Profile of JPA32

Well the pros who actually play in the tourneys voted it out. That's a lot more relevant tbh

It's very clearly more than a "I just lost one game" rant. There's lots of support for removing it, and the highest level players have already done so for themselves in actual competitions. Kinda says it all

While I agree Abandon should be changed, Automatch and Tournaments are two very different situations that require different solutions since the former is more of an "oh well that sucks, next game" situation, while a tournament abandon can result in you being defeated and out of the tournament entirely.

Quite frankly in automatch I get annoyed at abandon when it happens (hence why I want it changed), in a tournament I would probably never play the game again if it went against me because that's some bullshit of the highest magnitude and I wouldn't trust in the sanctity of the game anymore.

Are you high on drugs or sth? So the first guy wins the lane while the 3rd guy is sitting idly? 4v4 is fine. If you are into spamfests and memes. It's fine. Played 3 4v4 games in my lifetime (not counting vs AI I played at start), all 3 were horrible.

I mean, just look at Skippy's videos. Enough said.

First guy makes the pushes and takes the infantry engagements to start the game
Second guy moves his Machine Guns and At Guns around to provide support for the main line/vehicle guy and protect the flanks.
Third guy builds Ultra Lights and Lights to stretch the map early on, cap points (if applicable), carry infantry, and eventually becomes the star in the late game when armor becomes the defacto decider of who wins.
Fourth guy builds Mines, Sandbags, Wire, calls down artillery (can give him the mortar team too), builds emplacements and repairs vehicles.

Everyone has an important role to the team and everyone can work with everyone else to provide dynamic teamwork

(Mainline guy needs MG's to stop blobs, Vehicle guy to inflict bleed and flank, and support guy to provide cover and indirect)

(Team Weapon guy needs Mainline guy to provide a frontline, vehicle guy to clean up AT damage, and support guy to deal with opposing indirect which is his weakness.)

(Vehicle guy needs mainline guy to stop infantry from running down and snaring his vehicles, team weapon guy to both suppress infantry and provide alpha damage to other vehicles, and the engineer to repair his vehicles)

(While Engineer guy needs mainline guy to provide an infantry buffer, team weapon guy to prevent rushdowns, and vehicle guy for scouting to provide vision so he can properly support.)

All seems reasonable to me. Throw in some unique role related doctrines that provide you with a choice of resources based on which doctrine you pick and I think it'd be pretty fun.

I wish 4v4 had designated roles. 1st player is the mainline infantry guy, 2nd player is the team weapon guy, 3rd player is the vehicle and armor guy, 4th player is the artillery and support guy. Give everyone 50 popcap and lock them into only building units in their role. Suddenly you have an interesting gamemode that might be worth playing with interesting teamwork dynamics.

Current state of 3v3 and 4v4 I wouldn't touch with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.

They also are incredibly rare and add to the spirit of the series - unpredictability.

There are whole genres built with nothing but RNG with well known and acclaimed titles.

And one more time, if you can't take potential loss, don't commit to a move. Its perfectly valid to play safe and not overextend.

Abandoned vehicles already have main gun and engine destroyed, if you can't deal with that, you've lost anyway.

The main disconnect I see with defenders of current abandon is the lack of understanding in how impactful an abandoned vehicle actually is to a game and just how easy it is to recover when it happens. It's rare, but it absolutely removes any notion of skillful play once it does happen and flips the table sideways in a way that isn't fun for anyone looking for a good game.

Couple of examples. My USF vs a friend of mine's Wher a few days ago. He wins the early engagements with good 42 usage, and wipes one of my rifles which I figured the game was over. I plant a Rifleman mine back in my territory and my opponent correctly pushes me back and attempts to wipe a rifle on retreat with his Flamewagon. (If he doesn't pressure me with his advantage I can come back into the game and remount an offensive.) He hits the mine (he didn't know I was Heavy Cav) and I clean up his Flamewagon with a Rifleman at nade +some small arms. It abandons, I clear the zone, repair it in about 10 seconds and suddenly the game has gone from me 100% of the time losing, to me winning on the spot. I get a Stuart out and there is nothing my opponent can do against a free Flamewagon (Which keeps it's upgrade by the way when you recover it) and a Stuart even with an infantry advantage. I roll him over and the game is over before mediums even come out.

Or literally just last night. Automatch Sov vs Wher. I have 2 T-34/85's vs 2 Paks, A Stug and a P4. I successfully flank his Stug and P4 from the north on Nexus with a couple Cons and my T-34's (I am in a losing position as he owns 2 VP's and has good coverage meaning the onus is on me to apply offensive pressure as my opponent has turtled up.) On the flank, I kill the Stug and unload into the P4. I lose one of my T-34's and the other has a Pak wall staring it down as it lands the final shot on his P4. It abandons. I can't stay because I am one hit from death to his Pak Wall and my Cons have been forced to retreat due to him moving his second MG that way. I can't follow up on this and what should have been a 130 Fuel to 210 Fuel and full armor advantage trade of which I played correctly. Turned into a 130 Fuel for 90 Fuel trade with equal armor because I got dicked by a 5% chance.

If my friend in the first instance had more time to mount an offensive with his infantry based numerical superiority and either remove me from the flamewagon or kill it himself the game wouldn't have swung so hard and we would have been back on equal footing which would have been fun as he had infantry, and I had Fuel. In the instance that did happen he had no possible way of coming back since I could repair the Flamewagon before he could even hope to respond. If abandoned vehicles had a longer downtime and a Fuel cost this situation would have not nearly been as bad for him.

In the second instance, my only hope was cracking his position and despite the fact I correctly out maneuvered my opponent and escaped with my armor mostly intact. I could not gain any actual advantage on my push because he could repair and recrew his P4 faster than I could repair and bring to bare my infantry to stop him. If abandoned vehicles had a munitions and fuel cost to keep them out of the game longer and to cost more to account for essentially being a free tank I could have used my advantage in armor to make moves elsewhere on the map and maintain footing in the match, perhaps even with another good maneuver I could even take advantage while my opponent was vulnerable. Unfortunately none of that happened as my opponent successfully zoned me until he could bring out a Tiger to seal my fate as I couldn't answer it.

Neither of these instances can really be compared to other acts of RNG such as accuracy and pen chance because you can account for those by playing "correctly" in the second example, I took one of my T-34's and brought it close to the rear of the P4 because I knew I was likely to lose a vehicle in that engagement and I wanted to put as much consistent damage on the P4 as possible since I was perfectly content with trading one of them off for both of his vehicles. This ensured I didn't run into Pen chance problems and it ultimately worked out in killing the P4 despite the abandon.

The mechanic has no proper counter-play at the moment because often times playing around the chance of abandon is counter-productive to winning the game and when it does happen in a way you can't control it will always decide the game in the favor of the player who acquires the vehicle. It can be improved to be less game deciding with proper timing penalties and resource costs which for some inexplicable reason the "fun" crowd seems to be against despite the fact that it's a rare plague upon the game when it happens currently.

First off, Abandons should be completely disabled within base sectors. Now I like the idea of abandoned vehicles costing fuel to recrew. 10/30/60/80 for UL/L/M/H. Could even commit harder and say once an abandoned vehicle is recrewed it costs 25/50/75/100 for UL/L/M/H Munitions to repair the weaponry over some "x" amount of time, perhaps even prevent abandoned vehicles from being recrewed until fully repaired to lengthen the time they're effectively off the field. This would ensure that any late game impactful abandoned vehicle stays irrelevant for long enough to reset power balance for a time and even allow the opposing player enough resources to generate a new offensive before the abandoned vehicle is done being fixed providing some skillful counterplay to the concept rather than removing it entirely. The main problem with RNG at the end of the day are massive shifts of power with no control.

The difference between Main Gun Crits and Abandons conceptually is certainly fun factor with lesser skilled players but abandons carry a little more depth. Main Gun Crits just feel bad and are an "Oh I guess I'm dead now" or pity for an opponent who got one. Abandons provide a unique gamestate that if developed properly could be something worth maintaining that on a low percentage chance could provide a risk reward option of attempting to recrew, removing, or simply ignoring said vehicle based on other game factors which would appease everyone I feel.