Should mechanical break-downs be added?

How many competitive multiplayer games throws in random game changing factors that the player has no control over?

Oh, let me see, none.

no, no, no, no.






no.

Luckily I'm a good guy, and stopped myself.

seriously guys, relax. if we want more players in this game, try not to be an ass in the forums and just explain why you think it's a bad idea.

SgtBulldog:

Having a tank randomly break down in a tight game in a 1v1 tournament is not acceptable even a small impact with a tank is a big impact.

seriously guys, relax. if we want more players in this game, try not to be an ass in the forums and just explain why you think it's a bad idea.

SgtBulldog:

Having a tank randomly break down in a tight game in a 1v1 tournament is not acceptable even a small impact with a tank is a big impact.

+1

It *sounds* kind of neat, but I'd expect those sorts of mechanics to just end up frustrating players.

Agreed.

I think it's a good suggestion, but what we have to consider is whether or not it makes for a good play experience for players.

As pointed out by others a scripted breakdown during a single player or co-op ToW mission may be cool but in general players don't like it when random things happen during multiplayer play. As it is there's a segment of RTS players who won't really touch CoH/2 because of the random outcomes that can happen in the game, and would rather it be predictable like some other top RTS games.

We do like having the random element in the game, the chance for things to occur every so often that bring the feel of real combat to life, but something like having a unit simply stop working would infuriate the majority of players.

a tank can travel for a few hours without breaking down, one game lasts at average of 30 minutes. tanks during the war tanks had to travel long hours to get to another objective, in this game tanks only have to go around for 3 miles and is constantly repaired. from a historical perspective it's not really accurate at all. + it will only make the soviet tanks even more weaker than german tanks. since they are really unreliable ( despite what everyone else says, they don't know )

well, how about no, just dont do it

I think it sounds fun in theory, but less fun when you actually play. When playing, I want to have as much control of my units as possible, especially in skirmishes either pvp or pve. Campaign or ToW perhaps... but still not something that I really would want to have ingame. Adds actions and uneccesary micro.

About historical accuracy, theese fights dont last very long. Yes vehicles broke down and during fights, but considering the matches are short there is no need for vehicle maintenence in this short period. The vehicle comes in new and fresh and a breakdown within 1hour would be a designflaw worthy some executions. Historical accuracy really has to go in favor of gameplay here I think.

That said, I could add a theoretical workaround (that I still dont want to see ingame, but less random). It would be a timer-bar much like the freezing infantry, but in this case more based on distance travelled. When the bar hits bottom, the vehicle risks a break down. To keep avoid this you would have to do occational repairs, keep it close to resource points or whatever.

^+1

Off topic: all the flaming here is just sad, there's nothing wrong with a suggestion.

We do like having the random element in the game, the chance for things to occur every so often that bring the feel of real combat to life, but something like having a unit simply stop working would infuriate the majority of players.

My point was exactly that the randomeness is allready in the game.

E.g. what's the difference from a rifle grenade sometimes destroying a building in the first go and at other times take for ever? Or a tank getting stuck on the end of a branch so it makes a big detour or turns its rearside to the enemy? Or artillery sometimes scattering quite a lot, while at other times making a perfect hit?

Compare all those kinds of events with some - small - risk of mechanical break down. For example due to engine strain. Or overheating.

Such events could be linked to player behaviour as some kind of probability and I don't see why exactly mechanical break downs should infuriate players any more than all the other randomeness that players also have little or next to no control of.

And let me note - again - what 90% of the replies ignored: I envisaged something like a redistribution of randomeness. I never suggested introducing a lot more randomeness.

----------
As a sidenote, this reminds me of back then ,years ago, when someone suggested introducing a reverse gear for tanks. The majority of the player base was outraged and ridiculed him on the forum. It was hughe.

Well, we all know how that turned out

Hell no, RNG as it is often turns the tide of the game one or the other way.

Last thing I want to see is my Heavy thank I've been battling to pull out, breaking down on its own without me being responsible at all.
Or grenade exploding in my vet3 infantry units face, wiping it out.

No thanx, I can watch Twitch streems if I want to cheer for someone without actually being involved.

in my opinion tank should break down if you microing it too much, if going forward and reversing too often tank should get transmision problems, we dont want any infidels in game with micro thats too good compared to casual players

Agreed.

I think it's a good suggestion, but what we have to consider is whether or not it makes for a good play experience for players.

As pointed out by others a scripted breakdown during a single player or co-op ToW mission may be cool but in general players don't like it when random things happen during multiplayer play. As it is there's a segment of RTS players who won't really touch CoH/2 because of the random outcomes that can happen in the game, and would rather it be predictable like some other top RTS games.

We do like having the random element in the game, the chance for things to occur every so often that bring the feel of real combat to life, but something like having a unit simply stop working would infuriate the majority of players.

I don't mean to aim this directly at you Noun, but this really had an impression on me; the concept of making a good play experience, rather than something that's just cinematic.

I really feel that at some point in CoH2's development cycle, the emphasis shifted from making a game to making an 'experience'. I don't think that this is _necessarily_ a bad thing, certainly; but if the actual fun, satisfaction and playability of a game is lost in search of a more cinematic experience, that's a bad thing.

The evidence is everywhere; from the over the top screams when a unit catches on fire, to the heavily stylized UI (to the detriment of usability), to the little skull-and-crossbones signs that pop up when you lay a minefield, to the way troops scatter whole metres when shots fly nearby, to the huge(ly unnecessary) Soviet squad sizes and weapon crews. Reviewers look at these features and see attention to detail. The committed CoH fanbase look at these features and see distractions.

I appreciate that the intention is to enhance the sense of immersion, but it really isn't necessary. When Minecraft was in alpha, it was incredibly absorbing, and yet was so basic and simple. I'm a little afraid that it's a bit late to u-turn on some of these design decisions, but I do think the game would benefit greatly if Relic could refocus on making the game a fun and enjoyable experience for the player, and not so 'try-hard' when it comes to making it play out like a scene from Stalingrad.

I don't mean to aim this directly at you Noun, but this really had an impression on me; the concept of making a good play experience, rather than something that's just cinematic.

I really feel that at some point in CoH2's development cycle, the emphasis shifted from making a game to making an 'experience'. I don't think that this is _necessarily_ a bad thing, certainly; but if the actual fun, satisfaction and playability of a game is lost in search of a more cinematic experience, that's a bad thing.

The evidence is everywhere; from the over the top screams when a unit catches on fire, to the heavily stylized UI (to the detriment of usability), to the little skull-and-crossbones signs that pop up when you lay a minefield, to the way troops scatter whole metres when shots fly nearby, to the huge(ly unnecessary) Soviet squad sizes and weapon crews. Reviewers look at these features and see attention to detail. The committed CoH fanbase look at these features and see distractions.

I appreciate that the intention is to enhance the sense of immersion, but it really isn't necessary. When Minecraft was in alpha, it was incredibly absorbing, and yet was so basic and simple. I'm a little afraid that it's a bit late to u-turn on some of these design decisions, but I do think the game would benefit greatly if Relic could refocus on making the game a fun and enjoyable experience for the player, and not so 'try-hard' when it comes to making it play out like a scene from Stalingrad.

EXACTLY!

I really feel that at some point in CoH2's development cycle, the emphasis shifted from making a game to making an 'experience'. I don't think that this is _necessarily_ a bad thing, certainly; but if the actual fun, satisfaction and playability of a game is lost in search of a more cinematic experience, that's a bad thing.

+ 1

Where is the damn like button

Hi Sgt, I do like the idea of break downs a lot. As that could really be fun.
And raging over a tank that gets stuck is great as well.

Then on the other hand especially in 1v1 it is hard to implement such a thing without risking that it shifts the entire game. One tank rolling or standing simply makes a huge difference.

One thing that got me thinking more: If you look at heavy crush in vCOH, that could work. If you really crush tank traps you have a 10% chance of getting a critical.
No idea though how that translates to COH2.

having units break down is a really bad idea especially for any kind of competitive play. Buy tank roles on field every time it moves has a percent to break down and stop working. if you can't tell why this is a bad idea i don't know i have no words. Show Spoiler

i like RNG i think it is Part of what makes the coh series unique and interesting and in my opinion good. however this idea is so bad for gameplay for quite a few reasons. (im only going to state 1.)

It would limit the amount times you would move your tanks for fear of it breaking down. which would be bad for flanking and the whole game in general by making the game more static. there is a whole faction based around movement and flanking after all...

Show Spoiler

Yes, keep it coming

Ha ha

I wouldn't mind more mechanical failures caused by other players, like Tank threads loss chance when driving over the mine or being shot from flank, but with tracks repair priority when being repaired by engineers or had threads self-repair cool-down (~20-30 seconds) so tank aren't stuck permanently until fully repaired like in Beta...

Completely random stuff (not caused by players action) like ending on "go to jail" tile, just because of unlucky dices had no place in strategy game like company of heroes, It's not even fun.