Def off-map

[MarKr]

Oh, the question was for Devilfish
We should replace a unique ability by something that is in the game X times, because this one thing can kill one unit? I would preffer a solution that doesn't include replacing the ability by something else

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Imo there are no problems at all, ability is absolutely fine. Why do you even push so hard for SP here, since Pershing's got a HUGE direct and indirect buff SP is not even needed anymore, it's just a nice bonuce unit there.

[Devilfish]

I forgot how tiresome and pre-judgemental discussions in this forum are, my bad.

So to clear it out, SP is not my favorite unit, I didn't get it wrecked, I don't cry here, I don't whine here and I don't demand immediate actions.
I simply came here to address this knowledge I happen to gain. It has turned out to an over 1 page garbage already.

In my opinion if nothing else, it's still at least conceptually wrong and doesn't fit in the nature of mod, being able to kill the most expensive and powerful one-timer tank with a single off-map ability that cannot be predicted, countered or avoided in any way.

You're saying to use ACE instead and Sukin that SP is basically obsolete. But I think the one line above paragraph still applies. Still can't comprehend though, why didn't you simply say straight up in your first response that it's simply not worth your time because def doc is not played that much and SP is obsolete in the current version. We could have saved ourselves pointless lines of text, while you still wasn't able to answer my simple question I've asked you 3 times, "Do you honestly think it is perfectly fine that a single off-map ability one-shots end-game, one-timer, most powerful and expensive allied tank?". I might be turning in a parrot already.

[MarKr]

Still can't comprehend though, why didn't you simply say straight up in your first response that it's simply not worth your time because def doc is not played that much and SP is obsolete in the current version.

Because it is not like that. I don't think it is necessary to change it because I consider the option to quickly destroy SP with such ability a trade-off. You pick SP, you need to count on opponent bringing their strongest stuff to destroy it. If opponent notices you chose Armor doctrine and because of that he chooses Def doc just to counter you then it is the benefit of his choice and of waiting with doctrine selection longer than you. If you see opponent chose Def doc before you chose anything and you still choose Armor doc then you know what you go against. It is not a matter of "Def doc is not selected often so fuck it".
Also SP is not obsolete it is simply not as necessary as it used to be in the past.

We could have saved ourselves pointless lines of text, while you still wasn't able to answer my simple question I've asked you 3 times, "Do you honestly think it is perfectly fine that a single off-map ability one-shots end-game, one-timer, most powerful and expensive allied tank?".

Yes, I think it is fine because the ability doesn't one-shot SP every time because if the SP is moving you might get out of the AoE before the tank is destroyed or avoid it completely. If the ability is sent on a standing SP then it will be probably lost but the same can be said about most other off-map abilities.
And when I answered your question will you now answer mine?

What would be your solution? A solution that will make the ability not "OP" AND will not turn the ability useless AND is doable in the game (AND preferably doesn't include replacing the ability by something else).

[Devilfish]

Finally. Why couldn't you just express this in your first reply? We could have avoided the 1 page nonsense of "280mm rocket scraps it" and such.

So you think that just because a player waits up what his opponent's doc is, he fairly gains the ability to one-shot SP with zero effort? Ok then....

Yes, I think it is fine because the ability doesn't one-shot SP every time because if the SP is moving you might get out of the AoE before the tank is destroyed or avoid it completely. If the ability is sent on a standing SP then it will be probably lost but the same can be said about most other off-map abilities.

I disagree, because it's so easy to set it up. All it takes is wait for SP to start aiming at any target and that's enought for a deadly precise execution.

And when I answered your question will you now answer mine?

I took it for obvious, I don't have any solution, I didn't come insisting my fabricated changes or take a place of the developer. I just found about this and considered it absurd, so wanted to share it here, but apparently it's no biggie because one who waits up the doc pick, deserves as much.

[MarKr]

So you think that just because a player waits up what his opponent's doc is, he fairly gains the ability to one-shot SP with zero effort? Ok then....

No. Because player waits up what his opponent's doc is, he fairly gains the option to choose a doctrine that he thinks will be best to counter what the opponent can bring against him.

I disagree, because it's so easy to set it up. All it takes is wait for SP to start aiming at any target and that's enought for a deadly precise execution.

OK, you know my opinion and I know yours. Clearly our opinions differ.

I took it for obvious, I don't have any solution, I didn't come insisting my fabricated changes or take a place of the developer.

I get this more often then you would believe...people write to me "This or that is unbalanced! Do something about it!" I tell them why it is the way it is, they keep defending their point of view. Then I say "OK, what would YOU do?" and the answer is 90% of the time the same - "I am no dev, why I should I decide?" (they wouldn't really decide, I am just interested in their solution)...people always see problems somewhere but when they are asked to give a solution (possible responsibility for the outcome) they say "Why should I give you a solution?" (afraid to take eventual responsibility). In cases like these I just don't understand - if it is no big deal why these people don't accept the answer I give them and keep fighting for "something is wrong with it". If it is a big deal I would suspect they have an idea of what to do to improve the situation, yet they either don't have it or don't want to tell it...

[Devilfish]

Once again, you are assuming and imagining too much. I didn't come to cry about imbalance and didn't bid you to do something about it asap. I'm truly a parrot right now, be so be it. I found out about it, considered it absurd, came to share. I'm not avoiding any responsibility. Even if I attempted to act a dev, first step is always acknowledging the problem and only after then analyzing it and finally solving. We never managed to reach that point.

I didn't "accept the answer" because I had to wait one and half pages to finally get your true opinion, sadly. Now we finally know that our opinions differ at the most basic level and additional discussion is pointless, others don't give a damn apparently, thus everything is concluded.

[kwok]

Hope no one minds if I drop a quick opinion on the rhetoric and conversation itself.

I think markr has a strong point in it should be the problem finder's job to come with a solution given how the community works (and I mean some pretty obvious aspects that we can all agree on):
-All current active devs do not play pvp actively.
-the community is in a later stage of "maturity" where the majority of players have a strong understanding of the game (though I personally doubt this, it seems most players think they know most about blitz)

Given those two assumptions, it makes sense for a dev to expect a solution. It is safest for them because even though they make a decision most the time they wouldn't come up with options themselves. I think that's very responsible of them. Not only that, but they are definitely very responsive to the community; you can tell because most the changes in the past few years have be community driven or initiated, not by the devs. When was the last "new thing" that devs came up with? How many of those "new things" have there been relative to the other balance changes driven by community compla-ahem.... community suggestions?

I see your point devil, and maybe it seems "obvious" to you but without a solution what can markr or anyone do about it? Do you really want the next balance on this in the hands of people who don't play the game (no offense I hope because at the end of the day despite not playing the devs imo come up with some great solutions).

[Viper]

it is called balancing and suggestions. when somebody say there is balance problem somewhere he should say his suggestion.
you don't expect others to find solutions when you don't know yourself what you even want.

[Devilfish]

I do believe developers are here to figure out solutions and they do just so (and did). In any case if you are interested, read the whole discussion or at least couple of posts back and you'll see that we actually didn't come to an agreement about acknowledging the problem/issue in the first place (unfortunately took us 3 days), thus it is pointless to crack our heads on solutions to ("non-existing") problem.

@Seha
I was sincerely missing a quality input from the likes of you.

[kwok]

I read through it, and I think that there WAS agreement or at least acknowledgement. The gist of the conversation I read was:

Devil mentioned that the rockets are game breaking because of the cost-effectiveness of killing a high priced unit

Spoiler: show

So you're saying, it is intended that one point and click, no warning, no delay off-map one shots the 1900 MP super unit that can be only called once in the entire game.
Oh, ok, cool.

Markr acknowledging that is valid but there are alternatives to avoiding that situation

Spoiler: show

I can see Relax's point of view - quick off-map arty destroys best US tank which is also expensive and cannot get another. But there are many abilities that allow you to annihilate expensive units for relatively low price or with way cheaper units. Rocket ability on 50mm PaK, Riflemen with Supressive fire from BARs can pin and then easily kill even Reg5. "Veteran shot" from JP. Phosphorus shots from Chaffee can for several seconds immobilize even the heaviest Axis tanks (immobile = extremely easy target for pretty much anything). I can understand that SP is one-time unit so it hurts more losing it in this way but Allies are not meant to have super-effective tank counters to Axis heavy tanks and SP is an exception to this rule so it has some downsides. One of them is that it is one time only unit and opponent knows it, he knows it is the greatest danger to his units in the field and so he often focuses his strongest stuff on SP, not only off-map abilities but swarms of units. When you choose between SP and PAce you know this will be the case and you can choose to use PAce instead.

Devil repeats the same thing, but with emphasis and tone that implies that it forces gameplay to the alternatives making the SP obsolete (note: note explicit but I pretty sure that's what he is getting at)

Spoiler: show

@MarKr
Well that is why it is breaking the gameplay. One chooses to pick SP and knows axis will "throw everything at it", so one must micro it well, cover it, use support units, while axis players know that the opponent depend so much on the SP so if they manage to destroy it....Here is where this off-map breaks this game. All you need is view and 200 muni and you strip off your opponent's strategy/choice with literally zero effort.

Markr counters saying that the decision making is still there and doesn't make the SP obsolete because rockets simply do not exist in every doc and the scenario may not occur in a game

Spoiler: show

You also need to consider that this scenario requires Armor doc and Def doc and not every time this happens because for some reason Def doc is considered weak and if team needs arty people usually choose PE SE doc.

Devil says that the reason mentioned is faulty because just because the meta isn't there doesn't mean it isn't exploitable and shouldn't be fixed (this one hits home for me because markr nerfed def doc from something I was solo abusing... it was nerfed in silence and only i was sad)

Spoiler: show

I think it's not primarily used for destroying SP is because many players aren't aware of its capabilities. Additionally def doc is the least played wh doc by far I'd say. Same reason why I'm asking now, I've just discovered it recently. But what does it matter? Because not so many people play def doc, does it mean it's ok to have an unbalanced ability?

Markr brings up many other points over his next few posts which I will list down below with their quotes to back it. He also splits the convo by requesting a solution

Spoiler: show

Out of sheer curiosity - what would be your solution? A solution that will make the ability not "OP" AND will not turn the ability useless AND is doable in the game.

Devil just sort of says the same thing multiple times without directly addressing comments from markr directly for the rest of this convo. I think he recognizes it himself

Spoiler: show

I might be turning in a parrot already.

There are some fallacies here too, false accusations, red herrings, etc. I won't quote those because those are irrelevant, but the point I want to make by bringing up those fallacies is that I think Markr did not avoid anything and responded directly while the irony is that there was no agreement because there was no counter argument made to advance conversation.

Additional Markr points responding to the main question he was asked about whether he thinks the rocket arty is fair to destroy an SP:
- Decision making for those rockets still exist

Spoiler: show

The ability needs 7 CP to unlock and costs how much? 200 ammo? And under these conditions it is "unbalanced" because it can kill SP?
...
Because player waits up what his opponent's doc is, he fairly gains the option to choose a doctrine that he thinks will be best to counter what the opponent can bring against him.

- Cheap hard counters to expensive things exist because that is the nature of a game that adds dynamism and decision making

Spoiler: show

Because it is not like that. I don't think it is necessary to change it because I consider the option to quickly destroy SP with such ability a trade-off. You pick SP, you need to count on opponent bringing their strongest stuff to destroy it. If opponent notices you chose Armor doctrine and because of that he chooses Def doc just to counter you then it is the benefit of his choice and of waiting with doctrine selection longer than you. If you see opponent chose Def doc before you chose anything and you still choose Armor doc then you know what you go against. It is not a matter of "Def doc is not selected often so fuck it".
Also SP is not obsolete it is simply not as necessary as it used to be in the past.

The thing is, Markr even ACKNOWLEDGED it is a valid problem and is open to hearing potential alternatives to change the game regardless if he believes it is a problem or not. Because that's literally the kind of devs these devs are. Sometimes they just take community suggestions even if there is no problem or if it conflicts with their own opinions #whyarethere1v1maps

Off topic commentary:

Spoiler: show

There was ONE line that bothered me...

Once again, you are assuming and imagining too much. I didn't come to cry about imbalance and didn't bid you to do something about it asap. I'm truly a parrot right now, be so be it. I found out about it, considered it absurd, came to share.

So what Devil is essentially saying is that he came to the "Balance & Suggestion" thread purely to just insult a dev decision with condescending posts like:

So you're saying, it is intended that one point and click, no warning, no delay off-map one shots the 1900 MP super unit that can be only called once in the entire game.
Oh, ok, cool.

All I'm saying is that one can just pay a certain amount of munition and point a mouse at enemy's 1900 MP one-timer unit and problem solved. And that is a fairly stupid gameplay if you ask me.

You too? Big drama, really...? Do whatever your heart desires.

Yet will criticize other forum posters (who I admit are pretty off topic):

I'm afraid I must nicely ask you to step out of the topic, if you've got nothing reasonable to say and aren't able of senseful discussion.
Thank you.

Seems pretty hypocritical.

[Devilfish]

Oh boy. You've honestly hurt my feelings here Kwok. Painted me like a awful, lying hypocrite, who is trying to discredit and destroy Marks reputation and lay as much waste on devs work and entire mod. Made me sad.

I really hate this quotation game, but really feel the need to defend myself from this havoc.

Devil mentioned that the rockets are game breaking because of the cost-effectiveness of killing a high priced unit

I did not say and mean it's game breaking. I also didn't say/mean it's because of cost-effectiveness but because of it's unpredictable, unavoidable, no-escapable, one-shotable nature.

Markr acknowledging that is valid but there are alternatives to avoiding that situation

Mark is acknowledging only the off-map capabilities I've mentioned, not that it is a problem. He mentions but a single alternative, that being ACE (don't use SP).

Devil repeats the same thing, but with emphasis and tone that implies that it forces gameplay to the alternatives making the SP obsolete (note: note explicit but I pretty sure that's what he is getting at)

Very incorrect. I didn't have in mind anything about SP obsolete. I was simply reacting to Marks previous post. There he express an idea that when player makes a strategic choice to get SP, axis will try to destroy it will all power at their disposal and SP player must expect this and it's kinda a downside. In response, I say that off-map negates it, because is a single ability with unpredictable, unavoidable, no-escapable, one-shotable nature. And that directly contradicts with "axis will try to destroy it will all power at their disposal"

Markr counters saying that the decision making is still there and doesn't make the SP obsolete because rockets simply do not exist in every doc and the scenario may not occur in a game

Since I never said and meant anything about SP being obsolete, I can't see Mark countering it, maybe it's just me.

Devil says that the reason mentioned is faulty because just because the meta isn't there doesn't mean it isn't exploitable and shouldn't be fixed (this one hits home for me because markr nerfed def doc from something I was solo abusing... it was nerfed in silence and only i was sad)

Just said what my opinion was. Wasn't arrogantly saying it's FAULTY PERIOD.

Markr brings up many other points over his next few posts which I will list down below with their quotes to back it. He also splits the convo by requesting a solution

What "many" points exactly. All I can see is "7CP/200muni is a lot", "it's not a oneshot because it takes 3-4 rockets", and finally few rhetorical/nerf suggestions and explanations why they wouldn't be good idea.

Devil just sort of says the same thing multiple times without directly addressing comments from markr directly for the rest of this convo. I think he recognizes it himself

I did respond : "Ah, I don't really know what else to say. I can just repeat myself. Point is one just clicks on the SP and pays 200 muni and it's over. Zero effort. Does it really matter if it is killed by one rocket at a certain rate of fire or 3-4 rockets at 3-4x of that certain rate of fire? I don't think so.". I have again expressed an opinion that it is irrelevant how many CP or muni it takes or how many rockets when they fall down quickly. Again " unpredictable, unavoidable, no-escapable, one-shotable nature".

There are some fallacies here too, false accusations, red herrings, etc. I won't quote those because those are irrelevant, but the point I want to make by bringing up those fallacies is that I think Markr did not avoid anything and responded directly while the irony is that there was no agreement because there was no counter argument made to advance conversation.

Where, how, what? I definitely had no intention to mislead, manipulate or discredit anyone.
It didn't seem so (Mark being direct) to me. Why didn't he simply say in the very first post that he thinks it's ok because of trade-off/doc choice thingy and instead goes with some V1 legacy and realism of weak top armor and devastating 280mm rockets. Doesn't seem that direct to me.

Additional Markr points responding to the main question he was asked about whether he thinks the rocket arty is fair to destroy an SP:

Very indirect, dodgy answer if it even meant to be the answer, which I'm not really convinced considering the later post where he directly answers with this:

Yes, I think it is fine because the ability doesn't one-shot SP every time because if the SP is moving you might get out of the AoE before the tank is destroyed or avoid it completely. If the ability is sent on a standing SP then it will be probably lost but the same can be said about most other off-map abilities.
And when I answered your question will you now answer mine?

Here he clearly states that he doesn't believe the off-map to be that reliable and merciless and thus not unfair. Additionally explicitly pointing out that he answered my question and bidding me to do the same.

- Cheap hard counters to expensive things exist because that is the nature of a game that adds dynamism and decision making

Yes but in a way, for example, set up cheap decoy on a KT's left flank and drive behind with cheap achiless from the right flank. Again what I consider wrong is "unpredictable, unavoidable, no-escapable, one-shotable nature".

The thing is, Markr even ACKNOWLEDGED it is a valid problem and is open to hearing potential alternatives to change the game regardless if he believes it is a problem or not. Because that's literally the kind of devs these devs are. Sometimes they just take community suggestions even if there is no problem or if it conflicts with their own opinions #whyarethere1v1maps

I truly don't see where. He acknowledged that the off-map is very potent, but doesn't see it as a problem.
If I had been expected to bring solutions before I asked/shared about it then I'm guilty of it.

Off topic commentary:

I honestly don't see how I'm hypocritical. I just wanted to have Tiger out of this this time, because I had enough of those quarrels/interactions/iHaveNoWordForIt with Tiger for my lifetime. I felt like he just wanted to drag it to allies vs axis thing, infinitely comparing it to planes and KTs and stuff like that. I've asked him nicely, it was no irony.

I didn't think twice to what sections to put it. Please, I swear to God, I didn't intend and come to insult anyone. Truly. I sincerely apologize if someone feels this way or feels insulted.

[Redgaarden]

I haven't read most of page 2 of this topic. Couldn't we just make it like time on target ability from coh2? insane long delay but will kill anything under the aoe. There still wont be any signs of it coming anyways and there could be loads of laughs when a person noticies he doged it accidentaly.

[MarKr]

The ability is now good exactely because it hits fast - with a bit of prediction and luck you can hit even mobile units. If it is given long activation time it will be only good for destroying emplacements and Def doc already has Grille/StuPa/105mm howitzers all of which can do the same for lower cost. I am affraid this change would put the ability on the "not worth it" list.

[Redgaarden]

The ability is now good exactely because it hits fast - with a bit of prediction and luck you can hit even mobile units. If it is given long activation time it will be only good for destroying emplacements and Def doc already has Grille/StuPa/105mm howitzers all of which can do the same for lower cost. I am affraid this change would put the ability on the "not worth it" list.

I would disagree since the burst potentional is alot higher on the 280mm rocket barrage. The grille and 105 will have problems one hit killing pershings and super pershings whereas the 280mm will most likely outright kill them and everything else in the vicinty.
From personal experience it's quite spammable with low cooldown and low muni cost and I have never seen my target survive a barrage though I only killed like 10 or so tanks. But those 10 tanks were mostly pershings and sp.
It's really is an no brain ability with low cooldown and only drawbacks being it cost 200 muni, you could probably outkill all pershings faster than they could produce them with this single ability.
And yes it is kinda cost inefficen't since grille can do same job for half the price but I think players would prefer 280 rocekts for having the certain kill cababilities.

[MarKr]

Uhm...my whole post was reaction to your post where you said this:

Couldn't we just make it like time on target ability from coh2? insane long delay but will kill anything under the aoe.

I haven't played CoH2 but I expected you were proposing to give to the rockets longer delay before they hit the target area. If so, then:

The grille and 105 will have problems one hit killing pershings and super pershings whereas the 280mm will most likely outright kill them and everything else in the vicinty.

how will the ability do it? The only reason it is possible to that now is that the delay is about 3 seconds. If the delay is longer (you say "insanely long delay" so how much? 10 seconds?) predicting where the tanks will be when the rockets hit will be almost impossible. Thus the ability will be useful only for killing emplacements. Given the AoE of the ability you would never hit more than 2 (3 tops) emplacements. An killing emplacements with 105mm or Grille is cheaper.

[Warhawks97]

whats the delay of other off map? All the same or longer?

and why not simply increasing cooldown? or cost to 250? Instant kill abilites (lets say long tom and bomber) are all above 200 ammo and long cooldown. And long tom strikes strike in a longer session. Airplanes need some time and can be shot down.


So up to 250 ammo with longer cooldown seems quite fair then for such an emergency instant kill ability?

Maybe Tiger can make some of his testing vids like he did with tank vs tank engagments (what tank beats which tank in 1 vs 1). Just to get a sense for how often the ability kills unit xy when used on it. Like in 9 of 10 cases unit xy died.... how effective it is against emplacments (for example vs the RE one) or how good it is in stopping inf.... or when used on spawns (like when combined with recce plane to instant kill entire forces when they just retreated to a spawn.... the affected area and density etc.

Could be helpfull to estimate the efficency against various unit types and certain units...

[sgtToni95]

Maybe increasing the cooldown and increasing the price would make this ability a little more drawbacks, tho i'm not sure this ould really be a solution to what dunham pointed out as the problem: almost instant and certain kill of whatever inside the AoE. I think this ability, expecially when used on SP, might feel a little too effective since, as it has been said, other "insta kill" abilities are not so reliable:
-long tom can kill and immobilize big tanks on a wider area, tho its effect is longer in time, but somehowslower to affect units which have some chances to escape.
-airstrikes, expecially the RAF one, can be dodged or shoot down, air patrol included. Immobilizing the tank to reliably hit it ould cost additional ammo and, expecially rockets, still have a LITTLE chance not to kill the unit.
A possible solution which came into my mind, if it's possible to make, would be increasing the delay between each rocket, so to let the SP a some chance not to die immediately but instead to escape, still seriously damaged. This might require it to be immobilized first, as usually necessary for other "click to kill" abilities, making this a little more tactical and not this "easy" to kill such units as mentioned in the post.

[Redgaarden]

I dont know. I personally dont feel like delaying each rocket. The ability is cool becasue of its insane burst dmg. But are you suggesting only pershings and higher should have a chance of escape? which again defeats the point since then grille can just do a better job since it ohk everyting under a pershing.

[sgtToni95]

I get pissed off every time grille oneshots something to me as well, but i think that is still a destructible vehicle, and you can hear it shooting or see it with some recon.. the off map as it is now is more effective as ohk, not only on SP and Pershings, but even on CW trucks which are quite annoying to lose and will probably have infantry or freshly made units right beside it if the off-map is used at the right moment.. What i suggest i trying to let some little chance to run (in this example not to the truck, but to nearby units) even if badly damaged. Probably Grille will finish the job soon after, but at least your opponent will need to click 3 times instead of one, which is kind of "less noobish" from my prospective.

[sepp]

The entire convo is kind of dumb. The amount of KTs, JTs, JPs, Tigers, and panthers killed by typhoons makes an obscure, underused, and underappreciated def rocket barrage seem like a drop in a bucket. You can have multiple anti air on the field and still get typhoons killing cats, meanwhile def doc is typically misused entirely by the vast majority of players, myself included. Making 88s is a complete joke in most pvp games, and not having any big cats, no stug, and an 88mm PaK43 that comes so late it's almost pointless...idk, I kinda feel no sympathy for losing a SP to an off map barrage.

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

The entire convo is kind of dumb. The amount of KTs, JTs, JPs, Tigers, and panthers killed by typhoons makes an obscure, underused, and underappreciated def rocket barrage seem like a drop in a bucket. You can have multiple anti air on the field and still get typhoons killing cats, meanwhile def doc is typically misused entirely by the vast majority of players, myself included. Making 88s is a complete joke in most pvp games, and not having any big cats, no stug, and an 88mm PaK43 that comes so late it's almost pointless...idk, I kinda feel no sympathy for losing a SP to an off map barrage.

100000000 plus agreed you can have 4 aa on field still typhoon kill the target while you only need 2 quads or 2 crusader to kill 4-5 incoming luft planes

[kwok]

mmm... you know what would make AA more effective? larger maps...
you know what probably makes airplanes so effective and unkillable? smaller maps...

see viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1292 for the mechanics of AA