Can we please limit the blizzard?

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 00:19 AMThe Dave

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.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 07:34 AMDoomlord52

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.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 07:34 AMDoomlord52

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.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 15:25 PMZ3r07

What if we could buy better winter equipment for certain units for 10-20 ammo ?

-Better boots or even snow shoes (ridiculous?) to walk faster in deeper snow.
-Better coats/hats

It would add another "strategic resource management" to the game and the real affects of the Blizzard will be:

-Reduce unit's view range
-Disable some abilities like artillery


And a maximum of 2 Blizzards in 1v1 and 3 in 2v2.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 14:34 PMBudwise

IMO, blizzards should be a possibility for the first 15 minutes of the game and not after. Having an end game where I couldn't cap a VP because my squad was frozen after running from my base to the VP is just bad for competition. Blizzard randomness is fun in theory but it effects games too much right now.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 15:25 PMZ3r07

What if we could buy better winter equipment for certain units for 10-20 ammo ?

-Better boots or even snow shoes (ridiculous?) to walk faster in deeper snow.
-Better coats/hats

It would add another "strategic resource management" to the game and the real affects of the Blizzard will be:

-Reduce unit's view range
-Disable some abilities like artillery
-The cold will still be there but not be as deadly.

And a maximum of 2 Blizzards in 1v1 and 3 in 2v2.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 07:34 AMDoomlord52

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.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 15:40 PMThe Dave

If all things were equal between the two sides in regards to the way resources are used, I'd say ok...

However, they are not, and I think the simpler and quicker fix would just be to limit the blizzards themselves then adding in other things.

Jump back to quoted post29 Jul 2013, 09:28 AMalcoholic

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.






your post made me laugh because i can relate to the hate that german asshole hahaha plus the blizzards are at an overkill rate, they just happen way to often