Warhawks97 wrote:What i forgot: The upkeep pain is highest when you use assault arty units.
(...)
These might get excluded from the ammo upkeep altogether.
CGarr wrote:short range assault arty units like stuh's not having upkeep costs since they are more likely to die and have to be rebuilt, the initial and use costs are enough.
Coming back to this - these units originally had a cost on their "long range anti-emplacement" shot. People then said it was too much for them to have upkeeps and also pay for shooting long range shots so the cost for the ability was removed. If the upkeeps got removed, should the ability again cost ammo to use? Without the cost and the upkeeps the ability would be pretty much "kill emplacements from safe distance for free" ability. Also the main difference in the reward choice between StuH and StuPa is damage vs upkeep, if the upkeep gets removed and the abilities remain free, the StuPa's downside is a bit higher cost and later availability. Wouldn't it lead to StuPa being chosen over StuH most of the time?
Warhawks97 wrote:What i forgot: The upkeep pain is highest when you use assault arty units.
(...)
These might get excluded from the ammo upkeep altogether.
CGarr wrote:short range assault arty units like stuh's not having upkeep costs since they are more likely to die and have to be rebuilt, the initial and use costs are enough.
Coming back to this - these units originally had a cost on their "long range anti-emplacement" shot. People then said it was too much for them to have upkeeps and also pay for shooting long range shots so the cost for the ability was removed. If the upkeeps got removed, should the ability again cost ammo to use? Without the cost and the upkeeps the ability would be pretty much "kill emplacements from safe distance for free" ability. Also the main difference in the reward choice between StuH and StuPa is damage vs upkeep, if the upkeep gets removed and the abilities remain free, the StuPa's downside is a bit higher cost and later availability. Wouldn't it lead to StuPa being chosen over StuH most of the time?
Wich is why reward choices should be removed from the game except for ace or super special units. If you don't have a lot of res and the enemy has kept a big pressure on the mid game and making emplacements then youll go for the stuh, if don't then you will maybe pick the stupa depending of what the enemy does, more choices, more fun.
Warhawks97 wrote:What i forgot: The upkeep pain is highest when you use assault arty units.
(...)
These might get excluded from the ammo upkeep altogether.
CGarr wrote:short range assault arty units like stuh's not having upkeep costs since they are more likely to die and have to be rebuilt, the initial and use costs are enough.
Coming back to this - these units originally had a cost on their "long range anti-emplacement" shot. People then said it was too much for them to have upkeeps and also pay for shooting long range shots so the cost for the ability was removed. If the upkeeps got removed, should the ability again cost ammo to use? Without the cost and the upkeeps the ability would be pretty much "kill emplacements from safe distance for free" ability. Also the main difference in the reward choice between StuH and StuPa is damage vs upkeep, if the upkeep gets removed and the abilities remain free, the StuPa's downside is a bit higher cost and later availability. Wouldn't it lead to StuPa being chosen over StuH most of the time?
Re-adding the per-use cost to the anti emplacement shot abilities would make sense if these assault howitzers are exempt from the upkeep. There's generally not a ton of static targets to shoot at so it doesn't really make sense to have a constant drain on your income for an ability you wont use very often. The upkeep would make sense if the units were more versatile but currently they only have their anti emplacement shot and then just normal shooting (where they basically serve as worse versions of the Pz3 in exchange for the ability to KO tanks that ideally dont pose a threat to them), so when they're not using the ability they're just occasionally burping out a fat HE shell at some inf and maybe a tank with a broken barrel, then frantically reversing away form the fight.
From what I've seen in most of the games I've played, people choose the stupa generally anyways because the stuh feels a lot easier to kill and cost isnt much of an issue since you're generally either going to be too broke to reasonably afford either (rather than heavy armor to fend off the larger tanks that will be fielded given the allies have the resource advantage) or you will have the resource income advantage and therefore waiting to get the stupa wouldn't be a big issue since you only really need that kind of assault vehicle when the enemy is heavily dug in (and therefore hasn't invested as much into assault troops). If you are a really passive player and used the advantage to reinforcing your line to have a big coordinated push rather than constantly keeping pressure (see Kwok or Echo play for examples of this) I could maybe see the stuh being attractive but I don't think I've seen either of them use it, at least not in a game I've watched/been a part of. I could say the same for the majority of the players I've played with, I've only seen one person that regularly used it. Idk if I'd say that the stuh is a bad unit itself, but the stupa is definitely more attractive to many for some reason (I'd assume survivability).
The artillery upkeep makes it impossible to fire any artillery on smaller maps with few ammo points, even when just playing against CPU experts and fortifying on one half of the map (The Scheldt, Achelous River, etc).
If the upkeep price made firing the arti free, that would make sense but losing any ammo gain AND having to spend ammo to fire it makes it impossible to fire when controlling half of the map. So essentially the artillery can only be used when controlling most of the map and essentially already winning.
Don Daniello wrote:The artillery upkeep makes it impossible to fire any artillery on smaller maps with few ammo points, even when just playing against CPU experts and fortifying on one half of the map (The Scheldt, Achelous River, etc).
If the upkeep price made firing the arti free, that would make sense but losing any ammo gain AND having to spend ammo to fire it makes it impossible to fire when controlling half of the map. So essentially the artillery can only be used when controlling most of the map and essentially already winning.
Mod was made mostly for pvp and bigger maps, curren't upkeeps are still a little bit high even with the new changes on ammo income from the start. But you're also true about the static CW howitzer (25pounder) wich is smaller than the WH/USA counterpart having a waaaay to high ammo upkeep for his firepower.
MarKr wrote:
The reason for introducing the upkeeps was to make player think about "do I really need an/another arty unit?" instead of "I'm gonna build this nebel becasue...why not...bombing stuff all over the map is fun for me".
I think the upkeeps at their current rate fulfill their purpose, making players consider the ammount of map resources when they decide if or what arty unit they should get. Going to half of the current upkeeps might remove or vastly negate the "do I really need this unit?" factor and more back towards the "why not?" approach.
Long story short: "I don't like it because it limits me in shooting my arty and I love shooting arty everywhere" isn't a too good reason to change anything as that was the point of the change.
It’s bad game design to create punishing resource traps in a game that does not advertise upkeep rates.
CoH’s upkeep rates were designed to be a moderate penalty to gently discourage snowballing. If it were meant to be a hard stop, it would be displayed to the player so that it could factor into his strategic considerations. All it truly accomplishes is further biasing the game to the crowd that religiously checks the Corsix stats.
I know some might believe that sort of bias is true real time strategy, but it is my firm belief there is no strategy in creating opaque mechanics to enable the abuse of new players that chance upon the game.
The ammo upkeeps were added in the beta and the values have been presented in publicly available changelogs. We plan to include the specific ammo upkeeps of these units in their ingame description but we decided to keep that for the final changes of the beta because we expected that the values would change during the beta phase (and it has happened already) and we would need to adjust the descriptions every time.
And people wonder why do I hate the changes. Making this game where skill and knowledge matters into boring chess where all units are "just ok" and similiar. Bo-ring. Yes and all I do is defending exploits...
balance wise the beta right now is unplayable. some reasons were provided before but honestly i dont really know what is which, or why, because i lost track of the changes already......too many changes everywhere for no reason, they are just forcing the game to change itself.......even when there is no need to change some stuff which already worked well, but they still change that stuff anyways, only for the sake of changing it.
Sorry illa. You absolutely have the right to your opinion and you don’t need to support the changes, but the majority of players that we’ve talked with want these kinds of changes. There are patch notes, survey results, polls, and forum discussions that indicate this. Based on what you told me about the game, I suggest you give coh2 spearhead mod a try.
Seha, we don’t make changes for no reason, you can literally see the reason of every change on the patch notes. Sometimes we don’t make perfect changes sure, that takes time to reach a balanced spot.
In terms of unplayable state, so far nearly every player (I can think of one exception but he likes the changes just not the current state of balance) who we know plays pvp and provides replays on this forum prefers the beta over regular version because it is more balanced. As far as I know you don’t play pvp and many players on forum don’t agree with your sentiment. If you have specific complaints call them out as individual topics... we are always open to constructive feedback. if you can’t figure out what’s wrong then you really aren’t helping the situation at all.
This is going off topic now. Either return to the discussion of ammo upkeeps or make a new off topic.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
Viper wrote:balance wise the beta right now is unplayable. some reasons were provided before but honestly i dont really know what is which, or why, because i lost track of the changes already......too many changes everywhere for no reason, they are just forcing the game to change itself.......even when there is no need to change some stuff which already worked well, but they still change that stuff anyways, only for the sake of changing it.
The New BK Champion wrote:And people wonder why do I hate the changes. Making this game where skill and knowledge matters into boring chess where all units are "just ok" and similiar. Bo-ring. Yes and all I do is defending exploits...
You guys are overreacting and i never saw you playing pvp on the beta yet. Last patch changes made the ammo upkeeps pretty reasonable and playable comparable to the first beta. Balance is way better than in the first beta, so if it keeps going this way it will only get better.
Want proof of this? Go play the alpha patch, there has been a lot of links to get it on discord servers.
@Viper if you still think the beta is unplayable can you explain why? ¿And your experience on pvp beta games?
