Since shocktroops went to 1 CP, I've become aware of another flaw in COH2 that makes it a less than competitive game in the way COH1 was. High health units like shock troops, KV-1s, KV-8s and Tigers are all much more common than they were a month ago and a big problem for a competitive RTS in my opinion.
The problem is that high health units are naturally much more friendly to lower-skilled players. As they require less micro, they are able to let less skilled players draw games out more than they would otherwise be able to, and sometimes even win against higher skilled players. We certainly see this now with shock troops. At higher levels of play, I think shock troops make much less of an impact because better players are more conservative with their units and not necessarily using them the same way you see less skilled players using them...Of course mid-skill players using them overly aggressively is eventually punished by better players, but at the cost of a truly competitive RTS.
Similarly Tigers and such are used much the same way...Basically all these high health units make the game less competitive. They simply don't have the same effect at higher skilled levels of play that they do at lower levels - how many games have you seen where Tigers are basically useless because the Ostheer player is too scared of rams to use it effectively? Or where a double shock opening can put a higher skilled Ostheer player on the defensive for a very, very long time? And let's not even talk about the Tiger Ace...
This is just sillyness. In my opinion, if you gave an across the board health cut of 25% to EVERY SINGLE UNIT in the game, you would suddenly have a much more competitive RTS. Obviously that's a bad solution, as the real issue is Relic's policy of making the game more friendly to less skilled players and the ease of access to very high health units.
The high health unit problem
11 Jan 2014, 17:30 PM
#1
Posts: 879
11 Jan 2014, 17:44 PM
#2
Posts: 1003
Agree. This game need stronger and effective counters. Not more and more powefull infantry and tanks add in next DLC.
And maybie lower elite infantry DPS. PzG and Shocks have 5x higher DPS then constripts.
And maybie lower elite infantry DPS. PzG and Shocks have 5x higher DPS then constripts.
I want to have the same chance, to win for each side.
11 Jan 2014, 17:55 PM
#3
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
its more like 3x, but lowering dps will only make units survive longer, which seems to be what noise is complaining about. if anything, id like to see dps on single shot weapons to go up
12 Jan 2014, 00:06 AM
#4
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
If this game is to become more competitive, the first thing that needs to change is the command input delay. I'd say that currently, global HP reduction is a bad idea. It's already fairly easy to abuse input delay to get squad wipes by spamming grenades; there is no need to make it worse.
12 Jan 2014, 00:23 AM
#5
Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4
Uhhh. Shocks have the same hp as all other infantry except snipers... it is their armor that makes them so resilient to small arms fire but they die to flames, mines, grenades, snipers and explosions just the same. Even nerfing health on tanks is a bad idea. Only thing wrong with heavy tanks is that they unlock too soon which makes not teching such a viable option. Push them back and teching will be important again. The game is in a pretty good state outside of 1 cp guards/shocks and such early heavy tanks.
12 Jan 2014, 00:58 AM
#6
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
Uhhh. Shocks have the same hp as all other infantry except snipers... it is their armor that makes them so resilient to small arms fire but they die to flames, mines, grenades, snipers and explosions just the same. Even nerfing health on tanks is a bad idea. Only thing wrong with heavy tanks is that they unlock too soon which makes not teching such a viable option. Push them back and teching will be important again. The game is in a pretty good state outside of 1 cp guards/shocks and such early heavy tanks.
+1
13 Jan 2014, 20:40 PM
#7
Posts: 308
Uhhh. Shocks have the same hp as all other infantry except snipers... it is their armor that makes them so resilient to small arms fire but they die to flames, mines, grenades, snipers and explosions just the same. Even nerfing health on tanks is a bad idea. Only thing wrong with heavy tanks is that they unlock too soon which makes not teching such a viable option. Push them back and teching will be important again. The game is in a pretty good state outside of 1 cp guards/shocks and such early heavy tanks.
QFT
14 Jan 2014, 16:33 PM
#8
Posts: 879
And the difference between a high health unit and a high armor unit is?
Does my failure to remember shocks have more armor (and so do tanks for that matter) rather than health invalidate the argument?
Does my failure to remember shocks have more armor (and so do tanks for that matter) rather than health invalidate the argument?
14 Jan 2014, 16:38 PM
#9
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
it is their armor that makes them so resilient to small arms fire but they die to flames, mines, grenades, snipers and explosions just the same.
14 Jan 2014, 16:59 PM
#10
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
Uhhh. Shocks have the same hp as all other infantry except snipers... it is their armor that makes them so resilient to small arms fire but they die to flames, mines, grenades, snipers and explosions just the same.
For all intents and purposes armor is just as good as hp (aside from increased randomness) when it comes down to combat with bullet-based weapons- and given that most casualties and combat in the early game comes down to rifle against rifle, high armor slows down combat as much as a high health unit would.
I think the problem lies in the disparity of DPS between the highest and the lowest when it comes to damage output- one panzergrenadier STG has more DPS at close range as five mosins from a conscript squad while the panzergrens have the same effective squad HP against bullets as the conscripts.
14 Jan 2014, 20:57 PM
#11
6 
Posts: 600
And the difference between a high health unit and a high armor unit is?
Does my failure to remember shocks have more armor (and so do tanks for that matter) rather than health invalidate the argument?
The difference is tha health and armour are 2 different variables =)
14 Jan 2014, 21:24 PM
#12
Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4
And the difference between a high health unit and a high armor unit is?
Does my failure to remember shocks have more armor (and so do tanks for that matter) rather than health invalidate the argument?
There is a huge difference. (also @ Strummingbird)
Infantry armor gives a chance to not take damage from small arms fire. It does not reduce damage from small arms fire and it does also not reduce/prevent damage taken from any other sources. This becomes extremely important when factoring in flames, mines, grenades, mortars, basically anything that doesn't have a rifle or SMG - which just so happens to be a LOT of units.
Another way to illustrate this difference:
Let's say there was a 6 man squad with 1.0 armor but 160 HP per model. This squad is (on average) going to die faster to a Grenadier squad than a shock troop squad, but will have twice the survivability against, for example, a FHT.
An example more specific to the current state of CoH 2: Conscripts, Guards, and Shocks all die equally as fast to a FHT despite all these units having different armor values.
Armor *sort of* acts like increased HP against small arms fire and small arms fire only... but not really. They're two separate values with completely different functions and purposes. It is best just not to mix them because they behave in such different ways.
You forgetting this or not knowing this doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument, but personally I think that the premise of the argument itself is flawed. I don't think that the HP on units needs to be addressed.
14 Jan 2014, 22:46 PM
#13
1 
Posts: 4559 | Subs: 2
The problem is that the armor system is heavily affected by RNG, which is noticeable especially on units like Snipers and which causes fights to be unpredictable (Grenadiers vs Conscripts anyone?)
I am honestly full of bringing COH1 as example but at least you had a clear and understandable situation: rifles > volks short range and volks > rifles long range, and RNG had a minor impact on that specific matchup to a point where, after many years, we could easily generalize what I just wrote.
In COH2 I'm feeling it's totally random and out of player control, sometimes you see your troops in green cover getting charged by the enemy, who moves in red cover, gets into your cover and kills your units forcing you to retreat.
Other times you totally shred the enemy squad. It's simply incosistent and for this reason I am personally not liking it and I would much more prefer a system were units roles are a bit more defined and where RNG has way less impact on infantry combat.
I am honestly full of bringing COH1 as example but at least you had a clear and understandable situation: rifles > volks short range and volks > rifles long range, and RNG had a minor impact on that specific matchup to a point where, after many years, we could easily generalize what I just wrote.
In COH2 I'm feeling it's totally random and out of player control, sometimes you see your troops in green cover getting charged by the enemy, who moves in red cover, gets into your cover and kills your units forcing you to retreat.
Other times you totally shred the enemy squad. It's simply incosistent and for this reason I am personally not liking it and I would much more prefer a system were units roles are a bit more defined and where RNG has way less impact on infantry combat.
 | Playercard of Marcus2389 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
14 Jan 2014, 22:54 PM
#14
6 Posts: 600
The problem is that the armor system is heavily affected by RNG, which is noticeable especially on units like Snipers and which causes fights to be unpredictable (Grenadiers vs Conscripts anyone?)
I am honestly full of bringing COH1 as example but at least you had a clear and understandable situation: rifles > volks short range and volks > rifles long range, and RNG had a minor impact on that specific matchup to a point where, after many years, we could easily generalize what I just wrote.
In COH2 I'm feeling it's totally random and out of player control, sometimes you see your troops in green cover getting charged by the enemy, who moves in red cover, gets into your cover and kills your units forcing you to retreat.
Other times you totally shred the enemy squad. It's simply incosistent and for this reason I am personally not liking it and I would much more prefer a system were units roles are a bit more defined and where RNG has way less impact on infantry combat.
I think they changed it cause of the Rifle vs Volks reason. I mean its not that hard to get into close range. And if for example you imply it into CoH2 you will have Grens>cons long range and Cons>Grens close range, but then again Cons have oorah, which I believe will make cons OP since they will be able to close in to Grens way too fast meaning the DPS output of Grens would be lower in the whole fight than that of Cons. But I agree the current state where you don`t know if you gonna win the fight or not even if you were in green cover from the start totally frustrates me. I suppose if they lower the armor of all units by 50% this would change somehow?
14 Jan 2014, 23:55 PM
#15
Posts: 879
I think they changed it cause of the Rifle vs Volks reason. I mean its not that hard to get into close range. And if for example you imply it into CoH2 you will have Grens>cons long range and Cons>Grens close range, but then again Cons have oorah, which I believe will make cons OP since they will be able to close in to Grens way too fast meaning the DPS output of Grens would be lower in the whole fight than that of Cons. But I agree the current state where you don`t know if you gonna win the fight or not even if you were in green cover from the start totally frustrates me. I suppose if they lower the armor of all units by 50% this would change somehow?
Maybe...But this is my argument point said with more sophistication and with better technical knowledge. I just knows what I sees in game, cuz I'm dumb like that!
Basically everyone overuses the high health/high armor units to the detriment of the game, and some of them are a bit overly effective because you really do need the RNG to help you out.
15 Jan 2014, 14:27 PM
#16
Posts: 37
RnG is not going anywhere it's been with us all since coh and still there, all the complaints about 1cp units can be countered by many things from t1 and t2 snipers are great set up a mg and mortars or mg and pgrens to flank flame thrower half track, so much crying yet so many options to counter, clearly you don't understand the mechanics of the game comparing troop armor and tank armor. More and more of these post feel like where trying to change the game cause we don't like a particular unit or not good at countering it. He'll you can even counter the so early is2 with a few stugs. Less complaint how broken the game is and more understanding of what ur missing and how to get better. Sure does the armor come out a bit soon, is definitely debatable a lot of the call ins being made around 15 to 18 minutes but at that point there are plenty of countered available, it's really a matter of what kinda game or feel we want for the game that is desired
15 Jan 2014, 15:49 PM
#17
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
in CoH1 a cover had a great factor on units because they were dying much faster with lower health units. Rifles crossing red cover were usually losing like 2-3 man in few secs, in CoH2 cons will lose maybe one guy and will reach enemy units.
MG's in both games are otally different, in CoH1 it was very deadly, one could stop the whole blob and kill many while in CoH2 their suppression rate and damage are not sufficient to stop 2 conscript squads
MG's in both games are otally different, in CoH1 it was very deadly, one could stop the whole blob and kill many while in CoH2 their suppression rate and damage are not sufficient to stop 2 conscript squads
15 Jan 2014, 16:04 PM
#18
Posts: 37
I'm my experience since this last patch 3 unites moving at an mg all 3 hit the ground shortly getting suppressed after. And as far as 2 or 3 models being lost crossing negative cover that might not happen how ever I see a model and a lot of hp lost, meaning if you have a gren in cover and 1 con moving in to there position the con losses one model and won't sustain the position they just moved to with the huge health loss to get there
15 Jan 2014, 16:06 PM
#19
Posts: 18
If you want realism go play Assault Squad
15 Jan 2014, 16:20 PM
#20
Posts: 410
in CoH1 a cover had a great factor on units because they were dying much faster with lower health units. Rifles crossing red cover were usually losing like 2-3 man in few secs, in CoH2 cons will lose maybe one guy and will reach enemy units.
MG's in both games are otally different, in CoH1 it was very deadly, one could stop the whole blob and kill many while in CoH2 their suppression rate and damage are not sufficient to stop 2 conscript squads
I don't like Barton but I have to say +1
I agree with you on this and I wish that could be implemented in COH2. MVGAME
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
16 | ||
 |
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.830222.789+36
- 2.561204.733+3
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.916404.694-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.721440.621+3
- 8.14758.717+1
- 9.17046.787-1
- 10.1019662.606+4
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1224
Board Info
436 users are online:
436 guests
0 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
6 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48953
Welcome our newest member, woodkayla1297
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, woodkayla1297
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM