It's time to nerf OKW late game

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

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.

Much wisdom here, and of course the highlighted suggestion might bring more 1v1 and 2v2 players into the larger game scene too.

Win / Win.

Just take away from Jadgtiger ability to shoot through obstacles. It already has the biggest range, penetration and armor. No need super powers.
Do something with Kubel cause right know USF have absolutely nothing to counter it.
These 2 things and I'm good with OKW.

Nope, you're still there.

No offense, but yhis sounds like you just got raped in a game or something

He made a similar post several weeks ago so I don't think it is because he got destroyed. Plus, the recent surge of "fix 4v4" threads make it clear that there are severe issues with 4v4 and 3v3.

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

Well theoretically I am guessing it is supposed to be like that, and in some ways it is. Allies can build a critical mass of tanks sooner due to lower fuel costs. However, this advantage is quickly wiped out by superior Axis AT capabilities such as Schrecks, AT Guns, Tanks, etc.

its gonna take a while. if u didn't change it

You can filter the user by his id (check number on his profile) and then use the key word "uninstall".

At least some people here are at least acknowledging the existence of 3v3 and 4v4 players.

This is definately best topic on OKW balance so far. -> Proposed cosntructive changes for OKW

Btw. for love of the god, this game is balance for 1v1 and 2v2 which is okish, not perfect but every faction can win and lose. Only US could be considered bit UP, but thats problem of their unit structure as main reason.

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?

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

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.

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.

I absolutely agree with you.
But it seems that the majority on this board rather invests time in spamming some "nurf,op,up,fanboi" threads instead of getting overthemselfes and play all the factions for a change.

Quote me

Even if I did uninstall the game, I don't see why I should stop posting on the forums.

Found IT

Since you have uninstalled, i ask again. why are you still here?

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?

I feel like this gets said over and over and over, but players who only want to play 3v3/4v4 don't want to hear it.

4v4 isn't balanced. These games aren't designed around that. They're designed around 1v1. As frustrating as that is for 4v4 only players, mechanics that make sense in a 1v1 situation just don't when 8 players are involved. And if Blizzard doesn't have the manpower or wherewithal to balance all of those game modes, Relic as a smaller studio sure aren't going to be able to either.

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.

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.

I cant imagine how would look the late game for OKW if you play smaller game modes. If you nerf JT, how the you gonna counter ISU? If you nerf KT what you gonna do? Make 1-2 Panters and get facerolled by T34 spam?

As i said, there is lot of issues with USA, even in small games, but its not like OKW needs nerfs, its the USA need buffs - but again, what to do? Make a different structure of units, add Pershing?

The thing is OKW NERF wont solve anything, except brining more issues to smaller game modes.

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.

Allrigh, now count soviet MP/MU/Fuel investement and suggest situation, where OKW have units for same total price.

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?

I'm OK with OKW being balanced in 4v4 and UP in 1v1 and 2v2. Sure, why not?

The thing is OKW NERF wont solve anything, except brining more issues to smaller game modes.

It will... *WHAT A TWIST!*... solve OKW OPness in 4v4.

Allrigh, now count soviet MP/MU/Fuel investement and suggest situation, where OKW have units for same total price.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking.

I think the biggest problem is the fact that late game Super Tank wise OKW has the advantage. Even if you get 4 t-34/85s and your teammate gets like 2 IS-2s vs a KT and JadgTiger supported by either paks or shrek'd volks you're gonna have a rough time. And considering a lot of allied players like to blob like axis players in big team modes having the stuka out really helps as well. There are other issues like dbl Kubel spam allowing the axis players to cover a certain amount of territory until the 5-6 min mark during a 4v4 is huge in giving them a resource adv as well. Here's a good example of this:

•  
  

  11

  VS

  Skabinsk l JinSeual - pqumsieh alphabeta

  VonIvan cruzz McFamous IIPLIICaptainSPrice

  Gameplay vs Relic - Balance Power - Enjoy Everybody

  by: CaptainSPrice map: City 17

  19

  -

Vs A Relic Dev too

When balancing these super tanks/arty/kubels we need to keep in mind not to render them completely ineffective, but adjust the way they operate as killing machines so that people actually have a chance in-game when facing them.

Toning down the OKW faction is a good idea to bring back a bit of balance in 3vs3 and 4vs4 team games. But it should be done carefully and only in the aspects that are pertinent to those mode of play.

Example: I would considered only abilities or units that come at 10 or more command points. The only exception to this would be the Kubel, i would increase his setup time by 15% and reduce it hit points by 10%.

I would also bring the US at-grenade effectiveness on par with the Soviet one, becoming a global upgrade of T1, priced at 15% more than its soviet counterpart.

Thanks.

I'm OK with OKW being balanced in 4v4 and UP in 1v1 and 2v2. Sure, why not?

On the flipside, I'm sure many 1v1 and 2v2 players would prefer them to be OK in those game modes first and foremost. So...

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.

Except that you don't understand that saving for whatever heavy tank you desire would take twice the time needed with a 50% penalty. The idea here is to avoid a critical mass of heavy tanks, which are unstoppable once they support each other, or at least that's how i perceive the problem in 4v4.

What is really good with generic ratios like these, is they can be tweaked at will. If it requires to give a 70% penalty in 4v4 to have more infantry-centric games, then so be it, a simple number value to change and we're good to go.

The real problem is not that Axis armor is OP in itself, it is that the game format allows Oberkommando to get far more ressources than what the faction was designed around (Wehrmacht caches, map control being easier to protect with team mates, etc..), which enables the undesired side effect of having several KTs hitting the field (or JTs, whatever). Think about it this way: with a fuel penalty of 50%, a KT would be equal to 520 current fuel, and a JT 580. Don't tell me that it doesn't give allies enough time to mount a decent offensive on the map centered around MP units (and a few tanks also which would be mostly uncontested, since the axis are saving their precious fuel for their heavies).

At the very least, it would widen the window of opportunity. Or maybe you think that axis infantry is the problem in team games, in which case everything i'm reading about 4v4 balance issues is crap or off the mark.