The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

User avatar
shuai-jan
Lieutenant
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sun 24 Mar 2013 15:48
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby shuai-jan » Sat 31 Aug 2013 09:45

I would say, buff the AP of all mediums.
This would improve their usefulness and give both sides a effective tool to deal with heavys.
They would of course still have their place, but mediums would be able to take them out with reasonable losses.
Personally I don't see a problem with 2800m range, because 275m aren't actually 275m in this game.
If you defend there is no problem to the range difference whatsoever, if you attack use smoke, rocketarty arty and so on.
This is not a l2p comment, I'm just saying 275m range difference is not the big deal people are making it out to be.

stratmania
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu 1 Nov 2012 17:27
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby stratmania » Sat 31 Aug 2013 09:46

Iris wrote:I think the biggest problem isn't that they're too good, but the vast amount of them available. 1 in 4 (or was it 5) tanks would've had an ATGM but play a USSR player and his deck consists completely of ATGM tanks.

If I could have it my way I'd nerf the availability of the ATGM tanks to 2 Hardened per card and add new guns only versions of the same tank. Then increase the effectiveness of the guns. The problem isn't how good they are, but how plentiful they are.

I say this even as a consistent USSR player; it's too oriented towards tank ATGM's which is both a huge close range disadvantage in overpriced tanks for the job and a huge long range advantage in overly available ATGM tanks.

That's asking for a major change in the USSR though.

That would not bother me too much; I usually buy the heavied for the guns anyway.

Mystic
First Sergeant
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat 20 Jul 2013 19:00
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Mystic » Sat 31 Aug 2013 09:47

This Idea that 2800 or 2625 meters is a CAP is utter nonsense.
I have very often seen these missiles fired at max range and track targets well up to 3100+ meters out for the Reflex and 2800+ meters for the Konkurs.

If you drive within range of these missiles and if its been fired at you, they will track you well beyond their max stated ranges in the game. This is where the problem arises, once you enter that kill zone and try to get out the likelihood of getting hit is very high, making it nearly unapproachable. I have yet to see this happen with a single NATO ATGM.
Some of you choose not see these realities that exist within the game and therefore even when good, experienced players post about these issues no attention is paid to it.

This is what you would call Fanboism.

-Mystic

MadMantiz
Master Sergeant
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon 5 Mar 2012 17:35
Location: Umeå
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby MadMantiz » Sat 31 Aug 2013 09:48

Valid points from a top player perspective.

The 2800 atgm range is an advantage for pact if you really know what you are doing. Very few can consider themselves to be top players or even near. These proposed changes would make the day even harder for the average pact player because the little extra atgm range gives the little extra range to counter for lower accuracy guns and worse stabs.

I hope this carpet is not pulled away under the feet of all non top pact players, but rather let the devs concentrate on other things. Even if the point is valid from a certain perspective, you must as a game developer take into account the vast majority instead of a small elite.

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Mako » Sat 31 Aug 2013 09:56

Mystic wrote:This Idea that 2800 or 2625 meters is a CAP is utter nonsense.
If you drive within range of these missiles and if its been fired at you, they will track you well beyond their max stated ranges in the game.


This is patently untrue.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Sleksa » Sat 31 Aug 2013 09:57

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.
Image

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 10:04

Mako wrote:So despite the vast of the majority of the ranked and "try hard" players using NATO decks, you want to nerf PACT because its one clear advantage is over powered.

Either the people who min-max obsessively and, pretty much by definition do everything they can to win, are all not trying to win, or you are wrong about imbalance.


Edit: Is this wrong? Its what immediately jumped into my head when I read your post. I'm not saying it totally invalidates what you're saying, but it certainly doesn't support it.


One clear advantage?

Let us have some fun and go back and forth pointing out some simple advantages:

Lets call logi equal
Infantry, in favor of nato in tons of aspects except IFV's which are clearly in USSR's favor. I'm clearly calling Konkurs in favor of ATGM house situations. Lemi of NU pointed out to me the HE value of common placed tanks trumps the value of being able to spam out a card or two of super effective 5 point inf.

Support, What is currently in favor of Nato? Maybe 2 card mortar? Although a No Unit member would disagree with that telling me that Nona at 50 are where it is at. Malka, Tunguska M, Buk, all of that is favoring USSR to go on the O.

Tank, T64's are awesome, totaling out at 10, and even the 95 point T72 is solid.
Recce, This favors Nato, hands down. Hassards just save money. I think they're OP because they don't cost 15.

Vehicle, Clearly USSR.

Helos, While nato gets to deny airborne inf with the exception of a possible spetz dropping out of a mi-whatever in 2's i want to call it even but hinds are easy mode when used with L shapes. Especially when rocket arty is on the field.

Air, flavor of the meta is mig spam, Mig-31m's are fine too, SU-24mp for bombing is amazing. The SU sead aircraft is shown off by one of my dudes in a 4v4 against [Day], USSR now has Napalm, the only thing they don't have is the Super because they clearly don't need it.


I am playing against those guys with "try hard" (this term needs to go, jive turkey) decks and the win rate is pretty damn good so far. The only thing that beats me is my lack of willingness to wait to critical mass or a horrible opening build. Some not so pretty in-house games were just tragic.
Image
Transcend Excellence

Kamil
Lieutenant
Posts: 1024
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 22:43
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Kamil » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:05

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 ).



Calculations for nato tanks with:
- 19AV 2A4, Chally 1, 20 tanks 3 packs,
- 17AV M1A1, M1IP, 30 tanks 3 packs,
- 16AV 2A1 12 tanks 2 packs,
- 15AV Leo2, M1, 48 tanks 4 packs,
- 14AV Chieftain Mk.10, 24 tanks 2 packs.

For pact tanks:
- 20AV T80U 4 tanks 1 pack, 4 prototypes
- 17AV T64BV, T80BV 10 tanks 2 packs,
- 16AV T80A, T64BM 16 tanks 2 packs, 8 prototypes
- 15AV T-72 Wilk, T-72B, T-72B1 28 3 packs, 8 prototypes
- 14AV kpz T-72M1, T-72M1 Jaguar, T-72M1cz, T-80B 88 tanks 8 packs. 24 prototypes

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: The 2800 Range Meta Analysis and Solutions

Postby Sleksa » Sat 31 Aug 2013 10:18

Kamil wrote:
Calculations for nato tanks with:
- 19AV 2A4, Chally 1, 20 tanks 3 packs,
- 17AV M1A1, M1IP, 30 tanks 3 packs,
- 16AV 2A1 12 tanks 2 packs,
- 15AV Leo2, M1, 48 tanks 4 packs,
- 14AV Chieftain Mk.10, 24 tanks 2 packs.

For pact tanks:
- 20AV T80U 4 tanks 1 pack, 4 prototypes
- 17AV T64BV, T80BV 10 tanks 2 packs,
- 16AV T80A, T64BM 16 tanks 2 packs, 8 prototypes
- 15AV T-72 Wilk, T-72B, T-72B1 28 3 packs, 8 prototypes
- 14AV kpz T-72M1, T-72M1 Jaguar, T-72M1cz, T-80B 88 tanks 8 packs. 24 prototypes


I guess this all really depends on one's definition of a heavy tank, to me these are the top 2 abrams, chally and leo2a4 for nato and the quoted tanks for russia.

Also I stated Russian tanks with triumph's proposed availability values, my apologies. It's also worth nothing that no other tank besides t80u and t80a have the refleks advantage, the cobra on the others does 1-1,5 damage to most nato heavies while having 2625 range (same as t72B's svir, and the tow platforms of nato)

Wilk and t72m1 are also excluded due to not being available for russia.
Image

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 10:20

stratmania wrote:Sirscorpion? You mean the guy that thinks heloes can be used to flank everytime and everywhere, and thinks that using helo-borne ATGMs to attack front armor is wrong?

I am referencing my post once again. Are the changes going to benefit the game as a whole, or only ranked? If ranked only, then I will never support it.

By the way, if you think dealing with 2800m range weapons is hard, try playing an air assault deck, or a para deck. At least in normal and armored decks you have all the advanced toys.

I feel as if these nerfs are not directed at the weapons, but at the platforms themselves. If you want to give the relevant units such a price hike, so be it, but give it more power, like the refleks, or the konkurs for example.


I recall him asking for people to bring it. I don't think anyone stepped up. If not then I suppose games will have to be played and plenty of chobo will be spayed or neutered.

I don't care about ranked. I don't play ranked. I play against top players who abuse everything they can in order to give me a GG that we both deserve. Anyone who is talking about ranked needs to either read the first post correctly or point out where I mistakenly said "I played 34589534753478954 games of ranked" in the first post.

Check my twitch to see air assault pulled off before it was made cool by PLF was it? Excuse me while i grow a beard and update my apple products with west cost experimental wolf howling-core songs. :D

Paradeck, so why are we bringing up the games poor design when we're talking about a balance thread. There is an old robot saying: DOES NOT COMPUTE.

The units don't need more power. They're highly exploitable to the point that I have coined the term "Glorious soviet a-move." I thought that adding 6 T64 in the DLC was more than enough of a buff to PACT and obviously Soviets. Did this some how sneak over everyones head?

edit in, because oh how could i delete a line and forget:
I think i mentioned the bmp-3 already. The cost will put it exactly at the price of a t62 that costs the same, has perhaps 1/3rd the quantity at the experience level of veteran compared to a bmp3 which will have 3 and well is a t62.
Image
Transcend Excellence

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests