It is currently Tue 21 May 2013 23:02

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 01:19 
Offline
Specialist

Joined: Fri 13 Apr 2012 00:45
Posts: 10
I've been a lurker since the pre-beta days. So hello.

But to the point, I really enjoy this game I'm not saying at any point is the game a bad game. I am most certainly and if someone brings up this at all I will cry off topic this thread is not about units, sides, or balance What this thread is about is the current meta game of W:EE.

What we are currently witnessing is an attempt for realism the game play has predictably shifted. Tactics changed and everyone for the most part accepted this change. These tactics however have lead W:EE to become a fairly predictable game. Everyone is playing to win. No one is playing to explore the game.

So my main question I point to you is this. Because of recent changes in play style. Making vast amounts of the content in W:EE useless. Has the game lost the unpredictability which it originally held during beta?

If you say yes or no please say why. I really want a legitimate discussion asking if the metagame is in essence killing the game and narrowing our choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 01:34 
Offline
Specialist

Joined: Fri 23 Mar 2012 07:04
Posts: 11
Not really. This happens in practically all games. It's nigh impossible to create a truly balanced game without making all units copies of one another. A dominant strategy emerges until a patch changes things up, then the whole thing repeats. The best way to have a balanced game with variety is by limiting choices to only the necessities. We've got so many unit choices, of course some are going to be worse than others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 02:03 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Wed 25 Apr 2012 12:03
Posts: 85
When you are playing to win, you would normally stick with a tried and proven strategy. It's very risky to try out an unfamiliar play style on a ranked game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 02:20 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer

Joined: Tue 27 Mar 2012 17:16
Posts: 546
I think this post pretty much sums up the current problem :

DeuZerre wrote:
[rant]

Before the UMAD BRO? I'll say this: IMAD, BRO!

So, this is it. I'm going for a long pause in this game. I really lessened my playtime in this game since a week after the patch. Why? Because I don't have fun anymore. Yes, it is that bad. I still win, but when I do I don't feel it to be a reward for good play.

I may not have been able to adapt to the new metagame, or I just really feel it to be [rubbish]. I used to despise spam, but win against it easily, really. It was a crappy tactic that had its counters. Now, it feels like playing world of tanks, except the balance has been thrown down the drain.

In my last game, we've been outplayed, no problem there. But I only faced T-80. NOT any other tank (just a random T-55). Once my Abrams/leo2 were taken out, I couldn't do anything else. At all. And as I'm not the best at microing my units, havy tank wars are just lost for me. This game (I loved) was all about a general plan. Not it's clicks/minute, and rotating every single heavy all the time.

Trying air? No bloody use, a bit of AA and it's toast, and while before you could approach on land to clear the AA so the Air could move in to support the land, now you just can't. Spread out Heavy MBT just control the land, while AA controls the sky.

Trying ATGMs? NATO's best range ATGMs are taken out by the heavy tanks, even at price equivalence, and at short /medium range, any atgm can in numbers can be efficient, but they suffer from so many disadvantages that while they win any initial engagements, they lose on the long run, or against anything that isn't a MBT, because of lack of ammunition.

Medium tanks? You just take so many casualties while approaching, and if you manage to get into range, due to stabilisers they can move back, and due to armour they can soak some shots. Heavies also move faster.

Heavy tanks? I'm not too good at micro, I lose engagements.

Strategical positioning? You can't take down the flanks of good players, period.

Artillery? They will move before taking damage, will only occasionally be stunned because you pay attention to your heavies, and overall inefficient.

Infantry? Yeah, like anyone goes into woods anymore (well, some still do, but they are dumb).

I guess recon might be useful against them, but I haven't tried.

And my suply turks got capturd whenn i tell dem atak 'eavy tenks, i dun geddit...

Same for the command vehicles! For the price, I should outright kill a T-80! Doh!

I know the game doesn't solely revolve around heavy tanks, and it's map dependant but... Wait... It does, and cover heavy maps are the only interesting ones now, in my humble whiner opinion.

[/rant]


The problem is because of the buff to the heavy tanks, all you need is the right mix of tanks and AA and a good micro, and you can pretty much discard everything else, or their role is severely diminished. Add to that the current bug to ATGMs, and they're no longer a real counter to heavy long-ranged MBTs.

If you try to get some helicopters as a counter to tanks, they're pretty much dead before they can do something really useful, especially when deploying them as NATO against PACT...

Artillery can have a certain role, but it's mainly used now to counter the most stupid players that make blobs or to secure a map advantage by causing some casualties with limited risks, thereby forcing the opponent to go on the offensive and probably lose more points in the process.

The game lost in diversity, and I'd be tempted to say that it's become a matter of who gets the more income can start camping and pound with the artillery...

Favoring a bit more the offensive could probably change that, and there are only a few options :

1) Give a better survivability to helicopters, especially on the NATO side.
2) Make the ground-based non-tank ATGMs more useful (more range, more accuracy, less chances to be stunned, etc.) ; they're still vulnerable to artillery so they won't favor defending a lot more, but at least, they can support the offensive now.
3) Globally enhance the mobility of troops by rescaling the fuel consumption.
4) Make moving targets slightly harder to hit.

_________________
THANK YOU TROTSKYGRAD FOR THIS EPIC SEAL OF APPROVAL !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 05:12 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer

Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 15:12
Posts: 616
EricTerminator wrote:
1) Give a better survivability to helicopters, especially on the NATO side.
2) Make the ground-based non-tank ATGMs more useful (more range, more accuracy, less chances to be stunned, etc.) ; they're still vulnerable to artillery so they won't favor defending a lot more, but at least, they can support the offensive now.
3) Globally enhance the mobility of troops by rescaling the fuel consumption.
4) Make moving targets slightly harder to hit.


1. I agree that NATO helis should match Pact heli armour. I can't see any reason for Pact being more armoured.
2. Slight accuracy boost and slight ammo boost would do it I think.
3. I don't think that this needs changing.
4. This is a terrible idea. It would make spam attacks even more powerful.

I also think that all the heavy tanks should have a 10kph speed nerf. This would make the mediums a little more useful against them, and also give ATGM's a little more time to aim and fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 06:56 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 22:34
Posts: 2023
that's interesting that you say that...

I can try to explain... in my clan we have a LOT of different strategies... all my clanmate have their own style, their own unit they prefer etc...

And at the end strengely all the good player are all good...; the win ratio are really well balanced....

So no i don't see lack of imagination... only maybe just something like that on high ELO but that's normal. First cause it's high ELO (i think REALLY high) and secondly cause the game need some time to find all the way to workaround maps and units...WAIT guys. THe new strategies are coming... just they neeed time for people to learn and discover it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 07:42 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Wed 11 Apr 2012 02:47
Posts: 41
@op: I know how you feel. I've also started playing less for the same problem. I've thought of coming back and dealing with the metagame, but I get bored, because I'm forced to use a certain selection. I still play W:EE sometimes against the AI though.

When I first got the game before the patches came out, I liked it a lot, it's the best game I've played set in the Cold War. My opponents would use a lot of different units, I never even knew about half of the ones I was facing, until later, when I was getting good at the game.

As the game got a few more patches, I noticed people started using strange units, like MBT-70s, which surprised me at the start. Eventually after the infantry reforms, a lot of players I faced decided to start playing to win, with one strategy that I had NO response to.. AA+AT combos.. it was very annoying, eventually this strategy got old and not a lot of people did it anymore.

Pact got more weaker as the updates came along, so I decided not to play the game until another patch comes out. When another patch came out, the game became a bit better, but the community changed, lol. Sometimes when I join a game, I see a bunch of guys in a clan, looking for an easy win. This didn't make sense to me. It was until later on I realized the whole variety part of the game was gone, everyone I've been facing deployed the best unit in their arsenal for something they're meant to use later on, "realistically speaking", and they'd win because of their superior micro.

This can mean I'm bad at the game, but I did okay at the start.. maybe it was due to the lesser level of micro needed?

The micro was also good way back then, I remember going AFK for a few minutes to do other stuff, like eat cereal, then I'd come back and see how everything went.

I'm not complaining about heavy tank + anti air combos, but people seem to buy a heavy tank at the start just to ruin the first wave of the opponent and go in for an easy kill.

I tried a few ranks games, but I'm not a competitive player, so I lost a lot.

Right now I decided to try using my old deck on the game, but I've been losing pretty badly. I guess I'll wait for a new patch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 08:08 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 17:08
Posts: 247
@OP Kinda hard to discuss this without discussing units mate.

Yes it kinda is, at least for me and btw i ususally play 3v3 or 4v4, since the latest changes (specificially to the heavy tanks) i have played less and less because its basically becoming the same thing over and over, this isnt true for every game out there and to claim that is a little silly, some games out there are not like this and can have different things happen (this game once was like that). It has become "if i dont use this i wont win" which is fairly sad, nobody is going for the qwerky units anymore its "we all know this unit is OP so its used" or "we all know this unit works so it is used" not "huh, nobody uses this much, it looks fun why not try it".

When the game first came along i got it as a gift from a friend, loved playing it, patches made it better till the aforementioned, then it collapsed for me. I used to roll around with my heaviest tank i used(armor wise) being chief 10s, i used M8s, i used AML lynxs, Rardens, i used all the little fast guys with no armor and loved them(no i didnt use the VTS1 and i didnt "lololol spam lololol" at the enemy i used hit and run and "look at me im a lonely little tank come kill me, BOOM AMBUSH!" tactics) then sadly, the heavy tank boost came along, all my unique playstyles went out the window and now whenever i play i feel i MUST use heavy tanks or i risk letting my team mates down because instead of having to fight people who used a wide range of everything, it is now "heavy tank covered in AA derp rush" over and over and over again for me which i jus dont find enjoyable. I mean cmon, 1500 points a player or 500, they wil lstill get 1 AA unit at least and the rest heavy tanks/mainly heavies and if you dont then you dont have anything that can viably counter it(or if you do counter it with cheap runners like the 90s M8s etc, you wont have any more to fight with due to a lack of numbers of them)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 08:23 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 22:17
Posts: 5084
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
To empire_today: I think you quite nailed how I feel: Players that started with the game, weren't too good or too bad, or at least not competitive players, can't really find any more fun in the game.

I really recommended the game to friends and members of a forum I'm in. Maybe players, maybe the patches, maybe me, but I wouldn't really recommend it as much as I did at the time. I feel it to be a good game, but not the kind of messiah I felt it was before.

It's so... Predictable. It's so different to play.

With tanks I used to have for NATO a challenger, several chieftains, amx 30s on the sides, leo 1s for added numbers, and lots of infantry to control woods, a group of mortars behind or one artillery unit, two command vehicles, two rolands and a guepard A1 (because while Rolands deal a lot of damage, they can be overrun when they reload), and a few special forces in helicopters. Later on, I would spawn helicopters, to which my opponent would react by buying more anti-air, artillery strikes pounded positions before an attack.

The game had a unique pace. Some people complained that turtling was promoted, while going in the defensive only meant you would eventually be destroyed. Others complained that games took too long, to which I really wanted to say "sorry buddy, this might not be the game for you". It's like complaining that risk is a turn by turn game. Now these guys have their game, I lost mine.

For the same pace, there are better games. I don't think this one was built for that, at all, but it became like that.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors
Image
My Youtube Channel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 2 May 2012 08:41 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 08:23
Posts: 74
the thing is - after 1st open beta patch the game was good. Other patches just make balancing too rough. instead of increasing something at 5% the buffs and debuffs are generally abt 20-30% . imo its not a good way of balancing things.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group