Login

russian armor

Tiger ace makes no logic sense

13 Nov 2013, 16:48 PM
#21
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

I think this Unit isnt a free Win Tank in 1v1!. Because the Tiger is in my opinion just strong against Tanks. Just give him an engin DMG and kill all pionieers and infantery. Maybe im wrong didnt faced against a decent player who played on TigerAce yet

Tiger Ace is much better the main gun will usually kill 3-4 guys on ever shot plus the coaxial MG is a lot stronger I think.
13 Nov 2013, 17:01 PM
#22
avatar of Z3r07
Donator 11

Posts: 1006


Can anybody look at us with a straight face and still say "COH2 is not pay-to-win"? Thankfully, the new commanders will not be allowed in SNF.


wow, did someone hacked Ami's account ?

Like I always said, I love COH2 and did everything to bring new players but since the beta, when I first saw all the commanders, I was really, really disappointed because I knew it would come up to this.

DLC Skins, Faceplates, ToW missions, ToW commanders fine but NO DLC MULTIPLAYER COMMANDERS.

I really hope they change their mind, again, how much money can those commanders really bring in vs. the frustration and hate it brought to everyone from casual to hard core fans.

I can't stop playing this game, unless it becomes very unbalance, because I do love it but I won't buy any DLC mp Commanders and never will.
13 Nov 2013, 17:04 PM
#23
avatar of tuvok
Benefactor 115

Posts: 786

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2013, 16:46 PMwuff
If they continue with this type of content roll out I don't think I'll stick around.

They were already teasing about Panzer 3 tanks and nuclear drop bombs on yesterday's stream
13 Nov 2013, 17:10 PM
#24
avatar of Captain_Frog

Posts: 248

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2013, 17:04 PMtuvok

They were already teasing about Panzer 3 tanks and nuclear drop bombs on yesterday's stream


Nuclear bombs?

I pray to the lord that this is a typing mistake or troll but knowing Relic you're probably telling the truth.
13 Nov 2013, 17:24 PM
#25
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
Well to be honest, I am really sad to read all this shite, i haven't had time to play yet. But then these guys on the beta servers are a bunch of either:
A - ass kissers
B - incompetent morons

I dont have time nor do i say i will do a better job on the beta server but ffs this is quite pathetic if they dont raise these points.


This. Unfortunately very much this.

Ive seen it happen in countless other internal community tester groups, and it always seems to yield the same absolutely biased result.

Now I dont mean every single individual, but the net result is invariably the same.
I dont k ow why it is exactly, I dont know how, but it always results in this.

The beta test community is an absolute failure. I recommend immediate stop of the program, and return testing and balance to professionals.
13 Nov 2013, 18:49 PM
#26
avatar of Joshua9

Posts: 93



I see nothing wrong with the commanders conceptually. Yes, they are drastic in a way that literally changes the way the faction is played if you choose a specific doctrine.

GOOD. If its balanced what the hell is the problem? It makes potential gameplay more dynamic. I haven't used the new commanders, but I played against the two paid german ones last night, and both games were pretty awesome. The doctrines all have their weaknesses, and if those aren't exploitable enough at the moment, then a balance change will be in order.

I don't understand the ranting about the concepts. The vetting plays out really interesting. You end up fighting a much smaller force of elite troops, if your opponent is spamming the ability, and then maybe one vet 2 p4. Given other vetting changes, your pumped-up squads will actually help to vet your opponent when they die.

The quick vehicle ability that russia gets entirely retools their army. You don't get shocks or guards, and you have a restricted manpower income. So you get a 5 minute t70. counters already exist at that point in the game, and you are going to be sorely lacking in infantry support as the russian commander,for the whole game.

For a while I was concerned about there being less standard teching options, but I don't think the doctrinal system being the place where you are given flexibility is a bad system. In vcoh you had more unit options that you could combine with 3 different doctrines to different effect. In coh2, russia has more units than america did, though less teching options, and you can combine those 14 units in different ways with many more than 3 doctrines, to greatly expand the way a faction can be played.

So what is the reasoning for disallowing them from Sunday Night Fights? That they haven't been properly balanced at this time, or that you have made a decision about what the "legitimate" gameplay parameters are?
13 Nov 2013, 19:03 PM
#27
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2013, 17:04 PMtuvok

They were already teasing about Panzer 3 tanks and nuclear drop bombs on yesterday's stream


What did they say about Panzer IIIs? I am curious. Is it a short or long barreled version?

I heard about the 'nuclear bombs', according to Brad (relic), they belong to the upcoming German 'Air Supremacy' doctrine. It is probably like the V rocket from vcoh, and just a bigger version of the stuka bombing strike/railgun.
13 Nov 2013, 19:25 PM
#28
avatar of Ukkonoa

Posts: 2

13 Nov 2013, 19:27 PM
#29
avatar of Marcus2389
Developer Relic Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 4559 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2013, 18:49 PMJoshua9

I see nothing wrong with the commanders conceptually. Yes, they are drastic in a way that literally changes the way the faction is played if you choose a specific doctrine.

GOOD. If its balanced what the hell is the problem? It makes potential gameplay more dynamic. I haven't used the new commanders, but I played against the two paid german ones last night, and both games were pretty awesome. The doctrines all have their weaknesses, and if those aren't exploitable enough at the moment, then a balance change will be in order.

I don't understand the ranting about the concepts. The vetting plays out really interesting. You end up fighting a much smaller force of elite troops, if your opponent is spamming the ability, and then maybe one vet 2 p4. Given other vetting changes, your pumped-up squads will actually help to vet your opponent when they die.

The quick vehicle ability that russia gets entirely retools their army. You don't get shocks or guards, and you have a restricted manpower income. So you get a 5 minute t70. counters already exist at that point in the game, and you are going to be sorely lacking in infantry support as the russian commander,for the whole game.

For a while I was concerned about there being less standard teching options, but I don't think the doctrinal system being the place where you are given flexibility is a bad system. In vcoh you had more unit options that you could combine with 3 different doctrines to different effect. In coh2, russia has more units than america did, though less teching options, and you can combine those 14 units in different ways with many more than 3 doctrines, to greatly expand the way a faction can be played.

So what is the reasoning for disallowing them from Sunday Night Fights? That they haven't been properly balanced at this time, or that you have made a decision about what the "legitimate" gameplay parameters are?


Do you know why Relic changed doctrine system in COH2 compared to COH1?

1) To let them be less prominent and influence the game less than how they did in COH1 because they thought they were too important for players
2) To make them easier to sell.

(And Quinn Duffy told me this at Eurogamer Expo, face to face in RL)

From Case Blue they started to create doctrines with a much higher impact on gameplay, to a point where now they heavily alterate your whole way to play a faction. It is conceptually wrong for three reasons:

A) The first one is that it goes against 1) with the only purpose of enforcing 2). Basically you increase their desireability by making them impact more on gameplay. Which has a lot of sense in terms of marketing, but which is conceptually wrong because it goes all against the design guidelines Relic followed to make COH1. (and COH2 is its successor, not the successor of League of Legends).

The second reason is that a huge amount of abilities/weapons that are in doctrines are just stuff that should have been part of the game (forward HQ, G34s, tank traps and so on) and that instead is all doctrinal.

The third reason is that it fucks up entirely balance because it heavily alterate units effectiveness and timing of the normal factions, it alterates the already bad resource system, it makes useless having spent so much time balancing units till now.

The game doesn't get more fun if you keep adding variables to a point they are so many that you cannot balance them. The game doesn't get more fun if you drastically change the core gameplay features that led us to play COH at first istance. COH1 is fun for a reason, because it's a very good and balanced game with the few doctrines and elements it has. And the balance is good at all stages, from low level players to top level players, from 1vs1 to 4vs4 (where it's still decent compared to COH2).
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

463 users are online: 463 guests
1 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49186
Welcome our newest member, 12betripp
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM