My first impressions of eir balancing at the moment

[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

[hans]

So if allied units are better now and tiger lost stuff, wouldn't an logical approach dictate that tiger will perform worse now resulting in people noticing it and wanting to make tiger better so it can face it allied counterparts on a equal term thus changed environment equaling change in style of gameplay which results in a tiger that cannot perform it's old role because the game it was designed for no longer exists thus resulting in a tiger that is bad for current meta.

the problem is, buffing 1 unit because another unit got buffed to much makes it hard to balance. If we make the tiger better, we probably have the result that tiger gets too strong. We possibly have the feeling that tankhunters are worse and need a buff. After that we notice that tiger is worse and needs a buff. Probably also nerfing in the row after this might cause another problem.

Buff buff buff nerf nerf buff nerf yeah. lol

[JimBob]

the problem is, buffing 1 unit because another unit got buffed to much makes it hard to balance.

Isn't this what balancers are for?

[hans]

Isn't this what balancers are for?

balance is for balance. u dont balance if u only buff. Also u have to take a look at more than 1 unit to get a proper balance act.

[Ahnungsloser]

You can't complain about balancing and start to argue with the current metagame. In the current metagame there are heavy AT based companies where is no place for a slow high pop high ressource units. Only some high tier guys can make a Tiger tank focussed company work.

The allies mostly play Infantry and Armour companies. The most armour companies run HVAP T4 builds or dual T3 builds which are more ressource effective for medicore players then Tiger builds. With the Infantry you have a lot of L'n'L companies or Tank Reaper companies with stacked shells which are very deadly for such kind of unit. Sometimes it ends that a stupid M8 or Jeep blocks your Tiger while it's getting raped from AT.


The improvement to the M18 Hellcat transformed it into a real heavy tank destroyer which added a new dimension of AT which can the allied bring into the field which made the circumstances for the Tiger much worse. If you start to kick in some veterancy EIR:R gets completly bonkers and in the most cases it seems that some lower tier units can do some weird stuff.

[chefarzt]

balance is for balance.  Also u have to   look at 1 unit to get a proper balance act.

[Masacree]

The tiger is badass. The key is to not fire on the move.

Takes pr0 micr0, I know.

[Sever5]

that is what i mean with the unbalanced advantages systems... there was no problem to overwhelm with quantity instead of quality...

[Hicks58]

By the looks of that screenshot, the Axis team still had at LEAST half of their companies per person left intact.

The only reason they'd lose with those kind of KDR's, is if they seriously started sucking late game and got totally out-capped.

Also, judging by that ridiculously bad vehicle score for each of the Allied players, the Axis team likely had a reasonable amount of armour in reserve, meaning they'd still have AT capacity so I doubt that the Allies won by out-lasting with armour.

Honestly, the only reason that the Axis team lost that game shown in the screenshot is if they did something incredibly wrong late in the game.

Screenshots of end-game scoreboards are pretty worthless for balance. The only thing that the screenshot will show, is that one team has done something very, very wrong. They don't indicate that one team has more resources than the other, they don't indicate unit performance (Varies depends on the user). They just show who won and by what margin.

Final point: Axis companies are more than capable of throwing out stupid amounts of units. Try a Volks/StuG-centred company. Hell, run about a dozen support weapons and the rest un-upgraded Volks then just recrew away...

[nikomas]

The tiger is an underwhelming unit, that's about it.

If you're playing blitz, there are more cost effective things to buy, so buy those.

[rolcsika0128]

I do agree that the Tiger is not a good choice in the current environment. But it's not because of the unit being bad.. not at all.

The problem is: the huge amount of pop it takes.. Let's divide this part into 2 components. 1: This unit is the complete opposite of the goliath, as far as pop-effectiveness is concerned. For what it does, it's not worth 16 pop imo. 2: the hardcounters to it ( hellcats, firefly, hell even pershings) cost less or the same pop as the tiger does. This means that your tiger is not only hard- countered by a less pop unit with proper micro, but you will also have less supporting units than your opponent, so it's a double trap.
Example of a possible solution: give blitzkrieg doctrine a t4, which gives the player +6 pop(and something else, like passive sprint near the tiger), so the blitz player gains upper-hand against inf and armour doctrines. More supporting units = the tiger becomes much better.

[hans]

I do agree that the Tiger is not a good choice in the current environment. But it's not because of the unit being bad.. not at all.

The problem is: the huge amount of pop it takes.. Let's divide this part into 2 components. 1: This unit is the complete opposite of the goliath, as far as pop-effectiveness is concerned. For what it does, it's not worth 16 pop imo. 2: the hardcounters to it ( hellcats, firefly, hell even pershings) cost less or the same pop as the tiger does. This means that your tiger is not only hard- countered by a less pop unit with proper micro, but you will also have less supporting units than your opponent, so it's a double trap.
Example of a possible solution: give blitzkrieg doctrine a t4, which gives the player +6 pop(and something else, like passive sprint near the tiger), so the blitz player gains upper-hand against inf and armour doctrines. More supporting units = the tiger becomes much better.

better solution, give a t4 the option of reducing tiger pop to 14

[Hicks58]

hell even pershings

Pershings are not a hard counter to the Tiger. It requires silly amounts of luck for the Tiger to come out on top, unless the Pershing is running HVAP. THEN it's a hard counter.

Example of a possible solution: give blitzkrieg doctrine a t4, which gives the player +6 pop(and something else, like passive sprint near the tiger)

You mean like Joint Ops, which gives increased pop for you AND your team depending on team size? Which also reduces the cooldown of Keep It Moving to 60 seconds? FYI, KIM lasts 30 seconds. That's 30 seconds of no-sprinting unless you bring a second tank in field, then you can theoretically sprint throughout the entire match so long as you use timing and positioning well.

[rolcsika0128]

Nop, Hicks, not exactly like Joint Ops. I mentioned +6 pop not + 4/3/2/2. As for the Pershing.. It's clearly not the worst enemy of the tiger, but still way better than it... I was mainly talking about HCs and FFs.

[TheVolskinator]

i would say the HE shot should be waaaayyy less precise or should have less damage, so it may hits all but they dont die - this would be still very strong against situations like this but it gives the inf a chance.

Kay, then artillery will be patched to also not-one-shot infantry.

Trolling aside, the normal sherman *can* do the same, and the HE Sherman can't do ANYTHING to armor. Yes, it's on a toggle, but the fact that the 75mm is equally bad AND you can't equip the 76mm--a flat buff and must have on a Sherman otherwise, makes it a balanced choice. And, on the other side of the argument, the StuH is equally devastating against Allied units.