I'm OK with OKW being balanced in 4v4 and UP in 1v1 and 2v2. Sure, why not?
On the flipside, I'm sure many 1v1 and 2v2 players would prefer them to be OK in those game modes first and foremost. So... |
Glorious 4v4 WAS NOT balance in any RTS i used to play either Command and Conquer series, Starcrafts, LOTR etc etc, list is endless. If you gonna NERF OKW, you gonna hurt them a lot in 1v1 and 2v2, how hard is it understand?
I feel like this gets said over and over and over, but players who only want to play 3v3/4v4 don't want to hear it.
4v4 isn't balanced. These games aren't designed around that. They're designed around 1v1. As frustrating as that is for 4v4 only players, mechanics that make sense in a 1v1 situation just don't when 8 players are involved. And if Blizzard doesn't have the manpower or wherewithal to balance all of those game modes, Relic as a smaller studio sure aren't going to be able to either. |
Because from what I understand, the idea should be something like five or six T34s vs a single King Tiger. But in Team games it seems that the game just ends up being five T34s vs four King Tigers. The fuel should only allow one super heavy, so the US/Sov side can actually counter with strength in numbers
I seldom see more than 1-2 KTs in a 3v3. But what's happening is, unless I am missing something else, the Soviet players are building more than 5 t-34s, but by the time the KTs come out, they've already lost a couple. If there are 4 KTs in a 4v4, that means that likely each OKW player was saving for it. So why are there only 5 t-34s? Because some of them were lost, I'd assume. Losing vehicles is punished MORE in a situation where fuel is diminished. It's spent fuel that you aren't getting back. The players who saved their fuel for the KTs are still getting those KTs out, but there will be even fewer tanks opposing them in a low-fuel situation. |
reduce fuel income for those maps' captured points, or establish an overall debuff on each team fuel income depending on the game mode: 100% for 1v1 and 2v2, maybe 75% for 3v3, 50% for 4v4 ? It would not require altering the maps in the automatch cycle, would be fair for everyone, and would bring more focus on infantry combat in those modes. Or it would have the opposite effect with people building a shitload of fuel caches instead of infantry with all that spare MP they would have, but it would give an edge to the team that invest that MP into actual fighters, imo.
Wouldn't reduced fuel income just hurt Allies, whose tanks are more fragile and have to be re-purchased more often, more? You're losing tanks already, but now it's harder and harder to replace each lost vehicle. Axis are still able to save up fuel for super heavies, but now it's harder to counter because you don't have the income to support proper numbers of your own tanks to counter them. |
Buff Pack Howitzer!
- decrease cost
- increase base range
- increase accuracy
Don't agree with everything on your list, but if we're adding our thoughts on what needs to be fixed... |
How about the Kübel would leave untouched (or minor tweaks) and USF Riflemen would have smoke ability OOTB. So it wouldn't require gren update. That would make flanks easier for sure.
I'd rather see AT 'nades come standard with the Rifleman grenade package, instead of vet1 |
I thi k your idea is very interesting and has great potential.
But not for this game.
It would require a game that supports a far wider economic system.
Something like a persistant world MMO/RTS with production and sales systems, supported by an advanced resource and eco omic system.
Very xool direction, but requires a completely different game.
Know what I mean?
(PS: If you eant to understand capitalism and free economy, Marx is the last guy on your reading list...)
I agree with this.
Marx is definitely not pro-free market, but he's an interesting read. |
Y economy isnt my strongest side Havent even read Marx.
And youre right that the marketeconomy-model wouldnt work. Such model needs some planned economy Relic has to make up a meta and then if that meta is broken the price of a unit would go up or down. Example: the meta is 3-5 grens for ost, if that meta isnt achieved then the price would fall or go up.
But that sounds awful. Relic decides exactly how many of each unit a player should be producing, and if a player wants to build more than Relic's plan, they're penalized. You'd see a dramatic decrease in player experimentation of builds, because everyone would just build what they're 'supposed to' That sounds terrible!
What's more, that's not going to solve issues with units like the kubel, as even 1 can completely screw over the USF.
Units and mechanics and static costs should continue to be balanced. This method is, pardon, nonsensical in this context. You can't randomly plug whatever mechanic you want into an RTS. The game needs to be designed from the ground up to accommodate them. Imagine what would happen to the balance in sc2 if all of a sudden we threw directional armor into the game. It'd have to be completely rebalanced from the ground up. But this idea is worse, as it creates a doomsday 1984 meta that's dictated by unit cost penalties. |
Some people prefer a faction due to the political statement they associate with playing that faction.
Some people prefer a faction due to the gameplay of that faction.
Some people prefer a faction because it's overpowered and easy for them to win.
Forcing them to play a certain faction from time to time or decreasing the rewards otherwise sounds like a bad idea to me. People should be allowed to play games in whatever way they want as long as it's in a fair way, meaning no bug abuse.
I agree 100%.
There may be some faction design issues with Soviets and US Forces. If so, they should be addressed. There may be some under/overperforming units for Allies. They should be addressed. But RTS games always have factions that are played more, irrespective of balance. Look at StarCraft - Zerg are played least, and while I am not up on current balance trends in that game, the last I heard they were doing pretty well.
|
Also, assuming bazookas are an intended counter, the kubel comes out literally minutes before this intended counter. USF basically has to hide in buildings the first couple minutes of the game - the only unit that can kill one with a flank is the Assault Engineer. Flanking with Rifles early game is not effective. |