Hi all,
I don't think Relic will ever tie call-in tanks to tiers, and I don't mean to start yet another thread about it.
Rather, from a game design perspective, I had an observation about how call-ins work in this game.
Right now, you need to invest money in teching/researching in order to get the stock tanks, which are inferior tanks, usually lighter or older models. So teching gets you P4s and T34-76, not T34-85, Tigers, or ISUs.
So in the current system, if you're playing as soviets, you need to pay fuel to research a dated, inferior model of the T34, but if you wait for later, and not much later, you unlock a better one for free.
Intuitively this doesn't any sense to me, and I think the balance problems that it causes within factions are also evident.
So, anyone else think that associating inferior tanks with research barriers is just an inherently backwards approach regardless of tweaking or adjustment?
This is another pipe dream, but I think it'd work much better if the call-in tanks were things like T34-76, tanks that you unlocked for free and could maybe use to skip a tier, but doing so meant giving up a bit of fire power.
Call-in design philosophy - backwards?
10 Sep 2014, 16:06 PM
#1
Posts: 508
10 Sep 2014, 16:35 PM
#2
Posts: 577
Relic acknowledged that Call-Ins are a problem right now so there will be done something about it most likely.
Would be great if Relic could post what they intend to do (if they do something) so that the community could discuss it and probably provide feedback? It's such a core problem!
Would be great if Relic could post what they intend to do (if they do something) so that the community could discuss it and probably provide feedback? It's such a core problem!
Only Relic post
10 Sep 2014, 16:43 PM
#3
Posts: 267 | Subs: 8
That is an interesting point Lucas, definitely something for us to think about.
10 Sep 2014, 16:53 PM
#4
15 Posts: 164
Great analyses. A flip between 85's and 76's would encourage players to go T3.
10 Sep 2014, 16:57 PM
#5
Posts: 747
Hi all,
This is another pipe dream, but I think it'd work much better if the call-in tanks were things like T34-76, tanks that you unlocked for free and could maybe use to skip a tier, but doing so meant giving up a bit of fire power.
Absolutely agree with this point. I think the USF Armored Doctrine is quite a good example of how call-ins could be handled.
10 Sep 2014, 16:58 PM
#6
Posts: 168
Yeah, something like this might be good to actually make stalling for callins a compromise rather than the most cost efficient tactic it currently is. At the same time it would make building tiers more viable.
10 Sep 2014, 17:04 PM
#7
15 
Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5
I think it's because in coh1, every faction had at most one doctrine with a heavy tank. Those units also didn't hit the field until well after other armor, and cost no fuel. So it made no sense at all to "hold out" for them, and the barrier to obtaining them was much higher.
Now basically every viable commander in the game has a heavy armor option hitting the field in ~20 mins with a fuel price tag that discourages teching. So teching up is now the harder barrier to overcome.
They can either lower this barrier by reducing tech costs, raise the call in barrier by increasing XP or CP requirements across the board, or completely redesign the system as you and many others have suggested. Personally I'm not sure what the best fix is.
Now basically every viable commander in the game has a heavy armor option hitting the field in ~20 mins with a fuel price tag that discourages teching. So teching up is now the harder barrier to overcome.
They can either lower this barrier by reducing tech costs, raise the call in barrier by increasing XP or CP requirements across the board, or completely redesign the system as you and many others have suggested. Personally I'm not sure what the best fix is.
 | Playercard of Romeo | |||||||||||||||||||
|
10 Sep 2014, 17:06 PM
#8
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Great analyses. A flip between 85's and 76's would encourage players to go T3.
Lets flip SUs!
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.
10 Sep 2014, 17:14 PM
#9
Posts: 2070
Wow this is a great suggestion and something I have been mulling over for several weeks!
By adding decent tanks to the core design, you let other commanders become viable. The faction is also in a better place rather than relying on call-ins to be good.
Call-ins should be something like the old battlegroup from the Rifle Doctrine in COH1. It gave you a boost but it was not an "I WIN" button. Armor call-ins should be there to boost you a bit for that final offense or something you get quickly at the sacrifice of other tech, etc.
Right now, as a Soviet player, I feel there is no incentive to tech up (although I always do...don't know why I gimp myself). You use all that fuel to field an average vehicle. However, in a short amount of time, players can use that fuel and resource to field a great tank like IS2 and ISU52
With the nerfs to conscripts, ninja buff to support teams, and nerfs to T34, call-in meta will be even more prevalent.
By adding decent tanks to the core design, you let other commanders become viable. The faction is also in a better place rather than relying on call-ins to be good.
Call-ins should be something like the old battlegroup from the Rifle Doctrine in COH1. It gave you a boost but it was not an "I WIN" button. Armor call-ins should be there to boost you a bit for that final offense or something you get quickly at the sacrifice of other tech, etc.
Right now, as a Soviet player, I feel there is no incentive to tech up (although I always do...don't know why I gimp myself). You use all that fuel to field an average vehicle. However, in a short amount of time, players can use that fuel and resource to field a great tank like IS2 and ISU52
With the nerfs to conscripts, ninja buff to support teams, and nerfs to T34, call-in meta will be even more prevalent.
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
10 Sep 2014, 17:19 PM
#10
Posts: 971
Yeah, SU76 should be a call-in. Preferably in the NKVD Doctrine.
10 Sep 2014, 17:28 PM
#11
Posts: 2819
Interesting point man.
I think that Relic sees the problem and we can only hope that they address it. Though it will be hard, cause it could totally change the meta of call-ins. I hope there will be a day that people fight their tier-tanks instead of call-ins .
I think that Relic sees the problem and we can only hope that they address it. Though it will be hard, cause it could totally change the meta of call-ins. I hope there will be a day that people fight their tier-tanks instead of call-ins .
All posts made are about situations in 2v2's. Not a 1v1 player.
10 Sep 2014, 17:32 PM
#12
15 Posts: 164
After a bit of though, I don't like the thought of facing T34/85's and ISU's from a single player.
What if the call in was T34/76's until you tech'd to T3? At that point the call in would be T34/85's.
What if the call in was T34/76's until you tech'd to T3? At that point the call in would be T34/85's.
10 Sep 2014, 17:33 PM
#13
Posts: 1679 | Subs: 5
When CoH2 was in alpha/early beta, all commander-specific units had to be built from tech structures. The main problem back then was these commander-specific units replaced existing units instead of simply adding to the number of units you could create. For instance, Guards and Shocks replaced Penals, the upgunned T34 replaced the stock T34, etc. That was an imperfect solution because it ended up limiting your options; if you didn't have enough fuel for the upgunned T34, you were essentially screwed, since you couldn't produce the cheaper, weaker variant at all.
The problem with call-ins in general is they're extremely boring when they're used as a core strategy rather than simply a supplement to base units. They're a lowest-common-denominator means of adding diversity to the game, but they're core to the commander model. If they want less people to rely on call-ins and commander-specific units, they're going to have to make the base factions more interesting. I'm sure they'd rather just release more commanders.
The problem with call-ins in general is they're extremely boring when they're used as a core strategy rather than simply a supplement to base units. They're a lowest-common-denominator means of adding diversity to the game, but they're core to the commander model. If they want less people to rely on call-ins and commander-specific units, they're going to have to make the base factions more interesting. I'm sure they'd rather just release more commanders.
10 Sep 2014, 17:53 PM
#14
8 
Posts: 146
Yeah, teching should produce better tanks not worse. But I doubt they will redesign all the commanders at this point.
10 Sep 2014, 18:01 PM
#15
Posts: 38
When CoH2 was in alpha/early beta, all commander-specific units had to be built from tech structures. The main problem back then was these commander-specific units replaced existing units instead of simply adding to the number of units you could create. For instance, Guards and Shocks replaced Penals, the upgunned T34 replaced the stock T34, etc. That was an imperfect solution because it ended up limiting your options; if you didn't have enough fuel for the upgunned T34, you were essentially screwed, since you couldn't produce the cheaper, weaker variant at all.
Maybe this is a soultion.
Call-ins requiring tech-up.
But not replacing existing units.
Just requiring tech-up.
10 Sep 2014, 22:12 PM
#16
Posts: 123
That is an interesting point Lucas, definitely something for us to think about.
I'm glad you're thinking about it, but what you said implies that this HASN'T been thought about already, and I wonder how this could be true.
We've seen so much discussion on here about this very topic and it's so blindingly obvious from just playing the game that this system is so wrong.
10 Sep 2014, 22:42 PM
#17
Posts: 26
I think it's a fantastic idea. I think the USF Armor commander is a perfect example of how call-ins should be used. The M10 is a great stop-gap solution until you can tech up to reach the Jacksons. It's also a great support unit in the later game. I like the Ost Puma commander for this too.
However how can we go about fixing it without a complete redesign of all the commanders in the game? The only thing I can think of is that when the commander has a special unit that is a superior version of a regular unit, the special unit replaces the regular unit in the tech building, and the regular unit is pushed into call-in status.
For example, a commander with the T-34/85 would have the 85 available as a buildable unit in the T3 building, and the 76 would be a call-in at 7cp. But for commanders without the T-34/85, the 76 remains in the T3 building. Another example, a commander with the ISU would have the ISU sitting in the T4 building as a buildable unit, and the SU85 as a call-in at 7-8cp.
However how can we go about fixing it without a complete redesign of all the commanders in the game? The only thing I can think of is that when the commander has a special unit that is a superior version of a regular unit, the special unit replaces the regular unit in the tech building, and the regular unit is pushed into call-in status.
For example, a commander with the T-34/85 would have the 85 available as a buildable unit in the T3 building, and the 76 would be a call-in at 7cp. But for commanders without the T-34/85, the 76 remains in the T3 building. Another example, a commander with the ISU would have the ISU sitting in the T4 building as a buildable unit, and the SU85 as a call-in at 7-8cp.
10 Sep 2014, 23:06 PM
#18
6 Posts: 19
One way to at least partially solve it is to decrease the cost of the call-in unit as you tech up. This will give the player an longterm incentive to tech, but you still have the possibility to call in earlier on to handle aggressive opponents. If you choose not to tech up, the cost of call-ins will eventually cost more than the teching itself. An advantage with this solution is that it wouldnt require any drastic changes.
10 Sep 2014, 23:10 PM
#19
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
I believe fuel costs on call-ins is a problem, because right now it forces you to go Tier units or doctrine units, in CoH1 you could get Tiger in late game for 800 MP and that was fair and you could get some other tanks too from tiers, CoH2 is one sided in terms of tiers, call-ins or tiers, never both (talking about small matches like 1v1)
10 Sep 2014, 23:18 PM
#20
1 Posts: 1006
I am glad to see that Relic agrees with us and plans to do something about it, I was not aware of that.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
34 | ||
|
|
|
|
26 | ||
 |
|
|
23 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
105 | ||
 |
|
|
30 | ||
|
|
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.939410.696+5
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 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
1265
Board Info
1099 users are online:
1099 guests
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50005
Welcome our newest member, swimmingpoolsofflori
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, swimmingpoolsofflori
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM