|
Consripts are not a defensive infantry they are offensive that is their design and their purpose. The mod also completely fails to take into account that consripts have 6 men and grens only 4. Just make them 230mp and leave it at that. There are some good ideas otherwise for here (except for the elephant changes why??) but when I see something like this It makes me question the people making it as its utterly ubsurd. |
|
I respect you Mr Smith but you are way off mark with these proposed changes. |
|
Aside from the calliope , firefly, stuka dive bomb (can use a slight munitions increase) and repair inconsistencies these proposed changes are absolutely awful and completely unnecessary. The latest patch was a step in the right direction the last thing I want to see is 3 steps back .
The main highest priority should be fixing brace and British emplacements so they can't survive 100 Sturmtiger shells and lose a measly 10 hp that gets self healed.
The Elefant and Jagdtigers are where they are supposed to be and their purpose is to lay down high hp damage at long range at the cost of ultra slow speed and the inability to combat even a single tank on their own. , the Sturmtiger is an expensive high risk unit that must manualy reload .
"Good to have stuff" aside from emplacements and demo charge rework are terrible ideas . |
That's because you also used the Elefant commander.
With one shot, half health is gone. Brummbar can somehow penetrate tanks and then they need to run away.
If you think that Brummbar & Elefant is OP, wait till you try Elefant & Hulldown Ostwind, lol. Best thing is that you don't even have to tech and you also get Stugs from the same building.
Guys, it's the Elefant that's OP; not the Brummbar.
Can you explain your reasoning in coming to the conclusion that the Elefant is op?
It has a 10 second reload and slower than a 90 year old in a wheel chair tied to a tree and can not fight even a single tank reliably on it's own. |
Disclaimer: the game should be balanced for 1v1 and somehow 2v2. This does not mean neither 3v3+ modes should be forgotten but the notion that if 1v1 is balanced, teamgames modes would be balanced is a fallacy (specially for 3v3+).
I've already give you some pretty CLEAR examples of how, balance is completely different on 1v1 compared to 2v2 or 3v3+.
Just to give you a more CLEAR example: take a look at Crossing in the woods. Look at any replay on 1v1 and then take a look at 2v2. Check which is more "cancer" to play. Show me how much space you have to maneuver and outflank an opponent.
What needs to be changed, are units and abilities. I agree on this. But you need to look out the context on which the change is gonna be done.
Try this: play with sniper on 1v1, try them on 2v2 and then go up into 3v3+. Do the same with a JT. You would see their worth is completely different.
The examples given are not clear though and have nothing to do with unit or ability balance but only map design. A Jagdtiger performs the same in 1vs1 as it does in 4vs4 the stats are the same they don't change. A Jagdtiger is meant to send long range projectiles towards enemy armour which is it's purpose and it performs this in 1vs1 , 2vs2 , 3vs3 and 4vs4. You may have to adapt your strategy to suit the map but this is the case with every game anyway. |
NOT REALLY.
Some history.
-USF release completely OP and specially broken against OH, but really UP on 3v3+ with it's paper tanks (on 2v2 it was more of a, let's finish the game as fast as possible with LT into Sherman rushes).
-OKW release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames.
-UKF release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames.
-Sniper did shine/op on 1v1 but not so much on 2v2 and kinda a joke on 3v3+
-Wunderwaffe units which are hard to support on 1v1 are no brainers on 2v2+.
While those are more important issues, resource inflation and specially volume of units on field per size of map and strategic points is still a problem.
1-You cap 3x/4x times faster the map which means the transition to early lights or even mediums is done faster.
2-Caches, while been a detrimental for the one building it, benefit the whole team. Been able to field 1 less unit on 1v1 can be a risk. When you have 4x the amount of units on map, that single 200mp investment isn't as risky.
3-If you have the same amount of pop as the lower modes, but equal amount of pop, then it's obvious that you are gonna end up with "spam/blob" a bottleneck of units fighting for the same points. Which makes AOE onmap/offmap shine.
Note: what i mentioned can't be changed most probably (been what you mentioned the only things which can be changed in favour of the mode).
Basically, i'm saying those are real issues, not myths, but those are part of what makes 3v3+ appealing for some people (Not having to bother with capping, huge amount of units on map).
If it was mine decision, i would had test early on, having 3v3 and 4v4 have less pop (also less mp gain) to accommodate the players/volume of units into the map.
Hi there,
The USF have a stronger early and mid game which is the faction design. The USF also have some excellent late AT options such as the m36 and at gun.
Snipers will be devestating in all game modes if used correctly.
These have nothing to do with increased players added at a 1-1 ratio.
Honestly guys we are looking down the wrong pipe here , it has nothing to do with the ammount of players but individual units and abilities that are in dire need of fixing. |
Yes you are right, it's the case in 99% percent of the games.
usually the more people there are playing on a map, the bigger the map is.
But RELIC in its infinite wisdom decided to make very narrow map for team games, especially 4v4.
-> it make sector lockdown with MG, blob and artillery spam the only way to win.
exemple : a Jadgtiger in 1v1 is not considered as OP, most people wouldn't even get it because it can be flanked easily and it's a lot of micro needed to keep it safe.
But on a 4v4, flanking is almost impossible so a jadgtiger can't be beaten from the front by common units and become OP.
That's another reason why you will never ever see static artillery in 1v1 when it's common in team games.
Hi,
On all maps the option to flank is there. I agree that on some closed off ones its harder but still possible. This however is related to map design and not unit balancing.
Your static artillery example doesn't relate to balance as the enemy can also build a static artillery or similar unit as well.
With the Jagdtiger there are more allies and more options available just as there are for the enemy to watch flanks. Players are added at a 1-1 ratio so I can't see this as a balance issue. |
|
What are you guys talking about " balanced for 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3"???
If the game is balanced for 1 vs1 then its balanced for 2vs2 , 3vs 3 and 4vs4 . If a unit is op in 1vs1 it will be op in 2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4 . You are adding players at a 1-1 ratio not 3vs2 or 4vs1 . This increased player myth needs to be put to curb because its all nonsense. |
|
When will this be released?
It is about time the broken British faction was looked at finally!! |
|
Hi Mr. Smith
As this was a balance patch ,the British faction is currently in a broken state. (Comet/Landmatress and Brace being the most game breaking issues.Is there a reason why the scope given was not inclusive of such critical matters?
I appreciate your input in the update however the elephant in the room still remains untouched and thus balance suffers greatly. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
