Login

russian armor

A way to nerf calliope without overnerf

PAGES (7)down
11 Jan 2016, 10:47 AM
#41
avatar of Durkalina

Posts: 21

First, the Calliope already has a weakness - you cannot summon it without choosing a specific doctrine. Also, it cannot fire it's main gun.
But still costs more than a Sherman.

Second, the Stuka is lethal just as much as the rest of the rocket arty. It just works as a creeping barrage.
Mind you, it also deals immense damage to veichles as well if you can hit them.

Cost is always relevant.
It's part of the balance.

As for the struggle part - than how about a total buff to all the ally factions in the late game ? They do struggle there, no ?


Stuka, werfer and the Calliope can attack from at least 2 screens away and remain lethal.


Also, the "Logic" some would seek - it's a game.
Otherwise where is the Auto-lose for the Axis ? They did lose the war though.

There seem to be a point missing by what you guys want and how you want it.
Do you want a way to deal with blobs ?
Or do you just don't like rocket arty because it kills your blobs?


Sometimes it's worthy to seek the symptom and not a "Problem".
Especially when the problem isn't there...




11 Jan 2016, 10:49 AM
#42
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

I do love when my opponent goes Calliope, I just go and hunt them down with a Panther or a P4, as I know USF will not have any E8, Jackson, Pershing or any other hard AT in the area. I do not understand why it needs a nerf at all, it is a tool that punishes blobbers, but opens up counter possibilities to fight against. These things aren't cheap for AI only with 140 fuel cost.

A good example was the recent ESL final with Barton going full AT towards lategame to get a massive comeback against Jesulin who went Callipoe..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ck-AHpOxk

Most people do seem to hate it because it does indeed punish the OKW blobs, which is, in my opinion, working as intended..
11 Jan 2016, 11:03 AM
#43
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

Working as intended
11 Jan 2016, 11:05 AM
#44
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

Calliope and Priest should be limited to 2 and no disembark...

Limit to will make these units that require no tech to be less spam-able.

No disembark will mean that getting the crew out to limit upkeep and transfer to other players will also be longer possible.
11 Jan 2016, 11:08 AM
#45
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

The person gets more than 2 Priests and/or more than 2 Calliopes in a game, and transfers them to other players (140 fuel), whilst the opponent is not getting any hard AT or any attempt to counter, is clearly fighting against someone who may have to L2P :S

In-game, people seem to forget as well that the Calliope has NO functioning main gun. I can't counter any tanks on its own. Just rush it with a P4, and that's the end of it.
11 Jan 2016, 11:25 AM
#46
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

The person gets more than 2 Priests and/or more than 2 Calliopes in a game, and transfers them to other players (140 fuel), whilst the opponent is not getting any hard AT or any attempt to counter, is clearly fighting against someone who may have to L2P :S
In-game, people seem to forget as well that the Calliope has NO functioning main gun. I can't counter any tanks on its own.


L2P is not reason for not going ahead with the a change that does not affect balance and fixes other issues...Transferring priest/calliopes is very easy to do in 4vs4 or 3vs3 games.

Calliope does not have a main gun and the same most other on map artillery piece do not have either...
11 Jan 2016, 11:29 AM
#47
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

I do understand your concerns, but I have trouble comprehending the problem there. Transferring Cal/Priest to other players in 3on3/4on4 just end up with 2 or more players having tons of AI, but no AT, and dooms to failure in the long term. Not sure what the advantage of that is. A player has to spend 280 fuel in total for one 140 fuel Calli for himself, wait for the ability to reload, and another 140 fuel Calli for the other player. The other player has to get a crew as well (at least 200 manpower), and make sure they're not over popcap themselves (as during that time, the other player has gained resources worth 280 fuel themselves). One player ends up with a tank crew that is a bit useless in combat.

A team will end up with two players having one Callis each. This may alleviate micro, but apart from the amount of AI as from one player having two callies, that is no game winning tactic at all. During that time, the opponent surely must have enough means to counter. I am main OKW and I have never seen such behaviour. Do you have any replay with that kind of winning performance?

And yes, L2P is a reason for NOT having balance changes. If an opponent goes full artillery and full anti-infantry, going more infantry is a bad decision, and clearly shows a L2P problem.

edit: Oh, you're the heavy assault and fortification guy, who tried to incorrectly label things as you see fit. To be honest, I do believe you may have a L2P problem as demonstrated in your other posts. Vehicle crew transfers are probably the least OP thing in the game.
11 Jan 2016, 11:38 AM
#48
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

Easy to solve move OKW tracks to the base sector.
11 Jan 2016, 11:45 AM
#49
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

...
And yes, L2P is a reason for NOT having balance changes. If an opponent goes full artillery and full anti-infantry, going more infantry is a bad decision, and clearly shows a L2P problem.


The problem with Priest and Calliope having crew is that one can have them without paying the upkeep for them...

Being able to transfer doctrinal units at will is an issue because it breaks the commander concept.
It is one of the reasons Pershing does not not disembark ability...

No L2P is NOT a reason enough to stop a balance changes that improves game play...USF medic truck for instance was more efficient than any other heal available with it heal aura and medic crew so if someone L2P with it there was little reason for a balance change..
11 Jan 2016, 11:55 AM
#50
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

No, Pershing has had its crew disembark feature removed as a quick implementation for Relic to limit Heavies to one per player.

What's OP about USF Ambulances now? :/

The problem with Priest and Calliope having crew is that one can have them without paying the upkeep for them...


There is still a cost of at least 280 fuel for both players to have at least one Calli.
A player leaving their crew next to the priests/callis as a mean to bypass upkeeps just begs the opponent to kill the crew and take over the tanks themselves. Additionally, this will force even more micro on the USF player, and one cannot micro everything. Going slightly over the popcap using decrew has been underlined as a valid tactic as denoted by Relic themselves.

Really, this is more of a L2P issue, and you do seem to exaggerate the issue at hand a bit, which reminds me of you attempting to define the in-game term "fortification" recently. I haven't read anything about de-crewing being OP since the beta of WFA, when crews were able to instantly crew/decrew tanks in combat, messing up with the enemy's targetting..
11 Jan 2016, 12:17 PM
#51
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

No, Pershing has had its crew disembark feature removed as a quick implementation for Relic to limit Heavies to one per player.

and avoid transfer to other players...


A player leaving their crew next to the priests/callis as a mean to bypass upkeeps just begs the opponent to kill the crew and take over the tanks themselves.


If Cali or Priest disembarks anyway near the frontline and get stolen that is clearly a L2P issue :)

Upkeep and Pop cap are means of reducing the number of on-map artillery and Cali and Priest currently bypass the mechanism with little or no actual counter-play/danger.

Furthermore you have not presented a single reason how such a change would upset balance or game-play and thus a reason for you to object it...

...which reminds me of you attempting to define the in-game term "fortification" recently.

PLS try to avoid going personal, and I did not attempted to define "fortification". The term is used by Relic and thus it is defined by them...
11 Jan 2016, 12:19 PM
#52
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

Edit: Argh, you keep editing your posts, without clearly underline what has been edited, to make my replies look different.

I do not have to present a point to a generally non existing problem. There is no need refute an argument which I did not even bring to this discussion to something that even Relic said was intended design decision. Strawman much?

There's enough counter-play if players go full artillery, even with popcap disembark. Get Tanks, get to the artillery. Stop getting Infantry, and do not turtle more.

If you believe that USF decrew with tank transfers to other players is seriously a problem, then I recommend you to make your own thread about it. Please add at least a replay (with specific times and what to check).
11 Jan 2016, 13:25 PM
#53
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

Edit: Argh, you keep editing your posts, without clearly underline what has been edited, to make my replies look different.

No I do not try to make your replies look different, pls stop getting personal...

The problems as I have explained to quite clearly actually are:
Bypass of Upkeep and pop cap of support units..
Transfer of commander unique artillery units across player and factions...

The changes, I have proposed, fixes the problems, with no side-affects in balance, so even if the issues are not "serious", there is no reason not to fix them.

You can find Calliope transfer already in the replays sections in 4vs4 game...
11 Jan 2016, 13:43 PM
#54
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2016, 02:42 AMGhostTX


Could we nerf the Sturmpanzer or Sturmtiger? I mean, they're high damage area effect tanks, too. No need for them to have tank HP when they decimate blobs and support guns (and tanks) with such one shot ease, too.



The range of both those tanks is MUCH shorter. They have to come into the line of fire to get off a shot, the Calliope can fire from deep in the fog of war.

I have no idea what you wanted to say. Calliope CANNOT be compared to Sturmpanzer and can only vaguely be compare to Sturmtiger.
11 Jan 2016, 13:59 PM
#56
avatar of IGOR

Posts: 228

bullshit , calliope is a fking tank , if the hp is lowered make it 100 fuel ...
11 Jan 2016, 14:07 PM
#58
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Jan 2016, 13:59 PMIGOR
bullshit , calliope is a fking tank , if the hp is lowered , make it 100 fuel ...


Don't forget it doesn't require tech at all....
11 Jan 2016, 14:12 PM
#59
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Don't forget it doesn't require tech at all....

That is relevant how?
You don't plan on getting any armor heavier then stuart for the whole game?
That'll work fine for you, I'm sure #jesulinvsbartongame.
11 Jan 2016, 14:25 PM
#60
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

maybe im sounds like funboy but open your minds guys calliope is doctrinal 140 fuel 10cp!! shitty USF after this hard years deservre for solid rocket arrtilery. if u wonna nerf it make caliope non doctrinal unit becouse volks spam is cancer not caliope U think guys why new USF commanders look awesome and OKW not, becouse OKW have evrything already ! but i guess this is so fuc*** hard to understand
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

784 users are online: 784 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
29 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50043
Welcome our newest member, Ban ca xeng Live
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM