Tigga wrote: for anybody thinking a 20 point Leo 1A1 is too cheap - I still say the VTS1 is better overall, and that only costs 20 points.
DiabloTigerSix wrote:This is obviously aimed at me, so I'll respond. The VTS-1 is supposed to have a "discounted price" because you only get 12 of them, as opposed to what...56? tanks combined in the Leopard 1 tree.
DiabloTigerSix wrote:Red, you suggestions are brutal. The Leopard 1A1 either can't be that cheap, or the base T-62 needs a price nerf too. That's the problem with your suggestion in general. You left out lots of other vehicles (e.g. M60 A1 junk thingy for $30). T-72? for $35? My God! Where does that leave the T-55AM/AM-1? Even -$5 could make it feel like too cheap from some perspectives. [size=85]I'll be doing my own suggestion on tanks soon and will try to cover all tanks at once. Just too lazy to do it atm.
DiabloTigerSix wrote:As for the other Leo variants, I don't think that more than $5 reduction combined with +1 accuracy is needed for any of them.
DiabloTigerSix wrote:Moving on, I don't think any price increase is needed for the Rise Patton. Leave it as it is. Think of it as of the benchmark, according to which all the other tanks in this class should be tweaked.
It seems you're putting too much emphasis on accuracy when it's not even that important, especially in the current meta where even missing shot do plenty of harm as we all know.
I agree that Chapp and Roland complete each other but I disagree that completely. Why? Well I didn't try to buff Roland range to that Tunguska has. The only thing was to give some more range between AA and ATGM chopper. Now if you want to protect some tank Roland must sit nearly at his side. Ad as it is almost main NATO air defense system I consider it unacceptable.DiabloTigerSix wrote:Disagreed on the range buff for the Roland as well. As I said before, it and the Chaparral perfectly complete one another. Why not knock off $10 of its price instead?
Personally, I'd rather see some minor range buff for the Strop 2 and the MT-LB Strela-10 as they're simply too easy to snipe with ATGM helos.
I tried to take into account everything there is... as I stated to DT6 5p based system brings some limitations I was was struggling between giving 1A5 price 50 or 45 (yes,even that low). 50 looked like good compromise as, of course, 1A5 has a very good armor and mobility but I noticed (in many discussions) that things like stabilizer means little to players and the most cost efficient are considered those tanks which have powerful and accurate gun. Like, for example Patton RISE which has gun 7-7-7 but horrible armor. Stabilization is a nice addition here but I am convinced that people would let it go for few extra points.Tigga wrote:You seem to have forgotten several the advantages the 1A5 has over the T64A. Most notably, the stabaliser and the side armour. Anyway, we're not meant to compare tanks accross the iron curtain much. I think your Leo changes are too extreme. Drop the 1A4 and 1A5 down to their original prices, and give a 5 point drop to the 1A1->1A3 and it'd be fine. Incidentally, for anybody thinking a 20 point Leo 1A1 is too cheap - I still say the VTS1 is better overall, and that only costs 20 points.
M60 SUPER would be still too expensive with 80p and AMX32 should be raised by 5p anyway. Let's remember that AMX32 has bigger range and does a lot of damage (DPS bigger than T80)...Tigga wrote:Rise Patton and Super M60 changes I agree with, though I'd be tempted just to drop the Super M60 by 5 and increase the AMX-32 by 5. The first Patton could also be dropped to 25 IMO.
Yes... that was my problem too as I was originally thinking about giving T72 price 30p, but us I remind myself about T72M and G I changed my mind. The thing is vetterancy system instead of giving minor tweaks (or at least rising accuracy by half of original value) gives enormous buff to ACC, which is actually in most cases more than 100%. For example base T55 costs 15p and has ACC 3 (14% chance to hit), T55AM costs 30p and has ACC7 (35% chance to hit)... so when we buff T55 to max vet it costs 30p, so the same, but has accuracy 47% which is between level 9 and 10. The problem occurs always where vehicles have similar AP value and prices are too far away. So maybe T72 should stick a little more to T72A but it would have to go on par with some stat changes.Tigga wrote:I can't decide on your T-72 changes. I think I'd stick to 5 points for now and see how that goes. You have to bear in mind how powerful they could be when vetted, and I think for 70 points a max vet T72 might be rather strong, especially if the DDR varients stay 5 points cheaper and end up at 60 points for max vet!
So I would prefere range buff as it is the only NATO AA system that can keep up wit hmain forces and not be easily destroyed at the process.Tigga wrote:Roland 2 needs the range increase after the ATGM range increase IMO. I agree with that change, but think I'd leave the price alone. Alternatively, I'd drop the price and keep the range steady. Not both.
Tigga wrote:Basically, I agree with you pretty much everywhere, but think you've been a bit extreme with your changes. I also think there are some other tanks you've not looked at (Cheiftans and more advanced gun-based T55s and T62s all need buffing) I must admit I'm a fan of softly-softly fixes to underpriced units. The best way to bring them into play is to drop the price slowly, see if people use them, and if not, drop it again. Drop it too much (like the AMX-32 last patch) and suddenly you make a unit which is underpriced and no deck should be without!
The entire unit pricing has to be looked at in my opinion. Between ATGM and moral patch the usefullness of units have changed a lot but price change didn't change much.
Eugen's method is to change things one by one to be able to evaluate the effect of each change. There was no use to change too many prices since the last 2 patch changed a lot the meta in a way we couldn't realy predict.
Now that things seem to be settled I think it's time to give a new global look at unit pricing especialy ATGM and tanks but not only them.
Some vehicles that were nerfed for anti spam reason like the AML90 Lynx may come back to their initial state for instance.
Your changes are obviously in the good way, maybe too much, maybe not. Hard to say without a more global vision.
FLX wrote:Eugen's method is to change things one by one to be able to evaluate the effect of each change. There was no use to change too many prices since the last 2 patch changed a lot the meta in a way we couldn't realy predict.
©2013 Eugen Systems and Focus Home Interactive. Developed by Eugen Systems and published by Focus Home Interactive. Wargame: AirLand Battle, Focus, Focus Home Interactive and their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Focus Home Interactive. All rights reserved. IRISZOOM is a trademark of Ubisoft Entertainment in the U.S. and/or other countries. All other names, trademarks and logos are property of their respective owners