Login

russian armor

Should all factions converge to same late-game strength?

5 Mar 2017, 19:01 PM
#41
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

OStheer have better tanks than soviets - panther, tiger, elefant, stugs, but soviets can counter them. Su85 can keep tiger at bay, t34s can flank and kill elefant or play on part where elefant presence is lacking and so on.

You can clearly see that ostheer has super lategame advantage against soviets, but soviets can still hold their ground.


Can we stop it with the fucking fantasy time already? The Tiger hasn't been better than the IS-2 for over a year now (on the contrary, and I recently pointed out in perfect numbers why the IS-2s veterancy is only an additional expression of that superiority), and the Panzer IV costs so much more than the T-34 that it simply has to be better at something. Where things get complicated is the SU-76/StuG/SU-85/Panther matchup, because the Panther performs so vastly different to the SU-85 (not necessarily stronger, when both units are used right, but certainly easier).

So Soviets can hold their ground, not despite being so vastly inferior as you claim they are, but because they are much more evenly matched at that stage of the game. The Elefant of course introduces a certain AT superiority that the ISU can't match, but since both units don't exist outside of 4v4s anyway, their hunting area is too small to be of much relevance to the overall topic.
5 Mar 2017, 19:33 PM
#42
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

I don't think its necessarily bad that different factions have different points of strength, as long as its not an instant win for being within those time brackets. In an ideal world, though, the burden of micro should shift around rather than the actual capability of the faction.
5 Mar 2017, 19:42 PM
#43
avatar of scratchedpaintjob
Donator 11

Posts: 1021 | Subs: 1


Volks Vet5 has never been an issue in a long time. In fact, 5-star vet for Volks is mostly cosmetic.

+20% sight range, +15% accuracy
-20% cooldown, -30% reload
cosmetic?
anyway, no matter what, balancing 4v4 without making 1v1 unbalanced or more boring is impossible


So Soviets can hold their ground, not despite being so vastly inferior as you claim they are, but because they are much more evenly matched at that stage of the game.

IMO that mostly depends on whether the soviet has mark target, if yes, they aren't vastly inferior, if no, they will have a hard time
5 Mar 2017, 20:47 PM
#44
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17


+20% sight range, +15% accuracy
-20% cooldown, -30% reload
cosmetic?
anyway, no matter what, balancing 4v4 without making 1v1 unbalanced or more boring is impossible


Now try summing up the entirety of the bonuses Volks get (multiplicative) throught all 5 levels of veterancy, and compare them to the bonuses Grenadiers get through their 3 levels of veterancy.

(the additional cooldown Volks get should account for 10%-ish DPS increase. I don't remember exactly).

Instead of 5 levels of Volks veterancy, Volks could be getting 3 levels of Grenadier veterancy (and they could be stronger as a result). That is what I mean by cosmetic veterancy.

PS: Volks don't get -30% reload. The veterancy guide on the site is wrong on this.
5 Mar 2017, 20:59 PM
#45
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1


The veterancy guide on the site is wrong on this.


OH MY GOD!
I was for sure these bonuses were up to date.
5 Mar 2017, 21:19 PM
#46
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4



OH MY GOD!
I was for sure these bonuses were up to date.

It's based on the patchnotes, but relic ninja-removed the -30% reload when they realized it made the volks schrecks fire 30% faster :clap:
5 Mar 2017, 21:26 PM
#47
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Mar 2017, 21:19 PMTobis

It's based on the patchnotes, but relic ninja-removed the -30% reload when they realized it made the volks schrecks fire 30% faster :clap:


I really need to install that mod that shows the veterancy bonuses as raw stats instead of vague explanations.
5 Mar 2017, 23:48 PM
#48
avatar of JackDickolson

Posts: 181

Vipper, DonnieChan, Heroicserv4ant and scratchedpaintjob stated what needed to be said.


We don't want a symmetric, boring piece of crap. Allow the game to retain its asymmetrical character, or if still that desperate to actualize your dream, take viper's advice seriously.

NVM, I am losing interest.
6 Mar 2017, 09:56 AM
#49
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

In another topic i had a discussion with Mr. Smith, the bugsmasher from WBP team (gj on that!), about late-game strength of factions.

Here is a shortened quote from him:


To be honest, i disagree both with that this is the intended design and more importantly that it should be!

So i want your opinions: Do you want that all factions should converge to the same late-game strength?


If your answer is no, then you should agree on having powerful early game factions winning 90% of their games early on as Late game factions won 90% of games reaching this stage.
Now how much games represent having 90% chance to win your game over the 10% of games you'll be able to survive till the late game is a mystery to me. But what I'm sure is we can have perfect balanced factions with that, with a perfect symmetry in power spikes (early vs late) but this is not going to be balanced in a game wise perspective.

If your opinion is to give every faction a fair chance to reach late game stage, then you should ensure every faction has the same fair chance to win the late game. If so, we can have some factions doing better on the early stage of the game and some others doing better on the middle stage of the game and all of them having a power convergence on the late game.

I obviously want more balance between factions on the late game. Units like Havre/KT/Comets/SPanther/STiger/Elefant are aberrations in this game in the way they are implemented. Only the Elefant isn't offending today due to Ostheer being so weak at all the stages of the game. I'm also not including the ISU/IS2/Tiger as they are balanced in my opinion and this is why we almost never see them in teamgames.

Balance is a mix of symmetry and strength and weakness on units and factions level.
Today we are seeing that the counterpart of those units aren't enough strong. What they are: Popcap, mp and fuel. They aren't enough because you can have a well balanced army and picking those unit as the cherry on top of the cake. Those units aren't balanced at all and the power they bring should have biggest downsides.

As an idea on how we could bring more balance in those units is looking at the Tiger Ace. Not going to the economy creeping level of the TA, those units should have a biggest impact on your economy, not only in popcap and the upkeep naturally going with, but a special upkeep fees in mp/fuel to maintain those units on the field, with a possibility to withdraw them and get back some of your mp/fuel investment.
6 Mar 2017, 14:45 PM
#50
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2


Heavy tanks with high damage output and limited firing arc vs highly mobile but weak mediums which are to flank the heavies.


Too bad smoke and flank does not work in skilled play.
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Livestreams

unknown 3
unknown 1
Germany 1

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

487 users are online: 487 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49864
Welcome our newest member, Aggastri
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM