Login

russian armor

15 minute Tiger/Tiger Ace in 4v4

PAGES (7)down
20 Jun 2019, 14:28 PM
#43
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

The problem is:

Many people in 4vs4 skip as allies light vehicles to get fast arty or tank out.
Also many people just camp, when they have half the map, which is also bad idea now.
--> As allies get vehicles out and push.

And it depends on the map.
On Steppe i don't care for a tiger rush for example. But you can't do that anyway there. Same on redball.

Where this tactic works well is:
liene forest, vielsam and lanzerath ambush. Because there you have a save fuel income.


But yes we need to make 1 more stuff to avoid this fast rush.
The balance team is thinking atm.

But the plan was to get away from CP needed.
how about lowering the CP by 2-3 point but putting them in the last tier ? balanced for both 1vs 1 and 4 vs 4
20 Jun 2019, 14:40 PM
#45
avatar of nigo
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 2237 | Subs: 15

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2019, 09:04 AMcapiqua
And the sixth year they put one more row to the wall of late and super late game of the axis. Hard to jump that wall, increasing the difficulty in teamgames.

This patch is allied inf spam and axis tank spam.

Welcome to coh2


4v4 and 3v3 are the majority of players in this game since 2006 and they dont care.

More Lol
20 Jun 2019, 14:51 PM
#46
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 35



Is there any interest in the balance team for a tank focussed patch? Like bringing heavy callins tied to tech, maybe some adjustments for forgotten units like comet with a redesign like sherman76 got?


Yes that is kind of planned in Fall / Winter patch.


how about lowering the CP by 2-3 point but putting them in the last tier ? balanced for both 1vs 1 and 4 vs 4


We thought already about it, but this would be the last way to do ( if nothing else works). We would like to have it without CPs.

So right now i think something about 1-2 min build time could already work. And yes with like Tigerace with 9 CP but need t4 on the field can ofc work.

20 Jun 2019, 14:59 PM
#47
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1947

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2019, 04:03 AMVonIvan
This seems to be a recurring balance issue. Technically allies don't have heavy tanks they can spawn at this time anymore. So they must rely on rushing out tank destroyers/at-gun walls or try and camp the VP and win within 30 minutes. The patch has only been out for almost a week but I'm curious if 4v4 players are having a hard time finding solutions to this issue.


The best solution I've found is to be the player with the Tiger.......

The OKW commander with the Tiger is my new favorite. The KT is really mediocre in comparison. The KT is really hard to lose but it spends too much time getting repaired.

20 Jun 2019, 16:11 PM
#48
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 784



Yes that is kind of planned in Fall / Winter patch.




We thought already about it, but this would be the last way to do ( if nothing else works). We would like to have it without CPs.

So right now i think something about 1-2 min build time could already work. And yes with like Tigerace with 9 CP but need t4 on the field can ofc work.



Why no CP reqs for heavy tanks? Are you removing CP requirements from all abilities? What about call-in infantry?

What on earth is the rationale for removing CP req for heavy tanks and heavy tanks alone, considering the likely result that it simply encourages a heavy tank rush?

CP is mostly just a timing mechanic, I don't see why you should be able to draw in a heavy tank before CP hits 10 or something anyway.
20 Jun 2019, 16:19 PM
#49
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474


So right now i think something about 1-2 min build time could already work. And yes with like Tigerace with 9 CP but need t4 on the field can ofc work.

there is always the old option of leaving the cp as now but making ti cost 1.5 more without tier 4
20 Jun 2019, 16:19 PM
#50
avatar of Farlion

Posts: 379 | Subs: 1



Why no CP reqs for heavy tanks? Are you removing CP requirements from all abilities? What about call-in infantry?

What on earth is the rationale for removing CP req for heavy tanks and heavy tanks alone, considering the likely result that it simply encourages a heavy tank rush?

CP is mostly just a timing mechanic, I don't see why you should be able to draw in a heavy tank before CP hits 10 or something anyway.


Because outside the skill-less arty Fests that is 3v3 and 4v4 call-ins are used as an spectacular clutch, highlighted in its most particular form by SpecOps.
20 Jun 2019, 16:25 PM
#51
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 784

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2019, 16:19 PMFarlion


Because outside the skill-less arty Fests that is 3v3 and 4v4 call-ins are used as an spectacular clutch, highlighted in its most particular form by SpecOps.


Aren't heavy tanks sort of the epitome of a crutch unit? Why shouldn't they have a CP req of whatever level? Let's say 9 or 10.

What is the rationale for tech reqs for heavy tanks alone? Why couldn't this be logically extended to any other unit?
20 Jun 2019, 16:29 PM
#52
avatar of Musti

Posts: 203

15 minute? You can get out one in 8-10 if you try. Honestly there should be a dual requirement for doctrinal heavy tanks, like 10-11cp AND last tech built.
Won't make a difference in 1vs1, and it'll stop HT rushing in 4vs4
20 Jun 2019, 17:05 PM
#53
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

What on earth is the rationale for removing CP req for heavy tanks and heavy tanks alone, considering the likely result that it simply encourages a heavy tank rush?


Because 1) most commander tanks are already like that (KV-1, KV-8, T-34-85, OKW Ostwind, Hetzer, etc.) and 2) CP is not a good timing tool because CP gain is very different across modes. In 3v3 and 4v4, 13 CP is way too late for generalist heavy tanks to have a real impact. But lowering it to say 10CP would cause problems in 1v1s.

A heavy tank rush is punished by an early TD that can nullify the heavy's impact by kiting it for just over half the price. Or by pressing the advantage early on with light vehicles and aggressive play (although that's riskier). The new heavy tank timing might need some adjustments (like a build time) but most importantly people just need time to learn to adapt to it.
20 Jun 2019, 18:44 PM
#54
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 784



Because 1) most commander tanks are already like that (KV-1, KV-8, T-34-85, OKW Ostwind, Hetzer, etc.) and 2) CP is not a good timing tool because CP gain is very different across modes. In 3v3 and 4v4, 13 CP is way too late for generalist heavy tanks to have a real impact. But lowering it to say 10CP would cause problems in 1v1s.

A heavy tank rush is punished by an early TD that can nullify the heavy's impact by kiting it for just over half the price. Or by pressing the advantage early on with light vehicles and aggressive play (although that's riskier). The new heavy tank timing might need some adjustments (like a build time) but most importantly people just need time to learn to adapt to it.


Just make it require both then. Either way, this whole move just works to erase medium tank and light vehicle play further from the game. Heavy tanks SHOULD be very late-game.
20 Jun 2019, 19:19 PM
#55
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607



Most tests and thinking is ofc in 1vs1, 2vs2.

And i was very busy in RL, so we missed this "problem" for teamgames.



I posted in 3 diff threads warning that changes in team games would be dramatic but it was either not heeded or was drowned out.

I did this every patch cycle I've been around for since as best as I can tell _most_ people in the balance team don't play beyond 2v2.

From what I can perceive, and this is purely my most subjective opinion, the combination of apathy + smugness/elitism over 1v1 + constant bickering over which faction is OP/UP = results in seemingly small but important things like this going unnoticed until someone runs into it face fist in the actual game.

My guess is that there are a lot of people that find things that in fact _are_ OP but don't report or comment because, well, they want to win.

20 Jun 2019, 21:33 PM
#56
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2019, 12:51 PMSmartie

+1
Build time would be a good solution. Now heavies could come earlier than before but not at 15 min mark.

+1.
If heavies require *A lot* of buildtime they become a risky investment. Sure you can get back your resources but the time you give away waiting for a Tiger could be enough to loose an important push to allied in early/midgame.

How much should it be delayed though? Is 20 min mark ok?
20 Jun 2019, 21:49 PM
#57
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2



I posted in 3 diff threads warning that changes in team games would be dramatic but it was either not heeded or was drowned out.

I did this every patch cycle I've been around for since as best as I can tell _most_ people in the balance team don't play beyond 2v2.

From what I can perceive, and this is purely my most subjective opinion, the combination of apathy + smugness/elitism over 1v1 + constant bickering over which faction is OP/UP = results in seemingly small but important things like this going unnoticed until someone runs into it face fist in the actual game.

My guess is that there are a lot of people that find things that in fact _are_ OP but don't report or comment because, well, they want to win.


"Missed" is the wrong word for sturm to have used. With any change ever, there is always the danger that we make something too strong or too weak. With balance, you make your best guess and try to release things balanced (knowing that it probably wont be), and let the literal tens of thousands of games tell you the rest. There is simply no other way to get the kind of insight that those many post patch games provide you. Our best guess was that an axis player would not be able to consistently avoid optional fuel purchases for ~15 minutes without putting their team at a disadvantage.

Also, I don't really get the point of the "I told you so" posts. We look at community feedback, humor each person's post/point, and try to see if their points make sense. We go into each post assuming each person is correct. But we can't balance assuming each person is correct. It's impossible. Balance posts across the community contain so many conflicting suggestions/reads/opinions, and balance patches cannot possibly cater towards multiple directly contradictory opinions.

I get that it's frustrating to make a call/post about something being wrong/bad/overpowered, not have balance patches follow that call, and find out you were right to begin with. "Why didn't they just listen to me." Because we can't listen to everyone, and we don't know who is right and who is wrong ahead of time. We release balance patches thinking we're getting everything right, but knowing we're probably getting a lot of things wrong. And there's generally no good way to know except by just releasing the patch and letting those tens of thousands of games speak for themselves.

On other topics:
In most cases where there are 15 minute tigers, are we sure axis wouldn't have won anyway if they had gone for light vehicles or regular medium tanks? It's easy to see a heavy tank and say "that's why we lost" and never realize the game was lost long before that.

Balancing for 3v3s, and 4v4s is difficult simply because of the number of combinations of matchups. 1v1s have 6 different matchups. 2v2s have 18. 3v3s have 40. Too lazy to calculate how many 4v4 matchups there are. Point is, the number of interactions goes up to unmanageable levels. Balancing for 1v1s is difficult enough, balancing for 4v4s can only really be done through targeting specific interactions or units that are themselves very strong. Balancing towards any bigger picture in 4v4s is hard to do without quickly screwing something else up.
20 Jun 2019, 22:07 PM
#58
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

Speaking for myself, the point of "I told you so" posts is because quite often there are "why didn't you give feedback during testing phase?" posts.

Though my goal isn't to pat myself on the back, which is why I described the reason why I think some of the more useful feedback is ignored in the deluge of garbage and feces flinging. I imagine it's hard to keep track of whether random user #13241234 has an agenda or not either.

Now putting testing and feedback aside, regardless of whether it's Axis or Allies that get to rush a 15 minute heavy tank -- it shouldn't be lopsided.

Either all heavies are like that or none, because it creates a very frustrating and inconsistent dynamic when it's just _some_. It's more frustrating and triggers the bias/faction-fanboying when it happens to line up on one side of the aisle.

As I've said before, I get that we must go through a transition at _some_ point if we are going to get all heavies tied to Tech, but the transitional phase is very frustrating.
20 Jun 2019, 22:31 PM
#59
avatar of Farlion

Posts: 379 | Subs: 1

For all the posts, I have yet to see a single example of people actually getting 15 min Tigers without there a) being a major skill gap between the players b) the game essentially being over already.

I mean, the only replay was the one Sander93 looked at, and that appears to have been the case of a Allied negligence bordering on incompetence.

In particular, the Tiger Ace at 15 mins in a competitive match, seems like a bit of dubious claim.

Sincerely hope the balance exercises caution and thought before ruining something that works perfectly well in 1v1 and 2v2.
20 Jun 2019, 22:37 PM
#60
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 784

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2019, 22:31 PMFarlion
For all the posts, I have yet to see a single example of people actually getting 15 min Tigers without there a) being a major skill gap between the players b) the game essentially being over already.

I mean, the only replay was the one Sander93 looked at, and that appears to have been the case of a Allied negligence bordering on incompetence.

In particular, the Tiger Ace at 15 mins in a competitive match, seems like a bit of dubious claim.

Sincerely hope the balance exercises caution and thought before ruining something that works perfectly well in 1v1 and 2v2.


The CP system also worked perfectly well in 1v1 and 2v2. I see no reason why they couldn't use both, with CP req possibly reduced down to 10 or so. There's absolutely no reason for heavy tanks to be a cp0 unlock when so many other units and abilities are tied to CP levels.
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

474 users are online: 474 guests
17 posts in the last 24h
44 posts in the last week
100 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44647
Welcome our newest member, Vassarh9
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM