The thing with 4v4 is that people play them for different reasons:
- There's one side that wants TANK BATTLES GALORE. They want to pump out tanks like infantry so they can experience the chaos and brutality of late game(if it's not a stomp)
- There's this other side that wants MOBA-like battles, this is usually the players who play 1v1/2v2 but want the same things on 3v3/4v4(also the ones that want the resource reduction on the CPs)
You can't change the resource system without alienating the other side. This is where the problem comes from. I personally play team games because they're F.U.N.(heresy right?) and not as stressful as 1v1.
Next Balance Scope should be Tank Balance
28 Feb 2017, 23:52 PM
#21
Posts: 223
Fail of War 3 
1 Mar 2017, 00:43 AM
#22
Posts: 1124
buff axis tanks vs allied infantry
1 Mar 2017, 01:00 AM
#24
Posts: 1124
conclusion from that is game will evolve into team orgy to attract more imbecils. Similar to those in footbal, dota and beer drinking community. That s not even relic's fault its life's fault. 90% of the community are 2v2+ players = single digit iq individuals. If they remove team games alongside with scrubs in tjere then no money from this game.
you make me laugh and cry at the shit you say. since i only play 2v2 i have a single digit IQ? coming from a guy who lives on a video game forum and that of which the community has no respect for. yeaaaa okayyyy....
1 Mar 2017, 01:40 AM
#26
Posts: 3053
I do agree that Call-Ins should get normalized to Tech. It still boggles my mind how they thought T85s needed to be Tech but Lend Lease Shermans are ok to be No-Tech?
I think Tank Balance is mostly okay aside from some tweaks. Crushwells need to crush less well and Comets are probably too good. SU-76 and StuG are maybe-probably too efficient. Ostheer Panther, Bulldozer Sherman likely needs some kind of buff and maybe Centaur needs some kind of mobility buff or something. But on the whole nothing is too game-breaking I think.
That's pretty much how I feel about tanks. IMO Ost p4 could use something too, whether it's skirts at vet0 and a price increase (make it the okw p4) or a fuel decrease or something. Ost panther should be made a little more like okw panther too I think (I think okw one has a little more main gun consistency). M4Cs are a little worse than t34-85s though right? Or are they about even? Still, all call-ins should definitely be locked to tech.
 | Playercard of LoopDloop | |||||||||||||||||||
|
1 Mar 2017, 02:07 AM
#28
Posts: 2742
Tiers and teching need balancing and redesign on WFA armies. I mean, when core units of a faction are mistimed or over/underperforming, the entire faction design needs to be flexible. Otherwise the problem just keeps moving around.
Brits need to just be in their own game where they can play against other Brits.
Well, Penal PTRS weren't even apart of the survey. The power of Penals into Guards was, with Penals rocking AI, and Guards having the clutch AT.
Guards have been nerfed to oblivion, but their PTRS still serves its function, but hopefully that and Penals not having cover-negating flamethrowers will be enough.
I still don't get Penal PTRS, but I really do enjoy the AT satchel option. That alone keeps vehicles from acting like they aren't there.
A veterancy adjustment for Penals and removing the flamethrower (or replacing it with a DP-28 or two), and Guards having to purchase PTRS I think would've been a lot simpler.
Brits need to just be in their own game where they can play against other Brits.
the biggest mistake during WBP was making surveys for ALL, even a total noob could give a vote, that's why we got penals PTRS and other unreasonable changes, and another survey for tank balance will mean that axis tanks will get utterly nerfed cuz you know, 4v4 noobs really hate axis tanks being "OP"
Well, Penal PTRS weren't even apart of the survey. The power of Penals into Guards was, with Penals rocking AI, and Guards having the clutch AT.
Guards have been nerfed to oblivion, but their PTRS still serves its function, but hopefully that and Penals not having cover-negating flamethrowers will be enough.
I still don't get Penal PTRS, but I really do enjoy the AT satchel option. That alone keeps vehicles from acting like they aren't there.
A veterancy adjustment for Penals and removing the flamethrower (or replacing it with a DP-28 or two), and Guards having to purchase PTRS I think would've been a lot simpler.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
1 Mar 2017, 11:23 AM
#29
Posts: 987
You do realize that a USF Player with the infantry company that calls in a Priest can use the same map hacking ability if there is a UKF player on the field with the Valentine, right?
In fact, everybody on that team can see it, so that's not an excuse to keep the Sexton a shitty fucking unit.
1. by improving the Sexton, you guarantee maphack + great arty
2. If US player goes for Priest and UKF for Sexton, they will then have 2 great arty pieces + maphacks.
Let's keep it constructive
1 Mar 2017, 11:56 AM
#30
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
I'm sure it'll be polled, like last time.
1 Mar 2017, 11:57 AM
#31
Posts: 2066
I'm sure it'll be polled, like last time.
Any information if the survey will be as poor as the last one?
Kappa
1 Mar 2017, 12:54 PM
#33
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
1. by improving the Sexton, you guarantee maphack + great arty
2. If US player goes for Priest and UKF for Sexton, they will then have 2 great arty pieces + maphacks.
At the most it will be the base 25 pounder on steroids, and since the base 25 pounders are shit so it certainly will not overperform.
1 Mar 2017, 13:43 PM
#34
Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1
Invissed some unnecessary stuff.
The internal battery has run dry, the game can now be played. However, clock based events will no longer occur.
1 Mar 2017, 15:49 PM
#35
Posts: 1487
I'm sure it'll be polled, like last time.
plz no. Ask top 20 at 1v1 if anyone. Stated by bartonpl scrubs should not vote anywhere.
| Playercard of eqdw | |||||||||||||||||||
|
SteamId is set to private for user id aaa. Set it to public if you want to link to your playercard via your user id.
12 Mar 2017, 08:50 AM
#36
Posts: 721
They will probably not nerf Brits, since they still sell too well. I mean, Kyle can propose to the Relic meisters what he wants, but they will go for sells.
With that being said, the problem will most likely again be with the survey. In the last survey could only choose one faction and one unit from the entire game as a problem and that was it. Really Relic lol?
Firstly "for the sells" is such tired, routine bashing comment I don't even know how you still find it in you. The game is how old now? What is happening now is rather similar to the last good push for balance given to CoH before Relic had to move on. And you also see a problem that they wanted to focus on the a few units to get that right once and for all before next step? Scope for a reason. Stop mocking Relic so much, it reflects back on yourself.
My mommy always said there were no monsters - no real ones - but there are.
12 Mar 2017, 13:49 PM
#37
Posts: 236
Make 2v2s great again. 
12 Mar 2017, 15:20 PM
#38
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
I feel like the Jackson doesn't deserve having 480 HP anymore since the Firefly is in the game, I would gladly take increase cost for it not being 2 shot by Command Panthers and KTs anymore.
12 Mar 2017, 16:11 PM
#39
Posts: 245
I think if they do squad spacing right it should be an indirect nerf to tanks effectiveness on infantry in both crushing and AOE shell damage.
They should also decrease main gun effectiveness on infantry but more devastating to cover and other objects like buildings and stone walls and increase the MGs on the tanks effectiveness for AI. I'd like to see that, the smaller tanks used as a sort of cavalry rather than huge MP bleeds and squad wipers with the perk of also being mobile with decent AT.
They should also decrease main gun effectiveness on infantry but more devastating to cover and other objects like buildings and stone walls and increase the MGs on the tanks effectiveness for AI. I'd like to see that, the smaller tanks used as a sort of cavalry rather than huge MP bleeds and squad wipers with the perk of also being mobile with decent AT.
12 Mar 2017, 17:42 PM
#40
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
I feel like the Jackson doesn't deserve having 480 HP anymore since the Firefly is in the game, I would gladly take increase cost for it not being 2 shot by Command Panthers and KTs anymore.
Thats the point. Firefly should be slow, long ranged sniper tank, that have some HP but is slow. To counter heaviest tanks.
Panther should be fast, hard hiting agile and armored tank hunter, that is able to hunt down tank destroyers, but suck against medium tanks and AT guns because of his low rof and AI..
Jacson should be lightly armored, fast, agile, long ranged tank hunter that can kite any tank in game but fails against good flank/AT guns. The problem is that jacson cannot kite well because he has rather slow acceleration. What jacson needs is better acceleration, not more health
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
30 | ||
 |
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
245 | ||
 |
|
|
36 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
821 users are online:
821 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49070
Welcome our newest member, Blesofsk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Blesofsk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM