Tie Call-Ins to tech this patch
Posts: 1355
I don't get you people sometimes, you like/love this game but you want to make it a different one. I get that you want to make it better but removing and changing so many things, it will become a different game.
Not COH for sure.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Call ins is a part of COH. We already see them so rarely (in 1v1s), this will remove them forever from the game.
Did you even read the poll? The idea is to tie them to tech and improve them accordingly. It's easier to balance units when their timing is more consistent with the rest of the game
Posts: 3260
Call ins is a part of COH. We already see them so rarely (in 1v1s), this will remove them forever from the game.
I don't get you people sometimes, you like/love this game but you want to make it a different one. I get that you want to make it better but removing and changing so many things, it will become a different game.
Not COH for sure.
Stalling for heavy tanks happens in most 1v1 games at the moment. It's the dominant strategy for Soviet and OKW.
Posts: 2066
2 mediums will always deal better damage then 1 heavy.
1 heavy is just easier to keep alife but it still loses to 2 mediums(unless its IS-2, this one's meant to last).
But the IS2 can't do shit against 2 mediums until vet 2....
Posts: 5279
But the IS2 can't do shit against 2 mediums until vet 2....
That's dishonest. It's got great pen and great armour, it's like a panther with AI. Mediums are fodder. But yea, cap territory on something so expensive feels underwhelming to say the least.
Posts: 2066
That's dishonest. It's got great pen and great armour, it's like a panther with AI. Mediums are fodder. But yea, cap territory on something so expensive feels underwhelming to say the least.
Hm I disagree. It always misses and has horrible range until vet 2. It needs vet 2 to be truly potent.
Posts: 3260
Hm I disagree. It always misses and has horrible range until vet 2. It needs vet 2 to be truly potent.
It's better than the T-34 you get for about the same price with the current moronic system.
They've done it with all the new heavy tanks. I don't get why they insist on leaving fixing this glaring problem to the next patch. It's so easy to fix.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Posts: 3260
It really isn't. Which is why.
It is. Tying them tech isn't complex to implement.
The only concern is that it'll might make them weak. And to that I say, so what? Heavy tanks being off-meta for a patch really isn't a big deal. If anything, it'll be a refreshing change.
You tie them to tech now, you've have a whole patch cycle of live testing data to work out what, if any, buffs they need. That's far better than the limited balance preview patch participation feedback the balance team usually gets.
Unless heavy tanks being off-meta is some sort of horrific catastrophe, I honestly can't see any advantage in delaying this.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
It is.
It really isn't. There are way more indirect consequences than you are imagining. For example, putting the Command Panther behind tech would destroy OKW's only competitive strat in high level team games. It can't be pulled away without giving something back in return.
Posts: 3260
It really isn't. There are way more indirect consequences than you are imagining. For example, putting the Command Panther behind tech would destroy OKW's only competitive strat in high level team games.
If these consequences really are this meta-shattering, that's even more reason to do it now. Given the very limited testing feedback preview patches get, you'll be just as blind then as now.
This way, you'll be able to see what shape the meta takes.
I honestly doubt this would eliminate OKW from high level teamgames, but if it does, you'll know why and what the second best strategy turns out to be.
Posts: 5279
It really isn't. There are way more indirect consequences than you are imagining. For example, putting the Command Panther behind tech would destroy OKW's only competitive strat in high level team games. It can't be pulled away without giving something back in return.
a lack of alternatives hardly seems like a viable reason not to fix whats broken. thats right up there with "soviet are not allowed to have a good mg because okws standard mass volks strats cant crush it with the utmost ease like they can conscripts"
its fairly clear that okw need a redesign if things the community almost universally wants cant be done solely because the okw might struggle with it
im not a modder and am thankful for the work you guys are doing for the game i very much enjoy, and i hope that addressing the faction that seems to be at the heart of nearly all balance issues still around could be the target of the next patch cycle
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It really isn't. There are way more indirect consequences than you are imagining. For example, putting the Command Panther behind tech would destroy OKW's only competitive strat in high level team games. It can't be pulled away without giving something back in return.
By "team games" you mean 2v2 or 4v4?
Because in the latter, JT would simply replace it. I can see it being more of a problem in 2s.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Because in the latter, JT would simply replace it. I can see it being more of a problem in 2s.
OKW's only viable strat for high level (2v2s,) 3v3s/4v4s is double Stuka into Command Panther and use it to transition into T4 (or light vehicles into Stuka into CP5 for 2v2s). The Jagdtiger at 15CPs would come way too late for that and offers nowhere near enough flexibility. This would be a problem for 2v2s as well. At least half the team games maps (2s, 3s and 4s) are completely unsuited for the Jagdtiger.
Posts: 833
By "team games" you mean 2v2 or 4v4?
Because in the latter, JT would simply replace it. I can see it being more of a problem in 2s.
JT doesn't come close to command panther, the LoS is matchwinning in teamgames
Posts: 3260
OKW's only viable strat for high level (2v2s,) 3v3s/4v4s is double Stuka into Command Panther and use it to transition into T4. The Jagdtiger at 15CPs would come way too late for that and offers nowhere near enough flexibility. This would be a problem for 2v2s as well. At least half the team games maps (2s, 3s and 4s) are completely unsuited for the Jagdtiger.
I see plenty of other strats in high level 2v2 streams. That may be the strongest strat, but I very much doubt it's go Command Panther or lose.
And if it is, that's even more reason to remove it. That way you can see what gets fallen back on in its absence and you know what needs adjusting when the next patch comes around.
You can't judge how well the faction can stand until you take the crutch away.
Trying to preempt all the knock-on effects using only preview mod data is going to lead to missteps. Look at what happened with JLI.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I see plenty of other strats in high level 2v2 streams. That may be the strongest strat, but I very much doubt it's go Command Panther or lose.
And if it is, that's even more reason to remove it. That way you can see what gets fallen back on in its absence and you know what needs adjusting when the next patch comes around.
You can't judge how well the faction can stand until you take the crutch away.
I agree, the best way to increase diversity is to bring as many commander as possible to the same power level for each faction.
That is done easier if on starts nerfing the strongest commander than buffing the weak ones.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
And if it is, that's even more reason to remove it. That way you can see what gets fallen back on in its absence and you know what needs adjusting when the next patch comes around.
You can't judge how well the faction can stand until you take the crutch away.
Yeah or we could not deliberately sabotage the game for some months just to watch what happens as the Axis factions crumble. Live playtesting is a valid strategy but only for finetuning and not for big changes, imo.
If tying call-ins to tech was as easy of a change as it appears on first glance I would've agreed and even pushed for to put it in the patch followed by minor rebalance changes to heavies afterwards. I'm sick of call-in meta too. But it's not an easy change, and it probably will require (other) big changes to get it right, so it isn't something I'd be willing to put into the game half-assed.
Posts: 3260
Yeah or we could not deliberately sabotage the game for some months just to watch what happens as the Axis factions crumble. Live playtesting is a valid strategy but only for finetuning and not for big changes, imo.
I refuse to believe OKW just outright loses if they select any doctrine that's not Special Operations in a teamgame.
If the Balance Team truly believes this needs to be delayed, they should delay the SU-76m and Ranger buffs too.
Acknowledging stall-in strats are problem and then buffing them I just don't get.
Posts: 607
Livestreams
43 | |||||
8 | |||||
8 | |||||
7 | |||||
5 | |||||
5 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.943411.696-1
- 4.715.934+12
- 5.35659.858+2
- 6.273143.656+6
- 7.278108.720+29
- 8.307114.729+3
- 9.601237.717-2
- 10.10629.785+7
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, webdesign-muenchen
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM