Winter balance (1/2020) feedback OKW
4 Feb 2020, 18:46 PM
#41
Posts: 281
My probelm isnt okw, its your suggestion... and you brought it up in this thread
 | Playercard of CN | |||||||||||||||||||
|
4 Feb 2020, 18:59 PM
#42
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
My probelm isnt okw, its your suggestion... and you brought it up in this thread
I tried to bring it up in all thread since the system in ver 1 was inconstant and illogical.
Now I am not sure what you do not like but I see little reason why OKW would be able to call-in a KT and not Tiger or JT if they lose a T4.
4 Feb 2020, 19:17 PM
#43
Posts: 281
The KT has been a special case since forever, i dont think it fits the comparison.
My only problem is, that i dont like the idea of OKW T4 buildings being expendable. If allies destroy one, the OKW player should be punished and this doesnt happen when they can call in a Tiger even without the T4.
If youd ask me id say the same should be true for the KT but i guess thats out of scope.
If OKW wants the upside of a Tech building that can guard points it also have to feel the downsides. No other faction has this issue since every other faction is simply dead when you destroy their base or can build their tech on the field
My only problem is, that i dont like the idea of OKW T4 buildings being expendable. If allies destroy one, the OKW player should be punished and this doesnt happen when they can call in a Tiger even without the T4.
If youd ask me id say the same should be true for the KT but i guess thats out of scope.
If OKW wants the upside of a Tech building that can guard points it also have to feel the downsides. No other faction has this issue since every other faction is simply dead when you destroy their base or can build their tech on the field
| Playercard of CN | |||||||||||||||||||
|
4 Feb 2020, 19:21 PM
#44
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The KT has been a special case since forever, i dont think it fits the comparison.
My only problem is, that i dont like the idea of OKW T4 buildings being expendable. If allies destroy one, the OKW player should be punished and this doesnt happen when they can call in a Tiger even without the T4.
If youd ask me id say the same should be true for the KT but i guess thats out of scope.
If OKW wants the upside of a Tech building that can guard points it also have to feel the downsides. No other faction has this issue since every other faction is simply dead when you destroy their base or can build their tech on the field
Well in a 4vs4 it is almost certain the OKW will lose their T4 so I do not see why they should be punished by losing a access to a doctrinal unit. They already have lost a production building.
And should other faction be punished in similar way if they lose their buildings? Because currently they do not.
4 Feb 2020, 19:35 PM
#45
Posts: 281
i dont care about 4v4 balance at all
in 1v1 you cant rely on your teammates arty to kill a T4 that can create a no-go area for the entire match, atleast as long as the okw player defends it properly. Destroying it should be rewarded.
And again, every other faction does get punished when you destroy their base structures, CAUSE THEY ARE DEAD, its gg.
But if you want consistency, fine, bind every single call in to the tech structure. Or dont let OKW build tech outside their base sector, thats not really consistent, isnt it?
Whatever the solution im fine with it as long as greedy okw player can get punished
in 1v1 you cant rely on your teammates arty to kill a T4 that can create a no-go area for the entire match, atleast as long as the okw player defends it properly. Destroying it should be rewarded.
And again, every other faction does get punished when you destroy their base structures, CAUSE THEY ARE DEAD, its gg.
But if you want consistency, fine, bind every single call in to the tech structure. Or dont let OKW build tech outside their base sector, thats not really consistent, isnt it?
Whatever the solution im fine with it as long as greedy okw player can get punished
| Playercard of CN | |||||||||||||||||||
|
4 Feb 2020, 20:23 PM
#46
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
i dont care about 4v4 balance at all
in 1v1 you cant rely on your teammates arty to kill a T4 that can create a no-go area for the entire match, atleast as long as the okw player defends it properly. Destroying it should be rewarded.
And again, every other faction does get punished when you destroy their base structures, CAUSE THEY ARE DEAD, its gg.
But if you want consistency, fine, bind every single call in to the tech structure. Or dont let OKW build tech outside their base sector, thats not really consistent, isnt it?
Whatever the solution im fine with it as long as greedy okw player can get punished
You are confusing consistency and faction design. Each faction has its own trademark and OKW being able to built outside their base is one of their trademarks.
If OKW losing a T4 should deny their Tiger, then USF Major who comes with allot of utility should have an added 90 fuel cost and be required to be alive to call-in a Pershing...
Bottom line is that requiring T4 to call-in a JT or Tiger does not have to with balancing OKW that still have access to KT but has to do with the respective commanders and denying access to this units is not a good way to balance these commanders.
4 Feb 2020, 20:48 PM
#47
Posts: 281
The major isnt the tech structure, thats actually in the pizza base. You dont build units from the major, captain lieut... and yes, if thats destroyed you shouldnt be able to call in a Pershing. Not that it matters, cause its game over anyways when youre opponent is in your base.
Youre right, faction design is OKW ability to build Tech structures on the battlefield.
Consistency thru all factions would be to be able to get rewarded if your risky move, like foward t4, works and that you get punished when not.
Youre right, faction design is OKW ability to build Tech structures on the battlefield.
Consistency thru all factions would be to be able to get rewarded if your risky move, like foward t4, works and that you get punished when not.
| Playercard of CN | |||||||||||||||||||
|
4 Feb 2020, 21:10 PM
#48
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
You are confusing consistency and faction design. Each faction has its own trademark and OKW being able to built outside their base is one of their trademarks.
If OKW losing a T4 should deny their Tiger, then USF Major who comes with allot of utility should have an added 90 fuel cost and be required to be alive to call-in a Pershing...
Bottom line is that requiring T4 to call-in a JT or Tiger does not have to with balancing OKW that still have access to KT but has to do with the respective commanders and denying access to this units is not a good way to balance these commanders.
So is risk vs reward management.
If you're building it outside of base sector, you've evaluated that immediate gain is worth the long term risk for you and concede the right to complain when you lose the truck.
If you feel like its too much risk for you to handle, don't build it forward.
Is losing access to units worth keeping that noob away from that one point, knowing he will eventually nuke it with arty?
That's personal question to answer, not balance or design problem.
So that leaves only consistency.
Sorry, special snowflaking for OKW ended about 3 years ago, time to move on.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Feb 2020, 21:27 PM
#49
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The major isnt the tech structure, thats actually in the pizza base. You dont build units from the major, captain lieut... and yes, if thats destroyed you shouldnt be able to call in a Pershing. Not that it matters, cause its game over anyways when youre opponent is in your base.
1) The Persing is not build it is a call in the same way the Tiger of the JT, so the building is actually irrelevant to not being able to call it in.
2) If USF lose their T4 they can still call-in a Pershing
3) The USF base can be repaired if destroyed for cost. Replacing trucks has a cost.
Youre right, faction design is OKW ability to build Tech structures on the battlefield.
Consistency thru all factions would be to be able to get rewarded if your risky move, like foward t4, works and that you get punished when not.
You do get punished you lose a a production structure and can not produce the units that come out form it. A call in unit is irrelevant to the T4.
Consistency would have USF/UKF duidling as durable as trucks and with cost to replace.
Again there is nothing to justify losing access to JT/Tiger when losing a T4 building.
4 Feb 2020, 21:34 PM
#50
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Another quote completely out of topic. Risk and reward is totally irrelevant to doctrinal units access.
Itis your "time to move on."
4 Feb 2020, 21:46 PM
#51
Posts: 281
Some call-ins are tied to tech, if that tech is destroyed you shouldnt be able to call it in. Atleast in my opinion.
No idea what so hard to get about that. if you dont agree, fine.
I dont know whats this 1) 2) 3) about...
number1) ye.. thats the whole point of the discussing if the unit should or should not require the building.
number 2) yes and it shouldnt be imo... as i said
number 3) faction design kek
No idea what so hard to get about that. if you dont agree, fine.
I dont know whats this 1) 2) 3) about...
number1) ye.. thats the whole point of the discussing if the unit should or should not require the building.
number 2) yes and it shouldnt be imo... as i said
number 3) faction design kek
| Playercard of CN | |||||||||||||||||||
|
4 Feb 2020, 21:58 PM
#52
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Another quote completely out of topic. Risk and reward is totally irrelevant to doctrinal units access.
Itis your "time to move on."
All I'm saying is:
If you don't like not being able to produce a unit that has certain, UNIVERSAL requirement, then plan ahead instead of YOLO'ing and then complaining like you do right now.
Its relevant.
Not my problem that you're getting your trucks wrecked by arty in 4 digit rank 4v4s.
Present tech requierment for THE most gamebreaking and problematic category of units is well justified by the impact and ease of use these vehicles provide.
Don't want to lose access to it?
Don't build trucks forward.
There is very little benefit to it nowadays.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Feb 2020, 22:17 PM
#53
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Some call-ins are tied to tech, if that tech is destroyed you shouldnt be able to call it in. Atleast in my opinion.
No idea what so hard to get about that. if you dont agree, fine.
...
The problem is that it can not applied to all faction is similar way due to different base mechanics.
USF and UKF base can be repaired.
If the same rule applied to every faction it would less of problem, currently it does not and it is more complicated to implement. So I prefer JT and Tiger call in condition become consistent with other vehicles of their class the restriction is removed.
7 Feb 2020, 21:08 PM
#56
Posts: 732
Some ideas for IRstg44 and IRHT
1. bundle together，and IRHT have more longer sight,Build IRHT in T0,need deploy any HQ
but add 251 or 250 HT to medicHQ replace it
2.IRstg44 rework be a call-in unit like assault Tommy in test mod,maybe can give some different ability make them more special
like
3men squad with 25% damage reduction and default weapon is 3xIRstg no slot,and camouflage
1. bundle together，and IRHT have more longer sight,Build IRHT in T0,need deploy any HQ
but add 251 or 250 HT to medicHQ replace it
2.IRstg44 rework be a call-in unit like assault Tommy in test mod,maybe can give some different ability make them more special
like
3men squad with 25% damage reduction and default weapon is 3xIRstg no slot,and camouflage
7 Feb 2020, 21:35 PM
#57
Posts: 2358
My only problem is, that i dont like the idea of OKW T4 buildings being expendable. If allies destroy one, the OKW player should be punished and this doesnt happen when they can call in a Tiger even without the T4.
If youd ask me id say the same should be true for the KT but i guess thats out of scope.
If OKW wants the upside of a Tech building that can guard points it also have to feel the downsides. No other faction has this issue since every other faction is simply dead when you destroy their base or can build their tech on the field
As an OKW palyer yourself, would you describe how much risk/reward is involved on building T4 on an advanced position "to guard points"? Please dont spare any detail.
I have a strong disagreeing feeling on your statement, but i might be looking things wrong.
7 Feb 2020, 23:20 PM
#58
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
As an OKW palyer yourself, would you describe how much risk/reward is involved on building T4 on an advanced position "to guard points"? Please dont spare any detail.
I have a strong disagreeing feeling on your statement, but i might be looking things wrong.
Check any of the OKW games in the last tournament. Or any high ranked 2v2 game.
As a safe option, you basically just put it outside your base, just barely farther than what you would build a tier with either SU or OH so you had a farther reinforce range.
Depending on the map, you cover your gimmick strat points or cutoff.
Whenever the opponent manages to pin you on your base, you were basically already gonna lose. Be it your Flak been up or not.
On 2v2 games, the map generally splits in half and each team "picks" a side. Most of the time fighting for a single middle VP. Depending on the map the VP on "your side" is so deep that outside of offmap calling, you won't kill a Flak HQ which is not necessarily in range of the VP point, but close enough to cover the units assaulting them.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
7 Feb 2020, 23:34 PM
#59
Posts: 2358
snip
Exactly, i agree with you. Thats what i have known about T4 placement.
The risk/reward balance for T4 OKW is kind of there, in the backlines, if you are brave, and in the base if you want a safe production line. No fuel points or ammo points are worth losing a tank production.
Because of that i can say there is no further need to punish OKW players for its T4 placement. That was my intention to get to. Any other place beyond that is automatically punish by ATGs range, indirect fire and maybe some sneaky flank with infantry and demo charges.
7 Feb 2020, 23:49 PM
#60
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Exactly, i agree with you. Thats what i have known about T4 placement.
The risk/reward balance for T4 OKW is kind of there, in the backlines, if you are brave, and in the base if you want a safe production line. No fuel points or ammo points are worth losing a tank production.
Because of that i can say there is no further need to punish OKW players for its T4 placement. That was my intention to get to. Any other place beyond that is automatically punish by ATGs range, indirect fire and maybe some sneaky flank with infantry and demo charges.
But the point is that there is no "risk" or it been minimal. No one considers building T1/T2 as SU/OH in the border of their bases as a risky or brave move.
An opponent on 1v1 having to spend an offmap worth of munition and some more damage to destroy in order to be able to push a point is stupid.
But it is also stupid how easier it is to destroy OKW buildings once you start to add more players into the game mode. This is the key issue. Discrepancy in performance depending on gamemode.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1262