Blizzards

Other people, such as Inverse have already stated their opinion about Blizzards, but there's no thread specifically focused on them.

I think the mechanic isn't "bad", but it needs a ton of work, both visually and mechanically.

Visibility- Near zero. Grnades and mines(even your own) are hard to spot as it is, blizzards just downright make them invisible.

Random Duration- Im not sure if anyone has experienced this, but some Blizzards last a LONG time, others much less. This is not necessarily bad (see below), but it can hurt a competitive game enormously, because it reduces the margin of skill, and leaves it to luck.

Warning-60 seconds. Most of the opinions by more experienced players have agreed its too short. I personally don't mind the 60 seconds, but wouldn't mind them being longer, either.

Movement Rate- Movement rate is diminished to such an extent, that reaction speed becomes useless. Mortars become geoncide machines, and vehicles can chase down infantry to the ends of the map with ease. Unless you retreat, or have a VERY good defensive position set up, you are doomed.
VP Drain
We also have the competitive aspect of Blizzards: VP's drain so fast as it stands right now, that if a Blizzard hits, and you are trying to regain a lost VP, all odds are against you. Not because the enemy is defending it, but because your troops might simply not make it on time. Having a halftrack simply isn't enough. You are then forced to frustratingly watch how you lose the game, as you struggle to regain a point.

Unpredictable: I've had Blizzards hitting in a very short span of time, or sometimes taking way longer. I haven't detected a pattern yet, and it is very very ugly, because even if you try to pull a perfect flank, a Blizzard can simply come and ruin both of your days.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

Visual elements need to change. That's a fact. I think giving the game screen a slight blueish hue and other visual hints is enough, instead of going for the michael bay approach and just having the feeling that General Winter is having a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge on the battlefield.

Predictability

I think Blizzards should be predictable. Games in CoH generally last around 15 minutes for a very short game, to 40 minutes in a very long, very close game.

If players knew Blizzards came at a fixed point in matches, or maybe within a close time range (say, every 7 to 10 minutes), then the entire metagame has to progress with this in mind. Players would have no excuse to be caught unprepared, but they can then be given short warnings: you already know when they hit, its your responsibility to keep track of environmental factors, such as attacking VPs right before a Blizzard to keep them longer under your control. This is similar to Runes, Creeps and Roshan's respawn rate in DoTA, and make up part of a grander strategy, a similar philosophy can work in CoH 2.

Finally, Blizzards are supposed to work as battlefield resets: footprints get erased, melted snow becomes deep snow again, water becomes ice, etc.(hell if artificial craters could be covered in snow again, that would be awesome). So then, a player knows every 7 to 10 minutes, he has to adapt his strategy, or reset it: broken ice has become a viable pathway again, shallow snow has become deep and cumbersome. You have to keep your eyes out in the battlefield for these changes/resets, either to use them to your advantage, or prevent them being used against you. This encourages the mobile warfare/scouting of vCoH, while promoting smart map design.

I agree with all your points! +1

I see a lot of potential in the whole blizzard mechanic. Unfortunately, it's current implementation leaves much to be desired.

I agree 100%. I find the blizzard duration quite boring as well.

Fix them or get rid of them.

tbh i dont like the blizzards at all but i also dont think they will remove it^^

so we have to tweak it

first of all i would limit the blizzards to be max. 2 times in a match
otherwhise it will lead always into a stupid camping and arty gameplay

Visibility- Near zero. Grnades and mines(even your own) are hard to spot as it is, blizzards just downright make them invisible.

Visibility problem is there without blizzards, if they fix it should be fine imo. Honestly I had no issues watching my units during blizzards, but in general. Unit icons transparency need to go imo, same a blue-sky color scheme, just make it solid blue like vcoh. Blizzards just looks awesome.

Random Duration- Im not sure if anyone has experienced this, but some Blizzards last a LONG time, others much less. This is not necessarily bad (see below), but it can hurt a competitive game enormously, because it reduces the margin of skill, and leaves it to luck.
Unpredictable: I've had Blizzards hitting in a very short span of time, or sometimes taking way longer. I haven't detected a pattern yet, and it is very very ugly, because even if you try to pull a perfect flank, a Blizzard can simply come and ruin both of your days.

This is one of the features I love, it's unpredictable with random duration for both sides. It's just great and I hope they keep it this way, predictable blizzars might be ultra-boring imo.

Warning-60 seconds. Most of the opinions by more experienced players have agreed its too short. I personally don't mind the 60 seconds, but wouldn't mind them being longer, either.

Agree on this, 90 seconds won't hurt to test.

Movement Rate- Movement rate is diminished to such an extent, that reaction speed becomes useless. Mortars become geoncide machines, and vehicles can chase down infantry to the ends of the map with ease. Unless you retreat, or have a VERY good defensive position set up, you are doomed.

I agree units should move at normal speed during blizzards, it's just too much handicap with cold and deep snow atm to execute an attack.

VP Drain
We also have the competitive aspect of Blizzards: VP's drain so fast as it stands right now, that if a Blizzard hits, and you are trying to regain a lost VP, all odds are against you. Not because the enemy is defending it, but because your troops might simply not make it on time. Having a halftrack simply isn't enough. You are then forced to frustratingly watch how you lose the game, as you struggle to regain a point.

Same as last point, normal speed and tuned cold should fix it imo.

Finally, Blizzards are supposed to work as battlefield resets: footprints get erased, melted snow becomes deep snow again, water becomes ice, etc.(hell if artificial craters could be covered in snow again, that would be awesome). So then, a player knows every 7 to 10 minutes, he has to adapt his strategy, or reset it: broken ice has become a viable pathway again, shallow snow has become deep and cumbersome. You have to keep your eyes out in the battlefield for these changes/resets, either to use them to your advantage, or prevent them being used against you. This encourages the mobile warfare/scouting of vCoH, while promoting smart map design.

Totally agree.

I've been thinking quite a bit about the ideal role of Blizzards. A lot of good points brought up in the OP, so some of this is just restating it.

What Blizzards should be

• Reset of cold tech terrain
  
• Opportunity to more easily flank and open up the map for harassment
  
• Opportunity to set up ambushes
  
• Opportunity to take advantage of specific units and build orders
  

What Blizzards do now

• Occur every 200 seconds to 400 seconds
  
• Last between 160 seconds and 240 seconds
  
• Cut line of sight by 50%
  
• Reduce speed and maneuverability of vehicles by 25%
  
• Increase heat loss by some amount
  
• Disable Campfire construction
  
• Increase scatter of indirect fire weapons by 25%
  
• Increase barrage cooldowns by 50%
  
• Allow infantry to camo in deep snow
  
• Refreeze ice and replace deep snow
  

The physical visibility impairments on players is a different matter (see Inverse's thread), but now that I look at them the effects of Blizzards aren't all that bad. The main issue is the increased cold and the inability to create new campfires. This alone is really causing the bogged down campy play.

The first step to fixing Blizzards is to retool Cold Tech in general. It's a fine idea on paper, creating another resource for players to fight over - heat. The problem is it's difficult to leave your own heat sources (cover, buildings, fires) to assault your enemies. We need more dynamic sources of heat that allow aggressive gameplay. To that end:

Changes to Heat Loss mechanic

• Moving units should have a further reduction to Heat Loss
  
• Units in combat should have an even further reduction to Heat Loss (I can't find anything that indicates they currently have any reduction)
  
• If possible, units around other sources of heat (burning wrecks and terrain, incendiary weapons, active vehicles) should gain heat or at least lose less
  

Campfires are probably the biggest issue with Cold Tech and Blizzards right now. They're supposed to be your dynamic heat source, in contrast to stationary buildings and cover. I think most everyone agrees the Manpower cost needs to go. I also don't know why they should cost Manpower rather than Munitions, which has always been CoH's resource for field defenses and upgrades like this.

Changes to Campfires

• Free to build in normal weather
  
• 25 Munitions cost in Blizzards
  
• Causes no criticals on vehicles
  
• Visible through the FoW
  

Campfires visible through the FoW would create interesting mindgames between players and make realistic sense. You could spot them to get a drop on your opponent, or he could be baiting you into a trap. Drawing artillery onto a bait campfire sounds really cool to me.

For completeness' sake, these are the current effects Cold has on infantry.

What effect Cold has now

• Warm - Heat 40-50, no effects
  
• Cool - Heat 25-40, -1 Speed when not Retreating
  
• Cold - Heat 15-25, -2 Speed when not Retreating and 1.25x weapon Cooldown
  
• Freezing - Heat 5-15, -2 Speed when not Retreating, 0.5x weapon Accuracy and 0.25x Cooldown(?)
  
• Dying - Heat 0-5, -2 Speed when not Retreating, 0.5x weapon Accuracy and 0.25x Cooldown(?), squad members die every 20 seconds
  

Units may also grow more resistant to further heat loss as they cool down, I'm unsure what chills per tick are. I'm drawing this from the tuning.rgd file as well as the coldweather_v2.scar file. The Cooldown penalty becoming a bonus when you go from Cold to Freezing doesn't make much sense to me, and it could be a bug. Outside of this I don't have any issues with the effects of cold, except maybe in Dying level units continuing to die off on Retreat.

Back to Blizzards. With more dynamic methods of generating heat and fewer penalties for staying active in the cold, I think that Blizzards would already be much more interesting and less campy overaul. These are just some ideas I've heard that would go a long way in making them less random and damaging to competitive gameplay.

Changes to Blizzards

• Decrease Blizzard intervals from every 200-400 seconds to every 360-600 seconds
  
• Decrease Blizzard length from 160-240 seconds to 120-180 seconds
  
• Slow the VP tick rate during Blizzards by half
  
• Reduce range of indirect fire weapons and abilities by 25%
  
• Increase Infantry LoS to 60% of normal, decrease Vehicle LoS to 40% of normal
  

I'd also love it Relic added upgrades to individual units to mitigate the effects of the cold or Blizzards, but I find that unlikely at this point.

Blizzards would serve to partially reset the battlefield, opening up certain avenues (ice) but slowing down others (deep snow). Low line of sight allows players to set up flanks on campers and slip out to corners of the map for harassment. Vehicles are penalized more/infantry less because vehicles are far more mobile than infantry during a blizzard (even beyond the 25% speed penalty). With campfires fixed you can actually use the deep snow camoflouge to set up ambushes. Artillery is mitigated in a more significant way (range) to break up stalemates.

wow kolaris... insightful and well thought out... as always :-) post on the official forums pls!

That was an amazing analysis, man. Agreed on pretty much everything

There's another thing you missed:

-Blizzard eliminate all aircraft abilities. Recon runs, Strafing Runs, Smoke Droplets, etc. If you use the ability just before a Blizzard, the ability will work as intended, but once Blizzards start, they are grayed out.

This is an inconsistency problem: I believe the whole point is the fluff that Blizzards prevent planes from flying, and bonfires from burning. If so, then they should either stall planes flying during a Blizzard, or allow airborne abilities. Some commanders rely heavily on these abilities.

On the matter of dynamic heat sources, I think its necessary that fire effects provide dynamic heat sources, but under certain conditions. Otherwise, a player can simply attack ground with infinite flamethrowers. Molotovs for instance, would be cool, since they cost the player munitions to deploy.

Veterancy, I think, should reduce cold effects, it works as fluff and as a game mechanic. Fluff = experience in the Eastern Front. Mechanically, it promotes unit preservation.

I think keeping unit movement consistent throughout the game is also important. The devs originally wanted to implement mud, but it slowed the game too much. I think the same is happening during Blizzards. Perhaps, to keep it challenging, deep snow could always stays deep during Blizzards, but unit movement stays constant regardless of weather conditions.

Whats the tradeoff? Units can't see far during blizzards, so a player not moving carefully and overextending should suffer the consequences of bad scouting (which remains more difficult during Blizzards).

Also, I love the idea of reducing artillery range and effectiveness during Blizzards, to prevent campy gameplay. It also promotes the use of scouting and Artillery Call-Ins (payed for) during Blizzards, instead of just depending on ZiS guns and Howitzers.

@Kolaris: Great stuff!
Forget posting this on the murky sega forums. I suggest you PM Quinn directly; time's running low, and so this sort of stuff needs to be presented to the dev team asap.

@Kolaris: Great stuff!
Forget posting this on the murky sega forums. I suggest you PM Quinn directly; time's running low, and so this sort of stuff needs to be presented to the dev team asap.

Hells yeah. Blizzard really need tweaking, and they said they would be playnig around with intervals and durations. That is amazing feedback, in a great, professional format. Send it!!!!!

Stuff

Exactly what needs to be done.

The Blizzards add reality to the game however from a gaming point of view i find them frustrating and would like to see them downgraded to a light snow.

Wow Kolaris. Have you posted that everywhere? That is some ace feedback for the devs.

I think the frequency of blizzards atm is fine. They do need to be a little shorter though in duration. I like blizzards as they allow you to take a breather and concentrate on teching and such especially since the game is so manpower intensive.

Also agree with everything Kolaris said

Personally I think Blizzards can/will make a great single player dynamic but I don't think they can ever work in competitive multi-player.

Any mechanic that occurs at random and freezes out the game for a period of time (no pun intended) will always create imbalance in an RTS since time is such an important resource and blizzards essentially swallow up your time. Hitting the pause button for 200 seconds just allows the winning team to keep snowballing (pun intended) whilst the other is powerless to help their situation.

The only way to "fix" blizzards would be to nerf them so hard that they are basically redundant anyway so instead I would like to see them disabled for auto match and a toggle option on custom games.

There is a timer before the blizzard appears.
You will have 30 seconds on you to know when the blizzard are going to appear at it's strongest. As you said "because even if you try to pull a perfect flank, a Blizzard can simply come and ruin".
Most likely both players will camp around bonfires with their troops and will be extremely careful with their armor while there's no troops around to defend them.
Therefore you'll have to make the decision between attacking in the blizzard which might come as huge surprise attack and have that as an advantage OR wait till the blizzard is over which makes advantages for both. (Mostly for russian army because of the "Hoorah" abiliy).

Blizzard in my opinon is great and makes the game even more realistic. Deep snow, water, ice, bonfires, everything

As for "it lets the winning team keep snowballing," that's true, but so much has been changed in CoH 2 to make it harder for the winning team to win (so much manpower income no matter how much of the map is decapped for instance) that maybe it's not a huge issue.

Manpower maybe but fuel points are still affected as are VPs. And regardless of points if you have an infantry heavy composition that wants to be making flanks then it punishes you whereas a camp mg/mortar comp is hardly affected at all.

You could argue this is good design but personally I just think it unnecessarily punishes players whilst adding very little to the game.

I agree right now, actually, but I think I want to give blizzards more of a chance than most people do. I mean, 90% of the changes to CoH 2 I think are bad ideas and need to go, and I'm willing to lump blizzards into that category if need be, but I'm not sure if they're impossible to save. Maybe the changes CombatMuffin suggests in the OP could make them awesome.