osttruppen

Please please please tell me you are joking????

no he is not ...

Actually that is completely wrong. A person with actually little knowledge of the game can simply copy build order and be successful.

People who know more about the game are usually moders and caster and that is why Relic chose these people to design the next patch and not Top players.

The assumption that playcard is related to knowledge of game mechanics is only that a big assumption. Simply check the playcards of the people doing the WBP.

well, having played against GG & Mr.Smith, they are far from being average level player.
I have never fight against miragefla but he looks also strong.

my idea on 'playercard' is to get rid of low level player and makes, for once, balance thread usefull. else we will always have people asking for ostruppen buff, when there is clearly other and bigger problem on other than osttrupen.

well, having played against GG & Mr.Smith, they are far from being average level player.
I have never fight against miragefla but he looks also strong.

my idea on 'playercard' is to get rid of low level player and makes, for once, balance thread usefull. else we will always have people asking for ostruppen buff, when there is clearly other and bigger problem on other than osttrupen.

Well the problem with actually asking for a playcard (and I am not saying that you are doing that) is that it turns balance (something that should subjective issue) to personal issue.

In addition it opens the road to argument of type "I am higher level than you so I am right and you are wrong", and thus turning the forum into a toxic place.

we do actually agree that Osttruppen is one not actually a balance issue thou.

On topic - In my opinion ostruppen are fine currently, they're durable early game, cheap and cost effective. Of course late game they fall off but that's a fair exchange for the early game power they game. You can use them as supporting infantry in the late game and use them for capping, scouting etc..

Off-Topic Show Spoiler

The game should be balanced around the top level play. Why? It takes away almost all of the l2p issues, someone might think that Infantry support guns are op just because they don't know how to deal with them. And on the other side, a top level player might say something is op because once you micro something correctly it becomes op, and thanks to that a average/low level player might not realise the problem there and call it bullshit. If the top level play is balanced, the game is balanced.

Even we accept that the game should be balanced around Top players, that does necessarily mean that suggestion from top player should hold more weight.

For instance if Top player A has based his strategies and success in specific units, it is very probable that he would resist any nerf to this unit and agree with any buffs.

Further more his opinion in non meta unit might or might not be correct because he probably never uses them.

Finally the game should enjoyable for everyone and thus the game should not only balanced but also diverse allowing more builts to viable.

I am more surprised why the hell I can't upgrade my ostruppen reserves with G43's from lightning war commander Kappa

I think it's interesting question. You spent 200 ammunition and lost troops to call-in osttruppen and can't give them the G43.Very poor reserves.

Please please please tell me you are joking????

Since you didn't bother to read my following comment:

"Balance should be in the middle, not top down or bottom up.

And no I'm not fucking trolling I'm giving you my sincere not competitive opinion on it, I play for fun, not to be the best or to be competitive, and I don't agree with Relic's attitude of gearing up both CoH 2 and DoW III for competitive play OR many of their balance choices again, geared towards competitive.

If you want to play competitive so much I suggest playing StarCraft 2 and leaving tactical RTS games alone because obvious they're not for you, OR you make your own competitive mod and play with that.

I still see no reason why there should be both "competitive" and "casual" modes where the balance and access to units is different or whatever, as long as competitive players don't just waltz in and make changes which are not wanted or needed by the casual playerbase."

Even we accept that the game should be balanced around Top players, that does necessarily mean that suggestion from top player should hold more weight.

For instance if Top player A has based his strategies and success in specific units, it is very probable that he would resist any nerf to this unit and agree with any buffs.

Further more his opinion in non meta unit might or might not be correct because he probably never uses them.

Finally the game should enjoyable for everyone and thus the game should not only balanced but also diverse allowing more builts to viable.

at some level, people enjoy to play every faction and stop giving biased opinion.
I don't know any high level player (except the chinese man, can't remember his name) who keep playing axis or allies again and again.

when people say that relic should still consider the 'low & medium level player' opinion, well .. in a perfect world maybe.

But in the current one, there are more newbies asking per exemple for ostruppen buff than people asking for a new squad spacing system or grenadier durability ... and at the end, it makes relic think "osttrupen are the real issue here !

same for the balance patch, even if they did something PERFECT, there would be only a few people (with enough knowledge) to say it's good and there would be a bunch of comp player like A. Soldier saying it's crap.

that's why, imo, when we speak about balance, only top 100 1v1 should be allowed to speak. the other people post should be set invisi by default.

that's why, imo, when we speak about balance, only top 100 1v1 should be allowed to speak. the other people post should be set invisi by default.

You are entitled to your opinion. On the other hand some of the people actually designing the WBP are not top 100 1v1 players. Yet their knowledge of the game is better than most of 100 1v1 players...

.......passive aggressive drivel

"

Every MP game has and always will be balanced around top level play. If you fail to see why, well, the phrase beating a dead horse comes to mind....the approach to balance that you outlined above is uber nonsensical, childish, and quite frankly hilarious.

Plaguer summed it up rather nicely in a previous post so I am just going to leave this here for you.

Show Spoiler

Since you didn't bother to read my following comment:

"Balance should be in the middle, not top down or bottom up.

And no I'm not fucking trolling I'm giving you my sincere not competitive opinion on it, I play for fun, not to be the best or to be competitive, and I don't agree with Relic's attitude of gearing up both CoH 2 and DoW III for competitive play OR many of their balance choices again, geared towards competitive.

If you want to play competitive so much I suggest playing StarCraft 2 and leaving tactical RTS games alone because obvious they're not for you, OR you make your own competitive mod and play with that.

I still see no reason why there should be both "competitive" and "casual" modes where the balance and access to units is different or whatever, as long as competitive players don't just waltz in and make changes which are not wanted or needed by the casual playerbase."

What you seem to not understand is that if you are not competitive player, you need ballanced matches, not ballanced game. When the two players/teams are equal taking into consideration their skills, their armies and their strategies, the match is ballanced and the game feels ballanced. But that has nothing to do with game actually being ballanced. The ballance between respective faction is just one of multiple variables here in a space with single dimension. Which means all the other variables can easily make up for the lack of ballance - for example you can play with players with worse micro if your faction is slightly UP and you feel its all alright.

This is actually the reason why there is so many people arguing on ballance forums - becouse they played in imballanced matches and they find it easier to blame one unimportant variable instead of all the other ones. You can play with a faction that is totally OP against players who will beat you with ease. What many players do right after is crying that their faction is UP.

Riflemen

Good point how much do they cost to reinforce compared to osttruppen?

I think issues of design can be recognized ized by players of all skill levels. The intent and concept of units and factions are completely within the realms of any players' analysis.

That said, actual functionality, ingame balance, and issues of and relating to the meta game are entirely within the realm of the top level players.

Good point how much do they cost to reinforce compared to osttruppen?

Thank you!
I thought I was gonna have to remind Cloth about how much Riflemen cost compared to Ostruppen, again, since they are supposed to carry the faction.

Ostruppens speedy rate of reinforcing is pretty crazy to observe when you have a half track (or otherwise) in range. That speediness is imparted to team weapons if ostruppen recrew them.

On topic - In my opinion ostruppen are fine currently, they're durable early game, cheap and cost effective. Of course late game they fall off but that's a fair exchange for the early game power they game. You can use them as supporting infantry in the late game and use them for capping, scouting etc..

Off-Topic Show Spoiler

By that logic we need to nerf Cons, hard. Swarm and cap map early game and get insane received acc and utility late game.

Ostruppen are fine. Use them with combination of pz grenadiers. Giving them any other stuff will be too op with their bonus. Maybe sandbags would be great but I don't know.

While this is offtopic (although this is the direction it had took the thread) i'm gonna "rescue" this 2 posts:

What you seem to not understand is that if you are not competitive player, you need ballanced matches, not ballanced game. When the two players/teams are equal taking into consideration their skills, their armies and their strategies, the match is ballanced and the game feels ballanced. But that has nothing to do with game actually being ballanced. The ballance between respective faction is just one of multiple variables here in a space with single dimension. Which means all the other variables can easily make up for the lack of ballance - for example you can play with players with worse micro if your faction is slightly UP and you feel its all alright.

This is actually the reason why there is so many people arguing on ballance forums - becouse they played in imballanced matches and they find it easier to blame one unimportant variable instead of all the other ones. You can play with a faction that is totally OP against players who will beat you with ease. What many players do right after is crying that their faction is UP.

I think issues of design can be recognized ized by players of all skill levels. The intent and concept of units and factions are completely within the realms of any players' analysis.

That said, actual functionality, ingame balance, and issues of and relating to the meta game are entirely within the realm of the top level players.

There is a complete difference between having a game been balanced and having the game SEEM fair.

People like to bring the whole "korean APM starcraft" player excuse in order to avoid the reality of their own problems. COH2 has to be one of the least micro intensive games there are in the market. I'm not saying you are gonna win an ESL, Relic or coh2org tournament but you can make it to a respectable level with "silver/gold level of APM". You don't have to keep up with the mechanical burden of economy/teching management in the same level most of the other RTS in the genre have.

Finally, to complete Zombies final line:
Depending on what you define "top players", i'll add people who are consciously embedded with how the scene is working. You don't necessarily need to be able to execute it but it's true that it's more likely to know about it if you are at that level.

Good point how much do they cost to reinforce compared to osttruppen?

bout 3 fitty

still cheaper to reinforce than grens

Riflemen

USF paper tanks.

In the late game, they are bad support the front line, although they have 6 man squad - they die very quickly. Select a commander or spent ammunition to recrew MG/gun is not the rational.

Giving them weapons unlock after teching does not solve this issue. You can give them six LMG42s and they will still die fast to mortar and MG fire, not to mention vehicles that come with late-game progression.

What you'd prefer is durability and other such bonuses like less suppression or even self healing. These make them much more effective simply because they live longer and can keep firing that AT gun.

The only reason you are pressing this is simple: you like to just use these units instead of regular Ostheer infantry. Well, this idea still allows for that without competing with Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers. More importantly it preserves their intended role as support infantry, which means you don't just use Osttruppen throughout a game. You design a unit like that and it will dominate and replace other units, and encourage blobbing.

So it sounds like you are over-dependent on Osttruppen and seeing that deficiency, you want them to perform better. Not survive better, just be on par with late-game infantry. Problem is, they are not designed that way, and if you DO design them that way they create more problems just so a few players feel better when using them in droves.
I mean consider this: Would the average Ostheer player prefer vet3 Panzergrenadiers with panzerschrecks by the time T3 hits...or an Osttruppen squad that gains the privilege of Russian weapons upgrades by that same time?

Lastly there is the further complication that this unit comes from three different doctrinal abilities; one demands you spend 90 munitions and losing men, another demands 400mp and calls in two squads mid-game, and yet another lets you call them in immediately after choosing commander, and the dispatch rate is very fast. This means getting vet3 Osttruppen with such firepower by the time you go T3 an imbalance...but only if you choose a DLC commander. So to top it off, this also becomes a Pay2Win issue; such a player can gain vet3 Osttruppen and then get weapon upgrades, whereas other ones require munitions and taking losses mid-game to even get them.


TLDR late-game they need buff to survivability not increased damage