Should 1.7 adjust AWM?

[Nerdinheimer]

It has been confirmed by Buggo that it is "unlikely that 1.7 will contain balance changes" and is primarily a DX10 patch.

Generally it has been considered that 1.6 was an excellent patch for balance and Relic has resolved many of the community's concerns. And in fact, this otherwise good balance has highlighted to many people the major issues in terms of one particular ability. AWM continues to be a real problem, particularly in the larger team games. At both GR.com and Relic forums there have been many many threads about this problem just since the release of 1.6.

There has been little argument from seasoned players that (at least in larger games) AWM is a major concern, if not outrightly broken. Not only is it generally considered imbalanced in terms of cost/skill to use/risk vs benefit, but most importantly that it completely ruins the spirit and enjoyment of the game. We are talking about an ability that doesn't reward micro, that encourages mindless spamming and tacticless attacking of tanks. It is hard these days to find a 3v3/4v4 where this is not a major part of the game. In some ways, for me at least, this isn't even a balance issue so much as simply a 'fun' issue. With AWM the way it is, many larger games are simply not fun.

So, it is a problem. And enough of a problem, I think, that Relic ought to be really concerned at the way it is negatively effecting the game and the community.

So anyway - it is clear that relic do not have the resources to make a full doctrine balance patch (which I suspect most people agree is needed), I think it would be of great benefit to the community if they could simply take a look at AWM. Although Relic have stated it is unlikely that the patch will have balance changes, I am hopeful that Relic might be willing make a small adjustments on more serious issues, if they were brought to Relic's attention now. As mentioned, I think this issue is actually seriously damaging the game, which is why I'm actually going to the effort of making this poll.

Now, it is important that the Allied players do not feel hard-done by with this change. Untrue or not, there is a perception that the forums are 'pro-axis', and so I think an outright nerf (whether it is needed or not) would cause some resentment , if people think Relic is simply bowing down to a vocal minority of pro-Axis players.


So if I may make (or at least borrow) a suggestion from battle-test, that AWM be changed to:
Allied War Machine price reduced to 200 Mun (from 250), lasts 20s (from 45), cooldown increased to 3m (from 1)



This way it is cheaper, but less spammable, and the shortened time means it requires skill and timing to use.

The idea is to have a solution where even if AWM can retain a similar level of power, it would be nice to have the AWM user be forced to have some micro/skill to get full benefit from it.

However if anyone else has a better suggestion, then here is a good place to make it.

Finally, as part of your post, it would be good if you could say if you are primarily an Axis player, Allied player or both (please be honest), and whether you play primarily smaller or larger games (i.e. 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4) or an even mix.


Thanks,
Nerdinheimer.

[CorradO]

i think so
i say reduce its active time and it will be fine
perhaps 20 seconds or less

[Pie-Eater]

the biggest pain with awm i find is when they just kamakazie into your base, taking out a building or 2 at a time, i think awm should be disabled when your tanks are inside the enemy build area, that would solve that problem pretty good (i think)

[drChengele]

My suggestion remains as it was:

I suggest that the Allied War Machine, for its duration, replaces any destroyed tank with a brand new one at the Allied HQ, as before, BUT at the cost of 1/4 of Tank's manpower. No further ammunition or fuel cost is deducted. If the player has insufficient manpower, the destroyed tank is NOT respawned, not at that time, not ever.

Why I think this would fix AWM:

-AWM still is a kick-ass ability because it allows Allies to replace their destroyed tanks at bargain costs. A brand new Sherman for just 102 manpower?
-it actually punishes the Allied player for losing tanks, albeit mildly, which would probably remove the friendly fire exploit.
-it scales nicely with the cost of the tanks. More expensive tanks destroyed = greater loss of manpower. 1/4 of a Persh's cost is still 233 manpower, which is almost a full riflesquad. If you lose 4-5 tanks in a suicide attack, you stand to lose anywhere between 500 and 800 manpower. That's a lot of MP that would otherwise be spent on snipers/rifles/mortars etc.
-it would force Allied players to plan the usage of AWM ahead by conserving manpower and ammo before the offensive, instead of making it a situational ability where they can crank it up when ever a Pershing is about to die. It would also make the ability useful almose exclusively for offensive purposes (due to forethought required) which I think fits well with AWM's purpose.\
-it would allow the Axis player to catch Allied player off guard if he just spent his manpower on a new unit.
-it would make it less of an "I win" button in 2v2s+, especially on ammo-heavy maps such as Lyon(4)
-it would force the Allied bastards to think before they press the AWM button - instead of being a panic button, it would now be an ability that has its pros and cons, its valid uses and invalid uses.
-Axis players would still endeavor to destroy Allied tanks because it would hurt Allies in however small way.
-it would make AWM on par, or better yet, a perfect match, with Blitzkrieg Assault ability in terms of usefulness and usability. Axis rely on impetus, Allies on cheap (not free) replacements.

[chuckles22]

I think it should be more like manpower blitz... like they should loose something for a certain amount of time...

[Nerdinheimer]

Out of curiosity, of the people who think that AWM is fine, are you talking about 1v1 only, or across the board including 3v3/4v4 and/or ammo heavy maps?

[whitefield]

I'd like it to be replaced completely, seeing as its absurd and ruins the game for me. but seeing as thats not gonna happen make it like MP blitz, they get a severly cut fuel income for the next 3 minutes.

[Sturmtruppen]

where is "no, because relic already said 1.7 is DX10 patch" option?

[Nerdinheimer]

The phrase used was "unlikely". I see no reason why Relic might not make a small adjustment if the communitie's feeling on this was brought to Relic's attention.

(Original Post now edited to make that more clear)

Although if someone from Relic wants to comment that there will absolutely, definitely not be any balance changes, no matter what, then that's something different...

[LTSearchEngine]

I suggest making AWM cost 1/4 manpower (from drC) of the tank PLUS deducting the full "enemy" experience value of the tank from the allied player. This would go so far as to revoke commander abilities until re-earned.

Spend your tanks unwisely, and you don't get to play with the big toys anymore.

[Higure]

i have literally stopped playing 4v4s due to awm.

3v3s are fine for me just because most 3v3 maps have no high gas point (the exception being seine river docks) so its general hard for allies to spam armor.

awm seems fine for 1v1, but maybe i just havent seen it abused in 1v1 yet.

drC's idea sounds interesting.

[Vintage]

Everyone view the poll results to see the names of the people who voted for AWM is fine and doesn't need to be changed. Then proceed to point and laugh.

[roflmao]

This is the poll's comedy option right? :

AWM is fine as it is and does not need to be changed.

[Nerdinheimer]

Everyone view the poll results to see the names of the people who voted for AWM is fine and doesn't need to be changed. Then proceed to point and laugh.

Now now, people are entitled to their opinions. TBH, I think if they're talking about 1v1s, for example, it's quite understandable.

Also, because it's a public poll - because I think it's important people at least have the courage to put their name to their opinion - I wouldn't want people to not vote because they feel they're gonna get hassled.

[Carl]

I voted:

Yes, it is a big problem at must be addressed ASAP, but I have a better suggestion, (IMHO)...

Make it last 1 minute and take 2 to recharge, but instead of replacing Tanks for free it allows you to instantly produce ALL your units, (even infantry), for the duration of the ability. It also totally removes the fuel costs from everything. That means you still need a fair chunk of manpower to take advantage of it, but if you have the resources it will really help out. It should basically cut down on the suicide rushes and turn it into a useful fast reaction ability for supporting ongoing attacks OR defences.

[Searaven]

Yes, Relic/THQ, please do something about this. I think DrChengele's suggestion is superior, but at this point I would settle for anything, it really needs a change of some sort. I have stopped playing 3v3 and 4v4 altogether because of it.

[SScRiBLe]

Everytime i press the AWM button its like cheating..in addition: i also always destroy my damaged tanks with friendly fire before AWM is turning off. i feel really bad

[Waterbizkit]

It needs fixing, but for the life if me I can't decide what the best route to take on it is.

BT's fix seems simplest since it alters ones ability to spam the AWM, but then the Dr.'s is an interesting suggestion since it certainly removes the "something for (nearly) nothing situation".

Even making it "less spamable" means the Allies are paying out a fairly paltry amount of munitions for a potentially huge return, depending on the amount of their own tanks they can trash while the ability is active. It makes it difficult to get that bigger pay-off, but far from impossible.

Forcing them to pay for their lost tanks on the other hand, albeit at a greatly reduced cost, at least adds an amount of cost to the ability worth considering as it adds up quite quickly.

Time will tell what's done with it though.

~Bizkit

[whoopy15]

change the time they are active, and when they respawn after being killed, 1/4 of the tan costs shoudl be payed

[C4sper]

I use AWM often as an allie as I find it is the only way to counter the Blitz doctrine used to spam Tigers in 3v3 and 4v4. ATs are not very effective at hunting down Tigers or even as protection from Tigers since they are easily killed or bypassed (tigers move along other avenues). AWM is the only thing that is really effective in hunting down and defeating Tigers. Usually by the time I can make good use of AWM the allies are not losing the game and AWM allows the timely defeat of skilled Axis players who could do no more than prolong their defeat. I do agree that AWM could be changed to require more skillful use but that any large change of AWM requires other changes to be made for balance.

[Busby]

I voted I have a better sugestion(s)

No more resurrection, retains the feeling of American factory power, and doesn't reward players for losing tanks.

[FloppieTheBanjo]

I like the BT change, but I've seen some other ideas that might work as well.

• Bring back the Calliope barrage cost. This would keep armor from floating in munitions the way they currently do. This would probably only be a partial fix.
• Have the tanks replaced at the end of the cooldown rather than immediately. So if you punch AWM and lose ten tanks with AWM on, you've got to wait at least a minute to recover them. This means that when AWM switches off and armor starts retreating, they don't get a half-dozen fresh tanks to come save the withdrawing forces.
• Change the nature of AWM. This is something I just saw the other day, where someone suggested that rather than replacing killed tanks, AWM takes away the fuel cost and cuts build times to almost nothing. Tanks would still cost manpower, but the ability to pop them out quickly without fuel is still very substantial.
• Cap the number of tanks that AWM can replace in one use, or the resource value of those tanks (so only 2,000 MP worth of tanks can be replaced, or something like that).
• Remove AWM from Pershings and Calliopes (I don't particularly like this one, but saw it get some positive responses so I list it here).

[Rankles]

I personally don't have a problem with it, but what do you think of the idea that instead of replacing the tank it replaces the manpower and fuel into your stockpile and gets a say, two to five minute recharge where your manpower income is nerfed like with teh manpower blitz.

[Ozlander]

Well, personally, I think AMW is a flawed concept to begin with. Rewarding someone for losing units is just rediculous, but that's just my opinion ...

Something needs to be done. You can simply reduce the duration and increase the cooldown to curb spamming, but I think it needs a total revamp.

New tanks should arrive with 1/4 health. OR, new tanks should cost 1/4 of their original manpower cost to respawn. OR, new tanks should appear in the Tank Depot build queue, and have to grind through some kind of a build time. OR, it should only work in Allied territory.

Basically, the new units should NOT arrive brand spanking new, immediately and cost free. They should either cost something, take time to arrive or show up damaged (I don't care for the damage thing all that much, doesn't make sense). It should not be a means to justify a suicide charge. Allies should never WANT their tanks to be destroyed, and they certainly shouldn't be destroying their own units for benefit.

[DribbleSack]

AWM has always been a bit suspect but since patch 1.5 change (where ammo was no longer needed for Callope barrages) AWM can be seriously abused. This is compounded by increased use of M10 spam. The problem is amplified on high resource maps such as Lyon (4).

Either than ammo cost should be re-introduced for Calliope barrages, or M26s should not be inlcuded in the ability.

[Stokes52]

I definetely agree that AWM needs to be changed and it needs to be changed *very* soon! It was a cool idea at first, but now it is just horrible.


Nothing worse then having a good Armor fight between your Tiger and Panzers vs their Shermans and Pershings, when all the sudden they hit AWM and you have to choose between choosing other targets (all the while having your tanks still taking damage or being killed), or to continue firing on the AWM tanks, and then having to fight them ALL OVER AGAIN with your now DAMAGED tanks.


Look at this ability, it makes allied tanks basically invincible for 45 (!!!) seconds, it rewards reckless use of tanks, it nullifys any dangerous encounter with axis forces, meaning it doesn't have any counter, besides the Axis player choosing not to engage at all.


What does Allied War Machine do? It is a relatively cheap ability, since Armor Company isn't very ammo heavy, that makes them win any armor engagements, guarenteed, AND it has absolutely NO drawbacks whatsoever to activating! Think about using Manpower Blitz or calling in a Pershing, or any other heavy ability... They are either expensive or they hurt the player for a while after it is used. AWM is neither!



This is a solution I remeber someone talking about, and here is my take on it

SOLUTION: Instead of instantly giving a new tank, have the resources used to create the tank be instantly returned to their stockpile, meaning they must REBUILD the tank. This IMO is more akin to the idea of the allies having excellent production abilities because they actually have to PRODUCE the tank again. This way, allied players won't get the short end of the deal because now they still get free tanks, just not instantly. This way Axis players have a way of countering it because they have time to repair their tanks etc if they win the first engagement. AWM is a "higher" ability, and it should be powerful, so this is a perfect medium between the two sides of the story. Allies want to be able to rush the heavier Axis tanks without worrying about a total defeat if they lose, and the Axis just want to be able to have tank fights without being penalized for "winning the engagement". This way both sides win because allies still get free tanks and Axis dont have as much of a penalty to continue fighting when AWM is active. Also, increasing the time to around 3 mins (same as MP blitz), would probably make a little less spamable

[Spidermonkey]

my vote is for a change for sure. BUT i will not say that it needs to be done away with altogather. i play Axis only and have not had a big prob with awm but i not a top tier player either. what i have thought and a friend of mine came up with this who plays alli only is this.
Drop the cost to 75-100 munitions and place an icon on every tanks menu for awm. that way it cost you 75 to 100 munitions to replace a tank but you choose what tank you are replacing by hitting the icon in that tanks menu. it would still be a viable ability and a very powerful one at that although it would not be over powered as you are replacing only the tanks you have munitions too with the ability . it would still alow for the allies to bring out at least one fresh tank of their choice for next to nothing and would not take away from their ability to build tanks with manpower and fuel. cool down could be new tanks will have a 20 to 30 sec delay from the time they enter the field of battle before they may use AWM and the tank or tanks that where replaced by awm can not be replaced by the ability agian. thus ending the

[dupsky]

wow, tons of great ideas to choose from.....relic just pick one, and fix this almost instantaneous "game over" tactic.

[DribbleSack]

Seems from this vote at least that around 9 out 10 players feel a change is necessary. Let's hope Relic listens.

[Tiger_AceAJB]

em, plz dont laugh about how weeee... I mean how some decided AWM is fine. Hehheh

[RAF Skull]

I think that AWM is just find the way it is! When I play axis there is nothing more enjoyable than when an opponent activates AWM and I start having my guns begin targeting the ground. They try their best to get my tanks and ATs to shoot at them. I just wait till time runs out, then take them out!! Then it's 200 ammo wasted and GG!!

[Vintage]

RAF Skull you have fun while your tanks shoot the ground and harm nothing while their tanks shoot all of your tanks and destroy them for 45 seconds. Just point and laugh people...

[Nerdinheimer]

I think that AWM is just find the way it is! When I play axis there is nothing more enjoyable than when an opponent activates AWM and I start having my guns begin targeting the ground. They try their best to get my tanks and ATs to shoot at them. I just wait till time runs out, then take them out!! Then it's 200 ammo wasted and GG!!

Thankyou for the feedback, and yes that is one option for dealing with AWM.

Although, I must admit that I myself feel that 45 seconds of having one's tanks attacked without returning any fire can be quite an issue! (and people complain that the 105 second cooldown on the calliope seems like an eternity! )

A better argument is actually to fire on the undamaged tanks, switching from damaged tanks until the ability wears off. However, the problem remains that you're taking 45 seconds of full power shots, flanking units, etc. And if you don't have any AV left after 45 seconds it doesn't really matter if the tanks are half damaged or not. And after all this, damaged tanks can be retreated and repaired very easily, not to mention friendly fire sacrifices.

Again however, this depends on the type of game being played. In a 1v1, when one may be facing say - a sherman and a croc, then it's not such a a big deal as in the bigger multiplayer matches when it's often not that difficult for someone to wind up with a force of 8 m10s and a croc or two which they just continuously spam, AWM and repeat. 45 seconds of that is something different again.

But anyways, all this has been discussed pretty thoroughly in the threads I linked to in the original post (and I encourage people to check them out).


Cheers

[BlackLabel]

Just reduce it to 25-30 seconds.

[Trizzdog]

I personally found the concept of "hey, the tanks under your command just blew up! LOL let's give you more for about the cost of a rocket barrage!" to be annoying. It's a pretty broken concept as people have already stated.

So I personally would like to see it changed into something else. Not too sure what, but something along the lines of suggested "make it have some sort of cost/penalty" fixes would do fine.

Now although this fix would be great, the 1.7 is the directx 10 patch. If adding the awm change would be a hassle, then they shouldn't bother and throw it into the next patch.

[Nerdinheimer]

Now although this fix would be great, the 1.7 is the directx 10 patch. If adding the awm change would be a hassle, then they shouldn't bother and throw it into the next patch.

Yes I agree. It's up to them to decide if it's worth it or not. I just wanted to alert them to the current feeling about this, and whether they really want to wait another few months to fix it. I mean, if someone there can brainwave up a solution (or take up a suggestion) that most people would be happy with then I think it would be well worth it in terms of community relations.

You know - I mean no one can say it wasn't brought up a great many times here , so either they're just being foolishly bull-headed about it or they just don't realise how most people actually feel about the issue. I mean, even they're looking for a better solution for 1.8 then a quick fix would be a hell lot better than nothing while we wait however many months being forced to play shitty multiplayer games.

PS for anyone interested, the latest relicforums debate on AWM is here
And the most comprehensive recent debate on GR forums, with comments from the top players, is here (I refrained from commenting specifically on this thread earlier due to I didn't want to skew the results too much from people perhaps automatically go along with 'what the top players are saying' rather than their own experiences. However, with 186 votes now cast, I doubt it's going to make much difference to the results at this point anyways. It's good read tho.)

[man4857]

I hope you Axis players understand that AWM is a LAST resort type feature to save tanks. Otherwise I use Field Repairs WAY more than AWM and when that time comes I need AWM, I don't have enough munitions for usually more than once or twice.

Sure they can rush your base with tons of M10's, Axis use your manpower blitz and get those storm's and shrek them? While the Allied player is spamming the hell outta your base with M10's get AT's, Storms, and Tigers if possible, go get your pioneers to decap the damned munitions points, its easy as that isnt it?

[Nerdinheimer]

Hello Man4857, thanks for your comments.

A couple of points, however:

Firstly, there are many people who are not Axis players who consider AWM to be a problem. In fact, as the stats stand approx 9 out of 10 people. Please see the links I have posted for details for the top allied players feeling about AWM.

Secondly, what you suggesting is not only an unlikely scenario and incredibly bad strategy for the allies - a pure m10 rush (more likely to contain at least a croc or other AI unit in support), but the axis counter you've given is substantially more expensive than AWM, requires substantial micro and planning, all in order to counter an ability that requires no skill whatsoever, no micro whatsoever, no risk whatsoever, and even in the best possible scenerio for the axis, will still inflict substantial damage for precisely no loss to the allies.

PS I can see this developing into a lengthier discussion, so if we want to get into details, can I request that we put it into the thread I linked to above rather than clog this up with details?

Cheers.

[CorradO]

bump

only 14% of people are saying it's fine how it is sooo.....
there's obviously a problem with it.

PAY ATTENTION RELIC!!!

[A7K]

It needs the be fixed, but i have a better suggestion.

• Make AWM only work in your own territory
• have it return the full resource cost of the lost unit into your stockpile
• add 1/3 more recharge time to the ability, and slighly up the munitions cost

[Nerdinheimer]

Just to qualify a point: discussing this with some people in other threads, I found some people that have not problem with AWM, don't seem to realise that we're talking about mainly 3v3 and 4v4 with the AWM issue. It tends to not be so much of a problem in 1v1 due to the confined nature of the maps, limits on ammo production and ability to cut off supplies, comparative difficulty of people to 'tech up', and general length of game.

I think people who play 1v1 don't seem to encounter the problem so severely.

However, larger multiplayer games cannot be ignored, and the aim here is to alert Relic to the issue people are having with it in those kinds of games, with the goal of producing a fix that enkeeps with the current power of the ability in 1v1 (ie not spammed tanks) but stops the brokenness it reaches in larger multiplayer games (ie spammed tanks)- hence the shorter duration, matched with a price drop along with increased timer to stop spamming.

So anyway, just qualifying that, because as I've mentioned I've discussed it with people who don't see the problem and often end up finding they don't actually play larger multiplayer games.

Cheers.

[Rimsey]

C4sper said:

I use AWM often as an allie as I find it is the only way to counter the Blitz doctrine used to spam Tigers in 3v3 and 4v4. ATs are not very effective at hunting down Tigers or even as protection from Tigers since they are easily killed or bypassed (tigers move along other avenues). AWM is the only thing that is really effective in hunting down and defeating Tigers.

In your case it seems you are using AWM to overcome your poor playing/stategic skills.

Allies need to harass axis, cut-off their supplies and generally use their far superior diversity to beat the Axis. NOT go into direct head on battles with them. The mistake you are making is to allow the Axis to build up such forces in the first place. If playing 3v3 or 4v4 use at least 1 player using airbourne and keep dropping behind lines and capturing key points (cut off their supply). Then when making attacks try and out-flank them.

Also AT's absulutely own all tanks.... if they don't then you are using them incorrectly.

I voted to change AWM, I don't care how ... it just needs lowering in its potency. I think the fact that you can start AWM ... lose 6 tanks and by the time they've reached the battle you already have AWM available again is the bit that is wrong. An almost completely free supply of tanks is just too much.

I play both Axis and Allies, in fact I always make a point of playing one then the other. I don't prefer either side... however winning on large games is a lot easier (if all go armour and just spam tanks and AWM) .... you can't really lose.

A good point Nerdinheimer makes is that in 1v1 and even 2v2 games the effect is drastically reduced. The problem really hits home on the 3v3 / 4v4 games.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

duration reduction, cooldown increase is all awm needs. don't get all exotic.

I would say AWM is actually at its best in 2v2s.

In 3v3s or 4v4s, forces will often be mixed, so there's usually something non-AWM for axis to shoot at.

2v2s offer the big munitions maps like Lyon and Vire, and you're much more likely to be facing only one players forces at a time.

[natrapsmai]

AWM isn't broken, it just needs to be tweaked a bit. Increase cooldown time and decrease the active time, and make sure they can't go over population limits.

[Riithi]

I personally found the concept of "hey, the tanks under your command just blew up! LOL let's give you more for about the cost of a rocket barrage!" to be annoying. It's a pretty broken concept as people have already stated.

My thoughts exactly.
No matter if it's over- or underpowered, it's core concept is broken.
No other game respawns your lost units with the press of a buton. There is a reason for that.. it's stupid.

[Kinderparty]

Increasing cooldown time and reducing active time is what's immediately needed.

In the long term though, I think making the calliope's barrage cost mun again would help balance it as well. It's really annoying to sit by waiting for a barrage to end, move in to attack a position/base, have them rush their calliope right into your Tiger with AWM activated, get a fresh one, and barrage again. It's silly.

[Neckbreaker]

Duration/cool-down is all that needs to be fixed. There are many viable possiblities here, but why not keep it simple?

BTW TDS, what happened to the "soft-defense" theory? I think thats the benchmark for something being imbalanced, if TDS says it is then there is pretty much no one left who actually plays the game much left to say it isn't.

[FriendlyFire]

Something I've had in mind for a while which would make AWM an offensive only ability: Give it a "charge up" time, so when you activate it you have to wait say 30 seconds before it actually kicks in. If you didn't plan ahead correctly your tanks will be smoked by then. Combine this with one of the other excellent suggestions found around here and I think AWM could be fixed for good.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I've always said AWM could use a duration reduction. That won't change the proper tactics to use against it, however.

[09smithJ]

My idea is to change what it does and the general cost of it is.

Maybe only a manpower cost with offmap Sherman/M10 Support Convoy come into play from the road?