Yet another L2P thread. I guess if Relic released their recorded statistics you would see that all faction do well in terms of win/loss-ratios.
AXIS ARE DOMINATING
FACTION WIN/LOSS RATIO
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently BannedYet another L2P thread. I guess if Relic released their recorded statistics you would see that all faction do well in terms of win/loss-ratios.
Posts: 951
Funny how all those OKW threads popped up as soon as Kubel was buffed, but to be fair, allies were already complaining about Oberkommando in large team games before the last patch. So it is time to fix 3v3 and 4v4, without breaking what is already somewhat balanced. 1v1 and 2v2 balance threads are relatively quiet lately, so things are maybe fine, except Kubel ofc.
Time to fix 3v3 and 4v4 maps, so it isn't heavy armor spamfest anymore: reduce fuel income for those maps' captured points, or establish an overall debuff on each team fuel income depending on the game mode: 100% for 1v1 and 2v2, maybe 75% for 3v3, 50% for 4v4 ? It would not require altering the maps in the automatch cycle, would be fair for everyone, and would bring more focus on infantry combat in those modes. Or it would have the opposite effect with people building a shitload of fuel caches instead of infantry with all that spare MP they would have, but it would give an edge to the team that invest that MP into actual fighters, imo.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 9
Posts: 2070
No offense, but yhis sounds like you just got raped in a game or something
Because from what I understand, the idea should be something like five or six T34s vs a single King Tiger. But in Team games it seems that the game just ends up being five T34s vs four King Tigers. The fuel should only allow one super heavy, so the US/Sov side can actually counter with strength in numbers
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
its gonna take a while. if u didn't change it
Posts: 951
Posts: 35
Posts: 229
Because from what I understand, the idea should be something like five or six T34s vs a single King Tiger. But in Team games it seems that the game just ends up being five T34s vs four King Tigers. The fuel should only allow one super heavy, so the US/Sov side can actually counter with strength in numbers
Posts: 747
Nope. The correct title should be "It's time to buff the Allies' late game". OKW is actually not OP, the other factions are just UP which makes OKW look stronger than it is. OKW is the only faction where you can say every unit is good and fits in a role. The allied units don't. Thats the real problem here. Buff Allies late game and you see how the balance is getting better.
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Banned
Quote me
Even if I did uninstall the game, I don't see why I should stop posting on the forums.
Posts: 229
Glorious 4v4 WAS NOT balance in any RTS i used to play either Command and Conquer series, Starcrafts, LOTR etc etc, list is endless. If you gonna NERF OKW, you gonna hurt them a lot in 1v1 and 2v2, how hard is it understand?
Posts: 304
I seldom see more than 1-2 KTs in a 3v3. But what's happening is, unless I am missing something else, the Soviet players are building more than 5 t-34s, but by the time the KTs come out, they've already lost a couple. If there are 4 KTs in a 4v4, that means that likely each OKW player was saving for it. So why are there only 5 t-34s? Because some of them were lost, I'd assume. Losing vehicles is punished MORE in a situation where fuel is diminished. It's spent fuel that you aren't getting back. The players who saved their fuel for the KTs are still getting those KTs out, but there will be even fewer tanks opposing them in a low-fuel situation.
Posts: 35
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
At the same time though, the King Tiger might not come out at all or they'll only get one of them instead of two. Four T34s supported by guards/ZiS etc should be enough to take out a King Tiger and then the OKW player is boned since he lost his fuel sink.
Glorious 4v4 WAS NOT balance in any RTS i used to play either Command and Conquer series, Starcrafts, LOTR etc etc, list is endless. If you gonna NERF OKW, you gonna hurt them a lot in 1v1 and 2v2, how hard is it understand?
The thing is OKW NERF wont solve anything, except brining more issues to smaller game modes.
Posts: 304
Allrigh, now count soviet MP/MU/Fuel investement and suggest situation, where OKW have units for same total price.
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
Posts: 976
Posts: 229
I'm OK with OKW being balanced in 4v4 and UP in 1v1 and 2v2. Sure, why not?
Posts: 400
I seldom see more than 1-2 KTs in a 3v3. But what's happening is, unless I am missing something else, the Soviet players are building more than 5 t-34s, but by the time the KTs come out, they've already lost a couple. If there are 4 KTs in a 4v4, that means that likely each OKW player was saving for it. So why are there only 5 t-34s? Because some of them were lost, I'd assume. Losing vehicles is punished MORE in a situation where fuel is diminished. It's spent fuel that you aren't getting back. The players who saved their fuel for the KTs are still getting those KTs out, but there will be even fewer tanks opposing them in a low-fuel situation.
17 | |||||
6 | |||||
149 | |||||
38 | |||||
22 | |||||
6 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 |