Login

russian armor

UKF feels entirely uphill, the entire game

9 Aug 2018, 10:25 AM
#41
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

UKF in the current 1v1 meta is 5 man inf spam into t3 rush. You either blob and get free mgs or lose after being forced to play more defensively allowing your opponent to outcap and outflank you. They are the worst faction to play at the moment as stated by Cruzz the Wise Wizard of CoH2. Only HelpingHans and Kimbo know how to play brits competitively.


refero </3
9 Aug 2018, 17:16 PM
#43
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518



AEC against anything but a Stug is a death sentence.


Sdkfz 222, Luchs, Puma, Flak HT do not count i guess ?


Additionally its too bad that every single Axis foot soldier has a panzerfaust in their back pocket which can immediately shut it down.


It is not the fault of Balance if you rush your AEC into the next 3 Grenadier squads.
And yes I know that sometimes the grenadiers will surprise you but then there is still
smoke you know?


The issue is, 2 squads approach a single MG from opposite sides of its cone. From max range, tripod already deployed, an MG42 (with a single click micro), can suppress both squads before ever being in grenade range and eventually pin them.

Ever thought about actually leaving the MG 42s cone if you are already so close to the border ?


A Vickers cannot do this. This is a problem. This is why you have MGs. Not to deal damage.

A Vickers will actually do pretty much the same if you brainless charge into it with 2 Squads. After one burst the first squad will be suppressed and then you just have to aim on the other one.

This thread is nothing but a product of a player loosing to many UKF games in a row.
The points of OP are either completely exaggerated or not true at all(like Mortar pit getting destroyed by a single mortar while it gets repaired ,Brits having no AT infantry, British tanks always loosing in 1 vs 1 or their AT gun being unable to penetrate tanks like Tiger or Panther).
If this would have been a post from a guy complaining about OKW beeing bad because of no AT infantry and bad AT guns certain people on this forum would already have been stomping OP into the ground with "learn to play" or "typical axis fanyboy" comments.
9 Aug 2018, 18:52 PM
#44
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



He was incredibly unhealthy for the community, he presented all of his opinions as fact, backed it with bogus data and flamed anyone who disagreed with him. It wouldn't have been so bad if he didn't have the entire moderation team of CoH2.org propping him up on the forums, but it basically came down to discussions being heavily moderated to fit Mr. Smiths balance agenda, giving him and Relic this false sense of justification for all the changes made to the game within the past year or so that he was involved in the balance team. Fast forward to now and here we have arguably more broken factions (and not in a good way, but rather in a painfully obvious underwhelming kind of way). Axis now actually overperforms! (lol, something that the vocal minority has always cried about and is now actually true)

So no, I'm sorry. You can let bygones be bygones but if you actually want a balanced and enjoyable CoH2 in the future I think he is the last person to help deliver that - and I think it's important the community remembers that going forward before you bring about Mr. Smith #2.

That said, I agree with everything else you brought up to an extent. Balance should have always been about bringing the EFA more in line with the WFA using moderate unit tweaks and buffs, and not putting out these sweeping nerfs and radical redesigns. Brits had always been a problem since they released and the changes they received, while welcome, didn't come with compensation and now they severely underperform in some of the most critical areas of the game. I think an early reliable suppression tool, a non-doc snare that isn't tied to a sniper and inconsistent as hell as well as a TD (whatever you want to call the Firefly) that doesn't move and turn its turret at the speed of runny shit would help UKF a lot.


This x1000. Also, the propping up didn't just happen on COH2.ORG, it also happened in the official forums.

Making the tank hunter infantry non-doc and allowing upgrades again would go a long way towards making UKF competitive again. The logic that they were too useful is completely inane when Panzerfusiliers are allowed a snare and extended sight. Evidently it's okay to have OKW units be useful but not UKF.

The Firefly nerfs were badly overdone. The turret rotation and fire rate is so horrible that they don't kill much, and the nerf to tulips made them almost worthless.
9 Aug 2018, 18:59 PM
#45
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



It's my own opinion that because of all of the crying about the Western Front Armies being OP and the EFA being left in the mud they just nerfed them down to EFA level to satisfy the few... I will refrain from calling them names but it's what the deserve honestly and it's why you don't see them with that stupid shit anymore here.

But yes I do agree with you that there was little to no feedback taken from the community last patch, as well as now with the new commanders and revamps.

It's like Coh2.org's got talent with us trying to persuade the jury that our ideas are not stupid af.

And lastly I'm not saying that the guys in charge of balance got hit with a dose of elitism but it's probably possible that the successful patch you mentioned went to their heads a little too much so they thought that the community's feedback was no longer neccessary and that they already know what to do perfectly well.

At the end of the day we should all remember that as humans we are susceptible to the corruption of power, fame and glory, money, sex and so forth.


I think it not only went to their head, it also went to Relic's head. I'd be happier with the game if they just rolled it back to the previous patch, with the possible exceptions of what they did to the Jackson, Elefant, and JT. I'm probably in the minority on this, but I like the new JT better because of the HE shells that they gave it as compensation. I've used that to keep VP's from getting capped on maps like 400 and had it help win the game.
9 Aug 2018, 22:23 PM
#46
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096

I think every factions needs non-doctrinal:

Snare
Mobile mortar
Rocket arty

The last one was only really apparent in team games when playing with a USF ally and neither of us picked landmattress/calliope commanders. Every faction needs an area of denial tool to combat blobs.
9 Aug 2018, 22:32 PM
#47
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2018, 10:25 AMLago


refero </3

Almost forgot about Refero. Though he has stated he doesn't like playing them anymore in tournaments. :foreveralone:
9 Aug 2018, 22:39 PM
#48
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2018, 22:23 PMGrim
I think every factions needs non-doctrinal:

Snare
Mobile mortar
Rocket arty

The last one was only really apparent in team games when playing with a USF ally and neither of us picked landmattress/calliope commanders. Every faction needs an area of denial tool to combat blobs.


Basic mainline infantry, support weapons such as MGs, mobile indirect fire, proper AT gun, medium tank as well as a TD and so forth.

All in all tho the Brits do have Anvil that gives the base howitzers the shrapnel rounds while not particularly effective still sort of fulfill the purpose of area denial, and there's really nothing like that which the USF can be given by default sadly, we just didn't have much rocket arty during the war, I'd even go as far as to say that the Calliope was born out of the idea of mounting a nebelwerfer type weapon on an armored chassis more than anything else really, while the Brits went the cheaper route by directly copying it with the land matress.
10 Aug 2018, 06:40 AM
#49
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I think making the CoH2 Brits more like CoH Brits might help them out.

Change the double mortar pit to a single mortar pit for half the price so they can get indirect fire in key positions, while it wouldn't be as punishing to lose them (vCoH mortar pit).

Give the AEC an AI profile instead. It shouldn't be as effective as a T-70 but it can come out earlier (vCoH Stuart). It can still deal some damage to light vehicles.

Allow sappers to build MG bunkers to help defend territory or counter blobs a bit.

Buff the Firefly a bit and lose the stun on Tullip rockets.
10 Aug 2018, 06:52 AM
#50
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

I think making the CoH2 Brits more like CoH Brits might help them out.

Change the double mortar pit to a single mortar pit for half the price so they can get indirect fire in key positions, while it wouldn't be as punishing to lose them (vCoH mortar pit).

Give the AEC an AI profile instead. It shouldn't be as effective as a T-70 but it can come out earlier (vCoH Stuart). It can still deal some damage to light vehicles.

Allow sappers to build MG bunkers to help defend territory or counter blobs a bit.

Buff the Firefly a bit and lose the stun on Tullip rockets.


Oh yeah, make them like the Army people are crying needs a redesign in the original game.

The British were fucked because of their over reliance of emplacements, and lack of mobile team weapons, the COH2 Brits improve upon that in the sense that emplacements are not something you need anymore to survive as much while in CoH it sort of was, you had no mobile indirect fire or AT weapon, the Brits in CoH2 at least have the base 25 pounders, and even with the Vickers MMG upgrade for the Bren carrier I've rarely had it survive more than mid game. Plus I'd argue that should have also got tank traps from the royal engineers.

I could go into more detail on what's wrong with the CoH Brits and how to fix them but just take it from an experienced CoH veteran that has played since 2006, and mostly the Opposing Fronts Armies because I was sick and tired of the original 2 until they released.
10 Aug 2018, 08:05 AM
#51
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I never said that CoH2 should copy the entire faction design. I just said there's a couple of design choices for vCoH Brits that made more sense, that could be used to improve the CoH2 faction.

I see no reason not to copy the good stuff.
10 Aug 2018, 09:01 AM
#52
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

I never said that CoH2 should copy the entire faction design. I just said there's a couple of design choices for vCoH Brits that made more sense, that could be used to improve the CoH2 faction.

I see no reason not to copy the good stuff.


Static mortar is still static so I don't think it's part of the good design choices.
10 Aug 2018, 09:55 AM
#53
avatar of roll0

Posts: 64

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post8 Aug 2018, 14:12 PMVipper


I personally have criticised the changes introduced in patch many times, but I find little reason in criticising the persons.

In addition Relic releases patch as they see fit (USF mortar on release for instance ) so they are sole responsible for the patches and not the mod team.

Finally Mr.Smith was acting as the spokesman and as far as I know is no longer part of the team that helps with the patches. Criticising personally Mr.Smith in quite unproductive and simply discourages other people of becoming involved.
(Imo its quite unfair also)

But it is probably time to get back to Topic of this thread which is UKF faction performance.


Exactly you say it yourself, communication was so bad we don't even know who worked on the patch. They deserve criticism for this so I'm not going to just praise them and pretend they did a great job.

But considering Mr Smith's pop cap changes he lorded here made it in I think it's safe to say he had input. And if he had the input for such a wide reaching pop cap change he could have added a mortar and snare after that long list of UKF nerfs the "community team" introduced and lelic rubber stamped.

10 Aug 2018, 10:14 AM
#54
avatar of roll0

Posts: 64

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post7 Aug 2018, 23:01 PMMongal


UKF were designed to have the best snare in the game on release, the sniper. It was removed and they were never compensated for it.


This, when okw vet 5 was nerfed and volk Shrek blobs were removed their factional weaknesses were fixed (snare on volks, flames on volks nades for garrisons, Panzer 4 added, Leig buffed and given smoke, MG34 added).

Brits got the same nerfs OKW did but none of the tools, the only memorable buffs in return for two patches and pages full of nerfs were 50mp off the mortar pit, 20muni off nerfed brens and 10 fuel off the still mediocre Cromwell.

Great lol
10 Aug 2018, 10:24 AM
#55
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2018, 09:55 AMroll0
But considering Mr Smith's pop cap changes he lorded here made it in I think it's safe to say he had input. And if he had the input for such a wide reaching pop cap change he could have added a mortar and snare after that long list of UKF nerfs the "community team" introduced and lelic rubber stamped.


No, he couldn't. You make it sound like Mr. Smith had a load of Balance Team Points or something that he spent on popcap changes. That's not how it works.

The pop cap changes are balance tweaks. Highly impactful balance tweaks, but so is changing a core infantry unit. It's tweaking numbers up and down and Relic doesn't seem to have any issue with that.

Adding a proper snare and mortar to UKF is changing the design of the faction and Relic apparently is not keen on that. Every variant of UKF snares under the sun came up and Relic reportedly shot them all down.

If Mr. Smith really did have the clout to push redesigns through then he'd have probably got the Stuart/AAHT swap in.
10 Aug 2018, 10:47 AM
#56
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9

As things seem to be getting a little personal here, I would just like to make a few quick points:

1) Please lay off personalising your dissatisfaction at a balance patch by attempting to name and shame an individual from the Balance team. Mr Smith was a guy who put in a lot of man hours to try to make the game better for you. He did not do it on his own, and was always guided by Relic. When balance testers inform you that they are working under 'scope', they mean just that. i.e. there are constraints on what they are allowed to modify. Post #38 by Effen Newbie is a better way to proceed. You can make your points by playing the ball, not the man.

2) The idea that
It wouldn't have been so bad if he didn't have the entire moderation team of CoH2.org propping him up on the forums, but it basically came down to discussions being heavily moderated to fit Mr. Smiths balance agenda, giving him and Relic this false sense of justification for all the changes made to the game within the past year or so that he was involved in the balance team.
is flat out wrong

Moderators will only intervene if personal attacks are being made. Robust polite debate is encouraged. But play the ball, not the man.

3) Mr Smith left staff bcs he had intensive RL commitments. AFAIK, he is not now really involved with the balance testing team.

4) I have written it before, but I will do so again. There is no intention to make a poster on the Balance forums produce their player card, if they choose to conceal it. You can draw whatever inference you like from someone who does not display their player card. Forcing production of a player card would simply reduce the level of debate to "My player card is better than yours".

Equally, it has been discussed on staff as to whether posters with a low post count should open threads - or even be prevented from posting - in the Balance forums; those proposals have also been rejected.

Nothing which I have written above is designed to discourage any of you from making valid criticisms about balance patches.

But please bear in mind, all of you, that if you want more maps, better maps, better designed factions, better balance etc that you are more likely to succeed if you proceed with some courtesy. Barking out dissatisfaction and ranting may be amusing to read to non-participants but it is not the way to win the war of ideas.

Advocacy is the technique of persuasion.

Back to the poor Britz and their Atlantic cousins...
10 Aug 2018, 10:52 AM
#57
avatar of tightrope
Senior Caster Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29

Mr Smith did an excellent job and you should all be thankful for his involvement.
10 Aug 2018, 10:58 AM
#58
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6



Static mortar is still static so I don't think it's part of the good design choices.


But it would be better than what we have now, it retains the faction uniqueness and doesn't require as much work as an entire new mortar team unit. Which would also be quite boring.
10 Aug 2018, 11:12 AM
#59
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Static mortar is still static so I don't think it's part of the good design choices.


No community balance team is ever likely to have carte blanche to make whatever changes they believe are necessary. A UKF mortar team and Infantry Section snare seems obvious to us, but Relic clearly disagrees else they'd have done it a while ago. They've demonstrated they're not afraid to make big changes: they overhauled OKW and added nondoctrinal PTRS rifles to SOV T1 so evidentally they don't think it's the right thing to do.

Therefore, if we want to help UKF we'll need to think up changes that are acceptable to Relic instead of repeating the solution they're not going to accept.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

724 users are online: 724 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49101
Welcome our newest member, Dorca477
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM