well, my mix between system 1 and 2 would mean that that you couldnt ccash in all the bias. one might even add a maximum of stacks that can be brought over from another target
therefore using a meatshield would be as good as now essentially
Apologies. I completely missed your mixed #1 & #2 suggestion. It actually looks pretty sweet!
Unforunately, I have no idea how to parametrise this, and I have no idea how to come up with a process to parametrise this either (naturally, we can't expect Relic to have the resources to come up with a way to do this by themselves, either)
i dont think that system 2 decreases the importance of meatshields. the paks overall damage output to the p4 will still be lower than if they shot at the p4 from the beginning.
I also think that system 2 is the safest out of the 3 options I presented.
What I meant was that:
- In any case you would never ever spearhead an attack with a P4 (when you have the KT)
- However, spearheading with the KT will very likely make life for dangerous for the P4 than the current pure-RNG system that we have.
Another situation is when you have KT + JP4 (jp4 has adequate armour/high chance of deflect).
You are attacked by a swarm of T34's. The T34 guy will focus-fire on your KT (while the JP4 is still out of reach), ramp up deflects, and then proceed to cash the pRNG bias off at your JP4.
On the other hand, Churchill's low armour might actually become useful for once in its life; except for the fact that there are no squishy decent-armour units it can tank for.
Thus:
- Using meatshield will still be incredibly useful
- It will just be less useful than it currently is
Personally if a feature like this were to be implemented I would suggest increased accuracy after each miss that resets when a unit switches targets or after some time (10 seconds?)
Based on various ingame factors (distance, moving etc.) the percentage would be increased by different amounts
It would also not be allowed to work for Certain units vs specific targets example At weapons vs infantry
It would be probably best not to game with accuracy for this sort of thing:
- AT guns/schrecks/etc are already super-accurate against most targets that matter anyway
- Missed shots can still hit; even the exact same targeted entity. This is due to scatter rolls.
- If we start messing up with scatter rolls too, then the system will nullify the effort of players that try to use vehicle cover (e.g., fences) to protect their tanks against enemy guns.
Isn't it ironic how cancerous OKW turtleing will counter cancerous British turtleing?
Technically, Zeroing Artillery (from the same doctrine) is a pretty dank ability vs heavy-Brit cancer; It auto-deletes every single emplacement on a decent radius and gives exactly 0 fucks about brace.
Just when I thought that non-doc MG34 & Snares would render Elite Armour one of the most powerful doctrines in the game (for teamgames), Relic had to go ahead and revamp that commander. I guess it's now becoming an interesting dilemma!
OKW has always held an incredible potential for turtling (T4, durable retreat points, IRHT, etc). However, turtling always boils down to who has long-range superiority. This is because, obviously, you can't turtle if you are constantly being shelled upon. I wonder if we are going to see Leigfeist-style type of cancer from the OKW again, given the changes to the doctrine.
yes, very good point. i think that in the example you gave, you should retain the bias (but not the actual percentage of course). the KT would still be hard to penetrate, the stug relatively easy. the only way to "game" then would be to attack the KT multiple times (and bounce), then attack the new target and penetrate it with a higher percentage. but actually, attacking the other tank right from the beginning would make you do more damage, so gaming the system would not help.
I completely agree that if you absolutely want something dead, the best tactic will always remain just focus-fire everything you have on it.
I was thinking of gaming more in the sense of things what NOT to do, so that you don't shoot yourself on the foot; or more like the order that the defender presents their tanks, so that they have better survival chances against your guns.
Just to move the discussion forward a bit faster, I can think of 3 implementations for this system:
1) Your pRNG bias gets completely reset when you switch targets
- This awards tactics where you have a meatshield drawing the fire, before glass-cannons (that can still take a few hits before penetration) show up
- This also awards swarming, or RNG clusterfuck fights.
E.g., Comets vs Panthers at Vet0; On 1v1, Panthers have higher chances of winning even at that Vet-level. However, at max-range this is an RNG fight. However, if a Panther swarm keep focusing on one particular Comet, and the enemy player keeps kiting that Comet out of view, they might gain an advantage.
2) You retain pRNG bias as the number of shots you have bounced in a row so far (absolute value)
Let's say you have a King Tiger and a P4, and you want to assault a position covered by AT guns. If you present the KT first, wait for the paks to fire and then immediately present your P4, the following things will happen:
- Most of the pak shots will bounce.
- When the paks change target and focus on the P4, that one shot bounce will give them a significant chance of penetrating the P4.
In that sense, absolute number of shots made spearheading with KT a lot more dangerous for your P4.
3) You retain pRNG bias as the number of shots you have missed weighted by the probability of penetration
- In the case we described before, the KT will act as a good meatshield for the P4 (i.e., it won't make things significantly more dangerous than they already were).
On the other hand, if the attacker wants to maximize their damage output on the King Tiger, for each shot they fire, they can do the following;
- If you haven't bounced before, attack a P4, there is a high probability for a penetrating hit
- If you have bounced before on a P4, change target to the KT. Since the pRNG credit you have gained is significant, it is better you use that against the high-value target.
Personally, I think that system 1 will look the most intuitive (focus fire -> higher output). However, it will make clusterfuck fights too starcraft-y for my taste.
I have already explained how to game systems #2 and #3. Perhaps system #2 is the best out of the two, although it will diminish the importance of meatshield tanks.
As if that wasn't complicated enough, another constraint to consider is that certain misses will cause the projectile to scatter and hit a different target than the original one.
However, if you can think of a hybrid system, I would like to take a look at it.
wrong. please read what i wrote above. it does not change the overall chance, flanking is still worth it, units in cover still get a bonus, etc, pp.
sorry, i may be a bit harsh, but both of you dont know what they are talking about. please read this:Link to Virus
It seems I spoke too soon.
However, I still don't believe we can simply copy-paste what was done in Dota2 for the following reasons:
1) It seems that Dota2 only applies pRNG (pseudo-RNG) for special types of attacks that have a fixed chance of happening irrespective of the target.
If Tiger had a 25% chance to stun on hit (let's ignore deflection and stuff), nobody would complain if we copy-pasted Dota2's pseudo-random distribution. But only for the stun aspect of the Tiger.
Pseudo-RNG could be interesting to examine for random-critical types of damage (e.g., Engine destroyed, etc); this is rather than completely removing these from the game.
2) (In CoH2) Penetration and hit-chance always depend on the target you are aiming at.
Let's say that you have 3 targets: a Stug (penetrated by anything), a Panther and a King Tiger.
- If you deflect on the King Tiger by how much does your penetration chance increase? (let's call it pRNG bias)
- Do you retain the pRNG bias also when you switch target to the Panther?
- What happens if you attack the Stug, and penetrate. Does this mean you lose the accumulated bonus?
The reason I am asking is that I am pretty sure that system can be gamed. However, I cannot game the system, if I don't know the particulars of the implementation.
Now, I am not saying that pRNG can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done. I am just saying that we need to refine how we bias pRNG with respect to point #2.
Thanks for the link, though! It was very informative.
Do you even play 1v1? On many maps you can build sim city near the middle of the map and you can mortar and arty all to their base...
No, I don't play 1v1. However, I am guessing that since there are no HMG walls in 1v1, things are a little less static (and, thus, mortars are a little less effective).
I'm not saying, in any way, that emplacement spam will become acceptable in 1v1. I'm just saying that absolutely nothing changed with respect to emplacement spam on other modes where counter-battery couldn't reach anyway.
(well, except for the starting manpower boost; this was needed for aggressive Brits, but we all know it's going to go towards the first mortar pit).
I think I rather like these changes because of this:
in current game state if you have built engineers you can't give them orders to repair something until they cross map border.
In upcoming patch I can issue an order just as soon as I hear notificaion that engineers have arrived.
According to Miragefla, being able to use "special" abilities (like building on repairing) could have been implemented differently, without messing with the spawn system.
Next time you plan a base-dive to kill a sniper with one your vehicles, do keep in mind that the OST player might spawn a Grenadier out of his ass (T1) and faust your vehicle, without any warning.
In short, you want to mitigate on RNG, use specialists against the targets you want to take down.
I'll have to completely agree with that. Otherwise units like the Panther, or the SU-85 (which sacrificed its rate of fire), are going to be completely suckered out by this deal.
It works exactly the same as brace now.
Duration, then cooldown, activation just like now.
I was afraid of that.
Given that there are two howitzers, does this also mean that you can continue to have Counter-Barrage perpetually active?
e.g., if Howitzer1 is on cooldown, you activate Howitzer2
(ignoring munitions cost for now)
The way I see this will work is the following.
If you are in danger:
- First, you Brace, if its available (since it costs nothing, still)
- If Brace is on cooldown, you activate the T1 howitzer
- Once the counter-battery expires, your Brace should be almost ready to fire-up again.
- If you run into serious trouble, you always have the option of alternating between T1 howitzer and T3 howitzer.
Per each activation, you aren't really paying 30 munitions to save just one mortar pit. You are paying 30 munitions (per 90 seconds) to keep your entire sim-city safe.
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
