Login

russian armor

Company of Call-Ins 2 - An Argument for Change

6 Nov 2014, 12:21 PM
#41
avatar of KingKubel

Posts: 17

I think the best solution is probably where players are actually forced to spend fuel, otherwise the issue may not change in some cases and it's simply a further delay.

I think Solution 1 + Solution 2 (but not as extreme) would be the best option imo. Also agree that cool down timers need to be increased. I think around 6-8 minutes would be enough.


I would like to see the system changing like this, maybe a bit adjusted (in terms of balance) to make a mix of teching and call-ins interesting.
6 Nov 2014, 12:41 PM
#42
avatar of Zupadupadude

Posts: 618

Call-in solution is being worked on. Can't say what it is ofc.
6 Nov 2014, 12:48 PM
#43
avatar of Ztormi

Posts: 249

Call-in solution is being worked on. Can't say what it is ofc.


Alright well I guess that's the /thread then MVGame. That's like saying they are working on a balance patch but I can't say what it is ofc.
6 Nov 2014, 13:00 PM
#44
avatar of Zupadupadude

Posts: 618

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 12:48 PMZtormi


Alright well I guess that's the /thread then MVGame. That's like saying they are working on a balance patch but I can't say what it is ofc.


If they're working on the issue then what's the point of the thread? I mean, I dunno but it looks like the thread is asking for change. Aaaand it's being worked on. Peter actually said this like 2 months ago, but I'm sure some of you could've missed it. I'm just telling you guys so you don't feel like they're doing nothing about it.

(not meant as a stab towards Ciez)
6 Nov 2014, 14:40 PM
#46
avatar of CieZ

Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4

Call-in solution is being worked on. Can't say what it is ofc.


I'm in the private alpha too mate ;)

Doesn't mean that we as a community cannot come together and help brainstorm for Relic - as well as give them our opinions on the way in which the call-in system should (or shouldn't be changed). Sure they're the developer and they have the final say, but I'd hope that any developer takes their community's opinion into serious consideration when making major changes to their game. Relic has done this in the past, and I believe they're still willing to listen to us.

Awesome discussions so far guys, some really cool ideas in here and I'm glad we've all been able to stay on topic thus far.

@JohnnyB - of course you're allowed to have your own opinion, I don't think Queen was trying to take anything away with his comments. As for my calculations I was operating under the assumption that T1 and T2 as Ostheer are necessary. I can't see any way to stall for a Tiger without T2, and I don't really see any way to have true success in a 1v1 without T1. Just my experience though.
6 Nov 2014, 15:01 PM
#47
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 14:40 PMCieZ


@JohnnyB - of course you're allowed to have your own opinion, I don't think Queen was trying to take anything away with his comments. As for my calculations I was operating under the assumption that T1 and T2 as Ostheer are necessary. I can't see any way to stall for a Tiger without T2, and I don't really see any way to have true success in a 1v1 without T1. Just my experience though.


Of course you are right for the most cases. I saw though people keeping pace with Ostheer while playing just T1 + mechanized assault, for instance using halftrack pzgrens instead of paks. Or people using ostruppen doctrine and building just T2. That is why I think it's hard to establish a certain amount of needed resources to obtain something that is built in T3 or T4.
6 Nov 2014, 15:10 PM
#48
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1

A very good Thread, about time someone started a good thread with logical solutions.
About solution 1, I personally believe that is the easiest, yet most effective way to A)Force players to tech up and B)Undirectly increase the cost of call-ins, thus preventing players from floating resources (makes the game more dynamic as you said).
I don't totally agree with solution 2. It delays some of the most interesting units of the game (not talking about balance here, but the concept of heavies like ISU or Tiger is interesting), and I think this is the last resort and somehow an overkill.
Solution 3 is not bad I think, but I somehow don't like tweaking the fuel only. With solution 1 you have the option of choosing one tech, build around it then call-in DA BIG GUNS.
Regarding to factions, for Soviets either T3 or T4, for Ostheer BP3, for US either Cpt and Lt., or one of them with the major. For OKW I think only 2 buildings would be enough because they have lower income and, expensive units and also not many spammable options.
-Side note: Keep in mind that there should be more discussion about what kind of units actually need these requirements. For example, I think you should not force a player to go BP3 just to call-in some pumas, or M10s. I think these should only be applied on units which require more that 8 or 9 CP.
Again, than you for a good thread, with hope of relic responding.
6 Nov 2014, 15:15 PM
#49
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670

How about increasing pop cost of heavies extremely? Having one of them would be harmful, and having two impossible with any other unit
6 Nov 2014, 15:16 PM
#50
avatar of Zupadupadude

Posts: 618

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 14:40 PMCieZ


I'm in the private alpha too mate ;)

Doesn't mean that we as a community cannot come together and help brainstorm for Relic - as well as give them our opinions on the way in which the call-in system should (or shouldn't be changed). Sure they're the developer and they have the final say, but I'd hope that any developer takes their community's opinion into serious consideration when making major changes to their game. Relic has done this in the past, and I believe they're still willing to listen to us.

Awesome discussions so far guys, some really cool ideas in here and I'm glad we've all been able to stay on topic thus far.

@JohnnyB - of course you're allowed to have your own opinion, I don't think Queen was trying to take anything away with his comments. As for my calculations I was operating under the assumption that T1 and T2 as Ostheer are necessary. I can't see any way to stall for a Tiger without T2, and I don't really see any way to have true success in a 1v1 without T1. Just my experience though.


I know, that's why I thought it was weird you were asking for change :D
6 Nov 2014, 15:44 PM
#51
avatar of WiFiDi
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3293

did some spring cleaning guys you do have right to your opinion well if you live in a democratic country. (for now much longer im not sure but for now :P)

back to the thread. Go, go what are you staring at this post for. :D
6 Nov 2014, 15:45 PM
#52
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824

How about increasing pop cost of heavies extremely? Having one of them would be harmful, and having two impossible with any other unit


Pop cap is already pretty low, plus I don't want games to get to a point where players just run their squads into the enemy base to get them wiped to get the pop cap for a heavy tank. Would go against the unit preservation mechanics of the game.
6 Nov 2014, 16:20 PM
#53
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

I think solution 1 will just change the meta, not diversify it. Forcing players down any given path unnecessarily removes strategic depth from the game. Personally I'd prefer if all call-in units were inferior to their tech counterparts. I'd simply swap out shocks with penals, 85s with 76s, etc etc. I'm pretty doubtful that's ever going to happen though.

Elite Armor is a good example of this. Those panzer 4s are terrible compared to non doctrinal options. If all call-ins were on the same level, you'd see them to fill holes in armies but not completely compose them.
6 Nov 2014, 16:49 PM
#54
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

Papa bears turn,

CieZ I like some of your solutions but I would propose a hybrid solution that would work in the larger game modes as well.

Precursor
  • The Soviet faction is going to be hit hardest with this change. They lack any non-doctrinal armor that scales well into the late game. Changes to the T34/76, SU-85 (at a minimum) should be included in whatever solution is picked. I fear the return of the state of balance in March. Please don't harp to me about this one game where one top 10 player got his SU-85 to Vet 3 and was able to kept it alive. That is not the norm.
  • It is important to recognize that whatever solution is taken that the most popular game mode is included into the thought process. Four's.


Proposed Solution
  • CP's for IS2, ISU152, Tiger, Elephant, JadTiger all increased by 5.
  • Why to encourage an extended mid-game and to allow those whom decided to skip medium armor to suffer for their decision. I suspect this would extend mid-game play by 8 minutes or so.
  • King Tiger is limited to one per game or one per a set time period (20 minutes for an example).
  • Why OKW has the luxury of having the best non-doctrinal armor as well as the only faction with a non-doctrinal heavy tank call in. In the 4's game mode the King Tiger can hit the field in 14 minutes. This would also stick with the theme of the faction. "Supplies are limited, high command has issued you an elite ubertank. Lose it and you shall be held responsible commander".
  • The duel T34/85's call in CP's are increased by 2. The single T34/85 call in remains untouched at 10 CP.
  • Why The duel T34/85's are a very powerful dispatch that should be spaced out between single tank call ins and heavy armor call ins.


But Napalm...
  • Requiring T3/T4 takes away choice from the player. It is my personal preference that a player have lots of choice. If the the player wants to risk holding out for a Tiger that should be their decision. With the CP increase they will be punished accordingly.
  • Increasing the pop cap of heavy tanks would have no effect on the timing of a heavy tank call in.
  • Increasing the fuel draw for fielding heavy tanks would have no effect on the timing of a heavy tank call in.

6 Nov 2014, 16:51 PM
#55
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 14:40 PMCieZ

Doesn't mean that we as a community cannot come together and help brainstorm for Relic - as well as give them our opinions on the way in which the call-in system should (or shouldn't be changed).

it does; there is no way for us to think up every possible change and so they will always have the change we didn't think of (and on the whole is bad) to go with.
6 Nov 2014, 17:07 PM
#56
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 16:49 PMNapalm
But Napalm...

Nice post, I agree with it in spirit. I don't see any reason to limit the number of heavies though. I've never lost because my opponent called in two jagdtigers, usually the first one was more than enough. :D

Like you said, there shouldn't be limits on player options. You also raise good points that adding penalties to units AFTER they are purchased solves none of the problems associated with it hitting the field. Just look at the tiger ace. It's suicide to use in a close 4v4 and insta-win in 1v1. That's just bad design.
6 Nov 2014, 17:27 PM
#57
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 17:07 PMRomeo

I've never lost because my opponent called in two jagdtigers, usually the first one was more than enough. :D


This is exactly the point. You primarily play 1 and 2's. This change would have little bearing on that game mode but drastically improve the shape of 4's. It would also encourage combined arms. If I lose my King Tiger in the first 20 minutes of the game do I wait for my 20 minute cool down to dispatch another or do I build a Panther? Hmm hmm decisions.
6 Nov 2014, 17:27 PM
#58
avatar of CieZ

Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2014, 17:07 PMRomeo

Nice post, I agree with it in spirit. I don't see any reason to limit the number of heavies though. I've never lost because my opponent called in two jagdtigers, usually the first one was more than enough. :D

Like you said, there shouldn't be limits on player options. You also raise good points that adding penalties to units AFTER they are purchased solves none of the problems associated with it hitting the field. Just look at the tiger ace. It's suicide to use in a close 4v4 and insta-win in 1v1. That's just bad design.


You might not lose because of an opponent getting two JTs but you sure as hell are going to lose when your opponent pulls out two or more ISUs in a single game, especially when they're on the field at the same time.

See: http://www.coh2.org/replay/26596/isu-is-simply-gardened-up

Napalm does raise valid points though - and I wholeheartedly agree that the Su85 is more or less a pile of pudding on treads, it is *rarely* worth the investment. I'd also like to see some sort of change to T3/T4 that reduces the cost of the other once one is built, so that the Soviets aren't so constricted late game. I think that fielding T34/76 and Su85 (once buffed) could turn out to be a formidable force able to tackle the flexibility of German armor.

I like Solution 1 because I love the medium armor vs medium armor game play that CoH 2 has to offer. In my utopian dream version of CoH 2 I'd probably force players into building medium tanks because they're fun to use, fun to watch, and fun to play against - plus they were a pretty major part of WW2. I will concede the point that allowing players to make choices on whether or not they want to tech is more important than my personal opinion and it is more important than realism. Preserving player choice is the superior method of fixing this from a design perspective and I think Relic should take that into consideration.
6 Nov 2014, 17:33 PM
#59
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1595 | Subs: 2

The more I think about it. Limiting heavy call ins to 1 a game is bad idea (except in the case of the Tiger Ace because it is super special). Increasing the dispatch drastically would be a better approach. 10-15 minute sort of thing.
6 Nov 2014, 17:38 PM
#60
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

Increasing CP or just require a tech building (or both) does not solve the problem in its entirety. People will still just build the building and maybe build one stock tank for faster xp to boost the CP and then dump all fuel into the callin tank and nothing else for the rest of the game because callin tanks for the most part are the most cost efficient tank compared to stock units. A cooldown on the callin is the only solution to all callin problems unless Relic does a coh1 style resource income rework.

A cooldown on callin units would also indirectly buff commanders who don't have any callin units and new commanders could have more interesting abilities than just new units.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 10

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

573 users are online: 1 member and 572 guests
m3awad2
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48800
Welcome our newest member, Creativedreamrs1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM