10 min t-85 followed by 12 min katysha in 3v3.
Remove caches Kthx
Caches have to go in team games
9 Jun 2018, 22:16 PM
#1
Posts: 469
9 Jun 2018, 22:23 PM
#2
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
10 min t-85 followed by 12 min katysha in 3v3.
Remove caches Kthx
Quality post.
Caches are so unfair. They give early tanks.
Btw: It´s T34-85 and Katyusha.
9 Jun 2018, 22:38 PM
#3
Posts: 3260
Caches aren't the problem there.
A strategic point gives +5 munitions and +3 fuel, so if you take one from the enemy that's a +10 munitions +6 fuel swing in your favour.
A resource cache gives +5 munitions OR +3 fuel.
The caches aren't giving them the fuel advantage. Teamgame maps have a lot of strategic points and they're holding more of them than you are. A single strategic point is worth four caches, two munition, two fuel. The caches actually hurt their income if not having the squad that 250 MP could buy means holding one fewer strategic point.
More map control >>>> caches.
A strategic point gives +5 munitions and +3 fuel, so if you take one from the enemy that's a +10 munitions +6 fuel swing in your favour.
A resource cache gives +5 munitions OR +3 fuel.
The caches aren't giving them the fuel advantage. Teamgame maps have a lot of strategic points and they're holding more of them than you are. A single strategic point is worth four caches, two munition, two fuel. The caches actually hurt their income if not having the squad that 250 MP could buy means holding one fewer strategic point.
More map control >>>> caches.
9 Jun 2018, 22:53 PM
#4
10 
Posts: 871
If they are being rushed that fast, either they had the majority of the map (double fuels etc) and were allowed to do that, or they cached up and had much smaller armies as a result, which you did not take advantage of. If teams are spamming caches, they will not have as many units. Do you have the replay saved?
10 Jun 2018, 12:13 PM
#5
Posts: 1217
The only thing that needs fixing is OKW not having access to caches. Now that their Vet 5 sucks and their units don't perform better, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
10 Jun 2018, 12:31 PM
#6
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
More map control >>>> caches.
I agree with this idea but I think you're wrong to conclude that it means caches can't be an issue at all in team games.
I think all of the points you made get watered down the more players you add. Territory changes hands less often in team games, it's easier to spare the mp on a cache. You say it's only worth it if your squad presence isn't hurt by the purchase. That's a great point in 1v1s, but you can have up to 3 people benefitting without spending anything.
Also as you say there's more territory points in team games, which also means there's more "safe points" where little effort is needed to prevent the cache from being destroyed.
10 Jun 2018, 12:38 PM
#7
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
The issue of larger teamgames is not the caches, it's the amount of standard territory points on most maps.
For example if you hold half of the map on General Mud, you earn like +40 fuel and +60 ammo, which equals an entire 1v1 map. Because of the huge amount of standard sectors that is.
Larger maps need more territory points, but IMO the ressource income per sector should be reduced in larger teamgames
For example if you hold half of the map on General Mud, you earn like +40 fuel and +60 ammo, which equals an entire 1v1 map. Because of the huge amount of standard sectors that is.
Larger maps need more territory points, but IMO the ressource income per sector should be reduced in larger teamgames
10 Jun 2018, 13:51 PM
#8
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The only thing that needs fixing is OKW not having access to caches. Now that their Vet 5 sucks and their units don't perform better, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.
They could reintroduce the 221 scout car for OKW and give it an upgrade that lets it secure territory (like PE in CoH1). Or use the Kubel for this so it actually has a use as the game progresses. This would make it unique despite achieving the same result. OKW 'caches' would have some light self defense and the ability to relocate, but they'd be taking up popcap.
10 Jun 2018, 14:41 PM
#9
Posts: 3260
Territory changes hands less often in team games, it's easier to spare the mp on a cache. You say it's only worth it if your squad presence isn't hurt by the purchase. That's a great point in 1v1s, but you can have up to 3 people benefitting without spending anything.
Those players also all benefit from holding an extra strategic point.
Building a cache is beneficial when building it doesn't result in any lost territory. Only once you hit the point in the match where more units doesn't mean more territory do caches become the more efficient way to turn manpower into munitions and fuel.
An early map control advantage turns into very early vehicles because there are so many strategic points in large teamgame maps. Caches are actually working against players trying to rush tanks.
10 Jun 2018, 18:30 PM
#10
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Caches are actually working against players trying to rush tanks.
Yes well I don't agree with the OPs point that caches have to go because of tank rush. I think they have to go (or have their impact reduced) in team games because of how it can impact late game units replaceability.
10 Jun 2018, 19:20 PM
#11
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
Those players also all benefit from holding an extra strategic point.
Building a cache is beneficial when building it doesn't result in any lost territory. Only once you hit the point in the match where more units doesn't mean more territory do caches become the more efficient way to turn manpower into munitions and fuel.
An early map control advantage turns into very early vehicles because there are so many strategic points in large teamgame maps. Caches are actually working against players trying to rush tanks.
Id say the biggest issue with 4v4 or 3v3 caches is the maps, its easy to put caches way back near your base which will likely never see any enemies which means you can get the bonus without risk. Additionally pios or engis are generally more free in larger team games as they arent required in as many places.
Other than the actual map caches are fine its just map design typically stalemates the fighting in specific sectors which means other sectors can just be non risky caches.
bg /l
10 Jun 2018, 20:39 PM
#12
Posts: 2144 | Subs: 2
I do not really see an issue with caches other than OKW not being to make any. They are a fun come back mechanic of team games. If you are pushed off of the fuels, just make caches. Simple enough.
The argument against that is, the other team was winning and they made caches. But that pretty much says, you were going to lose anyway.
The one faction that is weird to me, and maybe it is by design, is Soviets. I always find myself with extra manpower and make caches. Perhaps it is by design or a symptom of their low pop cap? As OST I also find this situation, but only if we are winning.
The argument against that is, the other team was winning and they made caches. But that pretty much says, you were going to lose anyway.
The one faction that is weird to me, and maybe it is by design, is Soviets. I always find myself with extra manpower and make caches. Perhaps it is by design or a symptom of their low pop cap? As OST I also find this situation, but only if we are winning.
11 Jun 2018, 20:41 PM
#13
Posts: 868 | Subs: 5
10 min t-85 followed by 12 min katysha in 3v3.
Remove caches Kthx
Make tanks and BAR/BREN upgrades only in 4vs4, thx
People complain the Soviets are useless.
Well, they are useless if you fight your units 1vs1. But they are all about Synergy.
What do I care if you have a Panther? Once you are crippled from running over a mine
I wait until you repair it with your 3x SturmPioneers and tell my 3x Mortars to fire at it.
did you know Vet 1 Mortars get FLARE?!
- 900 Manpower down the drain. - Panther still can't move worth a damn.
Well, they are useless if you fight your units 1vs1. But they are all about Synergy.
What do I care if you have a Panther? Once you are crippled from running over a mine
I wait until you repair it with your 3x SturmPioneers and tell my 3x Mortars to fire at it.
did you know Vet 1 Mortars get FLARE?!
- 900 Manpower down the drain. - Panther still can't move worth a damn.
12 Jun 2018, 00:48 AM
#14
4 
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
If caches are worth 250 manpower in a 1v1, they should be worth 1000 manpower in a 4v4 since they literally provied 4x the benefit for the same cost at the moment. I don't see how this is even up for a debate.
Another thing that nobody mentions is that caches make infantry flanking (AKA the one thing that could redeem 4v4s) much more difficult, if not flat out impossible, because it serves as a 40 meter radar against infantry as they will immediately shoot it like their life depended on placing a rifle round into a piece of wood.
Another thing that nobody mentions is that caches make infantry flanking (AKA the one thing that could redeem 4v4s) much more difficult, if not flat out impossible, because it serves as a 40 meter radar against infantry as they will immediately shoot it like their life depended on placing a rifle round into a piece of wood.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1098613.642+2
- 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
761 users are online:
761 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
6 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49059
Welcome our newest member, Macnas24
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Macnas24
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM