Blobbing

Actually that's a great argument. If you're more skilled and that leads to you winning, then it's a good indicator of balance. If a less skilled player could beat a more skilled player by blobbing, it would be a problem.

Actually that's a great argument. If you're more skilled and that leads to you winning, then it's a good indicator of balance. If a less skilled player could beat a more skilled player by blobbing, it would be a problem.

So Im less skilled player

If the purpose isn't to apply penalties to units, don't apply penalties to units. Blobbing is already discouraged. Good micro is already rewarded. Blobbing is only vilified by people who can't beat it.

The purpose is to discourage blobbing by punishing it, the most direct way to accomplish that is to apply a penalty for it. If blobbing was adequately discouraged and good micro sufficiently rewarded, then I doubt there would be such a large thread about it, also your last comment comes off as a bit elitist to me, please realize that the vast majority of people who play this game are much more in my experience range than yours. And we are perfectly capable of recognizing that blobbing is a bit on the cheesy side, and in it's current state, can reward lazy play, particularly in the most popular game modes (large team games).

It's already wise to split your units up before your next big engagement.

Great! If you are already doing that, you will not be effected by the debuff.

What am I overstating? I think this will make blobbing worse across the board and that will not necessarily be a good thing. To attempt to balance this anti zeal aura will require a lot of time and testing. The implementation questions involved have already been covered by others. For what purpose? Because obers are too strong? The goal is absolutely not to discourage any play style. Why would a game developer ever aim to discourage a play style?

The tools are clearly already there, there will be testing required for any change, so that is a given. My point is that if something needs to be done about blobbing, why wouldn't you address it directly? Not only that, but as far as your balance concerns go, I would be far more hesitant to start making changes to individual units (based on their blobbed strength) that may have negative effects in, for example 1v1s where blobbing is less prevalent.

Why would a game developer ever aim to discourage a play style?

Seriously? Why would Relic take away heavy truck crush? - Because it is bullshit. Why wouldn't you want to encourage and reward solid gameplay? I'm pretty sure that is more or less the point of the game. The better player should win.

The toilet is like the one thing in the whole bathroom that is not currently broken.

I think what we have here is a case of your golden-plated rose-smelling shit sliding right through, whereas us simple plebs clog it almost every time.

In all honesty, I don't see blobbing as that big of a problem. Though it does piss me off to run up on a surprise volks blob and get a t34 instantly killed, I recognize that maybe I should have sent a screening squad in first, etc. I recognize that there are tons of things I could have done better. But if you are going to do something to combat it, I don't understand your aversion to accomplishing that in a way that rewards good micro and punishes lazy play, as opposed to potentially destroying a unit's effectiveness in other situations.

The purpose is to discourage blobbing by punishing it, the most direct way to accomplish that is to apply a penalty for it. If blobbing was adequately discouraged and good micro sufficiently rewarded, then I doubt there would be such a large thread about it, also your last comment comes off as a bit elitist to me, please realize that the vast majority of people who play this game are much more in my experience range than yours. And we are perfectly capable of recognizing that blobbing is a bit on the cheesy side, and in it's current state, can reward lazy play, particularly in the most popular game modes (large team games).

And how would computer recognize the difference between attack-move, and a micro-intensive tactical placement of squads in adjacent area with in a tight formation?

The tools are clearly already there, there will be testing required for any change, so that is a given. My point is that if something needs to be done about blobbing, why wouldn't you address it directly? Not only that, but as far as your balance concerns go, I would be far more hesitant to start making changes to individual units (based on their blobbed strength) that may have negative effects in, for example 1v1s where blobbing is less prevalent.

Without introducing wierd debuff auras, we can fix this by making MGs as potent as they used to be, but guess who complained? The same people who are complaining at blobbing atm.

I think what we have here is a case of your golden-plated rose-smelling shit sliding right through, whereas us simple plebs clog it almost every time.

The better player should win.

Contradict yourself much?

In all honesty, I don't see blobbing as that big of a problem. Though it does piss me off to run up on a surprise volks blob and get a t34 instantly killed, I recognize that maybe I should have sent a screening squad in first, etc. I recognize that there are tons of things I could have done better. But if you are going to do something to combat it, I don't understand your aversion to accomplishing that in a way that rewards good micro and punishes lazy play, as opposed to potentially destroying a unit's effectiveness in other situations.

If that surprise volks blob was in a "tactical, micro-and-skill-required position" that killed your t34 instantly, how does that differ on your part? Your example shows your tactical mistake, not the cheesiness of the other player. In fact, I don't understand how you claim to "reward good micro" while you "lazily" rush your t34 into a antitank group and still somehow making claims in the nuance that your T34 only died because the opponent used a "lazy cheap tactic"


Are you trying to say that "My A-move should beat the other guy's A-move?"

Top level players don't fight blobbing because top level players don't blob. Also the argument itself is kinda crappy because it's basically saying that if you're way better than someone else, you can beat them. Well no shit.

Why top player don't use blobbing? Because it's not a good tactic. The more a player will climb the ladder, the more it will find that this tactic is not the winning one.

Blobbing is a lazy reflex that many of us sometime use, only to be defeat when we meet someone who know how to fight it.

Blobbing is part of the natural learning curve of COH2. It's why, COH2 don't need in game mechanism to prevent it.

And sometime depending on many factors (primary the opponents and the maps) blobbing is the way to go.
Example : You did a recon and found a path without HMGs and hopefully no mines, so you blob to flank using that path.

Please don't try to put words i didn't say in my mouth and don't verse into the extremes.

Thanks.

Why top player don't use blobbing? Because it's not a good tactic. The more a player will climb the ladder, the more it will find that this tactic is not the winning one.

Blobbing is a lazy reflex that many of us sometime use, only to be defeat when we meet someone who know how to fight it.

Blobbing is part of the natural learning curve of COH2. It's why, COH2 don't need in game mechanism to prevent it.

And sometime depending on many factors (primary the opponents and the maps) blobbing is the way to go.
Example : You did a recon and found a path without HMGs and hopefully no mines, so you blob to flank using that path.

Please don't try to put words i didn't say in my mouth and don't verse into the extremes.

Thanks.

Took the words right out of my mouth.
+1

And how would computer recognize the difference between attack-move, and a micro-intensive tactical placement of squads in adjacent area with in a tight formation?

Of course I don't have the specific values for distance, number of units, etc. That is clearly something that would need to be balanced. I am merely talking about the theory of such a debuff. But my short answer would be that it wouldn't. If you put (for example) 3 units within 5 meters of eachother, then you recieve the penalty. That's it. I must again reiterate that it makes logical sense in that if you shoot into a group of people, your chances of hitting something are greater. Also, keep in mind that I am NOT advocating for a 200% penalty. Just a slight increase that I am certain could reach a balance relatively easily.

Without introducing wierd debuff auras, we can fix this by making MGs as potent as they used to be, but guess who complained? The same people who are complaining at blobbing atm.

I can play the same game and claim that would be too difficult to balance, and throw in a "that doesn't make any sense", "my mgs have no problem suppressing blobs, "only players that suck have problems suppressing blobs".

It doesn't really add anything to the discussion does it?

Contradict yourself much?

I don't think so, I acknowledged that I could do some things differently, however that doesn't negate the fact that I would be required to do those other things (screening troops) whereas my opponent right clicks somewhere.

If that surprise volks blob was in a "tactical, micro-and-skill-required position" that killed your t34 instantly, how does that differ on your part? Your example shows your tactical mistake, not the cheesiness of the other player. In fact, I don't understand how you claim to "reward good micro" while you "lazily" rush your t34 into a antitank group and still somehow making claims in the nuance that your T34 only died because the opponent used a "lazy cheap tactic"

It doesn't change on my part, I made a stupid move with my t34 and deserved to loose it. But what I'm talking about atleast provides an incentive for him to spread his troops into tactical positions. How anybody could argue that blobbing is more desirable than posturing your troops is beyond me.

Are you trying to say that "My A-move should beat the other guy's A-move?"

Nope.

And as far as blobbing being a part of the natural learning curve, that is perfectly fine. And I know some develop out of the poor habits, but why are you so against a moderate debuff to discourage such an action?

Relics can't develop a fail save to every behavior that the players have.
Anti-blob;
Anti-red cover move;
Anti-buying Su-85
Anti-only at-nades to fight Axis tanks;
Anti-trying to fight sturm pio with Sov pio 1vs1 and saying Sturm are op...
List is too long of things Relic could implement in game to «help» players play better.

It's the player himself that has to develop those «fail-safes», it's called learning to be better.

Let's the blobbing pit trap stay as it is plz.

ITT:

I just think axis HMGs just need slightly more aoe suppression and I'd like to see the maxim lose a little dps in exchange for a little aoe suppression. Not sure what to do about the .50 cal.. 5th man might work.

I can only speak from a 1v1 and eastern front perspective.

This problem is a result of relic making the game too noob friendly and the fact that very few units have specific roles. The most logical and proven method of controlling blobs is mgs. The fact that relic nerfed them into the ground is why we have the current meta that exists atm.

Firstly, support weapons should not be able to cap while set up. The current arrangement is simply to user friendly. However mgs effectiveness atm the moment is quite weak. Buff mgs back to coh1 effectiveness. Also adjust cost, popcap and manpower drain so they do not become spamable. I think USF and sov have many options to deal with mgs compared to coh1 usf. I personally never had an issue with mgs even at the peak of their power and I think those that did really need to deal with it and l2p instead of just A moving their units around the map.

This unfortunately will not solve a great deal as there are multiple issues through out the game but I think balance wise relic should start with Ost and make them the combined arms side they are meant to be. Then move on too balancing grenspam as well as making t4 viable.

Much of the problem lies in the fact that relic and some people on this forum believe that any and all gamestyles should be viable however this will never lead to balance rather just a ping pong effect of endless balance changes. There are for factions. If people want various strategies or game styles then play a different faction. Nothing annoys me more than seeing ost vs sov where both sides have core inf,mgs, morter, at gun walls, elite inf, super heavies because both sides are playing the same style.

Back on topic. I don't find blobs to be universally op or an automatic match winner however you regularly have to resort to cheese counter to counter it which is not overtly stategic. In the end I simply find it monotonous to play against and boring to watch. More often than not these days I simply quit a match because the game is boring, or I get the same winter map over and over again or because my opponent is okw....

Atm I would rather watch stephenn or luvnest play than actually play the game myself.

I just want to share a story with you guys about blobs. Players that blob typically become overconfident in their blob. You can exploit that. Recently, playing as Soviets, I got fed up with this OKW blob. I set up an engie demo charge, and lured his blob onto it. The blob was no longer a problem. True story .

Of course I don't have the specific values for distance, number of units, etc. That is clearly something that would need to be balanced. I am merely talking about the theory of such a debuff. But my short answer would be that it wouldn't. If you put (for example) 3 units within 5 meters of eachother, then you recieve the penalty. That's it. I must again reiterate that it makes logical sense in that if you shoot into a group of people, your chances of hitting something are greater. Also, keep in mind that I am NOT advocating for a 200% penalty. Just a slight increase that I am certain could reach a balance relatively easily.

Uh, ANY sort of debuff that punishes just for having units close? Since when did WW2 battles become squad-duels in random parts of the battlefield??

I can play the same game and claim that would be too difficult to balance, and throw in a "that doesn't make any sense", "my mgs have no problem suppressing blobs, "only players that suck have problems suppressing blobs".

It doesn't really add anything to the discussion does it?

Way to manipulate the argument here. The whole argument is whether blobbing is overpowered in terms of skill investment and combat effectiveness, NOT how evil blobs are. You can whine all you want but what you call "blobbing" is called "concentrated commitment of forces" in military operations and is a valid tactic. Countering one tactic with another is a healthy game system. If there WERE no counters - that would be a problem. Currently, late-game units have more than enough blob control with ISU, rocket artillery, etc. The problem is early game - where MGs fail to be the anti-blobbing weapon. So it adds much to the discussion. You just have to accept the fact that blobbing is not a evil, satanic ideology of communism but a valid tactic in the right circumstances.

I don't think so, I acknowledged that I could do some things differently, however that doesn't negate the fact that I would be required to do those other things (screening troops) whereas my opponent right clicks somewhere.

If you are losing to right-clicked blobs than you haven't prepared adequately for the assault, thats all. Like I said above the opponent seemingly found a weak spot in your lines or an isolated unit and decided to concentrate in that area. You could have reacted via grenades and smokes to cover your retreat and have anti-blobbing capabilities to react to it. If right-clicking was such a rewarding, flawless tactic, then why do we not see it at any top-ranked level? I watch streams and propaganda cast during my spare time - I have yet to see blobbing win a game since AssEngie and Assgren nerf.

It doesn't change on my part, I made a stupid move with my t34 and deserved to loose it. But what I'm talking about atleast provides an incentive for him to spread his troops into tactical positions. How anybody could argue that blobbing is more desirable than posturing your troops is beyond me.

I can't understand the idea that I should be spreading my troops into tactical positions when I'm trying to concentrate a single point, especially when I'm moving my forces. It;s up to YOU to provide an incentive to the opponent to spread his troops out with proper use of anti-blobbing tools available. T34 takes average of 6 hits from a panzershrek to kill. OKW in a normal setting would only have munitions to equip 3~4 volks squad with shreks even in mid-late game so that would mean 2 accurate vollies, 3 if at max range. Shrek reload is like what,4-5 seconds. So you had good 10 seconds to get your t34 out and react with katushas or incendiary barrage. That would have forced him to either lose most of his troops or mass retreat. Thats when you take all their fuel and mine chokepoints.
In fact, I am much more afraid of a single ober and a shrek squad working in pairs than a full volks blob. A huge infantry blob for soviets? Much thanks!

And as far as blobbing being a part of the natural learning curve, that is perfectly fine. And I know some develop out of the poor habits, but why are you so against a moderate debuff to discourage such an action?

Because such debuff would not only be unrealistic but will also penalize players who exercise good micro and tactical movement JUST for having units close by - which is idiotic, to say the least. Why not make cars illegal, as they cause more death than gun accidents and airplane accidents combined?