Login

russian armor

SEPTEMBER 17TH PATCH NOTES

PAGES (9)down
15 Sep 2015, 21:49 PM
#161
avatar of The Big Red 1

Posts: 758

im just glad relic made USF viable late game not like garbage as it was before
15 Sep 2015, 21:51 PM
#162
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

Seriously people, why not just delete all winter maps? There's nothing making them different now.


This cant be a serious statment. This kind of comment is always used when mentioning a nerfed unit, except maps are completely aesthetic in terms of appearance, and should be balanced - which is more important. Lame blizzards can come much later - when/if ever relic bothers to optimize the game and such.

Maps are maps, just... No. Too silly of an outburst to take serious.
15 Sep 2015, 21:52 PM
#163
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738

Yes maybe now that USF will be borderline OP again the USF fanboys will relent on the balance forums

15 Sep 2015, 21:57 PM
#164
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4

So wait, Rifle Coy was just... removed? People paid money for content and it's just gone? Have I read that right?
15 Sep 2015, 22:00 PM
#165
avatar of ThatRabidPotato

Posts: 218



This cant be a serious statment. This kind of comment is always used when mentioning a nerfed unit, except maps are completely aesthetic in terms of appearance, and should be balanced - which is more important. Lame blizzards can come much later - when/if ever relic bothers to optimize the game and such.
Here we have the classic forum snob- someone who thinks that his opinion and worldview are the only valid ones and anyone who expresses a radically different one is not serious, stupid, or a troll.

Maps are not completely aesthetic, as anyone who has played the game for more than five minutes can tell you. Which map you are playing on has a vast impact on your play style- I defy anyone to tell me Steppes or Vaux plays the same as Semosky or Sittard, for example.

Cold tech is an extension of that. It adds elements to the game that differentiate maps from each other and in particular makes playing on a winter map different in a practical sense from playing on the summer version of the same map. So yes, Relic might as well delete winter versions of maps because now there is nothing separating them from the summer ones except vehicle camo. Tell me, what difference is there?

Secondly, there is the immersion factor- some of us LIKE feeling that we're watching and directing an actual WW2 battle to some extent, and blizzards were a factor that had to be dealt with IRL in winter conditions. It was good that you had to do it here as well.

"Too silly of an outburst to take seriously" thanks for perfectly encapsulating your own post. Maps are maps... AND WHICH MAP YOU ARE PLAYING ON GENERALLY AFFECTS HOW YOU PLAY DOES IT NOT?
15 Sep 2015, 22:16 PM
#166
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

So wait, Rifle Coy was just... removed? People paid money for content and it's just gone? Have I read that right?


the formatting of the post is bad. click the original link. its def stance what has been removed
15 Sep 2015, 22:21 PM
#167
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

Here we have the classic forum snob- someone who thinks that his opinion and worldview are the only valid ones and anyone who expresses a radically different one is not serious, stupid, or a troll.

Maps are not completely aesthetic, as anyone who has played the game for more than five minutes can tell you. Which map you are playing on has a vast impact on your play style- I defy anyone to tell me Steppes or Vaux plays the same as Semosky or Sittard, for example.

Cold tech is an extension of that. It adds elements to the game that differentiate maps from each other and in particular makes playing on a winter map different in a practical sense from playing on the summer version of the same map. So yes, Relic might as well delete winter versions of maps because now there is nothing separating them from the summer ones except vehicle camo. Tell me, what difference is there?

Secondly, there is the immersion factor- some of us LIKE feeling that we're watching and directing an actual WW2 battle to some extent, and blizzards were a factor that had to be dealt with IRL in winter conditions. It was good that you had to do it here as well.

"Too silly of an outburst to take seriously" thanks for perfectly encapsulating your own post. Maps are maps... AND WHICH MAP YOU ARE PLAYING ON GENERALLY AFFECTS HOW YOU PLAY DOES IT NOT?


Le sigh.

I, who could care less, being simple and practical, see the map as the game board.

I dont like outside random interruptions in my strategy game. So do many other people; current blizzards (IN HOW THEY WERE CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED) simply said, were very terrible and slowed down the game.
I SAID maps are completely aesthetic in terms of APPEARANCE (english). A winter map looks nice. Random blizzards as they are arent as well as deep snow... BALANCE of the map matters most. Repeated again.

As for nothing seperating winter maps from summer maps, what then seperates spring and autumn maps from summer maps?... Dont answer that, but the reason winter maps exist is to simulate a winter battlefield. Repeated again to emphasize: current manifestation of blizzards simulating something much more tedious and boring than a winter battlefield.

Immersion blizzards that do VERY LITTLE could still exist. Perhaps they could return if relic reworks it. Current past blizzards sucked (but still can be used in custom matches).

I dont want to antagonzie you, but please dont antagonize me. I simple found it the oddest overstatement to remove blizzard maps on the sole reason that the removal of blizzards should warrant a removal. Now is that not more silly than removing a map for a more gameplay based reason, like the map being allied/axis biased/ really bad, such as Stalingrad?

That is why your first statement of this post is very crude; you have conducted way too poor of a basis on the proposition of removing all blizzard maps as a result. And im not a snob, just an asshole. I attack things based on their validity, not because "my opinion is better/others are inferior". The moment you start antagonizing someone else, then you become the same and no one is the better.

15 Sep 2015, 22:24 PM
#168
avatar of mrako

Posts: 107



They severely hampered performance in this already horrifically optimized game so they HAD to go.


Thats wrong. WFA winter maps(no coldtech) lag as much as the older eastern front maps.
15 Sep 2015, 22:25 PM
#169
avatar of jorsg
Patrion 14

Posts: 20



Handheld flamers do worse vs units not in cover, and they do better vs units in yellow, and significantly better vs units in green. Also they don't leave behind a dot anymore.


Thank You for the reply LemonJuice, straight and simple.
15 Sep 2015, 22:33 PM
#170
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4



the formatting of the post is bad. click the original link. its def stance what has been removed


Right! Thank you for the clarification.
16 Sep 2015, 01:11 AM
#171
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

snip


To put it simple on how blizzard should had been:
-Less random. Both appearance and duration. RNG is not neccesarily bad BUT huge disparity of result is.
-No deaths by freeze, just combat performance debuffs.
-Firepits cost no mp, but do have a huge cooldown (2-3mins each). Remove xp gain from destroying them.
-Heavy snow should be able to be clear by either flames, vehicles or explosives. They reappear with each blizzard.
-Ice gets more resistant during blizzard, allowing for sneaky flanks without such a huge risk.
16 Sep 2015, 01:17 AM
#172
avatar of ThatRabidPotato

Posts: 218



To put it simple on how blizzard should had been:
-Less random. Both appearance and duration. RNG is not neccesarily bad BUT huge disparity of result is.
-No deaths by freeze, just combat performance debuffs.
-Firepits cost no mp, but do have a huge cooldown (2-3mins each). Remove xp gain from destroying them.
-Heavy snow should be able to be clear by either flames, vehicles or explosives. They reappear with each blizzard.
-Ice gets more resistant during blizzard, allowing for sneaky flanks without such a huge risk.
I can agree with all these, except for the "no troops dying". It takes so long for your troops to get to fatal levels of cold that you really deserve it if you let it happen.
16 Sep 2015, 01:40 AM
#173
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

I can agree with all these, except for the "no troops dying". It takes so long for your troops to get to fatal levels of cold that you really deserve it if you let it happen.


Retreat on big maps and you are gonna lose models to it.
Fatality slows down the game too much which makes it undesirable for most players. It doesn't add a layer of strategic depth, it just makes the game "annoying".

I'll only agree to blizzards been fatal IF you are hiding/moving through deep snow. AND if that is the case, deep snow should offer some kinda of strategic opportunity (cloak with ambush bonus for example) to offset it annoyance.
16 Sep 2015, 01:47 AM
#174
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

To put it simple on how blizzard should had been:
-Less random. Both appearance and duration. RNG is not neccesarily bad BUT huge disparity of result is.
-Firepits cost no mp, but do have a huge cooldown (2-3mins each). Remove xp gain from destroying them.
-Heavy snow should be able to be clear by either flames, vehicles or explosives. They reappear with each blizzard.
-Ice gets more resistant during blizzard, allowing for sneaky flanks without such a huge risk.


Would be interesting if they added universal Vet bonuses that effected how troops act in snow.

Vet 1: Troops can move full speed through high snow.
Vet 2: Instead of dying from cold, troops get debuffs.
Vet 3: Troops have full vision during blizzards.
16 Sep 2015, 13:49 PM
#175
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

Lots of good stuff, noticably panzerwerfer, Tiger, ppsh, thomson, Sherman and anti-sniper

But

Removing Cold Tech = wrong decision due to brat-players' whining (WRONG I TELL YA :p)

Half brought back ML-20 to meh. Needs area of impact rewind too and then ok sure. :/


I don't understand flames at all anymore.
Usually brits build more than one emplacement at the same site. So the two rockets stuka hit buffing dmg 50% I don't know...

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Sep 2015, 00:53 AMBanillo
will the cost of the new volks nade be 30 muni while the molotov costs 15?

Fuel tech cost is 15 I think, not the price for hurling liquor bottles at the enemy.

Increased range for heavies.

Jesus Christ

5 more range for 1 at a time slow moving tank. It's a fair change.

The Tiger II is a fortress around which your attack hinges. It is the most skilless version of a tank in the game, and this only stresses that point. Since it cannot chase and it has insanely high damage it just sits still and destroys all within its range.

If the plan is to buff the Tiger, what is the purpose of that?

Do you ever play wehr? What you write is nonsense. Nobody has been scared of the Tiger for quite some time. This change was good.

A raging blizzard SHOULD have drastic effects.

And it's never getting put back in. The playerbase is vocal enough against it that cold tech is gone for good now.

Seriously people, why not just delete all winter maps? There's nothing making them different now.

Damn right. Terrible decision. They should've expanded on it, not remove it. Making ice harder during blizzards and stuff. Rostov is perfect for that. Oh, I forgot, they removed a charisma and different map like Rostov as well.
18 Sep 2015, 01:20 AM
#176
avatar of sombrabrz
Donator 11

Posts: 42

Good patch overall, i see USF players just using rifle company from now on.
Didn't expect this amount of changes...
18 Sep 2015, 01:28 AM
#177
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



Would be interesting if they added universal Vet bonuses that effected how troops act in snow.

Vet 1: Troops can move full speed through high snow.
Vet 2: Instead of dying from cold, troops get debuffs.
Vet 3: Troops have full vision during blizzards.

I dunno, I'd really have to say being able to eventually downright invalidate the features with time like that would devoid the point of implementing it at all. As well, then anyone who doesn't like winter will just go "Blizzards at the beginning of the game suck", eh?
18 Sep 2015, 02:44 AM
#178
avatar of ThatRabidPotato

Posts: 218

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2015, 01:28 AMVuther

I dunno, I'd really have to say being able to eventually downright invalidate the features with time like that would devoid the point of implementing it at all. As well, then anyone who doesn't like winter will just go "Blizzards at the beginning of the game suck", eh?
Not necessarily. That would greatly reward players who kept their units alive in winter maps.

The point is, there's so many better things they could have done than just remove them entirely.
18 Sep 2015, 02:54 AM
#179
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891

We need positivity...infantry units should move faster through deep snow, blizzards should provide Los and combat buffs to all units.
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

788 users are online: 788 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM