Login

russian armor

Why does 1 vs 1 feel like a big scam?

29 Aug 2020, 23:17 PM
#1
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

It simply feels so unrewarding to me.

You can hold more points, destroy the enemys first tank, kill lots of his units early on and still get pushed back by something as trivial as a Pak wall.

Now you might say "this is a l2p issue" . But we also saw stuff like this in the ML2 matches of today. Players were literally driven to their base and had a 1:20 KD just to get a massive comeback.

It just feels so unrewarding to me. If my enemy loses half his army early on , his first Tank and maybe even his flakbase (as OKW ) and has like 1% mapcontroll I don't feel that he should be able to survive and even win against me just because he spams antitankguns

Now some people say "yea you always have to watch out in 1 vs 1, one small mistake and you can lose" Well... why do I lose when I do one mistake, but someone having a 1:100 KD still allows him to have a comeback ? Just feels like a big scam to me
30 Aug 2020, 01:25 AM
#2
avatar of Quintinity

Posts: 11

It simply feels so unrewarding to me.

Now you might say "this is a l2p issue" . But we also saw stuff like this in the ML2 matches of today. Players were literally driven to their base and had a 1:20 KD just to get a massive comeback.


Are you referring to the Hans vs Kimbo game today? The "comeback" only occurs because Hans played way too passively with his massive advantage. This is a "l2p" issue, a better player could've closed the match out much faster.
30 Aug 2020, 02:01 AM
#3
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518


The "comeback" only occurs because Hans played way too passively with his massive advantage..


Same probably applies to me. This was pretty much just a rant thread. I think I am simply not used to comebacks of this kind, since I usually am a 2 vs 2 player where its always GG once a team faces a similar situation like Kimbo in the first round.
30 Aug 2020, 04:34 AM
#4
avatar of Sp33dSnake

Posts: 149

I play mostly 1v1 because I don't want anyone to screw up my tactics; and I don't want to screw up anyone elses' tactics.

All mistakes 1v1 are amplified enormously. Had an advantage the other night where I had a Flame Tank and a Panther, AT Penals threw a Vehicle satchel, flame tank was too close my Panther, and both ended up engine critical. Then the AT Penal horde came with the Zis guns.

Lost both tanks in moments.

Unit preservation and microing is absolutely crucial. That's why treating your 1st unit Strum as OKW you have to micro that sucker like a sniper; it has to do the lions share of the work in the first two minutes. Lose that, you built a big hole for yourself.
30 Aug 2020, 08:52 AM
#5
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 713 | Subs: 2

Your post is completely illogical. If you have superior KD and you still lose you must be doing worse than your opponent in some other dimension of the game. There's more to CoH than KD. If you have more units than your opponent due to good KD but you don't use them as efficiently he might still end up ahead. Or maybe you build the wrong units with your ressource advantage etc etc.
30 Aug 2020, 09:00 AM
#6
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

Just because you're a top player doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. If you are winning and you want to close the game, my advice is to spend everything on upgrades and blitzkrieg the opponent. 1v1s I watch are all mostly fought around the middle VP with seldom contests for other points. A lot of the map goes undefended and nobody tries to contest that or even send a flanking force. Of course, that costs a lot of micromanagement but that can pretty much secure you a victory. Never ever be passive in this game. 1v1 is a game mode where you can be certain if you are going to overextend or not. 3v3s are usually played more passively since there are plenty of MORE units on the field and it's harder to coordinate a full scale push so people play around the middle VPs (also a mistake).

Take Lienne forest for example. 3v3 and 4v4 (less so), how many times do you see somebody cap the forest side, put 2 bunkers and just leaves it at that. People fight for the forest for the first 10-15 minutes and then just abandon it if they lose it. Enemy holds munitions, 2 points and VP with 2 bunkers and maybe an MG. T70, T34, Sherman, Stuart, Luchs, AA HT... all non expensive options to wreck havoc around the less defended part of the map.
30 Aug 2020, 09:40 AM
#7
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

Don't really see it as a problem.

It is in fact easier to come back in Coh2 than it was in Coh1.

Reason for that is that your mp income and popcap is not influenced by holding points, unlike what it was in Coh1.

The "only" consequences you have from not holding the map is VP bleed, no vehicles and no ammo for upgrades and abilities. However it is possible to come back with infantry and AT guns.

It is intended design.
30 Aug 2020, 10:03 AM
#8
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Now some people say "yea you always have to watch out in 1 vs 1, one small mistake and you can lose" Well... why do I lose when I do one mistake, but someone having a 1:100 KD still allows him to have a comeback ? Just feels like a big scam to me


because red units op

It's comeback mechanics. The idea is to smooth out snowballing, keeping the game in doubt until the last minute.

Whether or not you think this is a good thing is subjective.
30 Aug 2020, 10:28 AM
#9
avatar of Hater

Posts: 493

Play 4v4. The biggest scam is the amount of drophack there. And map control is more stable: 9/10 games it forms up in first 5 minutes and lasts till... drophack XD
30 Aug 2020, 14:39 PM
#10
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 879

Generally I find the game punishes aggression too much, in contrast to what apparently happened in that game. You will hear more good players and casters yelling "don't overextend, don't get greedy" and pointing out stupidity in that regard than people yelling "Push, you idiot," as Hans apparently failed to do (haven't seen that game). It's for a good reason.

In my opinion the flaw in game design that makes this so is that snares are far too widespread and effective. I'd rather see armor be more expensive and more effective than they way the game has been designed.

30 Aug 2020, 15:02 PM
#11
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

Generally I find the game punishes aggression too much, in contrast to what apparently happened in that game. You will hear more good players and casters yelling "don't overextend, don't get greedy" and pointing out stupidity in that regard than people yelling "Push, you idiot," as Hans apparently failed to do (haven't seen that game). It's for a good reason.

In my opinion the flaw in game design that makes this so is that snares are far too widespread and effective. I'd rather see armor be more expensive and more effective than they way the game has been designed.



Croatian name for a "clerk" and an American flag. You a spy?

Back to topic... It's true. People are usually afraid of diving with tanks since Axis infantry have a lot of tank snares. For allies, conscripts and royal engies are most dangerous since they have the fast throwing snare. USF snares are seldom and slow. Rifles take a long time to aim and fire so usually the tank can get out before it's snared, or the squad dies from 3rd party firepower during the "aiming" part. Worse if the guy that's snaring gets killed and the aiming is reset for another model. I remember a game on Fields on winnekendonk where my rifles were aiming at a P4 for a snare and it was on the bot munitions point. The snare went into cooldown around the house and the snare hit outside of the top base xD (good reverse from the axis enemy). For axis it's grens (which are usually massed), obers (also a lot of units). Combining that with high penetration shrecks and you have a lot of tank blood on your hands (or tank fuel I guess). Only tanks that can withstand such combinations are Panthers, breadcrumbs, comets and chinchillas. Maybe T34-85 as well if en masse. P4s, Shermans, T34s, Cromwells are usually played more in 1v1s since you need that tank power spike (whereas in teamgames, your ally can cover for you while you maybe go for indirect or something like that. I like to go ranger zooks for that early mobile AT power, as an example).
30 Aug 2020, 16:08 PM
#12
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

Generally I find the game punishes aggression too much, in contrast to what apparently happened in that game. You will hear more good players and casters yelling "don't overextend, don't get greedy" and pointing out stupidity in that regard than people yelling "Push, you idiot," as Hans apparently failed to do (haven't seen that game). It's for a good reason.

In my opinion the flaw in game design that makes this so is that snares are far too widespread and effective. I'd rather see armor be more expensive and more effective than they way the game has been designed.


I agree with the snare bit a lot. IMO snares should have a chance to inflict the crit but not guarantee it (coh1). Also snare abilities on vehicles and snipers should be removed/reworked. Vehicle/sniper snares could temporarily damage the vision/block the gun but should never crit engine. Also general purpose mines should have a chance to crit engine, not guarantee it (heavy AT mines is another story). A universal mine should only damage health of a full health vehicle just like the snare, not crit a full healthy vehicle. Probably the engine crit chance threshold should be higher the less healthy a vehicle.
30 Aug 2020, 18:34 PM
#13
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

The same thing happens in team games all the time.

The enemy teams eventually gets cocky enough to dive with all their tanks but instead meets a withering barrage of AT guns.

Time after time the winning team will put all their eggs in one basket then decide to hurl that basket off a cliff.
30 Aug 2020, 18:52 PM
#14
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Aug 2020, 18:34 PMGrim
The same thing happens in team games all the time.

The enemy teams eventually gets cocky enough to dive with all their tanks but instead meets a withering barrage of AT guns.

Time after time the winning team will put all their eggs in one basket then decide to hurl that basket off a cliff.


On maps like redball it can be difficult cause it's the most lane-y map there is. Walls are easy to put there. On more square and open maps, stuff like that can work if you flank. Especially with Panthers and Comets. Panthers more so if the enemy has lots of tanks. In situations like that, if you have mines, you will survive, but if you don't, only luck can save you. I remember when my team pulled that on Hill 400. We were "right" spawned and used the bottom fuel cache path (swampy one) to send 1 Pershing, 2 comets, Churchill croc and 3 T34-85s. Safe to say that the werfers, stukas, Elefant and 2 Panthers were all brought down. We sacrificed 3 of my echelons with minesweepers to dive check for mines. Of course, that was a standard custom game with friends vs random players so that kind of coordination would probably be hard to pull RT.

And considering snares. While I agree there are a lot of those, mines and hand held ones should stay the same. The tank/AT/sniper snares should be reworked to providing 100% temporary short crits (gunner, vision, etc)
30 Aug 2020, 19:25 PM
#15
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

Sounds like you had a rough game. I tend to take 1v1s a lot more personally sometimes too, and I get tilted when I feel like I deserved to win but end up losing. It's just a part of the game and mistakes can get punished pretty hard.
31 Aug 2020, 03:14 AM
#16
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Plenty of good points had been brought up. To put it simply, mastering the games means finding the balance between been greedy and not making mistakes.

I think OP points in general had been addressed overall through different posts. Comebacks are only possible when the winning position makes mistakes or doesn't make use of their resources. Map control doesn't mean shit if you are not using that fuel or munitions to secure the victory.


In my opinion the flaw in game design that makes this so is that snares are far too widespread and effective.




I agree with the snare bit a lot. IMO snares should have a chance to inflict the crit but not guarantee it (coh1). Also snare abilities on vehicles and snipers should be removed/reworked. Vehicle/sniper snares could temporarily damage the vision/block the gun but should never crit engine. Also general purpose mines should have a chance to crit engine, not guarantee it (heavy AT mines is another story). A universal mine should only damage health of a full health vehicle just like the snare, not crit a full healthy vehicle. Probably the engine crit chance threshold should be higher the less healthy a vehicle.


While i not necessarily agree with the execution of this, i agree that the current system is a bit too binary and limits manoeuvrability.

In my view of how a future CoH3 would look like, i would just take the current system and expand it to be more complex, while retaining the same logics we have now. Those are mines always crit and snares only apply crits based on HP. What i would add, is that different type of vehicles (car, light, med, adv. med, heavy, super heavy) having different crit thresholds and expand on the type and power of effects we currently have.

The game currently has plenty of effects but they either see no use, or the difference in effect is minimal or last too short.

What i would like:

-Engine dmg effects are tone down. Heavy engine dmg takes the current status of engine damage and engine destroy the ones of heavy.
This gives you more tools to gradually change the effects on what snares should do and have them apply based on HP.

-Re-introduce effects against crew members which are temporal. This way snares are not totally useless as defensive options, cause you could combine the effects of crew + vehicle to obtain the desire result without crippling a vehicle till it manages to get some repairs. Driver, gunner (which are ingame) and commander to differentiate effects between mobility, gun and maybe vision/abilities.

-Mines will always apply heavy engine dmg (current engine dmg debuff values). Removing requires full HP, (MAYBE) though at 90% will move it to engine dmg.
(MAYBE) Cars are immune to snare crits but instead receive more damage from them, including mines.
Lights always receive heavy engine dmg.
Mediums at 75% get engine dmg as now and 50% for h. eng. Depending how good heavies are it could be equal or lower.
31 Aug 2020, 05:48 AM
#17
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351


i would just take the current system and expand it to be more complex, while retaining the same logics we have now. Those are mines always crit and snares only apply crits based on HP. What i would add, is that different type of vehicles (car, light, med, adv. med, heavy, super heavy) having different crit thresholds and expand on the type and power of effects we currently have.

Yeah. I completely agree here. I would love to see sth like this. My version of it would be:

Universal mine - damage to vehicles and infantry but engine crit only to lights. Hp damage to medimus but crit engine only to damaged mediums (like snare now). Heavy tanks should get hp damage plus get snared with them only after like 20% health was depleted earlier.

Heavy at mine (riegel, teller, USF armoured car) - like above but mediums and heavy tanks get the engine crit even full health.

Snares - need 20% threshold to crit engine on heavy tanks.

On top of that I'd like some more rng added so that belo thresholds for crits there is some randomness and not 100% chance to deal the crit. The less health the higher chance for the crit but I would like to see say some randomness such as starting with 60% chance and increasing the chance 10% for every 10% of health less.

I would add some to the above. Only sweeper units can enter the minefield/walk over mines. Other units get hit by opponent's mines even if they see them. Mines are supposed to slow U down. A player could sweep them or shoot them with bigger guns when spotted but some micro would be required. You wouldn't be able to walk all over them before they are sweeped or detonated.

I'd add some ability to build heavy AT mines to Soviet and OKW in anti tank commanders/doctrines.
31 Aug 2020, 09:26 AM
#18
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



I would remove as much as possible engine critics and look for something similar to Coh1 in term of recieved damage for vehicle. Portable AT such as pfaust or atnade could definitively have other effects: short stun, main gun disable for a time etc... or simply only deal damage.
31 Aug 2020, 13:04 PM
#19
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

snip


Pak walls are strong, you could argue that they are too strong... but that doesnt add up to what you are saying.
when you have a 20:1 kd, youre opponent cant come back with an at gun wall. that doesnt make any sense since your infantry is apparently better or your micro is better than your opponents.
Same when he has 1% map control.
You should have more upgrades on your inf, more mines, more equipment.
In every scenario you described, you have to fuck up hard or your opponent has to make a God move, thers no way around it.

When you dominate the early game, a good opponent will adapt to your build and your job is to counter that build. When you fail that, he might be a worse micro player but a better strategy player and he deserves to win... in a strategy game
You NEVER lose to a single small mistake, its either a series of events or a huge mistake. dont bother killing his first medium, than stall for a kt and get punshed for it, thats not a "small" mistake.

Sounds like you have to learn how to close a game, nothing to be ashamed of btw, just dont blame the game for it. alot of good players struggle with it and you have to learn both sides of the battle, how to close a game and coming back from a losing position.
31 Aug 2020, 13:33 PM
#20
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518



snip

Sounds like you have to learn how to close a game, nothing to be ashamed of btw, just dont blame the game for it. alot of good players struggle with it and you have to learn both sides of the battle, how to close a game and coming back from a losing position.


As I already said this is just a rant thread.
Had a game as USF where I really had full map controll and got enemys Flak truck , but I ended up loosing because I went for tripple 76 mm Sherman which were not exactly good against Infantry and thus finished by tripple raketen.

In fact I have massive problems when it comes to closing games as USF. Might be because I am simply not that used to them ( only recently startet using them regularly afer acquiring the WC 51 commander ( this thing is a beast, allowed a scrub like me to seriously threaten a Rank 150 player ... but then again lost in mid game )
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

784 users are online: 784 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49083
Welcome our newest member, debethiphop
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM