Why does 1 vs 1 feel like a big scam?

Jump back to quoted post13 Sep 2020, 17:37 PMelchino7

But that doesn't fix the problem, it just makes games shorter by default. I want to see stalled games occur when there's a bigger intention on both parts on actually trying to cap the VPs. So even though the bleed is faster, you are still "rewarded" the moment you put units under fire inside a VP. Whether you are able to can/neutralize it or not.

Jump back to quoted post13 Sep 2020, 17:37 PMelchino7

In that direction with bunkers, it would be better rather than needing mp to activate them, that instead it would incur in a mp gain penalty.

Jump back to quoted post13 Sep 2020, 20:28 PMOlekman

I think it does fix the problem, just in a more straightforward way. If there are only 300 VPs to go and you find yourself in a 2v1 situation, there's more pressure on you to flip an extra VP to your side. Likewise, if you are on 1v2 side, you clearly want to stay there.




I think that giving a permanent MP income penalty would be too harsh. Base MGs only have impact on early game rushes - they can't suppress or even damage enemy tanks. At the same time, early game is time when one has to be extra careful with spending their resources, so the MP cost is impactful enough. If you manage to survive into the late game, having spent resources to survive a base rush, then good for you! In case of MP penalty, it would haunt you entire game.

Both topics are theoretical for CoH2, but it's interesting thing to discuss for CoH-like genre.

Jump back to quoted post13 Sep 2020, 21:09 PMelchino7

I think more of a toggle rather than a permanent function.