Vaulting is completely pointless

Jump back to quoted post3 Jul 2017, 06:27 AMHighfiveeeee

IMO everyone who says vaulting is not important has not played a lot of vCoH to be honest.
It was a pain in the ass if your soldiers walked around a complete area to get to point B which took almost a minute and still with vaulting they could have been there in 3 seconds.

I think it is perfect the way it is. Auto vaulting could lead to much worse problems, just look at the vehicle pathing right now. Vaulting is something that distinguishes a good player from a very good one.

I don't like the idea to auto vault. You could also say your units should take auto cover. It's still a game where you win because of gameplay and decisions. And vaulting is not so micro intensive. TBH I usually vault about 1-2 times per game, but I am also not pro player.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 00:44 AMwouren

About donnie vs soldier
Show Spoiler

Vaulting adds value to the game. Fenced paths punish transit when under fire. Your maneuverability changes depending on whether you are engaging or not.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 06:23 AMLuciano

I think also that weapon teams like mgs and mortars need the ability to vault.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 00:44 AMwouren

About donnie vs soldier
Snip

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 08:02 AMTiger Baron

Wins what exactly? A cookie for being a troll on the internet

You only keep thinking and seeing things in and through your little competitive bubble and ignore everything and everyone else, which is a bad idea since the casual community is bigger than the competitive one.

You people are partially what brought the downfall of this game and I am glad you don't infest CoH's community anymore.

Have a nice day.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 22:42 PMMistah_S

On topic, IMO vaulting was added late in the production cycle simply so COH2 would be different from the first, much like the snow storm mechanic that we know everyone loves.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 23:35 PMZombiFrancis

What is frustrating is that blizzards, mud/heavy snow, and ice all could've been great additions to the game, but they weren't fully fleshed out before implementation.

Blizzards could've had whole different effects and timing than what actually occurred. Soldiers freezing to death on retreat wasn't great.

Heavy snow and mud would've been beautiful if pathing could've taken it into account and it were more interactive. They way they were put into maps were primarily visual and didn't account for gameplay, resulting in tons of heavy snow/mud smearing arbitrarily across maps.

Ice should've been just fine as is, except that there was no variation between shallow and deep water, which resulted in tanks phasing through solid ground because their front tracks touched ice. Ice of otherwise passable water should've just resulted in... water when broken, not lovecraftian pits to the void.

Jump back to quoted post7 Jul 2017, 04:36 AMelchino7

This guys get it.

Concept of blizzard was fine, implementation and execution is what failed.
Removing cost of firepits, mortality on blizzard but keeping the debuffs. More interaction with heavy snow (like clearing with flame sources or vehicles and re-appearing after blizzards) and ice (maybe more resistant during blizzard?). Not so random duration/appearance. Potential was there.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2017, 23:35 PMZombiFrancis

What is frustrating is that blizzards, mud/heavy snow, and ice all could've been great additions to the game, but they weren't fully fleshed out before implementation.

Blizzards could've had whole different effects and timing than what actually occurred. Soldiers freezing to death on retreat wasn't great.

Heavy snow and mud would've been beautiful if pathing could've taken it into account and it were more interactive. They way they were put into maps were primarily visual and didn't account for gameplay, resulting in tons of heavy snow/mud smearing arbitrarily across maps.

Ice should've been just fine as is, except that there was no variation between shallow and deep water, which resulted in tanks phasing through solid ground because their front tracks touched ice. Ice of otherwise passable water should've just resulted in... water when broken, not lovecraftian pits to the void.

Jump back to quoted post7 Jul 2017, 04:36 AMelchino7

This guys get it.
Concept of blizzard was fine, implementation and execution is what failed.
Removing cost of firepits, mortality on blizzard but keeping the debuffs. More interaction with heavy snow (like clearing with flame sources or vehicles and re-appearing after blizzards) and ice (maybe more resistant during blizzard?). Not so random duration/appearance. Potential was there.