If you want to go that way, sure, if you ignore existence of OKW, usf and ukf, CoH2 is perfectly balanced too.
Not really. OST vs Soviets isn't completely balanced. It's balanced well enough (I think maybe wrong).
Posts: 1563
If you want to go that way, sure, if you ignore existence of OKW, usf and ukf, CoH2 is perfectly balanced too.
Posts: 104
Posts: 810
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Moving DPS 20/35
Penals
10.5/6.3
PF
11.6/7.6
110%/120% more for 80 munition does not seem a good investment.
Buddy the G43's are way superior on the move m8. Here are the curves to show you.
..
And Im not sure about 1v1 but from what I hear from many 1v1 streamers/players, they dont like the G43 upgrade on grens either.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Yet Special modifiers are what made coh1's balance (atleast wehr vs ami) work.
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
having a mix of G43 and kars is not healthy i think
Posts: 1563
There is nothing to support that claim.
On the other hand it made the game a complete mess where certain units devastated certain units and where useless vs other forcing the player to learn a whole lot of match ups.
The COH2 system is far superior due to simplicity. (It would be even better if there where less deviation from "weapons profiles" and "relative positioning" and if units where balanced for all vet levels).
Posts: 3260
COH2's system is simpler. But having to learn different matchups is not a bad thing but a good thing. It puts a higher skill ceiling on gameplay.
Here's a problem with COH2's system. You can't make TD be strong vs heavies without beeing oppressing mediums in coh2 but you could in coh1.
Posts: 1563
Hardly. It means you have to look up all these little modifiers on the internet. That's bad design, not good.
The ideal is complex interactions from simple rules, not memorising a long list of exceptions.
People may mock Vipper for their unrealistic expections of the Balance Team's resources, but on this they're completely right: mechanical consistency is a very good thing.
You can pretty easily, in several different ways.
They haven't because making a unit that only counter doctrinal heavy tanks is dumb.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Yes, game experience is not a thing at all. How could I have forgotten about the fact people don't learn anything from playing. That mechanics and matchups don't become second nature at what point at all.
...
..But having to learn different matchups is not a bad thing but a good thing. It puts a higher skill ceiling on gameplay.
...
Posts: 1563
Simply read the patch notes about weapons profiles and relative positioning.
The idea simple and allows player to know how to best use their units without having to test and memorize every single engagement. And keep in my that possible combination of much up and ranges are ridiculous high.
Posts: 3260
Yes, game experience is not a thing at all. How could I have forgotten about the fact people don't learn anything from playing. That mechanics and matchups don't become second nature at what point at all.
No you can't. If i'm wrong please enlighten my ignorant self. I beg of you please provide example cus i'm slow.
Posts: 1563
No, they don't. All stats are hidden from the player ingame, leaving them reliant on visual language, vague tooltips and experience to assess the capabilities of units.
And humans are terrible at assessing probability that way. It's why you get so many players ardently convinced the faction they play most is underpowered.
The easiest way? Halve the fire rate of all tank destroyers and quadruple their penetration. Quadruple the frontal armour on all heavy tanks and halve their health.
Tank destroyers remain equally effective against heavies, but are vastly less effective against mediums because of their halved DPS. Mediums can't penetrate heavies from the front, but are twice as effective attacking from the rear.
Congratulations, you just turned tank destroyers into a silver bullet for doctrinal units.
There's also Vipper's method, where you whack the target size on heavies up really high so anything can hit them. You then give Tank Destroyers switchable rounds: high penetration, low accuracy rounds for heavies, and mid-penetration, high accuracy rounds for mediums. Performance against the two classes of vehicle are now separated.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Right coh1 players are all gods who know all the games stats top to bottom without fail. Like even I can tell you what p4's hp was as well as brenguns dps vs KCH at rage 14.
Posts: 3260
Right coh1 players are all gods who know all the games stats top to bottom without fail. Like even I can tell you what p4's hp was as well as brenguns dps vs KCH at rage 14.
Good job now you've made you heavy tanks useless as will get dominated by mediums who are more agile and
are way more cost effective. + you'v also now made it possible that mines kill your tanks incredibly fast now.
And that's a simpler solution than coh1????? Your contradicting your self.
Posts: 1563
No, I'm saying people don't memorise huge lists of stats. Then they get confused when units don't perform the way they expect them to and post threads on the forums.
Maybe at your level. Throughout most of the ladder people support their tanks against flanks and don't roll over several mines at once.
CoH 1 used deflection damage, which is something you could add to CoH 2 fairly easily. Bazookas already use it.
The countless individual exceptions Vipper is talking about are present in both CoH 1 and 2. CoH 1 used a lot with infantry.
Posts: 1563
No actually there was a very good site that explained all different armor type and their interaction with different weapons. With out it one would be at complete loss, and experience would be of litttle help to him...
Posts: 5279
Understandable concern. Thats why it would need to be tested first.
The thing is, the way you described the G43 upgrade above makes it seem fantastic even without a better cover modifier. But I have tested G43 gren spam with HMG42 so many times now in 3v3 and (with a smurf account) in 2v2, both top 50 and I came to the conclusion that it either doesnt work or is significantly worse than lmg42... unless the enemies were potato.
And Im not sure about 1v1 but from what I hear from many 1v1 streamers/players, they dont like the G43 upgrade on grens either.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1563
Let me try to explain this once more and then move on because we are drifting off topic.
Each infatry unit in COH 1 had a different number of HP and a different type of armor. The result was mess.
Standardizing HP in COH 2 and having a similar "type of armor" for the majority of infantries is a huge advantage that has improved games mechanics for both the players and for developers.
Creating weapon profiles again was a great improvement helping both the player to get the most out of their units and developers to easier fine tune units.
Actually Relic has claimed that "target tables" that where used in COH 1 where a nightmare to implement/balance and they actually went to extremes to avoid them in COH 2.
I really do not see any advantage in COH 1 infatry system it was unnecessary complicated for both player and developers and that is why COH 2 moved on.
Now can we go back to G43 upgrades?
Once more one has to keep in mind that the upgrade is even named "G43 upgrade" so options for bonuses it can provide is huge.
40 | |||||
14 | |||||
1 |