Exactly this. The idea of scaling either caches, prices, upkeep or ability cost has been brought up numerous times, but (iirc) the problem is there is no way to change any stats on a per-game-mode basis. Any stat in 1v1 is going to be exactly the same as it is in 4v4, etc.
At best, it might be possible to create new "ultra-low" resource points, and then use them exclusively in the larger maps. It would be require a TON of work to replace all the resource points, though.
If it's not possible to do it by game mode, it seems like they could change the maps themselves.
It's a little bit more work administratively, and they might have to make duplicate maps for the different game modes, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of work.
Could do something like take off one point of munis per player on standard territory, and 1 point of fuel at 2v2 and another point of fuel at 3v3 or 4v4. If that puts much focus on the single resource territories some sort of hybrid system could be done to drop the value on the single resources.
Infantry options would become more viable, while still leaving open the option to cache everything and play the traditional styles. |
4v4 should also have higher upkeep and lower pop cap.
That'll just place even more emphasis on high tier vehicles since the manpower to fuel ratio will be even closer, and high tier units give the best pop to performance ratio.
You could scale population costs for high tier units, but this would be a nightmare for balance team, and players. |
|
This seems like an obvious QOL improvement that I feel like it's probably impossible for one reason or another, but I'd like to see the cost, or output of caches scaled to the number of players in a game.
While some might argue that they ought to be standardized across game modes, the current implementation is clearly a lack of standardization. Caches provide significantly more resources in the larger game modes, while also consuming a much smaller percentage of the team's manpower.
In 4v4 caches are a no-brainer.
In 1v1 caches are a gimmick that tend to lose you an even game as they're too much manpower to invest in early, and offer too little resources to invest in late-game.
I think a lot of people might overlook the effect this has on the game. We all know that balancing for 4v4 is totally different than balancing for 1v1.
I claim that caches, and the resource inflation they cause, play a very large part in the 4v4/1v1 balance differences. Fuel flows easily in 4v4, and so the higher tier units are not nearly the same investment as it is in 1v1.
I'd like to see cache cost changed to a base of 150 for 1v1, and a minimum of 100 manpower per extra player. This would give us the following costs:
1v1 150
2v2 250
3v3 350
4v4 450
Ideally I'd like to see a 150 manpower increase per player as I think this would be a more appropriate cost point, but this would probably cause too many issues in the random team games.
Another option would be to scale the output of the caches, but I don't have suggested numbers for that.
On a final note: I'd like all the factions to have some sort of extra resource option scaled to game mode I'm just not certain how to best do that. The simplest option would be making caches the standard. |
Its called elephant.
If they want it stock, panther has to go.
Not really an option in 1v1 but it's a fair point. I'd prefer the stug shows up earlier instead of buffing it for late game when the panther and heavies take over.
Ost has a t-70/stuart sized hole around the 10 minute mark. |
|
|
Stug in t2? Then it will become a 120 damage per shot unit with 400 hp like su76. And for balance fuel cost decrease to 70 lol
Why does it need to be changed again? It has no AI potential whatsoever. An M3 does more damage than a bare stug, and adding the top gunner only puts it on par with an m20.
Yeah pretty much this, if you want to deploy the StuG when the T-70 or M5 Stuart are hitting the field, then it's gonna need to take a hit to it's strength and end up looking about like the SU-76 without the barrage. That's why I suggested the earliest should be BP2 researched, so it'll come a bit later.
Both USF and Soviets have good infantry AT options, and a single AT squad can easily beat a stug. Brits have AEC. The stug does nothing other than AT, and all the light vehicles can handily out-maneuver it while chipping in some damage. A single AT gun can also hard counter the stug.
Should m20 stuart/t-70/AEC really be the completely brain-dead options they are against OST for the sole reason the army has no effective counter?
At it's current position Stug is barely used.
I think it's only ever going to see regular play as a t2 vehicle, or it's redesigned. Make it weaker but give it good veterancy scaling if need be. |
I think a 7 minute StuG is a bit too quick. If they do that it should at least require Battlephase 2 to be researched. And heck, put the Panzerwerfer in T3 and have it require Battlephase 3. Then Ostheer has a consistently staggered tech that started with Panzergrenadiers.
What's too quick about it? It's a slightly more mobile, but otherwise worse AT gun which is available in the same time-frame, and building it would delay the p4 by quite a bit.
Pgrens could go to tier three with some sort of buff that would give OST a viable infantry late-game. |
|
Just throwing this out there.
I think the stug in it's current iteration could fit in t2 quite easily.
It's quite vulnerable to infantry, and doesn't have much damage potential anyways.
Light vehicles can outmanuver them quite well, but the stug in that phase gives OST a fighting chance while opening up an easier path to t4.
Historically it's a infantry support vehicle, and so it would make more sense in the infantry heavy phase of the game than in the armored. |
|
IMO wher would like to build a TD that can fight allied heavies.
I don't think anyone really cares about the price point of the stug, and would much prefer a better unit that costs more.
A cheap casemate with few uses simply isn't worth the micro. |
If we were to keep main gun crits, I would re-implement them to a death crit, something like this:
5% chance if damage would destroy a tank, instead apply immobilization and main gun destroyed. These effects are reversed only once the tank is restored to 100% health.
In this implementation, there is a slight drawback to the attacker as a hit that would otherwise have destroyed a vehicle instead incapacitates it. HOWEVER, the combined aspect of main gun destroyed AND immobilization coupled with requiring full repairs to function again helps offset this. Think of it like a chance to proc T-34 ram debuff if your tank would otherwise die.
Oh and crew abandon should just be removed entirely, while main gun crits are currently very punishing, crew abandon can be game breaking.
So basically a crew abandon that can't be recrewed by your opponent, but sucks up pop cap until you fully repair it, or destroy it yourself? |
Stormjäger
Porkloin
Major Storm
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
