Login

russian armor

Some maps STILL have deep snow

22 Jun 2016, 16:54 PM
#1
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

Shouldn't that have been removed a while ago? Kholodny Ferma and Moscow outskirts still have deep snow parts.
Why?
22 Jun 2016, 16:56 PM
#2
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2016, 16:54 PMDomine
Shouldn't that have been removed a while ago? Kholodny Ferma and Moscow outskirts still have deep snow parts.
Why?

Why do some maps have mud? Map design.
Why do some maps have deep snow? Map design.
22 Jun 2016, 17:16 PM
#3
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

Yeah, the difference is that deep snow was supposed to be removed.
22 Jun 2016, 18:20 PM
#4
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

I think, that blizzards and cold-tech, and deep snows, and ice blowing, as it was at start, should be made back, because it was really interesting part of game mechanics and made gameplay process less... common or usual maybe.

I don't understand, why Relic agreed to remove that and other "innovations" of CoH 2, becuase it weren't real innovations, but it made game process more interesting. Of course, competitive players will whine about "RNG, blizzards are bad, deep snow is bad", but in that case, I think, Relic had to say "F*ck you, fags, deal with our game, we shouldn't lay under your requests". That would be respectful position, and game would save it interesting and uniqe parts.

I just think, that 2-3 years more of "Top-100 faggatory domination" and CoH 2 will suddenly turn into uberboring but ubercompetitive Starcraft 2 in WWII design. I, as big fan, but not progamer, don't want such fate for game series, which was once revolution in RTS games.
22 Jun 2016, 18:29 PM
#5
avatar of tredbobek

Posts: 30

When there's a clear road but your soldiers decide to go in the deep snow right next to it

#justdeepsnowthings
22 Jun 2016, 18:46 PM
#6
avatar of dreamerdude
Benefactor 392

Posts: 374

I think, that blizzards and cold-tech, and deep snows, and ice blowing, as it was at start, should be made back, because it was really interesting part of game mechanics and made gameplay process less... common or usual maybe.

I don't understand, why Relic agreed to remove that and other "innovations" of CoH 2, becuase it weren't real innovations, but it made game process more interesting. Of course, competitive players will whine about "RNG, blizzards are bad, deep snow is bad", but in that case, I think, Relic had to say "F*ck you, fags, deal with our game, we shouldn't lay under your requests". That would be respectful position, and game would save it interesting and uniqe parts.

I just think, that 2-3 years more of "Top-100 faggatory domination" and CoH 2 will suddenly turn into uberboring but ubercompetitive Starcraft 2 in WWII design. I, as big fan, but not progamer, don't want such fate for game series, which was once revolution in RTS games.



RIP blizzards... i missed those
22 Jun 2016, 18:59 PM
#7
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

You're right. Reducing a games competitiveness is good. Who cares about competition and the subsequent effect on player base. As long as I find it fun to sit in a Blizzard doing nothing for a minute, that's what counts.
22 Jun 2016, 19:18 PM
#8
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2016, 18:59 PMNosliw
You're right. Reducing a games competitiveness is good. Who cares about competition and the subsequent effect on player base. As long as I find it fun to sit in a Blizzard doing nothing for a minute, that's what counts.


Well, blizzards forced to sit only your INFANTRY. Tanks were free to go/rush. And you even could move infantry, for fast attacks. It was interesting side element of gameplay.

Blizzards could be used for fast rush attacks, cos your enemy (and you too) had no air support, artillery had lesser effectivness and LoS was absolutely low. Anyway, good startegits could find benefits even out of such debuffing thing, cos it affects both sides.

So, from my point of view, blizzards and such thing, actually, INCREASED, not decreased competitivness of CoH 2. You had to have skills, mind and strategy for to deal with blizzards, now without it game is way simplier for everyone and less competitive.

Same goes for deep snow/mud. You always can order (through SHIFT button) you squads to avoid such things, or control your units directly. It increases you micro controll skills, and whining about means, that you don't want to do more micro, connected with surrond battlefield conditions.

As I said, if we will remove such "uncompetitive" things from game more and more, it will one day turn in really boring and stupid SC2-type game. Do you want it?
22 Jun 2016, 19:23 PM
#9
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

Removing blizzards doesn't turn CoH2 into an SC2-type game. How can you even say something like that? Blizzards fundamentally slow down the game, which most players find boring. It messes with the pacing of the game, and since they are completely random when they occur, can negate player advantages. Have you never rushed a Luchs and then a Blizzard hits and suddenly you have to wait a whole minute before using it, because if you drive into fog of war you're likely to drive into an AT gun or squad with AT grenade since you can't see? It just doesn't make sense dude. The blizzards were removed from the game due to the popular opinion of players that they were not fun. It's not like Relic removed them for no reason. Most people don't like them. Just because you do doesn't mean they should be in the game. If you like them you can play custom games anyway. But when ladder points and rankings are at stake, adding an element of RNG (blizzard timing) and a subsequent reduction in game pacing is never a good thing. Even think of when games are casted for 1000 people in a big tournament. No one wants to see players suddenly build camp fires and sit tanks stationary.
22 Jun 2016, 19:39 PM
#10
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2016, 19:23 PMNosliw
Removing blizzards doesn't turn CoH2 into an SC2-type game. How can you even say something like that? Blizzards fundamentally slow down the game, which most players find boring. It messes with the pacing of the game, and since they are completely random when they occur, can negate player advantages. Have you never rushed a Luchs and then a Blizzard hits and suddenly you have to wait a whole minute before using it, because if you drive into fog of war you're likely to drive into an AT gun or squad with AT grenade since you can't see? It just doesn't make sense dude. The blizzards were removed from the game due to the popular opinion of players that they were not fun. It's not like Relic removed them for no reason. Most people don't like them. Just because you do doesn't mean they should be in the game. If you like them you can play custom games anyway. But when ladder points and rankings are at stake, reducing random RNG (blizzard timing) and reducing game pacing is never a good thing.


Yea, and tomorrow, "most people" will find howitzers boring, because you know, people making howitzers, they are starting to camp, campy playstyle is stupid, and they don't want to try and counter them - let's remove howitzers then? That's really retarded way of making "high-quality, uniqe RTS game" better.

Seriously, that "most people opinion" in that case is absolutely irrelevant. Nobody would drop CoH 2 because Relic doesn't removed blizzards or whatever else retards don't like, just because they don't know how to deal with it and how to use it for their own profit. Instead, they would learn, how to act in blizzards in general, it provided you a lot of interetsting startegic possibilites, which made CoH 2, as RTS game more interesting and wide.

Blizzards slowed game? So what? Again, it didn't ruin your game at all. As in real - whatever hurts you, aslo provides you opportunities. If you don't know how to use them or don't want to use them - that's your own problem. Of course, they was random, it could affect on your game and it's results. But you know what - it was damn interesting and... competitive!

Competitive doesn't mean, that everything is predictible, and RNG doesn't affect the game. Isn't that competitive, that game forcing you to fastly deal with unpredictible side effects? It requires more skill, more mind and more other important for strategy game things from player to deal with fast changing situation on battlefield, and only skilful and smart enough player will find right ways and make right desicions for to profit himself even in that case.

In other words - without blizzards and other "side effects" of game, CoH 2 becoming more and more POOR, as RTS game. More side effects - more strategy and tactic ways and requirements. Less - game becoming more predictible, more boring, less competitive.

P.S. Bad example, but whatever - Herathstone. 100% competitive game, all about random. And you know what - it works awesome, because it is more competitive to deal with random cases, instead of predictible and built. Hope you got my point.
22 Jun 2016, 19:57 PM
#11
avatar of Crystal

Posts: 97

Deep snow was never supposed to be removed. Same goes for Ice etc.

Only Blizzard has been removed.
22 Jun 2016, 20:06 PM
#12
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515



Yea, and tomorrow, "most people" will find howitzers boring, because you know, people making howitzers, they are starting to camp, campy playstyle is stupid, and they don't want to try and counter them - let's remove howitzers then? That's really retarded way of making "high-quality, uniqe RTS game" better.

Seriously, that "most people opinion" in that case is absolutely irrelevant. Nobody would drop CoH 2 because Relic doesn't removed blizzards or whatever else retards don't like, just because they don't know how to deal with it and how to use it for their own profit. Instead, they would learn, how to act in blizzards in general, it provided you a lot of interetsting startegic possibilites, which made CoH 2, as RTS game more interesting and wide.


The fact that you basically called anyone who disagrees with your opinion "retarded" makes me realise now that arguing with you is pointless. You can't call a majority of people's opinions retarded because it doesn't line up with yours. But whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. The only thing that matters is that CoH2 will remain blizzard free forever. :)
22 Jun 2016, 20:12 PM
#13
avatar of MoerserKarL
Donator 22

Posts: 1108

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2016, 17:16 PMDomine
Yeah, the difference is that deep snow was supposed to be removed.


source?

deep snow was not supposed to be removed. Only the blizzard
22 Jun 2016, 20:15 PM
#14
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jun 2016, 20:06 PMNosliw


The fact that you basically called anyone who disagrees with your opinion "retarded" makes me realise now that arguing with you is pointless. You can't call a majority of people's opinions retarded because it doesn't line up with yours. But whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. The only thing that matters is that CoH2 will remain blizzard free forever. :)


I call "majority" retards, because instead of adapting to objective, innovative, unique and interesting difficulties in game, they decided to say "we don't want to see CoH 2 as difficult and interesting RTS, we want it simplier and dumber, so, pls, remove it". That is retardism, from my point of view.

I had no problems with blizzards, I never met in game people who had. I don't know where it came from, but it was 100% wrong decision.
22 Jun 2016, 20:19 PM
#16
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

I can tell from the way you present your thoughts on this forum that you surely were on a debate team in high school or University. :)
22 Jun 2016, 20:21 PM
#17
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Deep snow was removed from certain maps because it was cancer (snow outside your base on left spawn Kod. Ferma was annoying as shit, Semois. had terrible retreat paths that was overly punishing, etc.)

Blizzards were a fun idea that offered some novel tactics but the problem was players rarely if ever utilized them - at most you would have cold-immune Volks capping unhindered or maybe bombing a campfire which is several times less strategic than actively moving units around unimpeded and capitalizing on momentum and pushing an advantage.

Also the "most people" argument is stupid - any game developer is going to make a product that appeals to the majority of its playerbase - unless you really want COH2 to become a dead game, in which case sure, let's keep all the annoying mechanics that people don't like just because a minority like theorycrafting on how "no, blizzards could be totally cool, really!"

EDIT - I also think there was some performance issue where blizzards hurt the game engine's performance or something like that too. Either way, it's not like Relic just removed them on whim.
22 Jun 2016, 20:23 PM
#18
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

Deep snow was removed from certain maps because it was cancer (snow outside your base on left spawn Kod. Ferma was annoying as shit, Semois. had terrible retreat paths that was overly punishing, etc.)

Blizzards were a fun idea that offered some novel tactics but the problem was players rarely if ever utilized them - at most you would have cold-immune Volks capping unhindered or maybe bombing a campfire which is several times less strategic than actively moving units around unimpeded and capitalizing on momentum and pushing an advantage.

Also the "most people" argument is stupid - any game developer is going to make a product that appeals to the majority of its playerbase - unless you really want COH2 to become a dead game, in which case sure, let's keep all the annoying mechanics that people don't like just because a minority like theorycrafting on how "no, blizzards could be totally cool, really!"


+1

Summed up exactly how I feel on the topic.
22 Jun 2016, 20:26 PM
#19
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673



Also the "most people" argument is stupid - any game developer is going to make a product that appeals to the majority of its playerbase - unless you really want COH2 to become a dead game, in which case sure, let's keep all the annoying mechanics that people don't like just because a minority like theorycrafting on how "no, blizzards could be totally cool, really!"


But I can't imagine, that majorty of playerbase would say: "Oh, Relic don't remove blizzards and deep snows, fuck them, fuck teh gaem, will go to play in Wargame".

More than that - long time it wasn't even issue for playerbase, it all came from "competitve" camp, which is cancer for that game and for all games, which have one. Same competitive camp destroyed unique doctrines, like Elite or Industry, for purpouses of teh "Great competitives". They making CoH 2 boring and not interesting for common players, which are REAL majortiy of CoH 2 community.
22 Jun 2016, 20:32 PM
#20
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

Blizzards were removed due to popular opinion. That is a fact. You cannot argue that. Saying that "you can't imagine the majority would dislike blizzards" is therefore simply incorrect.

Furthermore, if it weren't for the "cancerous competitive players", the game would still be in an unbalanced state. The game would likely still have useless MGs and super powerful infantry from USF and OKW. People would be blobbing infantry through Blizzards and using B4s precision strike to win games. You have the cancer of the community to thank for increasing the balance of the game so that you "common" players have less to cry about at night. You're welcome.
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

495 users are online: 495 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49063
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM