Luvnest's state of the game report

Yep, Cynthia passed it on. Some great notes in there, thanks!

We're always looking at these kind of things and trying to fix as may as we can do whenever we do an update.

Hi Quinn!

Just going to take this opportunity to again ask that devs post responses to cards on the issue tracker saying that those issues are being looked at. I think it would go a long way!

Good post Luvnest. Constructive and easy to read. Some of these threads are really long and challenging to read without proper outlining, while they might be full of good points.

I've always liked how you keep your head (more or less ) cool while game has these issues. It's a lot more enjoyable to follow your stream.

Good post Luvnest. Constructive and easy to read. Some of these threads are really long and challenging to read without proper outlining, while they might be full of good points.

I've always liked how you keep your head (more or less ) cool while game has these issues. It's a lot more enjoyable to follow your stream.

+1 Good post

Really good post.
Hope the devs take that to heart because it would improve the game so much.

But I also don't understand why side armour never was a thing.
Could be so cool because a tank has also sides and not just a read, DUH.
It wouldn't even be a lot of work! Just two more hitboxes per tank.

Side armour could be a bit (10%) higher than the rear armour as it is now while the new rear armour that really is only the tank's butt would be much weaker (50-70% of the rear armour right now).

Amazing post I hope in the next patches a few things of this stuff will be in

Excellent write up.

One thing that bugs me is the USF base. Due to it's size the retreating units often end up quite close to the base border and so the player places their ambulance there, this leaves the USF players units easier to hit from outside the base.

all vehicles are basically two hit boxes stuck together. Front box has front armour rating and rear box has rear armour rating. The size of the hit boxes can differ in distribution however.



the one on the right is what the elefant hitboxes are like and the one on the left is a regular medium tank.

This was the case in CoH1 as well.

Great post by the way.

Ok so my theory wasn't completely wrong then, thanks for the clarification!

Very well written and discussed, some of them are a part of the bug list and some of them are not, I suggest adding the rest to the list. Although your points about bugs are valid, I would like relic to at least consider your balance notes for the next patch.
One more thing, has there ever been a discussion about unit crushing with tanks (specially shermans)? That thing is annoying.

PS: I have not noticed ANY performance changes and the game still freezes and I have the same FPS as before, and my PC is good, Not high end but good. Pathing is still terrible. last night my teammate lost 2 Shermans because of the broken pathing, you should be able to rely on pathing specially when you play USF because you have a lot of units to manage.

More hitboxes for vehicles would be great. 2 was enough maybe 8 years ago in CoH 1 but not now.

Are you guys sure that in vCOH there was no side armor value?

great list. spam.r33k's seal of approval granted. good job, luvnest

about side armor:

Show Spoiler

Hi Quinn!

Just going to take this opportunity to again ask that devs post responses to cards on the issue tracker saying that those issues are being looked at. I think it would go a long way!

I guess the reason why they won't comment on specific issues is that it might be taken as a promise that they will fix it. I guess experience shows that making promises can end up bad for game developers.

Are you guys sure that in vCOH there was no side armor value?

The hit box model IpKaiFung posted is correct. Its also correct that it was basically the same in CoH1.
But I don't think there were different ones. Only the 50:50 model shown on the left side of the drawing.
In CoH1 there also was a chance for shots at the side to hit the rear hitbox. This was dependent on the position of the shooting unit.
A shot directly from the rear had a 100 % chance of hitting the rear box. Just like a shot at the front had a 100 % chance of hitting the front box. A side shot fired at center of the target at a perfect 90° had a 50:50 chance to hit the rear armor. This meant a unit didn't need to stand directly behind a tank to be able score rear armor hits. Expopsing the side of a tank (even a heavy one) allready was dangerous.

It seems in CoH2 only a few vehicles if any use the 50:50 hitbox or the chance to hit the rear box with shots to the side is significantly lower.

Armor is generally badly implemented in CoH2 from my point of view. Neither does it reflect the capabilities the vehicle historically had nor is it balanced well. I would be perfectly fine with sacrificing either for the other but it really should be one of the two.
Armor schemes also offer a lot oportunity for diversity. For example the T34 historically has the same hull armor all round. Wich is in direct contrast to most other tanks wich have significantly better front armor than side and rear. This is especially true for the late war German tanks wich have massive frontal armor and thin side and rear armor.
Allmost all tanks in CoH2 are to fast when moving backwards. This is where smoke comes in. To disengage or retreat tanks of this era would smoke, turn and drive away forward. Multiple reverse gears and high speed backwards movement became common after WW2. There are exeptions. This could be used to add flavour and diversity but again the chance is unused.

I guess the reason why they won't comment on specific issues is that it might be taken as a promise that they will fix it. I guess experience shows that making promises can end up bad for game developers.

I certainly hope that is not their reasoning.

about side armor:

Show Spoiler

As far as I can tell this is exactly the effect they tried to achieve in CoH1 with the two hit box approach.

Otherwise the exact hit angle would need to be taken into account and this might be very difficult to imprement concidering the number of entities and shots involved.

For CoH1 I allways found the hit box system very elegant and it worked well and satisfying. So my conclusion is not that the system as such is wrong but the changes they made to it.

Thank you guys for all the feedback, if I knew that this thread was going to get that much attention I would have supported each of my statements with examples and would have been a little bit more specific with each of the things I mentioned.

I'm going to further update my original post with screenshots and explanations as I play.

As far as I can tell this is exactly the effect they tried to achieve in CoH1 with the two hit box approach.

Otherwise the exact hit angle would need to be taken into account and this might be very difficult to imprement concidering the number of entities and shots involved.

For CoH1 I allways found the hit box system very elegant and it worked well and satisfying. So my conclusion is not that the system as such is wrong but the changes they made to it.

i agree. what that piece of art of mine tried to say is IF they implement side armor they need to limit it to a small part of the side portion of any vehicle. side armor wasnt that thick (and didnt had to be) because it was "supposed" to only recieve shots with a shallow (?) impact angle, so deflection was quite likely. but since there are no impact angles influencing penetration values in coh2 frontal armor would have to cover a bigger part of the vehicle to make up for that and keep the vehicle from being to vulnerable to frontal attacks hitting its sides

pretty good at all, vids where funny to see too, but that with the decrewing of vehicles.. It actually happened pretty often that especially the germans used enemy armour. I would just say that its not completely random (if it is) but depends on the vehicle itself and the thing that is shooting at it. A bombing strike shouldnt leave anything behind. but if a small gun can take out the last bit of a tank then why not? that together with the side armour thing should encourage people engaging heavier tanks with lighter ones and makes it maybe planable to capture an enemy vehicle. Also it forces people to support their vehicles more by infantry. havent thought of it that much, just some initial ideas.

As far as I can tell this is exactly the effect they tried to achieve in CoH1 with the two hit box approach.

Otherwise the exact hit angle would need to be taken into account and this might be very difficult to imprement concidering the number of entities and shots involved.

For CoH1 I allways found the hit box system very elegant and it worked well and satisfying. So my conclusion is not that the system as such is wrong but the changes they made to it.

I agree that it felt right in COH1. Perhaps not 100% but close enough. Which is a great trick considering how they modeled it and shows that a more rudimentary design, nicely balanced, can do wonders.

Making most, or even half, of a Panther the "front" hitbox makes for a very flawed model both by historical and game-play standards. If you are going to give Panthers super front armor (which is also historical) and give them super speed (for an almost-heavy) you need to also model their weakness which was that their side armor was almost as weak as the rear armor (40-58mm depending on location). They were very vulnerable when outmaneuvered and hit in the side. As a gameplay element this means that a Panther can still be super effective but would have vulnerabilities that required more skill in their use.

(BTW, needing skill in a Panther's use would also be historical, since inexperienced Panther crews took great losses in France in the summer of '44.)