I'd be fine with that. IMO victory should be more weighted toward the state of the map at the end of the game, not the start. Who cares how much land you had at the start of the day of fighting, it's how much you have at the end that counts!
Does phase A last too long?
- Thread starter Hoggorm
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd also like to see the frontline not be as pliable as it is. Sometimes a massive spike will dig 4km into your lines simply because there is an enemy unit somewhere on their half of the map and you don't have one directly across. Similarly, large concentrations of units in places like towns should have a much tighter hold on territory occupation. I also think buildings should be more resilient, but that's a different animal.
This is like the never ending discussion in the fighting sport where rounds at the start get counted equally like rounds in the end even though most people agree that the guy who is looking better at the end and kicking the other guys ass should generally get the win.
I like this best. The only disadvantage of course is that strong A decks would also be able to get a higher tick going for a longer time early game.
The other ideas would be nice to try sometime but are perhaps a bit too radical.
Let's be very careful with what we wish. Something as simple as changing the +2 from 58% to 56% (or 55%) could already have dramatic effects on the way games are played, so (0x/1x/2x) might bring us to play a totally different game.
In other terms, I'd advise for baby steps.
EDIT : barbecued by Langerak...
In other terms, I'd advise for baby steps.
EDIT : barbecued by Langerak...
Yeah. We might get something terrible like circle-conquest
I don't think tightening up the brackets and increasing points would change too much. 0x/1x/2x would change quite a bit. Only looking at the final situation would change a lot!
Or making the decision to sacrifice more of your B power to have A power would solve it too. I think that's the whole point of the deck compromise decisions in the phases. When you are say they are "not the ones you need" - well a lot of that depends on the deck your using and the strat you are using. Obviously there are variations to the units, but I feel strongly that rather than changing the whole dynamic of the clock to fit your strat, you should change your strat to fit the clock.
I agree with this 100% - I would love if there was a delay (15 seconds? 20? 30?) before any action had any impact on the front line. That would make it harder to know if a unit moved up there right away, etc. It would make flanking moves easier and it would feel a bit less cheesy to me. I would also like the lines to be a lot smoother and more general than having them as specific as they are.
I would be fine with making a "dead" zone from 51-49, but I do not agree with domination at the end. Just increase the points required and make the game time longer if you want the end of it to matter more.Mountsorrel said:
Along the notes of the "a rout of the enemy forces" that you point to, I do believe (and it might be just because we're still learning the decks) that presently the imbalance in the phases between Allies and Axis right now is too dramatic. Both too much in favor of the Allies in A, and too much in favor of the Axis in C. I'm not sure how much should, or what can best be modified to fix it - or if it is just that we're too new to it all... but in the 6 10v10 matches I've played since the 5/3 patch, it has been too lopsided IMO.
Well the time for testing major changes is NOW. There are 2 weeks and change of beta left...
This is why I think the 'marginal changes' approach should be accelerated a bit. They can make a sweeping change and if it sucks, revert it. That's much harder to do after the 23rd. Most of the 'balancing' so far has been tweaks that don't really attack the main problem(s).
This is why I think the 'marginal changes' approach should be accelerated a bit. They can make a sweeping change and if it sucks, revert it. That's much harder to do after the 23rd. Most of the 'balancing' so far has been tweaks that don't really attack the main problem(s).
I mean...they could just test it with the idea that it's a ...test and that it could be reverted back if they don't like what it does to the meta and balance. That's what we're here for in beta!
Phase A does feel a little long for me and C feels kinda irrelevant (and I play 85% allies, so it's not like I'm over here demanding more King Tiger Time), plus it's rare i see strong shifts in the front line. Most of the time it's that 51-49 unless people drop or someone is just mashing their face on their keyboard. Most of the time it's Total Victory/Defeat as well, with the game being at 51-49 the entire time. Seems more minor to me.
Phase A does feel a little long for me and C feels kinda irrelevant (and I play 85% allies, so it's not like I'm over here demanding more King Tiger Time), plus it's rare i see strong shifts in the front line. Most of the time it's that 51-49 unless people drop or someone is just mashing their face on their keyboard. Most of the time it's Total Victory/Defeat as well, with the game being at 51-49 the entire time. Seems more minor to me.
We also need Eugen to listen to us on things that aren't just nerf requests and historical name changes. They can get pretty complacent with the status quo so I doubt we'll see anything more than income changes for divisions.
I think it would be a bad idea.
What I can see coming from that are people just holding the line without doing much for 35 minutes, and launch a massive assault in the last 5 minutes sending units left and right to grab as much land as possible when the timer run out. It would be very cheesy.
The entire game need to count for something, not only the last few minutes.
For me, the best solution would be to remove or reduce victory points in phase A. Maybe even go for the (0x/1x/2x) some people suggested. Early game is clearly way too important because your forces are very limited and stretched, losing one of them can mean losing up to 10/15% early on because there is most likely nothing behind it that could oppose a push.
I wouldn't reduce the time of phase A thought
that could work too. But having +2 (+6) at phase C would get kinda ridiculous.
Aren't you the one that wants straight Phase C on like Total Destruction?
Some people dont like people who want different thing then they do.
Google tolerance
I enjoy phase A quite a lot, but there are some problems with balancing around it. Allies have quite a big advantage, one that is very hard to overcome in the later phases for axis. Saw someone suggesting to the income values, decreasing A increasing B and C (non linear). Might be the way to go.