Armored doctrine does not work

[MarKr]

I got a little bit lost in details...you have in mind this?

+ offmap arty with TC in Chaffee and Stuart?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Yes, I think that's exactly what Hawks meant... And I am absolutely fine with this change as long as the range of the off-map arty strike is not touched.. though I would probably suggest a slight price increase to this arty strike.

[Warhawks97]

yes. Thats it. Just 2 CP/2CP/2C would be more helpfull to get it in the "vehicle" stage".

Can we test it first with 2 CP. And when complains increase or unbalance occurs we can go up to 3 CP.

Increasing the CP of something is easier as to decrease it. If everybody can live with 2 CP during testing time. Fine. If not we make it up to 3 CP. The other way arround would be more difficult. It could save a lot of discussions later on when it is why to decrease it down to two.

I would do the same with the cost. If that causes problems it can be changed later on as well.


But so far it is exactly what i was talking about.

[drivebyhobo]

are you telling me that game developers are making balance changes based on feedback from average players?

I am telling you that player feedback regardless of ranking is a small factor in balance changes to modern pvp games. The developers have full logs of all battles and the player profile information to compute meaningful statistics to base their decisions on instead of anecdotes.

because in most PvP games (now talking about LoL, HotS, Paladins etc. don't have much experience elsewhere)

When did MOBAs become most pvp games?

So even if we don't aim for e-sports with BK, we simply cannot make a game that takes a team of randomly-matched players and a team of friends with with voicechat and some agreed-on strategy and they will have the same chances to win. That is simply not possible. And if we make a balance changes so that randomly-teamed players with poor coordination will have easier time winning

What I am opposed to is that PanzerBlitz said that Armor doctrine's weaknesses are fine because it can potentially be strong in highly collaborative play. Heavy collaborative play should not be a requirement to be effective with a doctrine. That requirement makes the doctrine "not work" for the majority of players who have no chance at leveraging collaborative play extensively (I do not mean doctrinal synergy).

Thanks for the suggestion, but you didn't answer my question regarding ur nickname btw...

Gonna have to decline. Again I am definitely not accusing you of anything but I don't want strange people on steam bothering me.

[Panzerblitz1]

We are checking that, moment please.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Can we test it first with 2 CP. And when complains increase or unbalance occurs we can go up to 3 CP.

I think 3 CP is fair enough, considering the fact that it's already 5 Command Points now! Specifically when keeping in mind that Terror doc for example can have walking Stuka half-tracks only after 5 Command Points on the other hand... So ya, 3 CP is pretty enough

[MarKr]

@Warhawks:I would not mind changing it to what is in the picture but to be honest I don't see a reason why should the cost be dropped to 2CP. Now you need 6P to unlock TC offmap and reducing it to 2 is simply too much. Infantry doc needs 2CP for offmap, 4 for howitzers, RA needs to 2CP for for Offmaps, Def doc needs 3CP to get howitzers, SE needs 4CP for Wespe - and these are arty-based docs so I don't see a reason why Armor should have it sooner than some of these.
Also the "faster vet up" now costs 2CP in total and this would make it cost 6CP which is a huge jump for an unlock that gives +25%XP to only M4, M4E3, E8, Croc and Calliope, while "Vet crews" unlock gives +1 Vet level to all tank you have for less CP, so if the change was to take place I would be more for 3CP offmap -> 1CP faster vet for Shermans -> 2CP Vet crews.

@drivebyhobo: OK, maybe they have access to such info, we don't. That is why we balance the mod around the conditions I wrote in previous post.

MOBAs are not most PvP games, I said "don't have much experience elsewhere". Bad choice of words. What I meant is that in games I play it seems to be the way you say. I don't belong to those teams, I don't know on what they base their decisions. My FEELING is that it is not based on some global statistical average because in general strong characters remain strong while weak remain weak and at the same time when there is a buff to one of the weaker/less played characters it is so minor that the impact is hardly felt while nerf to the stronger/mostly played characters are so minor that they remain in their position nonetheless. But as I said, it is just my FEELING, if you have first-hand experience with this, then I believe you.

I think Pblitz exagerated when he said "highly collaborative play", because as many people here mentioned, Armor needs to rely on team mates if it wants to safely take out AT guns, is typing into chat "send arty here (ping position)" or "AT here, can you kill it with infantry? (ping position)" for you "highly collaborative play"?

[Krieger Blitzer]

so if the change was to take place I would be more for 3CP offmap -> 1CP faster vet for Shermans -> 2CP Vet crews.

Makes sense to me... Also, the off-map price could be probably increased to 100 ammo in return.

[MarKr]

I don't see a reason for price increase. The ability has range of 70 while any PaK has range of at least 75. So when you want to use this thing from the tank you risk losing the tank every time.

[speeddemon02]

Arty support being 2pts and moving the point to veterancy bonus or keeping it at 3 does not bother me. I really do like this new setup as it makes more sense to put those 3 together. Looking back it just all seemed out of place.

[Medic Truck]

I think it is extremely well thought by Redhawk regarding the shuffle. But, 3CP is maybe a bit more for a doctrine that can literally swarm you with really good tanks.

But, price increase will also make this shuffle irrelevant and useless too. Just voicing my opinion out of few months play of the game.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I don't see a reason for price increase. The ability has range of 70 while any PaK has range of at least 75. So when you want to use this thing from the tank you risk losing the tank every time.

I suggested this price increase as prior to your statement;

Now you need 6P to unlock TC offmap and reducing it to 2 is simply too much. Infantry doc needs 2CP for offmap, 4 for howitzers, RA needs to 2CP for for Offmaps, Def doc needs 3CP to get howitzers, SE needs 4CP for Wespe - and these are arty-based docs so I don't see a reason why Armor should have it sooner than some of these.

As I agree with you at that part. So we need to make sure that this off-map ability wouldn't be spammed so much as long as it's available.. not forgetting that it's "Armor doc" at the end of the day... So make sure the cool-down is big enough and that the cool-down is also being shared with all units which can use it, or either increase the ability price.
Keeping in mind that this ability is very precise and actually pretty cost effective for its current price... And it's mostly used from behind objects anyway, that's why I suggested the price increase

[MarKr]

and do you have the feeling that at the moment it is "spammed so much as long as it's available"? It's efficiency would remain the same, it's cooldown too and price too. If it is not spammed now, when it comes later in the game where you have better chance to have some ammo reserve accumulated, I doubt people would spam it with this change just because it is available sooner. You can only use it from tanks that have TC inside (you can have 2-3...actually more in some cases but let's count with 3 as an standard average) and the ability shares cooldown across the tanks so you cannot send 3 barrages from 3 tanks at the same time. 85 ammo is sort of lot when you have other usage for the resource. I think it would be OK at the current price.

[Krieger Blitzer]

and the ability shares cooldown across the tanks so you cannot send 3 barrages from 3 tanks at the same time. 85 ammo is sort of lot when you have other usage for the resource. I think it would be OK at the current price.

Alright, all good then...

[Medic Truck]

and do you have the feeling that at the moment it is "spammed so much as long as it's available"? It's efficiency would remain the same, it's cooldown too and price too. If it is not spammed now, when it comes later in the game where you have better chance to have some ammo reserve accumulated, I doubt people would spam it with this change just because it is available sooner. You can only use it from tanks that have TC inside (you can have 2-3...actually more in some cases but let's count with 3 as an standard average) and the ability shares cooldown across the tanks so you cannot send 3 barrages from 3 tanks at the same time. 85 ammo is sort of lot when you have other usage for the resource. I think it would be OK at the current price.

I agree with this logic.

[Panzerblitz1]

I think Pblitz exagerated when he said "highly collaborative play"

These aren't my words, and i never said that, i said <<U.S. armour doctrine is unique and has all what it need to perform well as tank doctrine, this doc is complementary with other U.S. docs, and work great with team mates.>> its quite different.

[Shanks]

I got a little bit lost in details...you have in mind this?

+ offmap arty with TC in Chaffee and Stuart?

Hallelujah!!!!; I love you all, green !!!

[MarKr]

I hate to ruin your celebreations but it is still just a suggestion which needs to be approved by Wolf. The picture is result of a 3-minute fiddling in MS Paint to get a clear visual representation of what Warhawks has in mind.

[Warhawks97]

I think it is extremely well thought by Redhawk regarding the shuffle. But, 3CP is maybe a bit more for a doctrine that can literally swarm you with really good tanks.

Who is Redhawk?



Oh well. Lets do it with 3 CP then when stuart and chaffe can use it as well.

I know its not an arty doc. Also i dont consider this ability as "arty doc like" ability. You cant really compare it to normal arty units as those are not in danger when shooting. So compares to wespe or and the like isnt right.

And the walking stuka has the 5 CP because of its destructive potential to any sorts of targets and considered as heavy defense breaker unlike this one. This ability is a momentum ability that knocks out a unit (lets say a 270 MP pak) for 85 ammo. The ability is not cost effective if you dont combine it with an initial attack afterwards using that momentum gained by it. You wont win a day when "spamming" this ability on targets without doing something in afterwards.
Furthermore TH doc is also not considered as arty doc but gets arty almost at start that is potentially a heavy defense breaker.

So that "must be 3 CP bc its no arty doc" is not an argument. But i could understand if it causes balance problems with 2 CP.

However, at the end, i am fine with 3 CP. Maybe this will change the standard meta of how armor doc is played. Sherman->cheap production->calli->Jumbo and then everything else. And instead we might see stuff like tank commander off map as first unlock, followed by vehicle cap to make the best use of the off map strike. And just later cheap shermans.

Looking forward to see such new combos. Looks great.

I don't see a reason for price increase. The ability has range of 70 while any PaK has range of at least 75. So when you want to use this thing from the tank you risk losing the tank every time.

ups. I thought it was 85 haha. Omg my suggestion to raise it to 90 would have really pushed that ability way too much. Thx for teaching me this indirectly:P

[Shanks]

I hate to ruin your celebreations but it is still just a suggestion which needs to be approved by Wolf. The picture is result of a 3-minute fiddling in MS Paint to get a clear visual representation of what Warhawks has in mind.

But if you agree with panzeblitz 1, I think wolf will not say no, I'm sorry for celebrating ahead of time, hahaha, but I like what I see

[MarKr]

But if you agree with panzeblitz 1, I think wolf will not say no

You would be surprised how often that happens

[drivebyhobo]

I think Pblitz exagerated when he said "highly collaborative play"

These aren't my words, and i never said that, i said <<U.S. armour doctrine is unique and has all what it need to perform well as tank doctrine, this doc is complementary with other U.S. docs, and work great with team mates.>> its quite different.

What you wrote there is quite different from what you originally wrote.

armor doc is a lethal doctrine if well played in collaboration with your team mate.

panzerblitz said.. ...it can potentially be strong in highly collaborative play

That is a straight paraphrase with no loss of emphasis.

[Panzerblitz1]

No it is not, "if well played" ---> if well played was to quote in that case Sir, well played, you just skipped the most important word to make this sentence yours.
Regarding the changes i kind of like the idea too.

[Warhawks97]

Regarding the changes i kind of like the idea too.

I feel confident:)
And i appreciate that.


And thx to all who contributed to this discussion. We found good a good compromise i think

[MarKr]

What you wrote there is quite different from what you originally wrote.
...
That is a straight paraphrase with no loss of emphasis.

This is just trying to catch others on words. Do you personally have the feeling that Armor doc is somehow super-relying on team in other stuff than dealing with AT guns? So as I said:

is typing into chat "send arty here (ping position)" or "AT here, can you kill it with infantry? (ping position)" for you "highly collaborative play"?