Can we please limit the blizzard?

If we are forced to have this horribly implemented design in the game can it PLEASE be limited. I just spent an hour of my life sitting through at least 10 blizzards on Rhzev the abomination of a map. If I can't chat in a chatroom, deselect maps, or do anything I could in 2006 can you AT LEAST, AT LEAST limit the duration or the quantity of this awful mechanic? I don't care if it's an extended one time thing or maybe max of 3-4 but 10 in a game is fucking ludicrous.

I've disliked the Blizzard mechanic since Closed Beta.

It's too restrictive to infantry play. I'd be fine if the vision was impaired the way it is now, if the other debuffs were reduced significantly in effectiveness.

Right now tanks dominate the metagame, primarily as a result of the abundance of heavy weapons teams, the low damage on infantry, and Blizzards. The mechanic has needed to be toned down since Closed Beta, and while it has in some situations, it's become more restrictive in others.

Dave, i removed the capslock from the title. I am sure you calmed down a bit by now =) Lets discuss this controverse topic objectively.

mumble key is caps lock. my bad.

I don't think the blizzards are a priority.

The game can be still very active I find if you get a half track and they are useful not only during blizzards (to transport your squads) but to reinforce your squads.

What I miss from vCOH is Forward HQ and real bunkers, especially that we do have some big maps for 1v1 games, it would be nice to setup another "base" imo

I agree. I feel in a competitive game, something as unpredictable as a blizzard doesn't really fit into the flow of a game.

A vital counter attack can be completely ruined by a blizzard. Not to mention a sudden loss in line of sight can completely screw up your MG's, snipers, mortar accuracy, etc..

CoH2, just as CoH1 is full of randomness. Singling out the Blizzard for "not being competitive!!!11" is lying to yourself.

Also, I mostly ignore the Blizzard these days and win anyway. Some clever move queues and you're fine.

As much as I like blizzards and use blizzards to attack, I would agree, 10 blizzards in a game seems horribly unrealistic and a pain to get through.

There should really be a cap on the number of blizzards per hour of gameplay.

How many times this thing has been discussed? There are like 10 threads on blizzard already.

CoH2, just as CoH1 is full of randomness. Singling out the Blizzard for "not being competitive!!!11" is lying to yourself.

Also, I mostly ignore the Blizzard these days and win anyway. Some clever move queues and you're fine.

CoH is not full of randomness. The only thing random is the fact that unit damage is dictated by an RNG.

My original point still stands.

I don't think the blizzards are a priority.

The game can be still very active I find if you get a half track and they are useful not only during blizzards (to transport your squads) but to reinforce your squads.

What I miss from vCOH is Forward HQ and real bunkers, especially that we do have some big maps for 1v1 games, it would be nice to setup another "base" imo

My argument isn't about what to do in a blizzard. I know how to reinforce from a halftrack, thx. My argument is that the blizzard just makes the match insufferably boring and frustrating to play through. It's actually worse in team games especially playing against Soviets who camp with longer range heavy armor and mgs/120 mm mortar. Perhaps this could be alleviated if maps like Rhzev weren't just poorly designed layout wise in general. I just think the gameplay would be more fluid without 10 blizzards that stall for various lengths of time over a 35 minute time period.

My argument isn't about what to do in a blizzard. I know how to reinforce from a halftrack, thx. My argument is that the blizzard just makes the match insufferably boring and frustrating to play through. It's actually worse in team games especially playing against Soviets who camp with longer range heavy armor and mgs/120 mm mortar. Perhaps this could be alleviated if maps like Rhzev weren't just poorly designed layout wise in general. I just think the gameplay would be more fluid without 10 blizzards that stall for various lengths of time over a 35 minute time period.

I like the concept of blizzards, the thing I hate is that they happen too frequently and their effects aren't powerful enough. I would be much happier if they barely happened but when they do they actually bring armies to a halt. Right now all it does is force players to micromanage intensively. You can still move your men from fire to fire easily and only punishes you if you forget about a unit.

Blizzards should be in singleplayer and custom games (if you want them)but NOT in automatch, end of story.....

Blizzards should be in singleplayer and custom games (if you want them)but NOT in automatch, end of story.....

End of story...because you decided so? I didn't realise you were dictator of COH2, and that the game was supposed to be designed to your exact specifications. Who exactly made you king?

honestly what was the point of the blizzard? like before CB and they announced cold tech i was thinking "how am i gonna keep my soldiers warm" but now its like "YOUR RIGHT NEXT TO THE FIRE WHY ARE YOU STILL COLD"

I reckon when you hit auto match and you get connected and the game starts a popup should come up to all players and it should say

"enable blizzards"
yes = F1
no = F2

and you'd have to get more than the majority voting yes to enable it.

Yea, blizzards are pretty horrible in every way. They're cool in SP/Coop, but absolutely awful in MP.

Firstly, you'd think that blizzards would make snipers better, but it doesn't. It's worse. Sniper range becomes the SAME as MG range because their view distance is the same. How does this make sense?

The view distance nerf should be percentage based, so if it's 50% off of the view distance of MGs it's the same 50% off snipers. Right now it just sets EVERY unit to the exact same view distance... which makes no sense.

Then there's the cold. Why? Seriously? It's just an across-the-board punishment to players. It doesn't 'do' anything for the game. You get a bunch of warnings, and then stuff dies extremely slowly. Almost all units can build a fire as well. Or you just put them in a building. Or a vehicle. It's not "fun", it's just annoying.

The problem with blizzards is that they solve problems that they create. Look at the gameplay involved; The blizzards nerf movement speed and view distance. As a result of this, the pace goes down - you just sit there. The game literally calls a 'time out'. To make the game interesting during these lulls in action, they imposed the whole "cold" system; you now need to focus on keeping troops warm. This system is literally just there to make the 'blizzard' periods interesting....

So to solve the lower pace in the game, they add a new mechanic to the game, which was needed because of blizzards slowing down the pace. Why? This is just circular logic. Remove blizzards and you remove the crap game play imposed by blizzards.

What made vCoH great was that it was ALWAYS full of action. You were always doing something. Right now, even at high-levels of play, you literally just sit there; "once this blizzard ends, I'll attack". It's just too risky to attack during a blizzard. Run into an MG in a blizzard? To bad. You're so far into the MG's range that you can't quickly back out. Running tanks in? Too bad. Any AT guns/SU-85s that are SLIGHTLY behind infantry can hit you without being seen, and back up before you can attack them. Want to call in recon to solve this? Nope, disabled. Want to call in arty to kill the AT/MGs/whatever? Nope. You can't do anything about it.

What's worse is that it encourages arty. Once a blizzard hits, just arty everywhere you know there's a fire. Why? Because the game FORCED the player to put his/her troops there.

Ok, so you can't attack; what if you just capped undefended points? Good luck. You'll either freeze before you get there, or you'll run into troops WHILE you're trying to get to a fire. The defender also has the advantage. He's been sitting at the fire (so heat is at 100%), while the attacker is freezing (probably 30%). Destroy the fire, and the defender has a 70% advantage (if not more), during which time he can fight 'for free' (no cold punishment). Eventually you'll force the attacker away either through firepower or cold damage, at which time the defender can rebuild the fire. And it works like this ALL the time. Going for my high fuel/muni? Good luck. I've got a squad there. Going for my cutoff? Good luck, you're behind MY lines - I've got the advantage in numbers and distance to fire (I can just destroy your fire). And guess what! You're attacking MY point, which gives me LOS on it. I'll know (roughly) where your troops are while you're attacking it, so my mortar (which is at a fire) can hit you.

ALL blizzards do is impose an excessively long 'time out' in the game. You can't attack during it, you can't cap during it, you can't do anything. Then, to try and make it not boring, they load in more, unnecessary and awful game play mechanics.

What blizzards SHOULD do is offer a good risk:reward opportunity. Reduce movement speed by a bit - that's fine - SO LONG as it's percentage based. Reduce view distance as well - SO LONG as it's percentage based. Don't impose cold damage or any of that garbage. Make blizzards shorter (should be about 30-45 seconds).

Now you've got a GOOD system. Attacking is viable, as is taking points. You don't impose any new game rules during the time period either.


The only 'good' thing about basically the entire cold system is the ice, which is admittedly a lot of fun and actually ADDS to the game.

what annoys me most with blizzars is the voice of that smartass who hands me out warnings over the radio all the time: i just hate this guy.

"your troops are dieing to the cold, is that a reflection of your command-ability?"

i hurry to take a look what went wrong, and most times it is a sqaud which i thought to have placed in cover, but apparently my troops decided thst this particular cover was not sufficent for them.

or its a squad that stands almoust on top of a fire place but is still somehow out of range.

i definetly would not mind if:
- blizzard would strike less frequent.
- if they where shorter
- if fireplaces would get a bigger effective radius
- if a yellow shield over the ground would actually mean that this particular place would give my troops some form of protection.
- if the warm and cosy HQ way behind the front line, in wihch the douchebag sits that taunts me over the radio, gets a bulls eyes hit by an stray artillery shell.

German VO is terrible in general. Who puts someone with such a high pitched voice in command, "we have a new scout Kah"
Atleast the vcoh vo sounded menacing

I've always hated the blizzard mechanic. What's really annoying is that the fire radius is so small that half the time I think I have my guys near a fire and they're freezing to death anyway. Basically, I despise blizzards and wouldn't mind if they're severely limited or removed altogether.