Timing of heavy and super heavy tanks across all game modes
Posts: 110
There is gone like 2 or 3 days afterpatch. Of course people are starting to complain, because there is so much new things for every faction. Volks are already screaming about ostwind and pgrens, and there somewhere should be a scream from OKW facing SMG-tommies and cheap british TDs and AA.
Just try to adopt before starting to complain, really. After week or two of bugfix patch, maybe after a big tournament where new meta will be shown, we could already really know what is requring a nerf or buff.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Guys, if you are going to add both CP and tech requrements to heavies, u will just forget about them especially in large team games. I've played like a thousand 3v3s and 4v4s just like 2v2s and 1v1s, and those 3v3 and 4v4 always were and artyllery clusterfuck from mortars at start to Katy's/LEFH at the end. There, where Tiger could face a horde of Jacksons is no place for this kind of unit, expecially when it is limited by 1. You could see a panther hordes instead, early brummbars or PIV spam like it happened regularly before this patch.
There is gone like 2 or 3 days afterpatch. Of course people are starting to complain, because there is so much new things for every faction. Volks are already screaming about ostwind and pgrens, and there somewhere should be a scream from OKW facing SMG-tommies and cheap british TDs and AA.
Just try to adopt before starting to complain, really. After week or two of bugfix patch, maybe after a big tournament where new meta will be shown, we could already really know what is requring a nerf or buff.
This is not a new problem. Boosting a player so he can just rush a heavy is an inherent problem of 3v3+. It was done before with the KT, when the KT was strong.
The fact that heavies are less used on 3v3+ is the nature of the mode, in a similar way as to how Ele/JT see play in 1v1.
Posts: 833
Guys, if you are going to add both CP and tech requrements to heavies, u will just forget about them especially in large team games. I've played like a thousand 3v3s and 4v4s just like 2v2s and 1v1s, and those 3v3 and 4v4 always were and artyllery clusterfuck from mortars at start to Katy's/LEFH at the end. There, where Tiger could face a horde of Jacksons is no place for this kind of unit, expecially when it is limited by 1. You could see a panther hordes instead, early brummbars or PIV spam like it happened regularly before this patch.
There is gone like 2 or 3 days afterpatch. Of course people are starting to complain, because there is so much new things for every faction. Volks are already screaming about ostwind and pgrens, and there somewhere should be a scream from OKW facing SMG-tommies and cheap british TDs and AA.
Just try to adopt before starting to complain, really. After week or two of bugfix patch, maybe after a big tournament where new meta will be shown, we could already really know what is requring a nerf or buff.
In an ideal world heavy costs and timings would be adjusted for the resource inflation of teamgames.
But sadly in coh2 that's not possible.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
In an ideal world heavy costs and timings would be adjusted for the resource inflation of teamgames.
But sadly in coh2 that's not possible.
I just find it extremely hilarious and weird that they adjusted for multiplayer inflation in DoW series, but said "nah, fuck it" in CoH series.
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
I'm quite positive it wasn't done ever, because its not possible to do so.
You'll always have units arriving too early or too late.
I think the best way would be :
- Tiger, Pershing, Command Panther and IS2 buildable from t4 but with long build time (~2 minutes), CP requirement to 0; Pershing accuracy vs inf slightly nerfed, sight range from command panther nerfed
- KV2, ISU152, Crocodile, JT, ST and Elefant require the last tech structure and the CPs, then they can be called in.
Posts: 2358
Maybe mapmakers can change fuel/muni ratios from territories? I'm asking
If that were possible. Just divide all units cost by 4. Then multiply map points income by 4 al 1v1 maps. By 3 all 2v2, by 2 3v3.
Posts: 919
Touching heavy tanks requirements will break 1v1 balance. Game must be balanced for its competitive design. For team games just multiply fuel costs 2x;3x;4x times. This will definitely change units cost efficiency and that is the starting point for a new team game balance. Otherwise 1v1 will become boring if you force 40+ min game just to tech and inf will become too dominant
1. Heavy tanks were CP dependent up to now and their timing was regulated by the amount of CPs you needed to call them in. This way it was no problem with 3v3 and 4vs4.
2. Because of some rare cases of stalling for a heavy tank without full tech in 1vs1/2vs2 they want to change CP dependence to tech dependence. That wouldn't change much about timing in 1vs1/2vs2 but prevent that rare cases of stalling. On the other side it makes heavies alot earlier available in 3v3/4vs4.
3. If you would give heavies a tech dependence and a CP requirement that is roughly reached at the same time in 1vs1 it changes next to nothing in 1vs1/2vs2 but alot in 3vs3/4vs4, because you couldn't pull out a heavy too early there (especially with that ressource transfer).
So it would be still better in 1vs1/2vs2 that it was in the last years and good in the big game modes at the same time. Isn't it worth to give it a try then?
Edit: Although you are completely right about the maps. Touching the ressources would be alot better, because it would have an effect on all game phases of the big game modes.
Posts: 732
Posts: 379 | Subs: 1
Exactly what have those Allied players been doing in those matches?
Posts: 607
Considering 70% of the playerbase plays 3v3s and 4v4s, I'd say yes.
+1
Also, tie all of them to Tech and be done with it. Having some tied to tech, some just to CP, some be a call-in, some be built is confusing a goofy as all hell. I understand that steps are being made where they can and it's hard to do it all en masse, but the transitional phase is frustrating to experience.
Posts: 2358
Tieing heavies to CP means stalling, tieing to tech forces to rush (cost and builtimes might balance timings). Tieing to both means 1v1 and 2v2 would not show those units.
To rush a tiger in 13 min sounds crazy but its not too hard to balance. >But somehow people love to loose their mind instead of speak objectively
Posts: 379 | Subs: 1
People giving more priority to 3v3 and 4v4 are not people concerned about balance, since teamgames are more complex, hardly even, easly exploits cheese units and blobs.
Tieing heavies to CP means stalling, tieing to tech forces to rush (cost and builtimes might balance timings). Tieing to both means 1v1 and 2v2 would not show those units.
To rush a tiger in 13 min sounds crazy but its not too hard to balance. >But somehow people love to loose their mind instead of speak objectively
This.
If a team in 3v3 or 4v4 decides to put all their eggs into rushing a Tiger basket, then they should be incredibly vulnerable to be taken off the field, since one person will be solely focused on increasing full income, while the other can't spend any fuel because he is the one that's rushing the Tiger.
Unless there is a major skill gap between the two teams, there is no way that tactic works.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Otherwise isn't possible to add an extra intial timer for those unit. 20/25 minutes initial timer could solve many problems in all modes.
Posts: 789
I think this is gonna get invised fornoff topic
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
Posts: 930
right now there were two tigers against me at the 15th minute, and at the same time I did not even have resources on the SU-85. Just fucking cool.
TBH, if you are facing 15min tiger, that means you lost both fuels for a good time, meaning you deserve what you got.
Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2
TBH, if you are facing 15min tiger, that means you lost both fuels for a good time, meaning you deserve what you got.
No, our fuel was fine.
Posts: 930
In an ideal world heavy costs and timings would be adjusted for the resource inflation of teamgames.
But sadly in coh2 that's not possible.
STOP THIS BULLSHIT.
There are no "inflation" in team games, most maps have 5 points on each side+ 1fuel and 1muni, EXACTLY like 1v1 maps. Hell the most inflated map in the game is crossroads while the less one is Hill 400(because of the excellent cutoffs).
Stop being bad and learn how to play the game.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
right now there were two tigers against me at the 15th minute, and at the same time I did not even have resources on the SU-85. Just fucking cool.
Tiger 405 fuel
SU-85 295 fuel
?
Livestreams
45 | |||||
131 | |||||
25 | |||||
11 | |||||
6 | |||||
4 | |||||
3 | |||||
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