2 to be worth. At that point they just become "hero" units which bullies everything in the field.

They can still be useful at vet 0 and toned down in that stage. They could start more akin to a heavier comet and scale into proper scary units, if nurtured. They would, sort of like Obers, start good, but need attention to shine. They'll still bully other units in a 1v1 but most importantly they would scale phenomenally.
14 Jan 2020, 02:12 AM
#70
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


They can still be useful at vet 0 and toned down in that stage. They could start more akin to a heavier comet and scale into proper scary units, if nurtured. They would, sort of like Obers, start good, but need attention to shine. They'll still bully other units in a 1v1 but most importantly they would scale phenomenally.


The problem in comparing Vehicles with infantry is that they work in completely different categories. There is no bleed with vehicles. They also operate in more binary ways than infantry which have a more fair/predictable results in RNG outcome.
Imagine if all infantry units were like 1 model snipers and they either die or they dodge bullets.

Before derailing too much, both infantry and support weapons are less of an investment, even if we count the top tier dogs and their munition upgrades.
Compare 1-2 minutes of mp/muni income vs the mp/fuel required to get a heavy (around 10 mins for fuel).

Reminder that we have units like MGs which are supposed to scale perfectly with vet and how horrible it feels to use them post 25 mins into the game as vet0.

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 22:58 PMVipper

That was because they where tech free.


They will be needed...


I have been pointing out TDs performance for years now but I doubt that the only problem is vet penetration


I see little reason for that especially since Tiger is facing range 60 TDs and IS-2 is facing range 50 TDs.


1- Partially true. I mean in the sense that, outside Spec Ops, you didn't just stall into heavies most of the time as other factions outside of OKW tend to use more mediums into the mix which means some degree of teching.

2- It will be needed because the way they tweaked their AI performance mostly comes from how it affects wipes against full HP squads but been more reliable means more wipe against normal game conditions. This means slightly damaged squads.
But i'll rather see the effect of less rushed heavies and then tweak down from that position.

3- Vet penetration is ONE issue that could been solved easily and they are 2 units only. Which are also fine performance wise at vet0.
Changing all TDs, medium vehicles and heavies ecosystem is a far major project which i can agree on concept but not in execution.

4- Because it's easier to push a change if it's implemented fairly across the board. We don't see Tiger bullying IS2 due to 5 range disparity. I don't see the range reduction of heavies been applied if the Tiger somehow keeps it at vet 2 and not the IS2. It will also mean more heavies into the meta if every time an IS2 commander is picked, the default answer is picking a Tiger commander.
14 Jan 2020, 02:45 AM
#71
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I want to take a risk and suggest something completely different.

Reduce all heavies accordingly but around 50% of their current FU cost, to make them "useful" because of their outstanding performance/cost. But increasy hurtfully the CP and buildtime/CD to dangerous 15cp/20 min or so.

Everyone will get a heavy with this but not everyone will risk it, even with resource overflow
Added: There are no mayor risks on making Heavies cheaper, since they are limited to 1, IMO. But their timings should adjust and balance its availability and cost
14 Jan 2020, 13:04 PM
#72
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

...

4- Because it's easier to push a change if it's implemented fairly across the board. We don't see Tiger bullying IS2 due to 5 range disparity. I don't see the range reduction of heavies been applied if the Tiger somehow keeps it at vet 2 and not the IS2. It will also mean more heavies into the meta if every time an IS2 commander is picked, the default answer is picking a Tiger commander.

One of original problem the the changes aim to fix was the performance of these vehicles in large MODs.

Lowering the power of these vehicles once vetted by reducing vet bonuses combined with a CP of 11 will only make the problem worse.
14 Jan 2020, 14:23 PM
#73
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


Added: There are no mayor risks on making Heavies cheaper, since they are limited to 1, IMO. But their timings should adjust and balance its availability and cost


As long as they have a build timer I'm good with your idea. If you can call them in still it would be too easy to replace a lost heavy

Losing a heavy might mean GG in 1v1, but in long team games you can easily see more than 1 from the same player (not at once of course)
14 Jan 2020, 15:32 PM
#74
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



As long as they have a build timer I'm good with your idea. If you can call them in still it would be too easy to replace a lost heavy

Losing a heavy might mean GG in 1v1, but in long team games you can easily see more than 1 from the same player (not at once of course)

Exactly, thats what i meant.

The buildtime method to request a heavy tank add another time to it, the downside is that the player can cancel it and recover the investment. If heavies are made cheaper the impact of this mechanic will be minimal.

On the other side the call-in method solves the resource refund problem, imo is a better solution, but it must be balanced properly with high enough CP+Full tech tree.

Loosing a heavy tank should put the player in a big disadvantage because it will take too long to get another. Of course even heavy tanks have different roles/durabilities, that should be taken account into aswell.
14 Jan 2020, 17:06 PM
#75
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


Loosing a heavy tank should put the player in a big disadvantage because it will take too long to get another. Of course even heavy tanks have different roles/durabilities, that should be taken account into aswell.


Agree completely, we don't want to ban heavies from existence but making them require more planning to build would be really nice

14 Jan 2020, 17:35 PM
#76
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Agree completely, we don't want to ban heavies from existence but making them require more planning to build would be really nice


I think the timing is the issue right now.

Techless rushing aside, 13 CP heavies were never the same problem because each player would have two or three medium tanks by that point.

Heavy tanks need delaying somehow in 1v1s without making them too late in team games. Maybe the answer is build time? Add them to the tech buildings directly, but they take a long time to manufacture?
14 Jan 2020, 17:39 PM
#77
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 17:35 PMLago

Heavy tanks need delaying somehow in 1v1s without making them too late in team games. Maybe the answer is build time? Add them to the tech buildings directly, but they take a long time to manufacture?


Yeah I think that's what distrofio is going for. A long build time helps the initial timing issue

An added bonus is that it slows down replacing lost heavies. In long team games it's so annoying when you kill a heavy and it gets replaced immediately because you're in a 45-60 minute slugfest where resource float makes that easy

But I agree the timing of the first heavy is the real issue. Cause that's effecting all game modes
14 Jan 2020, 17:41 PM
#78
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 17:35 PMLago


I think the timing is the issue right now.

Techless rushing aside, 13 CP heavies were never the same problem because each player would have two or three medium tanks by that point.

Heavy tanks need delaying somehow in 1v1s without making them too late in team games. Maybe the answer is build time? Add them to the tech buildings directly, but they take a long time to manufacture?


Its one of the issues:
jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 10:38 AMVipper
...

Suggestion:
Delay arrival. That can be achieved by:
Increasing the CP and adjusting passive CP gain in bigger MOD so that all doctrinal abilities become available around the same time.

Add a research "tech" similar to BP for them (requiring resources or not) with a long research timer acting more as delay than an actual tech restriction. The same "tech" could be used to delay the replacement of the unit once it was lost so that player would need to research it again.

14 Jan 2020, 17:44 PM
#79
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 785

What is the actual argument against just making heavy tanks buildable units (from end tech structure) with a build time like literally every other call-in unit has been being made for some years now.

Solves the timing issue, solves the tech issue, adds a drawback (can't deploy other tanks while it's building, obviously.)

Because it would be difficult to implement? Is it really even?
14 Jan 2020, 17:47 PM
#80
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

What is the actual argument against just making heavy tanks buildable units (from end tech structure) with a build time like literally every other call-in unit has been being made for some years now.

Solves the timing issue, solves the tech issue, adds a drawback (can't deploy other tanks while it's building, obviously.)

Because it would be difficult to implement? Is it really even?


Can you CP lock a buildable unit? If not, that's one explanation.
PAGES (7)down
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

267 users are online: 267 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49158
Welcome our newest member, arianaeburnett
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM