Faction Imbalance

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 23:10 PMGreeb

Sorry, dude. He's generalizing and not giving proved facts, but your reply is just as wrong as his.
The fact that he has lost all his games as axis doesn't prove that axis are weaker in 3vs3+ games.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 23:04 PMwooof

ok youre right. there is a slight amount of variation in points. but the point i was trying to make was even 1v1 typically have that many points. 14 points is the norm for the vast majority of maps regardless of size. so you can make the claim that large team games should have reduced income because it is multiplied by the number of players, but to reduce fuel because large maps have more points is inaccurate.



thank you for using real numbers and taking the time to make a factually accurate post. i wish more people would do the same.

while your changes would reduce tanks by 1-2 per player (which i would actually welcome), i think the negative consequences would outweigh this.

changing fuel incomes by such a big amount would impact early game timings for every faction other than soviets. for example, the germans pak and 221 would be delayed making soviet t1 harder to counter.

my original point about okw munitions conversion also still stands. reducing all fuel incomes by about 6/min indirectly buffs the munitions conversion relative to other factions. but on the other hand, these changes would also have to be lessened for okw because of how their income was designed. you would have to take less than 1 fuel away from each point for okw players since they already only get 2 fuel per point. then okw is getting a weird fraction like 1.4 fuel per point...

another negative effect this change would have is to make call ins even more attractive. people already dont tech because of the high fuel costs. if you lower fuel income, theres even less reason to tech for tanks. youre not only delaying non doctrinal tanks and making them come out closer to the call ins, but youre also making teching costs have a larger impact. so you either have to redesign teching costs and/or change CP requirements for team games as well.

the point im trying to make is, while having less tanks in team games would probably be a good thing, its not nearly as simple as cutting fuel income. that would have a lot of side effects beyond just what you intend to change.



i think a lot of people would disagree on this point. the jackson may be harder to use, but its one of the best tanks in the game when used well. 60 range, 240 damage td with high speed and a turret and for a low cost as well. its also more accurate than an su85. once it hits vet1, its able to further increase its accuracy by 10% and penetration by 40% with its ability. really the only drawback this thing has is its durability. just keep it at long range and away from infantry (which is where tds should be anyway).

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 23:42 PMvoltardark

I just had another idea:

Why not implementing an option to make the income of strategic points variable (random with a min and a max)that would be cast at the beginning of a game ?

As an example : (more thoughts would be needed for the min/max for sure)

A normal strategic point producing 3 fuel and 5 mun., could produce between 1 and 4 fuel and 2 to 6 mun.

A dedicated fuel point (7) could produce between 3 and 9 fuel income.

A dedicated munition point (11) could produce between 5 and 13 munition income.

We would have to look at the strategic map before making our planing....

As an option it could be disable for tournaments and events.( but would be on for all casual random matches)

Its would add to the replayability of the gameat the cost of some random. (but random balance on the long run)

Cookie cutter strategy would have to be more flexible too.

It's my wild suggestion, but it think i would like it.

What do you think ?

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 23:58 PMNinjaWJ

hmm too random i don't think people will like it. People already complain about RNG so random resource points may be too much. It might create a lot of unfair games where one side luckily has the high producing point and another side may have a crappy resource point

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 23:42 PMvoltardark

I just had another idea:

Why not implementing an option to make the income of strategic points variable (random with a min and a max)that would be cast at the beginning of a game ?

As an example : (more thoughts would be needed for the min/max for sure)

A normal strategic point producing 3 fuel and 5 mun., could produce between 1 and 4 fuel and 2 to 6 mun.

A dedicated fuel point (7) could produce between 3 and 9 fuel income.

A dedicated munition point (11) could produce between 5 and 13 munition income.

We would have to look at the strategic map before making our planing....

As an option it could be disable for tournaments and events.( but would be on for all casual random matches)

I would also make the point's income value more random the farther they are from the starting front line.

Its would add to the replayability of the gameat the cost of some random. (but random balance on the long run)

Cookie cutter strategy would have to be more flexible too.

It's my wild suggestion, but it think i would like it.

What do you think ?

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 17:39 PMNinjaWJ

+! Great point! I totally agree! 4v4 is quite troubling. Game is fun at the beginning and midgame and it seems fairly balanced. However, if you don't end it by midgame then Axis seem to have a massive advantage. Only if you amass a ton of tanks or if your enemy is strictly building infantry will you have a chance to defeat Axis at the end of midgame.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 17:04 PMDarthBong420

you mean when allies lose their advantage and the game becomes equal? ffs you allied "players" don't realize that you guys the advantage all the way to mid game. the germans have are on the back foot until they get their heavies. you do not understand this. if you want to win just do it in 4 minutes when you have a huge advantage with maxims, snipers, elite rifles, power wagon.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 17:23 PMastro_zombie

lol, why should anyone want to be forced to win a game in 4 minutes? It's an idiotic design. Not every player is soviet and many people, including myself, don't even seem to have rifle company. It's not even a guarantee. Some maps are just impossible to flank and you lose the advantage.

Who would want to have to win a game in 4 minutes? Nobody would, the games last much longer than that. what you are saying proves what an awful video game design this is.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 17:27 PMDarthBong420

well i agree about faulty faction design. but im just saying that allies will win if you are good this fast in 4v4. but, i also think that allies are allot more powerful late game than you guys try to make it sound. sounds like allot of it is l2p and l2p 4v4.

Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 21:34 PMvoltardark

An option would be to have some commanders only playable in 3vs3 and 4vs4.

Those would do the bring the balance more even by having global modifiers affecting the units in need of adjustments for those play mode.

what do you think ?