The spawn systems of vehicles is currently very complicated and different solution have been chosen for different vehicles as very well documented by osinyagov in one of his thread.
Part of the issue with timing of the vehicles is the difference in CP an economy across the modes.
CP restriction make some vehicles become available too late in large mode while tech restriction make some vehicles come to late in 1sv1.
So my suggestion would be:
to change many of prerequest of vehicles to CP or tech restriction what ever come earlier.
to make many of these vehicles (not all around vehicles) buildable from HQ
That would allow a unified solution in most cases, better timing and more diversity in building/teching order.
Improving the timing of doctrinal vehicles
21 May 2020, 14:22 PM
#1
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
21 May 2020, 15:29 PM
#2
Posts: 919
So my suggestion would be:
to change many of prerequest of vehicles to CP or tech restriction what ever come earlier.
to make many of these vehicles (not all around vehicles) buildable from HQ
I don't share your opinion very often
but I do here 
This has to be done for all non-infantry doctrinal units, starting with team weapons/light vehicles up to super heavy tanks. Only way to balance timing from 1vs1 to 4vs4.
Edit: Whereas we would need a T4,5 for Heavies/Super Heavies for a little space between T4 and them. You could wait for CPs instead if you are not willing to pay for. At USF you could do that for Pershing for example by just backteching the not chosen LT+Upgrade/Capatain+Upgrade way (similar to Königstiger buildable when all trucks are build)... and so on... just some thoughts...
21 May 2020, 23:03 PM
#3
Posts: 731
Agree
24 May 2020, 16:45 PM
#4
Posts: 599
Does anyone know why the greyhound is tied to CP and not tech? It seems to come way to late in 3v3 and up.
24 May 2020, 17:19 PM
#5
Posts: 1220
Does anyone know why the greyhound is tied to CP and not tech? It seems to come way to late in 3v3 and up.grayhound should be CP 3 and available in HQ after full officer tech
24 May 2020, 17:30 PM
#6
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Does anyone know why the greyhound is tied to CP and not tech? It seems to come way to late in 3v3 and up.
Puma and Valentine is the same.
Generally speaking the call in vehicles requirement is mess because the solution come individually and not a single patch.
24 May 2020, 18:05 PM
#7
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Generally speaking the call in vehicles requirement is mess because the solution come individually and not a single patch.
No, it's because every call-in vehicle has a unique power level that doesn't always fit into the stock tech tree. Unique solutions are required to balance their arrival. The M8 Greyhound is a good example for this, as it's similar in power to a T-70 while USF has no T3 tech, which means it would arrive too early in CAP/LT tech and too late in Major tech. So the only solution (while keeping the unit strong) is to put it behind 4 CPs, even if that means it generally comes too late in teamgames, so at least it's strong in some modes without arriving too soon.
24 May 2020, 18:42 PM
#8
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
No, it's because every call-in vehicle has a unique power level that doesn't always fit into the stock tech tree....
I suggest you check osinyagov thread about how many different system are currently implement. I am pretty sure one can reduce the number of different solutions that have been chosen.
Or one can simply add an extra tech requirement for the specific units so it can balance it timing perfectly.
25 May 2020, 05:12 AM
#9
Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1
No, it's because every call-in vehicle has a unique power level that doesn't always fit into the stock tech tree. Unique solutions are required to balance their arrival. The M8 Greyhound is a good example for this, as it's similar in power to a T-70 while USF has no T3 tech, which means it would arrive too early in CAP/LT tech and too late in Major tech. So the only solution (while keeping the unit strong) is to put it behind 4 CPs, even if that means it generally comes too late in teamgames, so at least it's strong in some modes without arriving too soon.
I don't mean you are wrong, but according to explanations from the period of time, when all of tied to tech changes were applied (except the british Lend-lease commander M10 and Ostheer P4J), the reason was to avoid strategies, when players ignore tech and rush for call-ins. Now, when balance team find a smart solution with call-ins + tech requirements + CP, it will be more logical to bring the rest of doctrinal vehicles to same standart.
Additionaly, all mentioned tied to tech vehicles were OP mainly because they allowed to play without investments in tech, so timing wasn't a real issue here (or not the main reason to tied them to tech).
As a result:
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
49 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
 |
|
|
32 | ||
|
|
|
|
28 | ||
 |
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.624225.735+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.919405.694+3
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
699 users are online:
699 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49152
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM