Fuel rationing as an approach to balancing
Posts: 609
Im not a big fan of the nerf / buff unit approach and certainly not on the scale that might be needed to shift win /loss rates on this scale - I think some subtle tweaking is needed to increase gameplay fun and reduce frustration but otherwise unit balance is quite good.
The problem as I see it relates to the synergy between OKW and OH and how increased resources and map sixe in large games benefits axis. Fuel scaling for maps (i.e. less resources from points the bigger the game size) has been brought up before but I see little discussion - it also feels a bit fiddly.
i would be interested however to see the effect of something simpler - making resource caches only benefit the player who builds them in the same way that opel trucks were changed. This would have the benefit slowing tech in large games for everyone and specifically reducing OH / OKW synergy. the danger is it might have some fatal effects on early mid game in 2v2 and the ability of OKW / OH teams to counter soviet t3 for example but then double OKW teams manage ok.
Posts: 114
Posts: 1042
If caches only benefit the player who builds them what is to prevent one or two players from taking all the cache points?
And then the rage when someone decides they were owed a fuel cache and so nuke someone else's cache with arty or a call in...
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
And then the rage when someone decides they were owed a fuel cache and so nuke someone else's cache with arty or a call in...
Pretty much it.
Would fix like 99% of the issues of big team games, but likely cause a new very big one.
Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
The best solution to fixing 3v3 and 4v4 is to make it so you know longer have multiple players dog piling single points. 3v3 or 4v4 need to have 5 VP points as a minimum to encourage people to spread out more (like how it is in 2v2 and 1v1). It would give people more room to pull off flanks and other tactical shenanigans.
Artificially limiting fuel income is a good idea in theory but falls apart when you realize that it just slows the shitstorm down, it doesn't actually stop it.
Posts: 183
Double OKW does fine till howitzers enter the battlefield and then it's pretty much over unless you already had them down to like 40 VP. All my losses so far since this patch as OKW are from getting stuck with an OKW team mate (or Ostheer team mate who didn't take a howitzer counter ) and then being fucked in the ass by 152mm shells.
The best solution to fixing 3v3 and 4v4 is to make it so you know longer have multiple players dog piling single points. 3v3 or 4v4 need to have 5 VP points as a minimum to encourage people to spread out more (like how it is in 2v2 and 1v1). It would give people more room to pull off flanks and other tactical shenanigans.
Artificially limiting fuel income is a good idea in theory but falls apart when you realize that it just slows the shitstorm down, it doesn't actually stop it.
That VP point isn't a bad idea actually, I find myself agreeing with you. There is nothing worse than getting 2v1'd and your units getting run down by the enemy who flanked his heavy infantry for wipes.
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
If caches only benefit the player who builds them what is to prevent one or two players from taking all the cache points?
Uuuummmm manpower concerns? The fact it's called a TEAM game? There should be some communication as to who does what. If not, the other team deserves to win.
I am incredibly in favour of the fuel caches only benefiting the player who built them. This will keep the precious competitive 1v1 risk-reward thing intact. At the same time it will IMMENSELY help 4v4s.
In a 4v4 a single fuel cache will give something like 300 (more like 400+ because longer games) fuel total distributed over the players, during the course of the game. Multiply by 3 or, on some maps 4 caches. The tech tree was not made to accomodate this, it's insane.
Posts: 1026
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Uuuummmm manpower concerns? The fact it's called a TEAM game? There should be some communication as to who does what. If not, the other team deserves to win.
I am incredibly in favour of the fuel caches only benefiting the player who built them. This will keep the precious competitive 1v1 risk-reward thing intact. At the same time it will IMMENSELY help 4v4s.
In a 4v4 a single fuel cache will give something like 300 (more like 400+ because longer games) fuel total distributed over the players, during the course of the game. Multiply by 3 or, on some maps 4 caches. The tech tree was not made to accomodate this, it's insane.
Why not just reduce the income you get from fuel caches then? Because all I see making fuel caches player exclusive doing is fucking up randoms ever more.
Just make it so each player is limited to 1 fuel cache and 2 munitions caches if you want to limit cache spam. That way if you only have 1 Ost team mate you can't have him spam caches on every single point.
It's still just band-aid fixes because as long as the maps are nothing but retarded campfests then Axis will continue to do better because they can stack more forces on top of each other due to having more expensive "condensed" units.
Posts: 2561
Posts: 114
They could just make it so that you can add on an upgrade to teamates caches so they stack. No big deal.
i like this
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
They could just make it so that you can add on an upgrade to teamates caches so they stack. No big deal.
Okay so what happens to the OKW players when they are 20+ fuel per minute behind their opponents because they can't make caches/benefit from them? It would balance Ost versus Allies in team games (income wise at least) but put OKW at a significant disadvantage.
Posts: 1122
Allies op this patch despite any rates.
Caches benefit allies much more than axis.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
It would change nothing.
Allies op this patch despite any rates.
Caches benefit allies much more than axis.
Why so bitter yo.
Posts: 600
Current win/loss rates (www.coh2chart.com/) show a surprisingly even level of balance at 1v1 but as the games grow the axis / allies difference widens massively. There are debates about the value of these stats and also whether 4v4 can ever be balanced but I believe that there is a big disparity and its a big problem for the wider player base (who mostly play these modes) and enjoyment of the game.
Im not a big fan of the nerf / buff unit approach and certainly not on the scale that might be needed to shift win /loss rates on this scale - I think some subtle tweaking is needed to increase gameplay fun and reduce frustration but otherwise unit balance is quite good.
The problem as I see it relates to the synergy between OKW and OH and how increased resources and map sixe in large games benefits axis. Fuel scaling for maps (i.e. less resources from points the bigger the game size) has been brought up before but I see little discussion - it also feels a bit fiddly.
i would be interested however to see the effect of something simpler - making resource caches only benefit the player who builds them in the same way that opel trucks were changed. This would have the benefit slowing tech in large games for everyone and specifically reducing OH / OKW synergy. the danger is it might have some fatal effects on early mid game in 2v2 and the ability of OKW / OH teams to counter soviet t3 for example but then double OKW teams manage ok.
Top 200 charts are not viable to judge balance since most of these games have been a top 200 player vs someone alot lower in the ranking than that.
All this shows is preference of the top 200. Nothing more.
Posts: 176
Posts: 589
As for OKW struggling in team games, that's how they were designed Alex. They are supposed to struggle, not get the benefits of a team mates caches.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Stackable caches would be great. If all 4 players put 1000mp into a cache and it gets caught... nice reward!
As for OKW struggling in team games, that's how they were designed Alex. They are supposed to struggle, not get the benefits of a team mates caches.
I feel like a faction designed to be intentionally bad is a badly designed faction. Remember how people kept trying to justify OKW not having a medium tank with "they are supposed to have no mid game!" which obviously is a view Relic doesn't share.
The argument your using is silly, "oh well USF late game should be trash because they were designed to only win at the start of the game" see how insane that sounds?
When I'm playing with an Ostheer mate why should our cooperation options be limited? Making caches to make up for falling behind in map control is a thing in 2v2 you know. And OKW get's properly reduced income from them. It's not like fuel drops.
Posts: 2561
you could say the same thing about 1v1s. The whole point is that you will no longer be facing 4 opponents backed by a map full of caches because only one player made a investment. You wouldn't need to rely on your wher allies putting down caches any longer in order to stay in the game.
Okay so what happens to the OKW players when they are 20+ fuel per minute behind their opponents because they can't make caches/benefit from them? It would balance Ost versus Allies in team games (income wise at least) but put OKW at a significant disadvantage.
4v4 balance and pacing is absolutely wacky due to communitive caches.
Livestreams
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
11 | |||||
5 | |||||
4 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
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
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
Kieselberg
11 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM