|
...that said, there shouldn't be a need to compute the levels, it is contained in the same data packages from which you would get the ranks. |
Thanks for feedback!
By the way, is there a documentation how the level system works?
Check out this post here.
Not sure if the rules changed since, though, and of course I kind of reversed engineered from what I saw at the time.
AT is kind of tricky. I noticed recently, that AT counts really as number of players that are in a group regardless of what gamemode they played. Like, you will have e.g. some 3s teams that predominantly play 4v4s... |
The primary reason you don't see IS-2 as often in GCS is because everybody beelines for the cheese (OKW vs DSHK & Penals).
I'm not convinced that a no-tech IS-2 can be countered at all with Stug nerfs. This is especially after the bruising you will get from SU-76 if you over-rely on T3 tanks.
Well, IS-2 was already not very common in the tourneys before that. During ESL Armored Assault saw some use, but then again there you would build T4 eventually anyways. Point taken on the StuG nerfs.
Re KV-8: Ok, it can be T4 with a buff; kind of scared of a buffed KV-8, though 
Command P4's performance hasn't changed one bit in the mod in 1v1.
True, but for teamgames it was nerfed; I was mostly refering to the CP4&Ele doctrine which might or might not become relevant depending on how the other changes play out. CP4 isn't particularly common in 1v1, plus it has a limit of 1 already, so not sure why it needs a "nerf" in terms of accessibility. If you say that you need to tech up anyways, fine, than the restriction isn't needed, right?
- Adding delays of any time to call-ins is not sufficient at all. We've already tried this with M4C Sherman somewhat, and that didn't lead anywhere.
No, actually. You increased the cooldown. So you can get in the tank first, but then potentially have to wait to get in the second. With the suggestion you would get in the first one later already, increasing the opportunity cost as you first have to wait to get the resources and then have to wait for it to be built.
That said, I don't think this would work for the M4C, but for some of the heavies it has a nice side effect: In late game when people are floating tons of resources, killing a Heavy or Super Heavy is mostly a veterancy reset as the other player just calls in another one (the cooldown of course is long gone). With this, you would have maybe one or two minutes where the opposing player would need to rebuilt his precious tank.
We also have no way of predicting what CP level should be sufficient.
E.g.., in Caen, where players often engage in resource-denial warfare CP's stack up much faster than resources would allow you to tech.
Hm, I personally have no problem with certain strategies being better on some maps than on others...
- Resource penalties will hurt the long-term viability of these vehicles. Essentially, this means you will never see call-ins on anything above 1v1's; and you might only sometimes see call-ins in 1v1, when somebody explicitly wants to try a call-in strat.
Well, this suggestion was more experimental, but obviously they shouldn't be as massive as they are for the Tiger Ace now. Not sure if possible, but maybe you could alternatively have very small penalties for the first unit, and then increasing penalties the more units you spam? Also, hurting the long-term viability was the point: You can call it in early for a shock value (well or how much of that is left after 15 minutes), but spamming them for the rest of the game shouldn't work out.
Edit: Anyways, I was mostly arguing against a "one size fits all" solution with regards to call-ins. |
Cheers now I know
Check out this post.
On topic: Yeah, had those as well, pretty frustrating. I typically check the other players level after the match, there are these days when you get constantly matched with people that are simply better. In that case I switch to the other side. Keeping track of who I played also helps staying grounded. Like, I had a match versus a much better player and won because he dropped even though he was close to winning. That gave my mediocre ranks a nice boost, but I knew that I didn't actually belong in that realm and probably will loose the next couple of games.
Other than that, well, I know there there are other days where I will enjoy a winning streak...
Btw, at times I found switching between factions counterproductive, because I found myself playing e.g. with conscripts as if they were riflemen or something like that, or USF as if they were OH. |
On call-ins: I'm with strummingbird here, I would still like to non-tech call-in to be viable at least under certain circumstances (it shouldn't be as powerful as it currently seems to be, but still...). Also, I'm totally fine with OH T4 being an option rather than a must-have.
That said, I like the approach with call-ins being available if more expensive without tech. However, I would like to see a more differentiated approach. Also, you are changing a lot of things at once which makes it very hard to find out what will happen...
Let's go through some examples:
IS-2: Not sure if tying it to T4 is needed. Let's face it, IS-2s are rare as it is. And they weren't overly prominent in ESL or WPC either. GSC so far saw 1 (but SOV lost). Also, with Armored Assault you'll likely see T4 anyways but even with Shock Rifle I figure surviving just on T3 will be harder with the nerfs to the SU-76s. So, if nerfs are necessary (which I'm not convinced they are) maybe increase CPs (also, see Tiger below).
KV-8: I'd argue this is actually more of a T3 unit in terms of at what time it has the most impact. It is quite strong but also has serious drawbacks but I don't see a KV-8 meta. Also, if we look at the doctrines that it comes with: Ok, we have Industry which requires T4 anyways; Shock Rifle, well, not sure how that works out; all other doctrines with the KV-8 would actually be more in need of a buff... If the KV-8 becomes an issue (and I doubt it would) what about making it slower?
Tiger: I'd like to see T3 plus Tiger still be viable. It will be harder to pull off now with the nerfed Stug-III and PaK-40 (which probably is not fully compensated by the P4 buff). In that context I'm not sure about the increase in damage as it becomes more of a jack-of-all-trades/less reliant on other units. Again, similar to the IS-2 maybe increase CPs instead?
Puma: Well, seems like the reliance on Mobile Defense was pretty much eliminated by decreasing the lethality of the light vehicles, so I guess this one is currently in a good spot.
Command P4: Apart from Mobile Defense (see above) has serious drawbacks already, gets nerfed in the mod an otherwise appears only in rather obscure doctrines. A further nerf might not be warranted and might make the lesser uses doctrines even more obscure.
and so on...
So, yes, in general I like the idea, but I'm not sure if it is the best for all vehicles. Other options to make call-ins less attractive include (no idea if all of those are moddable):
- Make them buildable from T0 once you reach a certain CP level (and then adjusting build-times)
- Make it so that you can call in the first like you do now, but you need the tech building to call-in a second on, once the first is destroyed.
- Add resource penalty similar to the Tiger Ace (but weaker, depending on the power of the unit); this could be an alternative for the M4C, if the penalty stacks.
|
So, there have recently been some changes to the game and hopefully there are more to come in the future. Now, several of the changes seek to "normalize" units for costs.
The term I guess is somewhat more fuzzy than what it sounds like initially, but what I mean by that is the concept that if unit A cost x and unit B performs like unit A, it also should cost x. If it performs twice as good as unit B while costing the same, it should either get its price doubled, or its performance slashed in half. "Cost" in this context can mean a variety of things, either the direct cost (manpower, fuel, muni) or stuff like pop-cap, build time etc.
Now, I'm wondering how people feel about this. "Normalization" for the sake of normalization I think isn't worthwhile, but there are definitely advantages to normalizing stuff for example:
- It makes the game more intuitive so the learning curve is flatter.
- You'd might hope that forum discussions on the balance of units could be a bit easier.
- It might be easier to balance the game.
- Several people probably feel that it would reduce "cheese".
Personally, I would pick the 4th point in the list above. Yes, units should be normalized by default and there are clearly outliers that should be rectified (e.g. the resources you get from salvaging) mostly in order to keep things more intuitive.
However, unless factions are totally symmetrical (which I would find boring) the normalization often is tricky: The units have a different context and fulfill somewhat different roles so evaluating their overall performance relative to each other is hard.
Also, their might be fundamental faction design reasons not to normalize units between factions which I think would be totally ok. For example, one faction might have less cost efficient tanks but more cost efficient infantry compared to another faction.
Finally, I think it is totally fine if certain units or abilities are more cost efficient, if the context in which they appear is otherwise considered unattractive. For example, if a certain doctrine is considered underwhelming, I feel it is totally ok if it has - say - an offmap ability that does more for its price compared with other offmaps from other doctrines.
So, what are your thoughts?
Edit: Just noticed that the text of the fourth options is chopped off. well, simply disregard everything after the "and", I explained what I meant in the post anyways... |
And you'd concur, I assume, that 'the more skilled player' tended to choose early luchs?
Not really. The point of the edit was more that the even winrates between BG-HQ and Mech-Reg likely indicates that both options have been chosen in about the same ratio by the better and the the worse players.
Of all the GCS games I've watched, I've never seen the likes of Hans, KoreanArmy etc go battlegroup.
Well, Hans and KoreanArmy so far didn't play OKW 
Players that picked BG-HQ first and won: Luvnest, Theodosios, Fredbrik, Lt.Baumy, Tobis, VonAsten, Zarok
Players that picked Mech-Reg first and won: Pappy O'Daniel, Barton, DevM, Jae for Jett, Jesulin, Talisman, Tobis, GB Hooligan
|
Great, thanks for that. You got stats on win rates for those that went mech first?
They are the same (given the sample size): BG-HQ: 20 games, 8 wins, Mech-Reg: 27 games, 12 wins (so both around 42%).
Edit: Note, that most rounds so far were defined more by a skill gap rather then faction performance, so this is more an indication of what the tech choice of the better player was. |
Watching GCS, it seems OKW going fast luchs is too much of a no-brainer. We can do this because of medikit drops (instead of investing in medics via a building).
Just FYI: Not really. In 47 OKW main round games for which I have replays, Mech-Reg. was built first in 27, BG-HQ was built first in 20. Or in percent we look at 57% to 43% (around WPC we had 31% Mech-Reg), so this is probably as good as it gets;
Edit: A Luchs was built first in 25 games, in the other 2 Pumas were fielded first.
|
|
Ah, forgot, the player list now only contains players that made it to the quarterfinals, otherwise the post would have gotten too long... |
0
Brosras {C}
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
