What I view as very pressing issues

got to try that, thanks

Am I the only one that hates using M3s ? I hate hard counters, meaning, I hate that there is only ONE working strategy against something.

That was based on my observation that barrage hits randomly within its target area, but smoke always FILLS its target area. Plus you can still Molotov and/or ZiS barrage into the area if they don't relocate.

Faust/AT-nades are not a straight up copy of the vCoH faust/sticky, there's waaaay to much to take into consideration to just state that.
You have to consider things like TrueSight, it's homing (if it's activated you can reverse across the map and still gonna get hit) and skirts that came with a global upgrade for your tanks, not through "gained" vet, but with buyable vet in vCoH and more.
Best solution would be to cancel the ability whenever the vehicle/tank gets out of range, so you can dodge it.

The change they went with was the 2nd best thing, cause before it was an instant engine crit even if you reversed out of range, you'd still be hit, with TrueSight and Oorah it was not hard to get a flank off and get close enough to throw it before having to retreat, and even if your opponent saw it and got out of range, it didn't matter, if the throwing animation has started, you're boned.

PQ has stated MG42's are getting looked at.

This is just absolutely false. They punished stupid players that overextended their units. There was no "laziness" about positioning, and there's nothing careless about the action of using an ability.

The only people benefiting from this change are bad players while everybody else is losing.

I don't think you understand the importance of a vehicle snare.

I'm not talking about overextending, I'm talking about attacking and I sure do understand the importance of a vehicle snare. From my point of view the at-nade/faust serves this purpose against the light to medium tanks and the mines/button for the heaviers. My problem is, that a t1/t0 unit can render a expensive late game tank useless by simply pressing a button. By the time you need to repair the tank you've already lost the attack momentum.



If an IS-2 has to fear a single Grenadier squad, something is wrong.

the bottom line is: fausts/at-nades always had counterplay: kiting (the homing missile thing is bad imho, but that is another story). the nerf effectively makes the game more forgiving for less skilled players that are not good enough to kite, by giving them a chance at another shot of trying to kite away. i don't feel like that is a good change.

Now how exactly dou you kite with a Tiger when there is horrible pathing, oorah and the radar homing at-nade?

Also what Fatal said.

You get T2 after some conscripts rather than first thing. It gives you more things that are good at holding territory rather than things that are good at taking it. The Maxim soft counter to an MG 42 involves either flanking around the arc or distracting the MG42 with another unit, which is why it's a soft counter (previously it was basically a hard counter in that you could just plonk it in an MG 42's arc and wait for it to win). Once it gets the pin off, you're laughing. The ZiS, like any AT gun, requires support but its barrage is reasonably good at making an MG move so you can move conscripts in against it.

Yeah, if you see more than 2 MGs, the T1->T4 option is basically the obvious one, since you have a ton of hard counters to MGs and more things that'll actually kill the MG rather than just forcing it off. If you see 1 or 2, tier 2 is reasonably good.

I think the increased fuel cost is a red herring, given scout cars cost fuel as well.

Yes, I agree. The only points I was trying to make were that the MG42 is overperforming (this is partially map dependent, the recent Minsk changes help in this respect, and partially conscripts not being rewarded enough for flanking one) and that if your opening conscripts have been forced off by 2x MG42 openings and you've lost map control, then T1 is the far superior option. If your conscript opening has even or better map control, then T2 is great for consolidating. It's still rare that I see any Soviets build T2 over T1 though. Even with T1 M3s, most decent German players know to not leave their MG42s alone without a Gren nearby.

The argument that MG42 backed up with Grens or another MG42 can deal with M3 counter just fine is wrong.
If Ost player is FORCED to sacrifice 480mp and capping power to hold 1 or oven 2 points, than you are still winning cuz you just can simply go cap somewhere else. You can also build 2 or even 3 M3 and his MG and Gren is dead without chance to survive while retreating.
T1 and T2 have both hard and soft counters to MG42 and it is not just M3 with flamers.
If Ost player stay too long in T1 to try to slowly recapture map or try to pin you in yr base, you can simply fast tech to T70 and he is screwed. On some maps it can be issue but hey, you dont have to play them anymore. What is imho IMBA is MG pin bulletin but thats about it.

My problem is, that a t1/t0 unit can render a expensive late game tank useless by simply pressing a button.

Except it doesn't. Not even close.

A damaged engine(Read: DAMAGED i.e. you can still move a reasonable speed) and a fully functioning main gun and coaxial + mounted MG means that tank is far from useless. It's just more vulnerable.

If you get caught by a snare when you're on the defensive, you're just not playing well. That's the long and short of it. If you can't reverse when you see a squad with a snare running towards you, it's your own fault. They lose a shit tonne of models and may even die trying to snare you. If you can't handle that then I can't really say anything else.




I really do not buy the "killing flanking plays" explanation.

If killing flanks was such a gigantic issue they should shorten the range. Not make the ability hit or miss. The hilarious thing that you seem not to realize is that they didn't even fix the issue. It's still RNG, so it can still kill flanks.

So not only does it shit on the positioning of the player using the ability if it doesn't work, it shits on the flanking of a player if he gets caught in it.

Tell me, what has introducing a random factor fixed? Nothing. All those problems there before are still there. They just may or may not happen, which isn't a good solution to any problem. All you've done is now created more problems instead of fixing anything.

And for people saying I'm "patronizing" the developers? It's something called criticism.

Adding RNG lowers the skill cap of any given player. This is undeniable. By nature , random factors cannot be effected by skill.

If you want a game that caters solely to the lowest common denominator, by all means make every crucial aspect of the game a random factor. Meanwhile I'll be playing dice.

AT Nades / Fausts are only so effective because of retarded units such as the SU-85 (last patch). I still think it's funny that Conscripts have no problem AT nading Osteer tanks but getting a faust off on a T70 is mission impossible, if you want to keep the squad alive that is.

Except it doesn't. Not even close.

A damaged engine(Read: DAMAGED i.e. you can still move a reasonable speed) and a fully functioning main gun and coaxial + mounted MG means that tank is far from useless. It's just more vulnerable.

If you get caught by a snare when you're on the defensive, you're just not playing well. That's the long and short of it. If you can't reverse when you see a squad with a snare running towards you, it's your own fault. They lose a shit tonne of models and may even die trying to snare you. If you can't handle that then I can't really say anything else.

Once again, I'm talking about attacking, how would you attack with an immobile Tank?
A t-34/85 with damaged engine is of no use anymore if I want to advance towards my enemy. A Tank is an offensive weapon and the prepatch situation punished aggressive armor manuevers just beacuse a single conscript/gren squad could halt the whole push.

There's a military saying that states that an immobile tank is a dead tank.

I really do not buy the "killing flanking plays" explanation.

If killing flanks was such a gigantic issue they should shorten the range. Not make the ability hit or miss. The hilarious thing that you seem not to realize is that they didn't even fix the issue. It's still RNG, so it can still kill flanks.

Yes it can still kill flanks, but there is a reasonable chance of success. Before it was, if A then B now it's, if A then A, B or C.
As I stated before I think skill is to be able to evaluate risks and chances.
Also you should reread my previous post closely as well as what Fatal_Saint wrote.

All in all, I'm just no big fan of drôle de guerre like gamplay. There needs to be room for success for daring endeavours otherwise the game gets boring very quickly.

Adding RNG lowers the skill cap of any given player. This is undeniable. By nature , random factors cannot be effected by skill.

If you want a game that caters solely to the lowest common denominator, by all means make every crucial aspect of the game a random factor. Meanwhile I'll be playing dice.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Life and professional sports are full of lucky and unlucky moments.

Although I'm not for or against the new patch, I don't really see a problem with RNG and the way they did it. Example: I see AT nades has being a waste of ammo vs. a heavy tank BUT if you are desperate, you try it, if ever it works, it doesn't change the outcome of the game being played unless the player with the heavy tank was too aggressive with it or the tank was unsupported. So the RNG is there but imo doesn't decide a game unless you play a high risk game. So this still rewards good play, if you play High Risk well then expect that maybe an At Nade might work vs. your Heavy Tank because your enemy will probably try it more the once.


Also RNG does bring some WOW moments which I think is entertaining but again not game changing.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Life and professional sports are full of lucky and unlucky moments.

Although I'm not for or against the new patch, I don't really see a problem with RNG and the way they did it. Example: I see AT nades has being a waste of ammo vs. a heavy tank BUT if you are desperate, you try it, if ever it works, it doesn't change the outcome of the game being played unless the player with the heavy tank was too aggressive with it or the tank was unsupported. So the RNG is there but imo doesn't decide a game unless you play a high risk game. So this still rewards good play, if you play High Risk well then expect that maybe an At Nade might work vs. your Heavy Tank because your enemy will probably try it more the once.

Well said.

There are definitely some times RNG has had a disproportionate effect in my games, but rarely. I've lost an entire full health grenadier squad 4 minutes into a game to a 30mun soviet mine. WTF.

I've also watched a kv-8 drive over a teller mine and suffer no damage and no engine crit which allowed it to bypass my ATG gun and flank it easily. Also WTF.

I'm far angrier about racecar kv-8s that instagib 4 man ostheer squads out to 100 feet than RNG though. I've had a damn halftrack with no engine damage be run down by a pursuing kv8 - really?

RNG is not the problem, it just exaggerates weak balance in certain units

I don't necessarily agree with this. Life and professional sports are full of lucky and unlucky moments.

Although I'm not for or against the new patch, I don't really see a problem with RNG and the way they did it. Example: I see AT nades has being a waste of ammo vs. a heavy tank BUT if you are desperate, you try it, if ever it works, it doesn't change the outcome of the game being played unless the player with the heavy tank was too aggressive with it or the tank was unsupported. So the RNG is there but imo doesn't decide a game unless you play a high risk game. So this still rewards good play, if you play High Risk well then expect that maybe an At Nade might work vs. your Heavy Tank because your enemy will probably try it more the once.


Also RNG does bring some WOW moments which I think is entertaining but again not game changing.

RNG absolutely does decide games. It absolutely does not reward good play. I've went over this repeatedly and it's irrefutable. This is factual basis I'm discussing, not "fun" or "cool" or "realistic"(fuck that shitty argument).

Adding RNG factually decides games. Adding RNG factually lowers the skill cap. Adding RNG factually trivializes important decisions. Adding RNG factually rewards bad play.

If you can prove to me it doesn't do any of the above, I will eat my words. When RNG is now a factor a player can control, when RNG does not ruin the good play and positioning of a player, when RNG does not allow a player to escape unscathed from horrible decisions, you can get back to me.

And by that time the sun will probably rise in the west and set in the east.

@Ekko Tek, yeah, absolutely. I think buffing the 82mm mortar's accuracy might help a bit with that. Very map dependent with MGs but then, the same maps which favour MG-42s tend to also favour snipers, which exaggerates the problem.

@Cyridius,

Disagreeing with changes and criticising them is fine. This rhetorical question pretending the devs have no idea what they're doing nonsense is patronising.

Now the AT-nades and fausts work on penetration vs. armour value. This means it is a better idea to faust/nade the rear armour of a vehicle, which is one example of a higher skill ceiling and rewarding proper play and positioning over very low-skill oorahing towards the front of any slow-moving tank.

The other major thing is that now if you want a fully reliable solution to a flank on an SU-85 or a Tiger or whatever, you have to plan with mines or with a proper AT unit rather than just sticking the basic infantry unit next to it to shut down any attempt to flank close enough to circlestrafe.

Poker has a very high skill ceiling. It is basically 'random'. (Part 2 of that argument... if I wanted to be playing Starcraft I'd be playing Starcraft).

RNG absolutely does decide games. It absolutely does not reward good play. I've went over this repeatedly and it's irrefutable. This is factual basis I'm discussing, not "fun" or "cool" or "realistic"(fuck that shitty argument).

Adding RNG factually decides games. Adding RNG factually lowers the skill cap. Adding RNG factually trivializes important decisions. Adding RNG factually rewards bad play.

If you can prove to me it doesn't do any of the above, I will eat my words. When RNG is now a factor a player can control, when RNG does not ruin the good play and positioning of a player, when RNG does not allow a player to escape unscathed from horrible decisions, you can get back to me.

And by that time the sun will probably rise in the west and set in the east.

RNG is a factor a player can control. Part of the skill of a good player is being able to correctly evaluate the risk/reward of every move. There are risky plays and there are safe plays. A risky move can be greatly rewarding or punishing if it fails, a safe move will be less rewarding or punishing. You're only skillcapping yourself by patronisingly telling Relic what they should do instead of adapting the way you apprehend and play this game as it evolves.

There's a good reason why the top 5 of every CoH tournament was composed of the same players almost every time.

There's a good reason why the top 5 of every CoH tournament was composed of the same players almost every time.

Dare I say it you could probably predict the top 16 every tournament.

RNG absolutely does decide games. It absolutely does not reward good play. I've went over this repeatedly and it's irrefutable. This is factual basis I'm discussing, not "fun" or "cool" or "realistic"(fuck that shitty argument).

Adding RNG factually decides games. Adding RNG factually lowers the skill cap. Adding RNG factually trivializes important decisions. Adding RNG factually rewards bad play.

If you can prove to me it doesn't do any of the above, I will eat my words. When RNG is now a factor a player can control, when RNG does not ruin the good play and positioning of a player, when RNG does not allow a player to escape unscathed from horrible decisions, you can get back to me.

And by that time the sun will probably rise in the west and set in the east.

So should the mortar be removed of the game? That unit cannot be hit or miss.

RNG is a factor a player can control. Part of the skill of a good player is being able to correctly evaluate the risk/reward of every move. There are risky plays and there are safe plays. A risky move can be greatly rewarding or punishing if it fails, a safe move will be less rewarding or punishing. You're only skillcapping yourself by patronisingly telling Relic what they should do instead of adapting the way you apprehend and play this game as it evolves.

There's a good reason why the top 5 of every CoH tournament was composed of the same players almost every time.

+1

RNG is a factor a player can control. Part of the skill of a good player is being able to correctly evaluate the risk/reward of every move. There are risky plays and there are safe plays. A risky move can be greatly rewarding or punishing if it fails, a safe move will be less rewarding or punishing. You're only skillcapping yourself by patronisingly telling Relic what they should do instead of adapting the way you apprehend and play this game as it evolves.

There's a good reason why the top 5 of every CoH tournament was composed of the same players almost every time.

That is just what I tried to explain the whole time

RNG is a factor a player can control. Part of the skill of a good player is being able to correctly evaluate the risk/reward of every move. There are risky plays and there are safe plays. A risky move can be greatly rewarding or punishing if it fails, a safe move will be less rewarding or punishing. You're only skillcapping yourself by patronisingly telling Relic what they should do instead of adapting the way you apprehend and play this game as it evolves.

There's a good reason why the top 5 of every CoH tournament was composed of the same players almost every time.

When you use the ability do you decide if it is more likely or less likely to work? You don't.

You do not control the parameters, you control the trigger. That isn't a player controlling RNG.

Risk/reward is you attacking with an aggressive flank with a glass cannon. Risk/reward is you pushing an MG with a light vehicle. Risk/reward is pre-patch ram. Risk/reward is not a coin flip. Risk/reward is not a roll of the dice.

So should the mortar be removed of the game? That unit cannot be hit or miss.

No, because a mortar isn't an integral unit to my faction's success. I can have a unit composition totally devoid of mortars and have a successful game. It is an artillery unit and as an artillery unit, shell spread is a crucial function.

Poker has a very high skill ceiling. It is basically 'random'. (Part 2 of that argument... if I wanted to be playing Starcraft I'd be playing Starcraft).

Both a misrepresentation of poker and a strawman argument.

Poker has a high skillcap because the act of playing poker is far more than just drawing cards and putting them on the table. It's appropriate bets, reading your opponents, and reacting to what you see.

It's not the appropriate comparison. To compare this to poker would only be viable is if the hand I was given every time was filled with question marks instead of numbers. To compare it to poker I'd have to know if my ability would work or not before I even used it.

If I wanted to play Starcraft I'd play Starcraft. If I wanted CoH2 to be Starcraft I'd be talking about removing squads, accuracy, artillery, capture points and replacing it with a straight up health vs. damage system with macro economics.

When you use the ability do you decide if it is more likely or less likely to work? You don't.

You do not control the parameters, you control the trigger. That isn't a player controlling RNG.

Risk/reward is you attacking with an aggressive flank with a glass cannon. Risk/reward is you pushing an MG with a light vehicle. Risk/reward is pre-patch ram. Risk/reward is not a coin flip. Risk/reward is not a roll of the dice.



No, because a mortar isn't an integral unit to my faction's success. I can have a unit composition totally devoid of mortars and have a successful game. It is an artillery unit and as an artillery unit, shell spread is a crucial function.



Both a misrepresentation of poker and a strawman argument.

Poker has a high skillcap because the act of playing poker is far more than just drawing cards and putting them on the table. It's appropriate bets, reading your opponents, and reacting to what you see.

It's not the appropriate comparison. To compare this to poker would only be viable is if the hand I was given every time was filled with question marks instead of numbers. To compare it to poker I'd have to know if my ability would work or not before I even used it.

If I wanted to play Starcraft I'd play Starcraft. If I wanted CoH2 to be Starcraft I'd be talking about removing squads, accuracy, artillery, capture points and replacing it with a straight up health vs. damage system with macro economics.

sorry but I totally disagree with this.