The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

User avatar
Soundwolf776
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2341
Joined: Thu 13 Sep 2012 11:52
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Soundwolf776 » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:38

A few replays to clearly show the problem would help a lot too. Sending us to search for replays ain't very helpful. I watched one of the twitchtv replays and never saw the problem you've mentioned, and I simply can't spare more time to dig through all of them, despite the fact they are fun to watch.

While your first post is very long, the analytics part is simply not there. At least tell us why the standart counters to ATGMs don't work - smoke, MLRS, mortars? Why depleting them with empty trucks or APCs doesn't work? Are there a lot of places on W:ALB maps where it's easy to utilize masses of 2800m ATGMs to their advantage? Are there a lot of them that can't be cirumvented by going through a more covered approach, clearing the path with Assault Engineers and AMX-13s?

And, well, in any case - if a player can sucessfully assemble a super-expensive force of multiple T-80U/A and BMP-3 with a powerful AA net to cover 'em, why it shouldn't be a pain to kill such a force?

SikkeSakke
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri 2 Mar 2012 13:01
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby SikkeSakke » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:39

I read OP multiple times and still I can't find anything but NERF Pact there. Overall Pact/NATO balance is good atm and changes Triumph suggested are too drastic and unneccessary.

2800 is good and gives Pact unique tool to rape NATO's heavies (in some situations), but they are not overpowered. Just my humble opinion and I respect Triumps work to pull out what he thinks needs to be balanced. I just don't agree with you in this matter.

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Hidden Gunman » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:42

Just to be clear that I'm not being a hard*ss in relation to this, while I don't personally support it, I have raised it on the marshals' forum to be considered.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

Arcindrus
Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri 4 Jan 2013 04:19
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Arcindrus » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:46

Frankly I think there would be a lot less talk about PACT ATGM Tanks if missiles didn't panic crews as much as they do, ATGMs were still OP in EE in my opinion, so I'm not exactly sure why the devs decided to make them more so. Even if ATGMs didn't panic, PACT heavies would still be very dangerous opponents, especially ones with Refleks and Svir.

Just my opinion though.

rrev
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 20:19
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby rrev » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:47

The ROF buff to ATGM tanks really put some of the USSR tanks in the OP category IMO. They previously had 6 ROF - now most of them have 10. That's a huge buff if you take advantage of it by turning it off/on, it's so easy now that it's sort of 'synced' with the main gun, having the same ROF.

This was especially good for the T64B, T80A and T80U.
The 64B, the cheapest Kobra platform, previously had availability problems, that was fixed a couple of patches ago (look at the T62 MV-1 who has that problem still :( ) and it became usable finally(!); actually stomping every single medium tank in the game. Chieftain Mk10, 103B, even the prototype Brennus and 103C has little chance against this tank if you micro it properly. It did NOT need any ROF buff at all to the Kobra, which absolutely devastates medium tanks. This tank needs a 5p price increase but it's more like a 90p tank tbh.

T80 A/U were already incredibly powerful tanks in open areas, they're now near obnoxious to defeat with equal tanks. T80A previously struggled against the abrams if Refleks didn't hit; now it doesn't matter so much if the first strike hit or not, it reloads almost at half the previous time now and you'll get the second attempt at the same time the abrams (and the T80A) can shoot it's second shell!

And yes I know the ROF buff was for authenticity reasons or w/e, I'm just saying it made some tanks over the top and some from of price nerf is legitimate.

But this post by the OP, is unbalanced and biased, exaggerate a bit too much on the difference of 175m of PACT ATGMs makes and doesn't take account the numerous advantages NATO mixed has in other (most areas). I support a nerf to high end PACT tanks, not to USSR as a whole. But tbh, USSR is becoming as disgusting (to me) as NATO mixed, slowly but steady. All it's weaknesses are being dealt with and it's becoming another super-versatile-no weakness faction that's so f****** lame to play. But that's me ;)

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Hartmann » Sat 31 Aug 2013 11:57

Hidden Gunman wrote:I'll be fair, I've read the OP post four or five times, I've gone off and thought about it...

And I don't see why good, honest play should be penalised by nerfing units.

Sorry, but I can't see this as anything other than 'some units have longer range than others and that causes a problem in games where decent players use that to their advantage'.

Unless someone can actually say how this is actually causing a critical problem in the game, then I can't support it through the marshals' channels.

By critical problem, I mean one that is causing an overall imbalance that can't be rectified by game play, and requires game design changes.



It's a balance concern at high level competitive team games of the 3v3 and 4v4 variety on particular maps. Wether or not you can call this a 'critical' balance concern depends entirely on your perspective. What I know is that I currently do not think it's possible to win as nato versus competent top USSR players on the specified maps that allow USSR to make use of their 2800 range equipment. When there is no opportunity to cross into gun range without taking guaranteed massive damage before even getting there, and these zones are of sufficient value to decide the game then there is a problem.

The only way it might be counterable is to prepare specifically for the map in question with some kind of crazy air all in deck, but the chance of that breaking top players seems remote at best in conquest. There was still some chance to achieve success in destruction by doing this.

The reason relatively few replays have popped up is because these maps are completely uninteresting to play, and not that many people can play games on this level. The only ones that come to mind is NU and some of Tommo's guys. The outcome is nearly guaranteed when you play with top teams on this map, so why even bother?

The match just consists of pact amassing high end armour, and either slowly pushing nato into a creeping death, or Nato going for broke and attempting to rush before you innevitably lose to much ground. A rush early game against competent teams always leads to predictable results though, especially with Konkurs tenacity due to squad size. Which incidentally is another problem brought up.

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Hidden Gunman » Sat 31 Aug 2013 12:04

@Hartmann,

I figured as much, which is why I outlined that it's a bit of a (excuse the term) niche problem earlier.

But, that's part of the problem of having a game with so many different play or game styles...what is balanced in 10v10 may not be balanced in 3v3/4v4 or 1v1, and what might be okay in high level competive 1v1 may not be appropriate for the general gaming crowd.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

User avatar
Simms
Sergeant Major
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 04:03
Location: T-80U turret
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Simms » Sat 31 Aug 2013 12:05

It's rather strange to see this kind of a starting post from the one who is meant to be seen as an experienced player. It lacks both objectivity and common sense, viewing one aspect of this game while completely omitting all the others.

Of course there are places on certain maps which can be completely screened by Soviet-1985 vehicles bearing 2800 ATGMs. A concentration of 5-6 barrels on these spots (1-2 T80U, 2-3 Konkurs, Shturm-S) can pretty much guarantee that anything that gets into 2800m range will be blown to bits with the first salvo.

But this is not WEE anymore. You can pretty much expect on all the maps where the best defensive positions for PACT ATGMs are, and you have a lot of means to deny their usage. Very open spaces like the much beloved Gavle-turned-Upsala flank even have little to none spots providing any kind of concealment. Playing nearly any kind of major NATO deck (I'm not even talking about that ridiculous mixed NATO salad) you've got PLENTY of ways to cope with the long-range ATGM threat.

Most games I've played (and more of those that I've seen in replays) the certain open areas never turned to be places for a decisive strike or ground-taking. You can prevent even a well-prepared attack on the field in most cases unless you've already lost the match points-wise or position-wise. Usually there's a stalemate on both sides of the field while more dense areas are much more active in terms of combat.
Image

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Hartmann » Sat 31 Aug 2013 12:15

Hidden Gunman wrote:@Hartmann,

I figured as much, which is why I outlined that it's a bit of a (excuse the term) niche problem earlier.

But, that's part of the problem of having a game with so many different play or game styles...what is balanced in 10v10 may not be balanced in 3v3/4v4 or 1v1, and what might be okay in high level competive 1v1 may not be appropriate for the general gaming crowd.


True obviously, things change depending on maps and player capability.

What is appropriate for high level play has to be looked at on a case by case basis if it won't ruin the day of the casuals. However any of the proposed balance changes have comparatively minor, or even completely negligible impact on any but the most competitive players.

But this is not WEE anymore. You can pretty much expect on all the maps where the best defensive positions for PACT ATGMs are, and you have a lot of means to deny their usage. Very open spaces like the much beloved Gavle-turned-Upsala flank even have little to none spots providing any kind of concealment. Playing nearly any kind of major NATO deck (I'm not even talking about that ridiculous mixed NATO salad) you've got PLENTY of ways to cope with the long-range ATGM threat.


Like what?

You mention in the paragraph before that that anything reaching into range will be 'blown to bits' by the first salvo, and that certain areas can be completely screened and have little to no cover to approach closer. When there are also key zones in these areas, and you yourself said that these are unapproachable, then doesn't that contradict each other?

User avatar
triumph
Major
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby triumph » Sat 31 Aug 2013 12:17

Sleksa wrote:
Forimar wrote:Nerf rossya and meta changes



The 2800 game is really dependant on the map as well, while pact does have the range game set up from 2300+ ranges, the nato heavy tanks completely dominate the sub 2275 range game with a few more points of armor and overall better statistics.

Giving russia 2x t80u and 4x t80a would mean giving nato a heavy numerical advantage in heavy tanks. At the moment using 4 slots in a non-modifier deck gives Nato about 30 heavy tanks, or a bit more depending which tanks one prefers. Out of these you can get 20 units with 19 front armor (the challenger, leo2a4), and 30 units with 17 frontal armor (abrams)
At the same time Russia would be rolling with 4x 20 front armor (t80u) and 8x t80a for a total of 12 heavy tanks. Adding more slots after this would ofcourse give you 10x 17 front armor choices and 15 frontal armor choices (t64&t72B if their availability doesn't get shafted ).

Ofcourse we have to remember that all of the above russian tanks do have the range advantage with 2x high ap 2800 range missiles, but the nato tanks have clearly better armor, better stabilizers for popping in 'n out of cover and better guns giving them the advantage in closer ranges which most maps are preferring.
For example in maps like Kalmar and Trondheim it is incredibly hard to utilize the range advantage of the missiles against nato heavies without risking going into the 2200 range, or getting sniped by the dozens of nato tank-removal items (a10, eternand, seahawk, apache, lynx 2, harrier 2, nighthawk, jaguar gr, cobra & supercobra, bo105/pa, milan2)

The bmpt is a great choice yes, but at the moment I do not see a reason for nerfing it as there are many other great choices in vehicles section to get as well as it (zhalo, shturm, flamers).

Concerning the hind vs hellfire debate I made a post earlier which clearly states that while russia may be able to get around 80 kokon-hinds (by using infantry carrying hinds as well), usa can also create decks that would have 20+ hellfire platforms and twice the amount of that in tow2's in various platforms. Yet both are ridiculous choices due to taking massive amounts of deck space.

Overall all of your post is solely focused on forcing the russia to have less deck choice options, while stating that nothing is wrong on the nato side. This sounds absolutely skewed looking at the top player's faction choices which are nato-focused.


So going from the bottom up. We don't have numerical data on 3's or 4's. I think its a smushed stat of 1v1 and 2v2 and at last time the dev mentioned win rates he stated they were about even. But i don't even think that holds a candle because the ladder stats do not clearly separate teams, random AM, or 1v1s. Am I wrong there? Are there more detailed public stats being tracked? I honestly don't know. The only thing i can value right now are scrim results and tourney matches which is what I am basing this off of. And on top of all that I've clearly stated the threads scope. Also I do recall posting 3 solutions with a bunch of mutations. I could expand solution 3 into its own topic if i wanted to spend a couple/few of hours taking SS's and mucking about in PS or paint.

6 hinds are enough for me personally.

Pack split mutations are there as alts to start eating into the decks super utility. I think you need two tank slots and one other to be eaten to start making deck choices become difficult, meaningful strategic choices. Lately my biggest choice is a second card of su-24mp, a card of napalm plane, a card of T0-62 + other like 72 at 35 or VDV, or an SU-25T. Point is I have everything I need and tons of utility and I can play mech or armored because they are actually useful in some situations.

You say Trondheim I say Urgan. Trondheim! Urgan! Trondheim! Urgan! Offensive go!

*edit, had a word twice, needed that word to be "scarce"
I'd say map favoring short range play is even more scarce than ever after the DLC. More wide open spaces.


@ Gun and Seleska,

'll be fair, I've read the OP post four or five times, I've gone off and thought about it...

And I don't see why good, honest play should be penalised by nerfing units.

Sorry, but I can't see this as anything other than 'some units have longer range than others and that causes a problem in games where decent players use that to their advantage'.

Unless someone can actually say how this is actually causing a critical problem in the game, then I can't support it through the marshals' channels.

By critical problem, I mean one that is causing an overall imbalance that can't be rectified by game play, and requires game design changes.


Good honest play? So A-move is good play? Are we even playing the same game? And what does honest mean? You want to show yourself tap dancing all over top players so you may with justice, hearts, stars and apple pie make a solid counter point? If so that would be awesome!

Either on this page or a page or 2 back I listed out AAA+ Tier advantages.

Do you count game play as being switching to a map that is not burgen or mora or anything like that? If so well then those are deep strategic choices to be made, not. :(

So no go-time? :(



@ Kamil
Anything that isn't AAA+ tier (As in Nato or USSR) isn't worth typing about. You wouldn't bring out a 75 deck unless you wanted to either cheese in the air or lose.

F2's lose the range game. Sleeping is the leading cause of death to F2's besides miracles and reverse moving unit duos that will end up in a helix pattern ergo giving side armor shots because someone did not split. Truck and BTR fodder. Such a sweet sweet meta that armory cowboys could never tell us about. And I can do it unintentionally while a-moving a blob.

Anyone who is spamming SEAD is and has been a joke for months now. A buk or two is bait. Not prey. Otherwise it's pure incompetence giving the win, like using them on people who refuse to turn off the tunguskas guns.
Want to have 6x super and enjoy gambling? Or everyone on a team to have that chance? It's time to start giving up tomcats or giving up napalm lambs for the AA nets slaughter.

@stratmania,
we're not talking about 1v1 or 10v10s. And i'm quite sure that you're talking to me about games where players happily use Norway or something equally asinine.


@triumph you don't care about ranked? I recall you saying "using ranked logic"... And these changes sound like those that are nitpicked... If PACT gets the same range of ATGM as NATO, buff konkurs AP. Otherwise, you will see a lot of QQ about that.

So 1000 starting points and 2k score to win was not the meta and was not what the game was based around? Did I come from the year 2525? Did Al Gore become president of the USA and achieve world peace?

Not playing ranked doesn't mean I can't seek out the top players, clans, or whatever else and go both with and against them. Once again, VOD's, replays site.


Triumph, can you please explicitly formulate what exactly the problem is which you are trying to address. My guess is your concern is USSR can build a stack of expensive 2800m ATGM tanks supported by IFV and BMPT. My first question is following:
So what? What exactly the problem with that?


"The range game is about optimizing the use of high powered 2800 range missiles and long range anti air in an area where a player can spread out and use a concave formation to lessen the effects of artillery and air strikes."

You cannot forget that part. It's having everything you need that makes the USSR amazing.

Through the combination of awesome deck utility and cost effectiveness I am allowed to go on the offensive essentially for free or at the cost of cheapo units for spotting. This leads to feeding me ground which will give me previously in destruction more eco to fuel the fire or force 39 min mark air gambles from nato and now more score to win if an enemy attempts to minimize losses by just giving ground. So not only does my deck allow me tons of uility tools my game is also mechanically easier to play. In order to win a nato player has to pull out all of the small tricks that rely upon me being incompetent, without recce or over aggressive by feeding expensive units.

This is why my personal favorite is the map solution.

When a map is more and more open then my choices are much easier to make and the amount of my personal resources that i need to put into playing the game decrease greatly just because i can pump a stable mixed unit composition that is insanely cost effective.

One simple example of the mechanical situation being easy is as nato I have to either keep chaps close to a 20 truck or cover more effective ground and make sure that 10 dollar trucks don't wander off while maneuvering. Tunguskas, none of those issues. A buk? It's at the back, it's got huge range, it's easy to supply. Wide map friendly. When I am forward I'm in the position to see what's coming. A small APM increase and only Lars and MLRS are useful and those are pretty much equal to the grad/urgan.

Another is I practically don't need to desperately use smoke to go on the O as is suggested a lot as USSR. One urgan card, one per hot key, one simple stroke that leads to a successful a-move and maybe a fast move of the rocket unit. I get hit by a lars-2? Reverse move slightly or stop. Enjoy more advantage at next to no cost at deck time. Next I make or reensure a decent spread, call up fodder truckers, a-move forward again. With a great spread who cares if I am hit by MLRS at this point the game plays itself for me more and more as map opens up. It's not like I have to macro manage anything.
And if I want to play defense it's automatically stacked in my favor unless I have reversed into the deepest forest or perhaps there is a really long spawn which is quite unlikely.

Is it starting to make more sense? I simply don't have to do anything special to do so well and have tons of utility. And even on maps that aren't supposed to cater to the faction I am still winning against solid players without exerting more effort than they are. Trondheim seems to be the go to example for this and soviet a-move isn't as easy but you're still allowed to push so easily due to utility choices. And all of this is at the cost of taking the initiative and applying some pressure with cheap junk and a solid unit composition. That is not right at all.
Image
Transcend Excellence

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests