Login

russian armor

Things, which should be checked

28 Dec 2016, 02:18 AM
#21
avatar of Pluralitas

Posts: 70

Call ins should have a requisition time. the timer is like some active abilities e.g. rapid conscription. Only when the timer runs out the unit then appear. 10-30 secs should be fine with better units having more requisition time. Then you can probably put t3485 back on to the call in window.

For infiltration units if the building is being occupied at the end of the timer it will spawn at base like other call in infantry units does. So if someone really didn't want to lose the unit in retreat they could escort it by filling up the buildings in the path of retreat even if say AI partisans are like 3 sec to call in
28 Dec 2016, 03:18 AM
#22
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

The question for Relic would otherwise be "why change this -now- and lose focus, when we can get more feedback and change it at a later patch?". Or, otherwise; why should this issue be the one that's prioritised over the others.


Sheesh now we know why balance issues took months or even years to resolve. Relic's attitude toward balance is "Why change it, when we could just do nothing?
28 Dec 2016, 03:36 AM
#23
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

Yup. Obvious issues.

Next patch, hopefully.
28 Dec 2016, 07:19 AM
#24
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

How about fixing up pathing, seems like people forgot bout this? It can still be atrociously bad at times and using the reverse key doesn't always solve the problem.
28 Dec 2016, 07:43 AM
#25
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2016, 07:19 AMCrumbum
How about fixing up pathing, seems like people forgot bout this? It can still be atrociously bad at times and using the reverse key doesn't always solve the problem.

In a way, I really hope that isn't fixable by the mod team.
28 Dec 2016, 08:24 AM
#26
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



Sheesh now we know why balance issues took months or even years to resolve. Relic's attitude toward balance is "Why change it, when we could just do nothing?


The process might appear absurd at first glimpse, but, actually, it does make a lot of sense.

If we try to fix everything at once, there's no amount of WBP testing we will be able to pull off before we can be sure that we haven't messed everything up.

Also, changing everything at once means that people will have to learn the entire game, pretty much. For some people this might lead to quitting the game.

Thus, it makes sense to have an iterative process that you prioritise self-contained changes to high-priority things. Once this is fixed, you deploy, people play the game and you get feedback to fix the next batch of issues. That way you don't overcompensate for perceived issues. For instance if Axis UP and Allies OP and you buff Axis late-game while nerfing Allies early game too much at the same time might not lead to balance.

The process makes sense, as long as patches aren't more than a few months away, apart.
28 Dec 2016, 10:06 AM
#27
avatar of Gluhoman

Posts: 380

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Dec 2016, 17:15 PMFrost


But I'm pretty sure you and most of people thinks that, OKW incendiary nades are fine even if they costs almost twice as molos. And no, you are not taking them for free. Cost of getting T2 + molo is almost the same as getting the truck and battle group headquarter. Please consider it before you post something about balance, especially if OP is more experienced Kappa
Molotov is trash man, poor range, long animation. All these things make molotov useless. Folks grenade is far more better than molotov even if its cheaper.
So make molotov great again
28 Dec 2016, 10:52 AM
#28
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Incendiary grenades is better that is true but it is one of the few tools OKW have vs garrison...

Imo anti garrison weapons like that should not be available to mainline infantry. It should be reserved for specialized units, and be replaced by normal grenades for the mainline infantry...
30 Dec 2016, 07:43 AM
#31
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 466

Frost at is again :luvDerp:

also since relic broke the modding system with recent patch when will we see patch notes 1.5 that was promised a week ago ?
30 Dec 2016, 09:11 AM
#32
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283


Thus, it makes sense to have an iterative process that you prioritise self-contained changes to high-priority things. Once this is fixed, you deploy, people play the game and you get feedback to fix the next batch of issues.


The problem is, that many things are not self-contained. Armoured vehicles for example are out of scope for this patch, but meanwhile infantry isn't.
Surprise: Ostheer early game problems are (to a degree, not the way it is now) meant to exist, because their vehicles were originally supposed to be better. One of those two things got patched out over time while the other wasn't, and suddenly a host of problems appear - and those problems are not isolated, self-contained in the fashion you are making them out to be.

Your idea might work, if it were applied horizontally instead of vertically: Take the problems you deem most important, look for their connections, fix them, and see what happens. By limiting what can be touched and what cannot (which I know is Relic's thing, not yours) it becomes impossible to recreate these connections later on without either keeping the game unbalanced in the meantime (which it looks like the WBP is doing, and which is incredibly frustrating for those who want to play the game while this happens, i.e. when the WBP goes live), or without going back to the original patch later on and reverse some of it (which means a massive amount of additional work in the long run).
30 Dec 2016, 10:01 AM
#33
avatar of Svalbard SD

Posts: 327



The question for Relic would otherwise be "why change this -now- and lose focus, when we can get more feedback and change it at a later patch?"

I absolutely appreciate the time and effort you guys put in the WBP for Relic and the following is not aimed at you.

However if Relic themselves don't realise they don't have that much time to balance the game that is more and more often referred to as "dead", the February patch or any other similar patch could be for nothing.

vCoH had a large and healthy community for full seven years before the release of CoH2. If this game was designed as a worthy successor it needs just as much attention from the devs. Otherwise it just looks like the already thinned out community will grow even smaller when many people fancying RTS titles switch to DoW3/other games when they release.
30 Dec 2016, 10:37 AM
#34
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

vCoH had a large and healthy community for full seven years before the release of CoH2. If this game was designed as a worthy successor it needs just as much attention from the devs. Otherwise it just looks like the already thinned out community will grow even smaller when many people fancying RTS titles switch to DoW3/other games when they release.


The first game lived as long as it did due the plethora of mods (which in turn existed because the game was more open). And I mean real mods, not the pitiful thing that allows for slightly different units and the mess of an application that Relic calls a map editor...

Of course Relic has promised us proper mod support and better tools for a long time now. It will probably be really soon. You can count on Osttr Relic! No really, you can! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
31 Dec 2016, 07:33 AM
#35
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2016, 07:19 AMCrumbum
How about fixing up pathing, seems like people forgot bout this? It can still be atrociously bad at times and using the reverse key doesn't always solve the problem.


+1.

And that shit where tanks stop, then drive backwards or forwards, depending on destination, then resumes course for no apparent or obvious reason. I lost count how often i would scream at a tank to fucking move when it stops for some invisible object on a road....
2 Jan 2017, 08:38 AM
#36
avatar of okwplayer

Posts: 20

I agree with everything here, including the mark target on the panther command tank - cheesy, uninteresting mechanic. I'd want the soviet mark target removed as well. Command panther would need to a buff to compensate, right now it misses a lot of its shots and fires very slow, making the high cost unjustified without this broken ability. Could maybe add armor piercing shell ability?

I'd also say tie all call-in medium/heavies to Tier 4, I hate the tech skipping but am forced into it at the moment to counter Pershing / KV-8 / IS-2 / KV-1 etc.
2 Jan 2017, 08:48 AM
#37
avatar of okwplayer

Posts: 20



+1.

And that shit where tanks stop, then drive backwards or forwards, depending on destination, then resumes course for no apparent or obvious reason. I lost count how often i would scream at a tank to fucking move when it stops for some invisible object on a road....


Yeah this thing makes me rage. I don't remember it always being this way either.
2 Jan 2017, 08:58 AM
#38
avatar of Son of Malice

Posts: 34

Grens need their hth increased to 29%, they just can't withstand lategame firefights. This lil hth ncrease would made them more viable in late game.
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

702 users are online: 702 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49100
Welcome our newest member, Modarov
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM