I predicted OKW 1v1 meta perfectly. Mech HQ is completely useless since the flak truck does well to replace the overnerfed luchs. The early game of OKW is exceptionally stale and predictable which is the biggest weakness. I think the only underpowered unit in the early game is the rak. It's stealth was overnerfed and there were two reasons why the rak needed decent stealth: it only has 50 range and the crew is most prone to being one-shotted by anything explosive. The KT is almost never worth it now. Best thing to do with OKW is to get a lot of p4 late game. JP4 if you're really struggling with armor. Everything else is not cost effective. And elite/doctrinal infantry is a must.
Is OKW dead? what's your opinion?
17 Mar 2018, 04:33 AM
#61
Posts: 1527
Permanently Banned
"I wish THQ was still alive and made CoH2. Ostheer for life."
PLAYERCARD: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198287328305
PLAYERCARD: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198287328305
17 Mar 2018, 04:46 AM
#62
Posts: 365
Can somebody tell me why everything on this board is always BLACK or WHITE?
Either OKW is dead or OKW is OP AS HELL!!!
Why not asking: "Is OKW a bit too weak at the moment?"
If the person posting just lost to OKW they are OP.
If the person posting just lost as OKW they are UP.
22 Mar 2018, 01:33 AM
#63
Posts: 246
Between the age-old ineffectiveness of the Raketenwerfer, the lack of proper healing when going light armor, and the absurdly overnerfed Luchs, there's just no reason to waste time on OKW.
Which says a LOT when you consider the enormous advantage they have over Ostheer with five-man squads, but even that simply can't compensate for the ridiculous nerfs and never-fixed issues OKW suffers from now.
So you just play Ostheer with the new awesome five-man call-in squads, and you get the best of everything: proper AT guns that do what AT guns are meant to and deny territory at long range, proper grenades instead of a so-called area denial nade that never ends up damaging anyone, and proper flammenwerfers that don't force you to choose between them and anti-tank damage -- and all that's not mentioning the healing bunker, which you get regardless of tech choices.
OKW is such a farce now, it's depressing.
Which says a LOT when you consider the enormous advantage they have over Ostheer with five-man squads, but even that simply can't compensate for the ridiculous nerfs and never-fixed issues OKW suffers from now.
So you just play Ostheer with the new awesome five-man call-in squads, and you get the best of everything: proper AT guns that do what AT guns are meant to and deny territory at long range, proper grenades instead of a so-called area denial nade that never ends up damaging anyone, and proper flammenwerfers that don't force you to choose between them and anti-tank damage -- and all that's not mentioning the healing bunker, which you get regardless of tech choices.
OKW is such a farce now, it's depressing.
22 Mar 2018, 06:23 AM
#64
Posts: 5279
the lack of proper healing when going light armor
If we ignore the middle of the road healing on sturms i (middle of the road because the same price point for brits presents THE most efficient healing bar none and on the other side we have osts "heal 1 squad in 45 minutes, but only with vet... Amd also its on every squad)
I would GLADLY trade "heal 3 squads on the move, on the field for a handful of munitions" for soviet "only heal at base haha loser also its going to cost 250mp, and only heal a few models at a time, and dont you dare move because that medic will HUNT YOU DOWN OR DIE WALKING" and the soviet dont have the option of forward healing except as a doctrinal 1 trick pony nor self heal...
#stalinwept
22 Mar 2018, 13:34 PM
#65
Posts: 50
The game was played on February 15, 2018, and saved at 2:14pm. Do you want me to upload it, too? Maybe then you can watch it and learn a thing or two. BTW my 1v1 stats don't reflect much. I haven't touched 1v1 in a year and although my winrates are bad, I was level 18/19 with all factions. Can you say the same? Or you just going to continue crying that OKW is bad because YOU'RE bad with OKW?
OKW is bad, this is a fact.
22 Mar 2018, 17:54 PM
#66
Posts: 515
OKW is bad, this is a fact.
No, you're bad
22 Mar 2018, 18:53 PM
#67
Posts: 607
And yet, every time I play (which is a few days a week) I see people playing OKW just as much as they play Ostheer.
23 Mar 2018, 04:25 AM
#68
Posts: 246
And yet, every time I play (which is a few days a week) I see people playing OKW just as much as they play Ostheer.
That's because, regardless of the relative state of the two Axis factions currently, it gets REALLY tiring having every second squad instawiped due to its four-model count.
That's why OKW used to be preferred, as it was a Western Fronts faction, both of which suffer far less in the early game due to having beefy units that can be as aggressive as they like without using cover or line of sight at all (thus utterly breaking the intended game design and never being able to fix it).
But instead of buffing the Eastern Front factions to match, we've ended up with the OKW and USF being mediocre, Brits being sickeningly broken not only in terms of unit performance (strictly better four-man infantry, strictly better tanks, strictly better artillery) but in terms of resource costs as well, and Soviets being like some kind of demons with units that do everything at once, are unstoppable and unkillable and with heavy tanks out the arse.
23 Mar 2018, 06:12 AM
#69
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
That's because, regardless of the relative state of the two Axis factions currently, it gets REALLY tiring having every second squad instawiped due to its four-model count.
That's why OKW used to be preferred, as it was a Western Fronts faction, both of which suffer far less in the early game due to having beefy units that can be as aggressive as they like without using cover or line of sight at all (thus utterly breaking the intended game design and never being able to fix it).
But instead of buffing the Eastern Front factions to match, we've ended up with the OKW and USF being mediocre, Brits being sickeningly broken not only in terms of unit performance (strictly better four-man infantry, strictly better tanks, strictly better artillery) but in terms of resource costs as well, and Soviets being like some kind of demons with units that do everything at once, are unstoppable and unkillable and with heavy tanks out the arse.
Or it could be that mixed Axis teams have the best win rate
bg /l
23 Mar 2018, 20:31 PM
#70
Posts: 50
23 Mar 2018, 20:45 PM
#71
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
bg /l
24 Mar 2018, 00:38 AM
#72
Posts: 246
Or it could be that mixed Axis teams have the best win rate
Who discusses balance in the context of anything other than 1vs1?
24 Mar 2018, 16:54 PM
#73
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Who discusses balance in the context of anything other than 1vs1?
90% of the playerbase.
My opinion is: you balance around 1v1 and fine tune upwards while adjusting problematic units, abilities and combinations which are not something you'll see on 1v1.
I'll also refute in some other way: who discusses balance in the context of anything other than good players play or people who can use things effectively?
In any other game or genre you would dismiss anyone who is not around Master/Diamond or basically top 1%/10% (here it would translate to around rank50/150). The trick been that you make things easier to use for that 90% but at the same time, trying to keep the depth and skill ceiling high.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
24 Mar 2018, 21:32 PM
#74
Posts: 607
Who discusses balance in the context of anything other than 1vs1?
Me...
=(
24 Mar 2018, 23:51 PM
#75
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
90% of the playerbase.
My opinion is: you balance around 1v1 and fine tune upwards while adjusting problematic units, abilities and combinations which are not something you'll see on 1v1.
I'll also refute in some other way: who discusses balance in the context of anything other than good players play or people who can use things effectively?
In any other game or genre you would dismiss anyone who is not around Master/Diamond or basically top 1%/10% (here it would translate to around rank50/150). The trick been that you make things easier to use for that 90% but at the same time, trying to keep the depth and skill ceiling high.
Some Competitive games do create tweak around a lower ranked player base.
For example, in league they do tune some champions who are considered stronger in lower elo when compared to high elo to create a more pleasant experience for a majority of the player base. Most of the time though the wishes of the higher elo players correlate with lower elo players which make it easier to create patches.
bg /l
25 Mar 2018, 00:12 AM
#76
Posts: 1930
Who discusses balance in the context of anything other than 1vs1?
whenever people want to nerf the british.
25 Mar 2018, 14:55 PM
#77
Posts: 1063
if püppchen didnt die in 1 hit from every single allied unit there is, half of okw problems would be gone
Agreed, Lelic should have given them Pak 38 from vCOH and it will be ok, Raketen is such a gimmicky RNG-prone unit that I really do not want to rely on.
25 Mar 2018, 18:59 PM
#78
Posts: 1527
Permanently Banned1v1 should be a gold standard. Call me a CoH2 elitist bitch but when I play 2v2 axis randoms I see a lot more brute force blobbing by all players. I'm about rank 400 Ost after roughly 80 games of 2v2 so I'm not a scrub. 1v1 players are on average more skilled and rely on game mechanics and not as much brute force. So, I agree that CoH2 players should bow down to 1v1 players. Besides the majority of tournaments are 1v1. I heard Relic wanted CoH2 to make a name for itself in gaming tournaments and one day hit the big stage. Well for that to happen, the game better be damn balanced around 1v1 (and possibly 2v2)
3v3 and above should be completely out of the question when it comes to balance. The maps aren't big enough on those game modes for proper maneuver and flanking. I'd rather make maps bigger than listen to their balance problems. Hell, some 2v2 maps infamously use 1v1 maps. That is absolute garbage design from Relic/balance team. MOral of the story: if you want balance, play 1v1 and 2v2. If you wanna troll with your friends: 3v3, 4v4.
3v3 and above should be completely out of the question when it comes to balance. The maps aren't big enough on those game modes for proper maneuver and flanking. I'd rather make maps bigger than listen to their balance problems. Hell, some 2v2 maps infamously use 1v1 maps. That is absolute garbage design from Relic/balance team. MOral of the story: if you want balance, play 1v1 and 2v2. If you wanna troll with your friends: 3v3, 4v4.
"I wish THQ was still alive and made CoH2. Ostheer for life."
PLAYERCARD: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198287328305
PLAYERCARD: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198287328305
25 Mar 2018, 22:59 PM
#79
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Some Competitive games do create tweak around a lower ranked player base.
For example, in league they do tune some champions who are considered stronger in lower elo when compared to high elo to create a more pleasant experience for a majority of the player base. Most of the time though the wishes of the higher elo players correlate with lower elo players which make it easier to create patches.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that generally applies to niche heroes who are really oppressive in low elos. You are not going to see a core champ who is contested in high elo buffed, because low ELO players can't use it.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
26 Mar 2018, 01:13 AM
#80
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
Correct me if i'm wrong, but that generally applies to niche heroes who are really oppressive in low elos. You are not going to see a core champ who is contested in high elo buffed, because low ELO players can't use it.
Yeah its typically rare but there are examples of champs in the past who got nerfs designed to maintain high elo power while nerfing low elo power this is typically because lower elo players dont/can't counter the character with higher level mechanics or is/are too safe to play at low elo. Hence nerfs design for low elo.
There's only one character I believe was strong in the high elo which was weak in low elo, mostly because the champ required high-level mechanics/teamwork to function properly in which high elo hes strong but low elo weak because of a lack of teamwork
bg /l
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
20 | ||
 |
|
|
130 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.943411.696-1
- 4.715.934+12
- 5.35659.858+2
- 6.273143.656+6
- 7.278108.720+29
- 8.307114.729+3
- 9.601237.717-2
- 10.10629.785+7
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
12
Download
1267
Board Info
303 users are online:
303 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
31 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
31 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50120
Welcome our newest member, xoso333life
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, xoso333life
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM