Then submit an itemised and numbered list of the EXACT changes necessary.
You might have overlooked that I am the OP and have been defending/figuring the suggestion throughout this thread.
If you can make it work, by all means, do so, and post your result.
Not that you will, of course. Cos all talk, and no walk.
But if you do attempt it, you will invariably come to the same conclusion as I have.
I tried my best and wrote and thought a great deal about it.
But when it came down to actually writing an itemised, coherent list of the actual changes required, you will see the same thing as I did, that each entry creates 3 more problems, and a systemically unsustainable solution overall, due to how far the game is along this current "Company of Callins" design arc.
It cannot be done. Its too late now.
But go ahead and show me you can do it.
I promise anyone who can solve this dilemma satisfactorily a paid and packaged surprise gift.
I know you dont't like this call-in meta, but leaving it as it is the worst idea.
Tell me; why Relic wouldn't give this a try, well thought to solve this problem:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/21920/cruzz-s-fantasy-patch-thread-2-wtfwfa-edition |
If scott killed your puma, you probably deserve to loose it that way.
Thanks for being CIS CoH 2. He killed my Puma with his M8A1 on Kharkov (a nice long shot hitting a retreating Puma), and it was already a lost battle. |
When I ended up with about 3 pages of text, I have to concede Ive arrived at the conclusion, that though many agree Tier Tying wouls be a good thing, in form or another, it is unfortunately no longer workable as a result of the choices Relic has made with this game.
Every solution I can think of results in three more problems, to the result it just quadratically escalates into complexities that become increasinfly harder to manage, and need more changes that make things unintuitive, unduly specific and just create more problems in turn.
If we where still in an Ost vs Sov situation, many of the solutions I considered for tier tying would have had more intuitive, direct and sustainable solutions. It could have been done in a relatively simple and sensible way.
But now that there are 4 factions, and those factions didnt consider tier tying at all into their design, rather resting on the current Company of Callins paradigm, its just far too complicated a suggestion to implement. There are many other design changes also that even though you might think they where small at the time, suddenly popup as a roadblock now, to the purpose of this proposal, which is to incentivise T4 core units, and noncallin Commanders.
Every possible option of tier tying I can consider, when you start to think about how actually and pragmaticallynto implement it, just spirals into a massive intermix of cost/efficiency problems and ultimately gets stonewalled by Relics design decisions, forcing unintuitive and complex solutions to "get around" them.
Its too late. It, in my perception now, just canmot be done anymore. Too much has been designed around a Company of Callins core, since when thisnkind of solution to returning T4 core unit validity, and hence non-callin Commander reliance on them as units to counter callin Commanders, by using their abilities+core units. Where callins where a diversity ONTOP of normal tiering, rather than a way of completely circumventing tier structure.
The idea "sounds" good on paper, but once you start to really bite into how to implement it, how to practically make it hapoen in simple, coherent and practical terms, the games design at this point is constantly there blocking you. Try it. Once you start to try to write a concise itemised list of changes to actually concretely make it happen, every entry you make, ends up in 3 more problems until finally the games design as it is now today says "no", and thats that.
Im sorry guys, I tried, gave it my best, but I failed.
Excuses everywhere, that's what I see for adding 1 more condition in order to push back the call-in units. It wouldn't be against the game design, more likely would solve many issues. It has been suggested many times and testing it for 1 patch wouldn't hurt the game.
But following your logic let's stop patching the game because it's already too late, and about the too much designed call-ins; it's the same shit over and over again without any variety. Same with the plain simple factions.
Hell, even I could do the attaching to tiers/buildings in a few hours and test it, nevermind Relic.
If issues like this won't be solved it will definietly hurt the already dying game on the longer run. |
Why buff Cons?
The point is to nerf Maxims.
Then what kind of stock unit you have that is useful vs OKW and in the late-game?
If the maxim is nerfed, cons and penals need a buff to scale better. |
|
^^
If they'll be balanced they would be seen again, when the commander came out it was very powerfull, but having spammable, cons like units for the germans doesn't fit into their design if we follow the USF doesn't need a heavy tank 'cuz of design. |
|
The USF's Lieutenant has insane DPS for his cost and comes out too early (3 M1s, 1 BAR, 1 Thompson), they are capable of countering every german infantry early-on. It should be a unit designed to support the rifles, not being a rape-machine.
Then E8s, M1919s and flamer rifles are too powerfull and spammable atm. |
If USF gets calliope then OKW or OST gets Hummel or Jagdpanther! Or better yet, 3rd German faction with those units!  Hummel, Jagdpanther, Nashorn, Hetzer, Panzer III etc
You are the true MVP - New german faction vs Brits.
On-topic: A doctrinal, balanced heavy tank for the USF isn't a big problem. It's not an excuse that it doesn't fit into the faction design; then tell me how Osttruppens fit in the German Commnader Pool? |
Good idea but if you think about it, taking the t34/85, you need 120 fuel for soviet tech + 280 for the call in makes 400 fuel for 2x t34/85... WTF
If you now say you could build them single in hq, with reduced cost, you still need 120 fuel for the tech and approx 130 for a t34/85 this is just game breaking.
Further on going for such a commander is combined with a risk because you will be deprived of armour until you get the CPs. The German player will have a p4 or something else out way before thoes t34/85s so for that reason.... where is the reward for that risk??
Some thing to consider...
If you say you can build them in your t0, refering to t34/85, this would mean that if you go t4 ,which represents the tech lvl, the soviet would have t4 units with t34/85 single build on the field which would mean a bigger unit variety and advantage for soviet.
So my suggestion keep it the way it is since its quite balanced now.
P4 comes out faster than T-34-85s either way, teching or not. You always get the reward as the P4 is inferior to the 85s and without teching you can spam more 85s 'cuz of the resources you have. Which is retarded that call-ins are cheaper to get than stock units and overperform them compleatly.
If they are buildable from T0 and need teching.....they are still powerfull, but less spamable due to the fuel you spent on T3/T4.
And about the current system....it's way beyond balanced and punishes teching extremely, nevermind the spam and abuse strats. Pushing the CP and adjusting cost prices don't solve the issue of this gamebreaking bs. |
|
The problem is that call-ins are cheaper to field and better than the stock units.
Forcing players to tech in order to be able to use call-ins is the best solution. And it wouldn't limit the strategic options, just less BS in-game. |
The pershing isn't coming because of balance reasons. It would make US late game too easy. 1 pershing and a jackson would be GG for german heavies.
Same with ISU-152, Kt + puma, Tiger Ace or Ele + Ostwind combo. MVGame
If balanced it does have a place in the game, dunno why ppl bitch about this unit. |
Thunderhun
majorownage
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
