What I view as very pressing issues

A certain amount of RNG is fine. Unfortunately, in typical Relic fashion, they've gone overboard.

Take the AT nade that I used on an Ostwind in one of my recent games as an example: it did heavy engine damage pretty much immobilizing the thing.
This means the AT nade vs the Ostwind can do three things: jack shit, (regular) engine damage or heavy engine damage.

I think we can all agree that heavy engine damage to a vehicle more often than not means it's going to go down. That means the range of what this AT nade can do is just HUGE.

What shouldve been done (imo) is: Chance to do nothing, chance to give regular engine damage. This way a good trade-off is used between both the RNG and skill.

Actually find Panzerwerfers quite ok, then again mostly playing 2v2s.
Short range and low HP, yes. Keep them mobile and use shift commands. Cover with MG/ATG or place mines around where you are most likely to use them. Just movint them around works very well for me. Having 2 of them barraging an area will wipe it clean from infantry. Add the artilly officer and the 80 muni barrage that doesnt add cooldown to the P-Ws and you can have alot of fun. With that you can place the arty officer barrage, then instantly barrage with the P-Ws after at retreatpath from the area or any other nearby target.

MG42s, think they are ok. As posted in thread, if the ostheer lose one, they are going to have a hard time stealing it back. There are also lots of counters including mortars, snipers clowncars etc etc.

RNG for fausts and ATnades are good. You want the (slow) heavies to have a chance to actually move about on the map. Not get insta-locked/slowed down by a cheap infantry unit. Cost/risk/reward was not in the heavies favor.

Ram. Same as above. And it should only be used as a last resort, its even more so now than earlier, and that makes sense. Again cost/risk/reward comes into play. Also players have to find another way to deal with heavies than just using ram to stop them dead. Makes sense to require diffrent approaches to medium and heavy tanks.

They should have it because it's a vital ability to the infantry-tank balance. Unless you want this to be a top-down game of World of Tanks you need to have a reliable infantry snare that can work with a level of consistency.

If we're worried about how powerful these abilities were there were other ways to nerf that made them more difficult to use but also maintained a consistent reward for players who got into the right positioning.

Now I can totally out position my opponent, he can overextend, I can nail him with one of these and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I outplayed my opponent horrendously because RNG said it doesn't matter. This is what I mean by skill cap being lowered.

It should work or it should not. Otherwise there is no point to them. Snares are intended to be reliable because gameplay is built on snares and how and when you can get them off. What Relic has done is remove a cornerstone of the RTS genre(And in particular, Relic games) for absolutely no reason that I can discern. Changing things for the sake of it.


And yeah, I realize I am remembering stickies wrong. Rather foolish of me to forget exactly how they worked. But I still stand by everything I said. Consistency is the name of the game but it appears the crucial changes are attempting to make everything important as inconsistent as possible.

Why should I use Ram now? Why should I use an AT Nade? If Ram doesn't work I've lost a tank. If an AT Nade doesn't work I've lost the engagement. I can't depend on either anymore because of these random factors. One would think I would win or lose things on my merits alone as a player, not what some random number generator decides. This is what I mean when I compare it to a game of dice.

There are some elements of randomness that one must accept in order to play this game, because it's how the game works as an RTS. Like mortars one hitting your squad on the first go. Or all the rifles in your squad focusing on one enemy model. That kind of shit. But there are things that simply do not make sense when you add randomness to them, and these are some of them.


As for the MG42, M3s are extremely easy for Germans to control. Sit back with a second MG42 á la DoW2 or just park a Grenadier next to them and gg.

Man no offense - but faust and at nade are "soft counters" ie they have limited effect. IMO its a terrible idea to have them work to destroy engine every time... it means your teir 0 unit can always disable even the biggest tanks. In COH stickes did damage, they could kill tanks and there was also a chance for engine damage, destruction or immobilization - the higher the vet of your unit the bigger the chance.

THis should be brought back to make vet units actually useful, the way the change works now with the randomness is perfect The fact that it was simplified and the damage was always the same ruins the game, I cant believe they made the vehicle damage mechanics such a basic parody of the first game to be honest.

You are talking bollocks - real life and real war totally hinges on completely random events and that's one of the things that made coh amazing, the more they bring it back to the game the better it will be.

As to your answer - why you should ram a tank? Well its the high chance of using one of your cheap tanks to disable something that costs 3-4 times the amount and win the game.... Its a risk, and it makes sense. Did the red army just sucide their tanks all the time or something? Its a once in a while tactic that can pay off big nto something to constantly lean on.

Improving the way micro ( units doing as you say when you say it) works and the way cover works ( as well as flanking and small unit damage) will bring back the skill gap between good and bad players, randomness has nothing to do it as its so rare it just makes things interesting and not in anyones favour.

Man no offense - but faust and at nade are "soft counters" ie they have limited effect. IMO its a terrible idea to have them work to destroy engine every time... it means your teir 0 unit can always disable even the biggest tanks. In COH stickes did damage, they could kill tanks and there was also a chance for engine damage, destruction or immobilization - the higher the vet of your unit the bigger the chance.

THis should be brought back to make vet units actually useful, the way the change works now with the randomness is perfect The fact that it was simplified and the damage was always the same ruins the game, I cant believe they made the vehicle damage mechanics such a basic parody of the first game to be honest.

You are talking bollocks - real life and real war totally hinges on completely random events and that's one of the things that made coh amazing, the more they bring it back to the game the better it will be.

As to your answer - why you should ram a tank? Well its the high chance of using one of your cheap tanks to disable something that costs 3-4 times the amount and win the game.... Its a risk, and it makes sense. Did the red army just sucide their tanks all the time or something? Its a once in a while tactic that can pay off big nto something to constantly lean on.

Improving the way micro ( units doing as you say when you say it) works and the way cover works ( as well as flanking and small unit damage) will bring back the skill gap between good and bad players, randomness has nothing to do it as its so rare it just makes things interesting and not in anyones favour.

I want to add oen more thing - the MG. How exactly is it OP? Have any of you even played COH? The thing about the mg was - the second you get fired upon your quad drops to ground, and very quickly after it gets suppressed and pinned.. Thats how it worked, and if you stood there for maybe 2-3 seconds longer you started taking massive casulties if in open ground. Thats what cover was for.

The moral of the story was dont get caught in mg fire or your squad becomes usless, I think a lot more of the "balance" issues come down to terrible maps, and realyl sloppy game control delays amongst other things, its got nothing to do with the mg per se.

IMO mgs in coh2 are too weak as are all the small arms in the game - just feels more arcadey and forgiving.

So much rage. Being patronising to the devs won't make you more audible.

Having a 100% reliable AT-nade + faust was, as PQ noted in the stream, killing vehicle flanking plays, especially with heavier tanks which are both slower and pricier most of the time (panther's an exception). I'd note that kiting the infantry is impossible when you have an SU-85 sitting around. The chance of engine damage on a heavy tank from a faust or AT nade to the front still seems reasonably good (from the devs stream), on medium tanks I think it's basically reliable. My main concern with it is the KV-8 but I think that concern is more a general balance one with that vehicle.

WRT ram: previously, T-34s were problematically weak against tier 3 and problematically strong against the more expensive tier 4, tigers, etc etc. You would ram a P-IV or anything stronger almost 100% of the time. Now you have more options against all German armour but also an incentive to not instantly ram anything just because you can. I take it you're aware of the greater amount of skill-based ram-related micro that's been added in with the patch? I believe that ram against P-IVs is still 100% reliable, right?

IMO, the genuinely reliable snares should be the ones that require, y'know, prior placement, rather than just oorahing conscripts at any vehicle not fast enough to get out of the way and then having the SU-85 bash away at it.

MG-42s have a lot of hard counters (sniper, M3 flamer, mortar) and some soft counters (conscripts in blizzard with molotovs, flanking conscripts, mortar smoke, maxims, ZiS barrage). More importantly, a lost/stolen MG-42 is an absolutely huge blow for the Germans. Not only are they much less able to decrew it but with the lack of molotovs, good snipers, etc etc they find it harder to displace it as well, and much much harder to steal. They may be a tad too quick on the suppression but I don't actually think they're that broken right now.

The suppression bulletin is probably too good right now but bulletin balance is kind of tangential to the core game, which needs to be nailed down a bit more before you can balance bulletins, I reckon.

Maxims are OK (they used to be insanely good vs. German T1 until relic raised the skill ceiling by making the MG vs MG battles dependent on using them well and by tweaking the set-up time, damage and suppression). They're not as strong as an MG-42 but they're much harder to punish, kill and steal. Soviet 82mm mortar needs to be a bit more accurate imo, otherwise I think the T2 building can offer you quite a lot.

Panzerwerfers are pretty good. Rare because T4. Quick recharge, reasonably accurate, high damage, indirect fire so don't have to go anywhere near an enemy's firing arc. All damage done in one barrage so you're not stuck firing at empty space for ages. Just as importantly, they're the reason T4 gives you another element for your army.

I've seen worse pathing. There are a few irritating reversing fails and vehicles getting hung up on trees (and fuck Pripyat Spring) but otherwise it's generally predictable enough. I thought blaming pathing was one of the main hobbies of DOW 2 players : p

On the RNG, CoH has always been a matter of playing the numbers, rolling with the punches, gameplay experience and creativity over clinical, accurate stat-based microing. Its version of the skill ceiling is very different to, say, Starcraft's.

----

@Pewpew,

Soviet mortars, maxims, conscripts with molotovs (especially on snow maps) and ZiS barrage can all soft counter MG42s with proper play. Snipers hard counter them as well. Yeah, tier 1 is *better* against MGs (especially on Langreskaya, I think) but it's not like T2 lacks options.

General curiosity: does a deflecting ram hit write off your T-34? (you still deal 160 damage, I believe)...

One of the best posts +1

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.

Go play another game man - coh is about random moments and so is coh2. Thats what most people love about the game, seems like you miss the point and obviously need another game to play.

Yeh Iv seen a game get decided by a random moment - that's what makes it awesome. it does not lower the skill gap, that's completely incorrect. Sometimes you might get disproportionaly rewarded ( ie by killing a squad with a mine which in turn sets a chain of events that loses you a game) but in that case you should of had a sweeper.

I strongly want to call you and idiot or other bad names but I wont - you have your opinion and I have mine but to say that randomness rewards bad play, is irrational to me. Can you give more than 1 example how this happens?

Could randomness then not help the better player by doing crazy damage that ends the game in 1/2 the time or does it only effect bad players? It's nonsense..

its completely refutable, infact you dont even have a leg to stand on. you are just ranting and raving without even understanding what you are saying. Ill will leave you with this quote to mull over

You strongly want to call me an idiot but wont?

I don't show such refrains from honesty. You're a fucking retard.

It's totally irrefutable. Learn some fucking English before trying to translate that mix of retardation and incomprehensible levels of ignorance you call a thought process onto a computer.

Explain to me, dumbass, how does random number generation not effect skill cap?

Fact; It does. That is the entire meaning of Random Number Generation. By absolute definition, this is what randomness does. In fact you confirm my points by saying you can get "disproportionately rewarded".

You want an example? Enemy over extends his tank. I hit it with a Panzerfaust. Nothing happens. I lose a squad. GG.

Fuck me, right? I positioned my squads better than him and lost because of a random generator? Guess I'm really shit at the game then.

Before you even think of posting here again, here's some words you should look up in the dictionary;

"Random"

"Skill"

"Reward"

"Bad"

These are just some of the words I would strongly recommend you look up. My recommendation is that you revisit the entire English language, maybe take a few classes on how to think, and we then might be on levels of equivalent intelligence.

For an argument that I've made that is so refutable, every single post in this thread as failed to refute it once. Not even close. When one of you can use maths or logic to tell me why I'm wrong, I'll shut up.

Bro chill out a bit. Your argument is lost when you go off like that. Even if your point is valid. Every sentence has you sounding like a head case. The guy disagreed with you and that's it. This is the internet and most of the time half the people will disagree with you.

Although I don't mind the presence of RNG in this game (in fact, I agree with the opinion that it makes it unique), it does have too big a range. Flamers sometimes doing barely anything and other times insta-critting whole squads. Mines insta-gibbing grens and pgrens or just killing one squad member. Explosions insta-collapsing full-hp houses. The difference between a vehicle immobolized and a mere damaged engine. A grenadier trying to faust a T70 only for the guy pulling out the faust to die right before he launches it and the rest of the squad cover-seeking-and-head-diving into the tank to be crushed.

I know some of these cases are pretty extreme, but they happen, and more often than people seem to think. Frankly, anything so decisive that can instantly cause the loss of the game due to no fault of the player just seems wrong. There just seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to these type of cases.

Most RNG elements can be balanced out by changing a few stats.

They arent truly random, just that some of the associated values are off.

I dont think the house collapse is intended. I suspect it has something to do with the "destructible terrain" design of the buildings. Ie: Sometimes ordnance hits some core hitbox within the building and causes far too much dmg.

I like a degree of indirect "randomness", such as a Fauster getting killed resetting the shot to another model. Keeps the game cinematic.

Yes, I agree those kinds of RNG are fine and they add a flavor to the game. Some things should not be random elements.

Mortar teams are cool.

Models being alpha damaged down is cool.

The way weapons generally work is pretty cool.

These add a unique flavor to the game because they add unique elements.

But at no point do they increase the skill cap. You aren't suddenly a good player because your Conscript squad just 1-hit a PzGren model and can now beat the rest of the squad.
You aren't suddenly a better player if your mortar team gets a lucky hit on a squad and 1-hits it.

And you certainly aren't a better player if you overextend your tank and nothing happens because some random number generator said so.

Yes, I agree those kinds of RNG are fine and they add a flavor to the game. Some things should not be random elements.

Mortar teams are cool.

Models being alpha damaged down is cool.

The way weapons generally work is pretty cool.

These add a unique flavor to the game because they add unique elements.

But at no point do they increase the skill cap. You aren't suddenly a good player because your Conscript squad just 1-hit a PzGren model and can now beat the rest of the squad.
You aren't suddenly a better player if your mortar team gets a lucky hit on a squad and 1-hits it.

And you certainly aren't a better player if you overextend your tank and nothing happens because some random number generator said so.

It doesnt decrease skill gap either - I understand the nature of something being random. But you are acting as if the whole game is random - your trrops move to random locations on the map, attack on their own, random units come from off map to help the war effort... For the most part you are 100% in control of your forces and your choices, so no this does not promote bad play.

Can sometimes things happen not like you intended? yes of course but thats the nature of the game, and in life all things need a bit of luck. You over come this by being prepared and doing everything you can to get the outcome you want.

It doesnt decrease skill gap either - I understand the nature of something being random. But you are acting as if the whole game is random - your trrops move to random locations on the map, attack on their own, random units come from off map to help the war effort... For the most part you are 100% in control of your forces and your choices, so no this does not promote bad play.

Can sometimes things happen not like you intended? yes of course but thats the nature of the game, and in life all things need a bit of luck. You over come this by being prepared and doing everything you can to get the outcome you want.

False.

It absolutely does lowers to skill cap. As it is an intended part of the fundamental design of the game and its concept and how it works, it's deemed acceptable, but it lowers the skill cap regardless of that fact.

You seem not to be aware of what a skill cap is. Essentially, it is the maximum potential of what a player can achieve with the things he has within his control. Every single random number generator in this game is lowering the skill cap because by definition a random number generator is taking things out of the player's control.

Your(terrible) argument is essentially that "It is not lowering the skill cap because you can still place your units right". Horrible, horrible argument. I could still place my units right before AND not have a number generator.

If I could target models individually as opposed to having a dice roll when an engagement starts, that would be higher skill cap because it adds more tactical complexity.

If I could place specific models and have them move in such a way, that would be a higher skill cap because it adds more nuances to squad control.

I am not arguing for these. I am stating simple fact.

That simple, irrefutable, unarguable, fact, is that when you add a % modifier for something to fail, a random generator, or anything of that sort, you are lowering the skill cap. This is fact. Undeniable. Every time you deny it you are a blatant liar.

You can make other arguments pertaining to balance, unit design, or any of that in order to attempt to justify the changes made. But my point is unshakable. The skill cap has been lowered. Simple fact.

Telling me to simply "adapt" is not the issue. I will adapt to a balance change. I will adapt to a unit design change. I refuse to adapt to lowering the fundamental level of skill required to play the game in the first place.

If you're a bad player you will like this change because it rewards your bad play because you were too bad before to not overextend your vehicles. You are the crowd Relic is catering to.

If you are a player with a modicum of sense(Being good is not a prerequisite), you will see the fundamental issue this raises, the design flaws this causes, the balance issues it creates, and say without compromise that not only was the decision to add a random element to a fundamentally important ability integral to faction design was a bad idea even in concept, but that the balance chain effects as a result are also clearly a negative and bad idea in a metagame already dominated by late game tanks.

It all depends of what you want in the end. If you want a semi-competitive game with a lot of cinematic battles with some "wtf" moments COH is fine. If you want a truly competitive game you reduce the RNG so it doesn't bring game changer results.

Relic is firmly set with the first option but Cyridius is right when he said it lower the skill cap.

It might make the game a bit less competitive, but this is the nature of CoH. The previous game was also like this. Without the RNG, what you have left is essentially Starcraft.

Yes but you could also tone done the RNG without removing it entirely. There's some absurd things in both COH that can cost you the game or have a big impact even if it isn't that common.

With the player base dwindling to such low numbers, its getting harder and harder to get matched up with a similarly skilled opponent in auto-match games

False.

It absolutely does lowers to skill cap. As it is an intended part of the fundamental design of the game and its concept and how it works, it's deemed acceptable, but it lowers the skill cap regardless of that fact.

You seem not to be aware of what a skill cap is. Essentially, it is the maximum potential of what a player can achieve with the things he has within his control. Every single random number generator in this game is lowering the skill cap because by definition a random number generator is taking things out of the player's control.

Your(terrible) argument is essentially that "It is not lowering the skill cap because you can still place your units right". Horrible, horrible argument. I could still place my units right before AND not have a number generator.

If I could target models individually as opposed to having a dice roll when an engagement starts, that would be higher skill cap because it adds more tactical complexity.

If I could place specific models and have them move in such a way, that would be a higher skill cap because it adds more nuances to squad control.

I am not arguing for these. I am stating simple fact.

That simple, irrefutable, unarguable, fact, is that when you add a % modifier for something to fail, a random generator, or anything of that sort, you are lowering the skill cap. This is fact. Undeniable. Every time you deny it you are a blatant liar.

You can make other arguments pertaining to balance, unit design, or any of that in order to attempt to justify the changes made. But my point is unshakable. The skill cap has been lowered. Simple fact.

Telling me to simply "adapt" is not the issue. I will adapt to a balance change. I will adapt to a unit design change. I refuse to adapt to lowering the fundamental level of skill required to play the game in the first place.

If you're a bad player you will like this change because it rewards your bad play because you were too bad before to not overextend your vehicles. You are the crowd Relic is catering to.

If you are a player with a modicum of sense(Being good is not a prerequisite), you will see the fundamental issue this raises, the design flaws this causes, the balance issues it creates, and say without compromise that not only was the decision to add a random element to a fundamentally important ability integral to faction design was a bad idea even in concept, but that the balance chain effects as a result are also clearly a negative and bad idea in a metagame already dominated by late game tanks.

+1, Well put.

I've always described COH to friends as a game with brilliant gameplay but with too many RNG factors that limit the player's control.

I certainly agree with the skill cap argument but it doesn't change the fact that aggressive tank play was almost not existent last patch and it was entirely due to the fact that every basic infantry, on both sides, could reliably 100% of the time deliver an engine crit. From just an enjoyment of the game perspective this was not good. It forced most vehicles into kiting mode and frankly reduced the opportunities for micro. Why push your p4 when you know it's just going to be at-naded to hell if you do. Better to just sit back and snipe a bit. Which of course plays right into the SU-85s hand.

My opinion is they needed to do something to allow for aggressive tank play. I'm not all that enamored with RNG engine crits on basic infantry but they needed to do something and it seems this is the approach they came up with. Personally, I'd rather they allow your vehicle to back out of the at-nade range while the animation is going, canceling the ability like COH1.

Personally, I'd rather they allow your vehicle to back out of the at-nade range while the animation is going, canceling the ability like COH1.

+1, but they should revert the range nerf they did before if they do this.