Login

russian armor

remove fuel points from 3v3+ maps?

31 Jan 2016, 10:33 AM
#1
avatar of poop

Posts: 174

They seem to make the game kinda snowball out of control.

I'd keep the munition point because, so that if you lose them early, it doesn't hurt as bad because -most- munition-based stuff are higher level (6+ abilities) or mines. so it is still very worth fighting for.

but fuel.. it just puts the slow starter in such a hole. because not only did you bleed more manpower in losing the point, you are going to be way behind in tech and vehicle production unless you burn even more MP in caches.

its a hard double whammy.

:/

i think it could also help curb the "allies win in 20 mins or surrender" meta which is reallly annoying. and would allow more of a comeback to happen, while still giving the "owners" of the extra points, an economic advantage, just not as drastic of one.

not to mention the already bloated big-map economies, do they really need even more fuel?

TL;DR

keep munition points, remove fuel points, replace with standard points.
31 Jan 2016, 11:30 AM
#2
avatar of Sirlami
Donator 11

Posts: 422 | Subs: 3

that would benefit okw and usf too much tbh
31 Jan 2016, 13:01 PM
#3
avatar of dreamerdude
Benefactor 392

Posts: 374

Not only that it'd drag the games on for to long
31 Jan 2016, 21:24 PM
#4
avatar of poop

Posts: 174

Not only that it'd drag the games on for to long


Games would last exactly the same, VPs are still there.
1 Feb 2016, 05:37 AM
#6
avatar of Gbpirate
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 1153 | Subs: 1

You don't need to remove the points, just reduce the fuel income of all points by 1 in 3v3 and in 4v4 reduce normal point fuel income and fuel points by two.

Cache values can be reduced too.
Munis should be reduced in 4v4s as well. Pacing is different when you go from 10-12 points in 1v1 maps to 14 points in 4v4 maps.
1 Feb 2016, 05:43 AM
#7
avatar of Jadame!

Posts: 1122

No way to deny axis fuel? What can possibly go wrong.
1 Feb 2016, 06:23 AM
#8
avatar of pugzii

Posts: 513

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jan 2016, 11:30 AMSirlami
that would benefit okw and usf too much tbh


How would this benefit OKW when they can't build caches?
1 Feb 2016, 06:34 AM
#9
avatar of Sirlami
Donator 11

Posts: 422 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Feb 2016, 06:23 AMpugzii


How would this benefit OKW when they can't build caches?


they could field large amounts of infantry and rakettens to effectively counter everything since there is a lot less armor/rocket arty
1 Feb 2016, 06:42 AM
#10
avatar of burakui

Posts: 34

hehehehe %90 of us large team game players attack the fuel point first, our brains would short circuit with no fuel points :)
1 Feb 2016, 15:16 PM
#11
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

removing fuel points is actually a decent idea because it makes all the other points worth more and slows down teching. there's also no rhyme or reason to fuel point placement right now with some maps having safe natural fuel points, others having totally contested fuel points, and some being between the two extremes.
1 Feb 2016, 15:27 PM
#12
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

3v3's and 4v4's need an overall resource reduction, taking away the fuel points wont fix this but reducing the income given from the standard points should be adjusted.

Not only should your muni and fuel income be lower but the MP income should also be adjusted for large team games to slow down the large teams games. Often times team games skip the early game that takes about 10 mins in 1v1 and hits the late game by 11-12 mins leaving the game feeling very rushed.

Maps are another thing that needs to be looked at as cover is pretty non-existent in 4v4 maps making early engagments only about "oh I need this house" on city 17 or the building on port of ham. I think 4v4s COULD be a comp game, it can, by going somewhat the way of Total War Arena to make your army comp smaller but with more impact. Another option they could do would to implement ARCON mode from StarCraft II where players share resources or something like that.

4v4's need to be more team strat and skill rather than who can 2v1 the guy or out blob the other guy. It needs a look at from Relic for sure and im interested in seeing what happens
1 Feb 2016, 17:20 PM
#13
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2

I like the idea, but it also makes the game a bit slow in my opinion.
2 Feb 2016, 08:57 AM
#14
avatar of dreamerdude
Benefactor 392

Posts: 374

My awesome idea still stands, well i think it's awesome.

weapon teams and weapon upgrades should have an upkeep of munitions,

vehicles and vehicles should have an upkeep of fuel.
- light, low upkeep
- medium, medium upkeep
- heavy, high upkeep

Also artillery vehicles have an upkeep of both fuel and muni, light fuel and heavy on the munition.

This will encourage people to use the stuff they build and value thier units furthermore.

I mean it is just an Idea and I'll see if I can get some influence going.
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

586 users are online: 586 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM