Bazookas delay your T2 or T3 and a not reliable, it would be good if only it doesn't cost fuel to unblock them. And since it is now really easy for OWK to deny fuel, just send it to the USF fuel point and it's done for a good time.
The Gameplay and design issue here is USF shouldn't be the faction buying counters to be preserved from aggressive units in the first 5 minutes - otherwise, do not call it the Early domination faction anymore and give them good damn late game heavy tanks 
Well said,now in 4v4 OKW can go where they want, just send to fast Kub to denied all the territories they wanted to occupy. The change was felt a max in 4vs4. |
Thread: 4v415 Sep 2014, 19:53 PM
1) Tight maps. You can't use medium tanks effectively because almost any direction of your move resulting in straight head-on attack on enemy defences.
2) Аbundance of resources. Holding half of the map, or at least one of fuel points is enough for each player of your team to make one top unit - ISU, double T-34-85 or King Tiger. In 4v4 all resources (maybe except manpower) should be halved.
3) Game speed. The time window between first built medium tank and first call-in vehicle is too small so it is better (and not that punishing) to just wait until you get required CP/fuel for better vehicles.
I think it is okay that heavier tank is less vulnerable to running into enemy defences and more safe to use in general. That is the point of heavy tank.
But fast medium tanks should force you to react or make you lose positions (and eventually the Game) if you don't.
[/quote
]
Axis, unless noobs, will veto all maps that don't advantage them... Results : Axis win 4vs4 80% of the time, no matter who play them. |
Thread: 4v415 Sep 2014, 03:08 AM
Speaking on behalf of The Angry Bears, we agree.
I'm thinking the same. |
Its a design decision, not a gameplay flaw and yes, you should accept it, because it will never change.
It never changed in coh1, it won't in coh2, because it is impossible to balance 1v1 and 4v4 when you have asymmetrically balanced armies. It was impossible when we had 2 armies, its even more impossible now that we have 4.
You could just as well ask for war elephants for germans.
Why are you saying such things, it can be balanced.
It's people making comments like that that kill a good game. you must be a kid. |
This^.
I would like to add that a lot of people only bring up resource balance for 4v4 and say that lowering resources gained would fix it, but they are over looking something: Unit design. There are units in the game that are flat out made for 1v1 to 2v2 and will never be reliable in 3v3 and 4v4. Allies rely on early game light vehicle swarms, in 1v1 and 2v2 they have room to maneuver and are fully utilized. However in 3v3 and 4v4 what happens when you have to face a line of 4-8 Pak 40 guns and Grens with Fausts? The answer is that over half the units in the game are not made for 3v3 and 4v4. Realistically even with decreased resources you are still going to see the same infantry blobs fighting until heavy tanks, because light vehicles are just too unreliable for cost in large games on the maps we have now.
To balance for 3v3 and 4v4, Relic would have to redesign maps, redesign resources, and redesign units. Relic is still having problems balancing for 1v1 and 2v2, balancing for 3v3 and 4v4 is low on their priorities list. Also to whoever said 4v4 was the most popular mode, I thought recent statistics pointed that the most popular mode was 2v2 by a large margin over the other modes?
If i'm to believe, you the game is doomed, cause without 4v4 that game has no appeal to many of us... |
4v4 will never be balanced in any RTS. Even Starcraft's balance falls apart in 3v3/4v4, because there's so much stuff going on the tightly paced game balance cannot keep up and all kinds of nonsense can pop up.
And no, this isn't ''4v4 players are subhuman cretins''. This is just a basic reality of how games are designed and balanced. 4v4 is a valid game mode, but it's not where the competitive gameplay happens because it's not balanced for it, just like, say, League of Legends competitive gameplay happens on the 5v5 map and not the 3v3 one, because the game's design is optomized to play that way. Ranked PvP in World of Warcraft is on 10 or 15 player maps, not 40 player ones. Counter-Strike competition is mostly in 5-6 player teams IIRC. So on and so forth.
Relic could do more, I guess. Ressource scaling and all that jazz. But it's obviously a lower priority behind balancing the game for 1v1, and 2v2 to a lesser extent.
i don't mind if 4vs4 isn't competitive, i just want it to be fun !! not just being crushed as allies no matter how good we played.... |
|
Mee too i rather to have better Allies factions, but Relic care only for 1vs1 and 2vs2 game modes.
It's why i proposed alternative ways. If the few remaining allies players switch too play Axis, there will be no more 3vs3 and 4vs4 automatches....And rather lengthy wait time for the Axis....
Thanks. |
|
I suggest to give a bonus drop after someone have played both sides. (1 match as Allies + 1 match as Axis). Matches would not need to be consecutive, but the bonus are given only when the condition is fulfill. Meaning you have alternate side.
Example : I play one match as Axis then i play one match as allies so i receive an additional supply drop.
-It's would be only on a voluntary basis,
-It could apply to all game modes,
-It wont change the meta,
-It's rather easy to implement.
Additional and different bonus could be considered, if more incentives are needed to even the queue.
Is the bonus enough ?
Someone has also suggest the great idea that the supply drop received is always from the opposing faction. (Thus forcing one to play both sides to gear is favorite side)
So less waiting on Axis side as more people would play Allies.
With that, i would alternate side more often.(If the wait time is less on the Axis side, i will play them more often)
Comments ? |
How do you guys feel about the new Assault Engies? after looking at the patch changes i went a tried
them for around 12 games, And i feel like they act like Shocks-lite.
For a very cheap cost (280) you get a unit that when used properly just absolutely wrecks things in close quarters combat.
I personally tried several games were i used them as main infantry and it worked out for me quite
well, I would build them straight to LT and rush flak-traks its been devastating.
In contrast when compared to Assault Grens, I feel like Ass Grens were left in the dust.
All this on a unit that repairs, Lays mines, Builds defenses, And has a flamethrower upgrade.
Ive also noticed that their flamethrower blows up at a very frequent rate, Not sure if this is intended but you sneeze at it and it blows up. Much faster then flame pio.
(could be consistent bad rng on my part)
With all that said how do you guys feel about them?
The only circumstances i find them stronger is when they should something close that is in cover or in buildings. Else, i find this version better as it wont snipe retreating unit like before.
Thanks. |
So this thing got hit hard by the nerfhammer. The WC 51 was the only thing that mechanized company had going for. And now that's gone.
The WC 51 comes like 1 minute earlier than a puma, or around the same time as a 222, both of which hard counter it.
While you can get the M20 just a few seconds later, and it is twice at strong as the WC 51 pretty much.
I think it needs to go back to 0 CP.
In 3vs3 and 4vs4, the wc51 is utterly useless and make that cmdr mostly useless too. It be should revert to 0, but with higher manpower cost so it come a bit later (I suggest +10% manpower).
Thanks. |
Canada
![VoltarDark [QC] flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
