Should mechanical break-downs be added?
Posts: 409
Oh, let me see, none.
Posts: 35
no.
Posts: 1006
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.
Posts: 1534 | Subs: 1
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
Posts: 454 | Subs: 9
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.
Posts: 598
Posts: 35
Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 369
Off topic: all the flaming here is just sad, there's nothing wrong with a suggestion.
Posts: 688
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
Posts: 829
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.
Posts: 90
Posts: 742 | Subs: 2
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.
Posts: 641 | Subs: 1
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!
Posts: 829
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
Posts: 538
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.
Posts: 3293
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...
Posts: 829
Posts: 45
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.
Livestreams
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.883398.689+5
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.998646.607+2
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Gerherd
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM