Weapons Cache Rework Proposal #2

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Unkn0wn]

Alright, as you all know, the weapons cache in its current state has caused a lot of controversy. At 100 cache it's practically 'disabled', with only very little companies still being affected. Obviously this isn't an ideal situation, and the development team would very much like to move forward with this, or a similar system that can achieve the same goals. This is a personal suggestion that I am bringing forward for community input, similar to the first one I made. It is not necessarily a proposal the entire development team agrees with, and hence not necessarily one that will make it into the game. Though needless to say, if there is a lot of support for any given proposal that achieves a similar goal to our current, controversial, weapons cache, we'll be well on our way to getting it implemented.

So what are we trying to achieve? To rehash what has been said in the past:

1. Differentiating upgraded units from non upgraded units, in terms of how they 'weigh' on a company composition. I.e in the past, we had to put Rangers at 9 infantry pool because when upgraded those rangers were a lot more potent than the base unupgraded ones. As a result however, players would be unable to roll with a company that consists primarily of unupgraded elite infantry. Something we felt should be resolved, since it was hurting company variety for no reason what so ever.

2. Having company specialisation leave one with specific weaknesses. As the metagame evolves, often new builds arise that challenge the boundries of what we define to be 'balanced builds'. Usually these are builds that rely solely on the use of one or two types of units with one or two types of upgrades, which because they are so specialised easily manage to ruin a balanced companies' day. (Which in turn will require other players to adapt and build specialised counter-companies of their own) We do not feel these types of builds are particularly beneficial to gameplay, and in a game where in-game there is no room to 'adapt' to the company you are facing, there needs to be a mechanism put into place that will effectively give a balanced company a better fighting chance. As a result, when someone for example decides to spend a lot of his munitions on cheap AT infantry, he should have a weakness in terms of the amount of AI infantry he still has left to field.

3. Preventing the mass-utilisation of certain, cheap & 'spammable' upgrades, upgrades that we feel benefit from a multiplication effect and can not solely be controlled through pricing. By having these upgrades themselves weigh on a company composition through a second mechanism other than pricing, we are better able to prevent certain gimmicks from becoming too powerful. (Mine & goliath spam with a 4 minute defensive timer for example)

The proposal:

So what am I, personally, proposing to achieve these goals? The answer is simple: attaching a pool cost to upgrades. Say that Airbourne are 9 infantry pool like before, in this system they could be put at 5 or 6 pool, but the purchase of a recoilless rifle could put them at 8. In a first phase, the system would only be applied to elite infantry upgrades and a very small number of other niche upgrades. Upgrades would simply count towards the pool of the unit that can purchase them.

It could look like this. (This is just an example)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=CKuFie0H&key=0Ao03Gd6VYc_LdEFHM3RIUUVsNndFQUVyRU5uMTc1cmc&hl=en&authkey=CKuFie0H#gid=0


It is clear that this would achieve our first goal, but does it also address the second and third goal?

In regards to 2., the answer is yes, provided we also apply it to a number of other upgrades instead of just elite infantry. (This could be phase 2) If BARs would for example simply add +1 infantry pool on your riflemen, someone who gets a lot of BARs will effectively end up with less overall infantry in his company. (The effect could be very minor, or significant, depending on the values we use). In addition, since the infantry pool varies depending on your doctrine choice, the 'effect' of this specialisation will be greater on an armour player than on an infantry player. (Which means an infantry player will obviously have more room to specialise than an armour one).

Mind you that unlike with the weapons cache, if a player runs out of a specific pool, he is still free to invest the resources in another pool. This is very similar to how our unit pools work, when one is for example spamming KCH, there comes a time when the player is 'forced' to spend the remaining resources on other units (vehicles, tanks and support). In doing so, the player effectively 'normalises' his company, making its layout resemble more closely that of most other companies. Excesses are made impossible, while a lot of company variety is kept in tact. (We only set out the boundries between which you can build a company) With upgrades being affected by pool, if you are getting a lot of upgraded infantry, there will be a point at which you run out of room for even more elite infantry and you have to get some upgrades on tanks or invest in support weapons. (Where as before you may have been able to go entirely without support weapons or vehicle upgrades) I.e Excess specialisation is curbed to some extent, which means we also achieve goal #3


Remember that this system doesn't necessarily have to impact anyone in a drastic way, if done properly we would only be affecting some builds. It'd definitely be a much much cleaner and less complex way of going about achieving this goals, compared to our current Weapons Cache.

There you have it, if you have any questions or comments, post away.

[Unkn0wn]

The TL;DR version:

Some upgrades receive a pool cost in the pool of the unit they are an upgrade to.
(For example Airbourne 6 inf pool, RR upgrade puts the squad at 8 pool total)

To summarise:
- We increase company variety by having unupgraded elite infantry weigh less in pool than upgraded ones
- Within a given pool, upgrading extensively will come at a cost of less overall units to upgrade (not necessarily in a drastic way)
- Excess specialisation of upgrades is curbed in the same way excess specialisation of units is. There will come a point (provided he is using upgrades that weigh heavily) at which a user has to 'normalise' his munitions investment by also having to spend at least some munitions on vehicle upgrades and support teams.

[PonySlaystation]

But first you have to ask yourself, is a weapon cache or a similar system really needed?

Because I honestly don't think so. It's a pretty cheap way to fix something that can be fixed with correct pricing.

The faust for example, it was too cheap at 30 munitions so the cost was increased to 50. But the only reason that people had so many of them was because it was too cheap. If they had just done small progressive price changes until they come up with a balanced price I bet it wouldn't be a problem at all.

The problem is that when a unit or upgrade was performing over it's price it was never properly balanced. It was increased in cost by way too much. The weapon cache is kind of like a cheap fix to all these problems. But they could be fixed by just setting correct prices.

The weapon cache isn't all bad because at least it attempts to fix something that's clearly broken but it does so in an overly complicated and unnecessary way.

[Valexandes]

I like the pool increase Idea. I would honestly like to see more infantry without weapons upgrades.

[BigDick]

Alright, as you all know, the weapons cache in its current state has caused a lot of controversy. At 100 cache it's practically 'disabled', with only very little companies still being affected.

wtf in what universe do you live?  

i don't even know how many different companies i have (but it should be A LOT) i would need to transform 90% into some spam companies of good mun/cache ratio to make them playable again

[LeoPhone]

+1
This system would only affect the things WC tries to achieve, instead of limiting random company builds and confusing players too.
have weapons cache add variety to the game instead of taking it away.

This suggestion builds on the current system we have in place, instead of implementing a whole new thing again.

@pony
this WC iteration would only make the game more interesting because it would allow elite infantry to be used more freely.
and even though I partly agree with you that some abilities might be just unbalanced to begin with, spam still creates an issue.
A single faust is rather worthless. You have it on that one squad in your company and if he can use it he uses it. w/e
but if every single squad in your company has a panzerfaust this now means you have them available all the time. allowing tactics to be build around them.
just like you see smoke/flamer tactics be used now thanks to the american officer. his smoke barrage is on recharge, it is always available. if it would have been a two use smoke offmap it wouldn't be that useful at all.

[Unkn0wn]

I would honestly like to see more infantry without weapons upgrades.

Mind you, additionally it could also just be a good idea to lower the total amount of munitions by a small bit, if we are of the opinion that upgraded infantry and upgrades in general are too abundant. (Personally i'm of the opinion they are, but I suppose thats a different discussion)

[Valexandes]

I wouldn't mind that one bit.

[Tymathee]

I think there are. would love to see weapon upgrades be special rather than the norm. same with kch, upgraded elite infantry and repairs..

[RikiRude]

i like this idea, its much better than what is in place now.

i also like the idea of being able to use AB, rangers, and other infantry like that with out getting hurt in the pool cost.

but units like oaksleaves of course would still have to have high pool, and even higher with upgrades.

normal infantry i dont think should be punished for medkits, but something like kch and oaks should be since they are so incredibly survivable.

[PonySlaystation]

@pony
this WC iteration would only make the game more interesting because it would allow elite infantry to be used more freely.
and even though I partly agree with you that some abilities might be just unbalanced to begin with, spam still creates an issue.
A single faust is rather worthless. You have it on that one squad in your company and if he can use it he uses it. w/e
but if every single squad in your company has a panzerfaust this now means you have them available all the time. allowing tactics to be build around them.
just like you see smoke/flamer tactics be used now thanks to the american officer. his smoke barrage is on recharge, it is always available. if it would have been a two use smoke offmap it wouldn't be that useful at all.

Correct pricing balances spam better than the WC does.

[LeoPhone]

if you can't argue get the fuck out of here pony.

[tank130]

if you can't argue get the fuck out of here pony.

I completely disagree with Pony, but your comment is fucked. It is his opinion and can state it as he wants.

[Spartan_Marine88]

I really don't like the concept for weapons cache and personally don't think its necessary.


However, what was posted here seems to be fully workable and a much better system then before. With the understanding that it will still probably need balancing i for one would support this idea.

[CafeMilani]

hmh

[smurfORnot]

I stopped playing since cache was implemented and since smokaz put me on 'The list' ...

[MorkaandBorka]

Cuz your a  scrub fool...aslo im drunk

[LeoPhone]

I completely disagree with Pony, but your comment is fucked. It is his opinion and can state it as he wants.

he made his point in his first post already. His reply didn't add anything. It's like a child shouting NOOOOOO!

[Mister Schmidt]

It's like a Leo shouting NOOOOOOOOOO!!11!1!1

[LeoPhone]

No.