Intelligence Bulletins
13 Dec 2012, 19:03 PM
#41
Posts: 1620 | Subs: 2
Chess also didn't have suppression in the game so maybe we can take that out of CoH 2.
Signature by Ginnungagap
13 Dec 2012, 19:52 PM
#42
Posts: 486
Chess also didn't have suppression in the game so maybe we can take that out of CoH 2.
Seriously though, chess is always balanced because it is symmetrical field with only mirror matches (only imbalances is regarding who gets the first turn) and because of this highly competitive nature, chess is one of the most followed sport- oh wait, no people don't want to watch chess because it's boring. They'd rather watch poker that is based on chance.
The most important thing for a game is for it to be entertaining. If I love to look at it and play it, nothing else really matters. It will attract an audience and an audience will attract people who'd spend 12 hours a day on acquiring fleeting internet fame.
I'm sceptical towards the idea of IBs, but then again CoH is so much about chance that I don't think slight percentages will make much difference.
No spreading out, no fancy stuff, just smash through. Let's see how those degenerate sophisticates handle a healthy dose of pure unreasoning violence.
14 Dec 2012, 03:01 AM
#43
Posts: 642
I like the idea of Bulletins, as long as they not only give you bonuses, but also flaws.
If a Pak had, say, an extra inch of range in that bulletin, it should also make the setup and cooldown time between shots slightly slower. That way you do customize your army, but you are giving up something for it.
Perhaps a Bulletin makes your infantry 10% more resistant to artillery shelling, but 10% weaker to flame damage. Who knows.
The REAL problem is not so much balance, as the fact that it could make the metagame incredibly complex. CoH is already a complicated system that is being simplified a little on some fronts (such as upkeep). Creating too much customizations could make this a spaghetti massacre.You can choose more than three "Commanders/Doctrines" this time around, if I heard the rumors right, then add Bulletins on top of that. Who knows, maybe even those Commanders can be further customized.
Whats the problem you might say? You'll watch a replay, and you'll have to remember the entire bag of tricks the other player had.
If a Pak had, say, an extra inch of range in that bulletin, it should also make the setup and cooldown time between shots slightly slower. That way you do customize your army, but you are giving up something for it.
Perhaps a Bulletin makes your infantry 10% more resistant to artillery shelling, but 10% weaker to flame damage. Who knows.
The REAL problem is not so much balance, as the fact that it could make the metagame incredibly complex. CoH is already a complicated system that is being simplified a little on some fronts (such as upkeep). Creating too much customizations could make this a spaghetti massacre.You can choose more than three "Commanders/Doctrines" this time around, if I heard the rumors right, then add Bulletins on top of that. Who knows, maybe even those Commanders can be further customized.
Whats the problem you might say? You'll watch a replay, and you'll have to remember the entire bag of tricks the other player had.
14 Dec 2012, 07:25 AM
#44
4 Posts: 505
This is the point I was getting at. You should know the layout of the game before you start. Not have to do some research while the game is loading to find out what bonuses your opponent will have.
I read more than my fair share of expert strategies on the old GR and without them I wouldnt have even begun to get into the 1v1 or 2v2 ladders. Those expert strategies came from knowing the teams, the maps and the numbers and now this is just gunna water down a lot of these strats because there's going to be a constant shifting number table. I get that it's supposed to promote tactical gameplay and maybe it will even close the gulf between good/great players but I gotta say, I am still dubious about it. Too many cooks and all that....
I read more than my fair share of expert strategies on the old GR and without them I wouldnt have even begun to get into the 1v1 or 2v2 ladders. Those expert strategies came from knowing the teams, the maps and the numbers and now this is just gunna water down a lot of these strats because there's going to be a constant shifting number table. I get that it's supposed to promote tactical gameplay and maybe it will even close the gulf between good/great players but I gotta say, I am still dubious about it. Too many cooks and all that....
14 Dec 2012, 16:02 PM
#45
Posts: 65
Seriously though, chess is always balanced because it is symmetrical field with only mirror matches (only imbalances is regarding who gets the first turn) and because of this highly competitive nature, chess is one of the most followed sport- oh wait, no people don't want to watch chess because it's boring. They'd rather watch poker that is based on chance.
The most important thing for a game is for it to be entertaining. If I love to look at it and play it, nothing else really matters. It will attract an audience and an audience will attract people who'd spend 12 hours a day on acquiring fleeting internet fame.
I'm sceptical towards the idea of IBs, but then again CoH is so much about chance that I don't think slight percentages will make much difference.
Poker is chance and skill. Just like COH. Why both are a great game.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
14 Dec 2012, 16:04 PM
#46
Posts: 65
I like the idea of Bulletins, as long as they not only give you bonuses, but also flaws.
If a Pak had, say, an extra inch of range in that bulletin, it should also make the setup and cooldown time between shots slightly slower. That way you do customize your army, but you are giving up something for it.
Perhaps a Bulletin makes your infantry 10% more resistant to artillery shelling, but 10% weaker to flame damage. Who knows.
The REAL problem is not so much balance, as the fact that it could make the metagame incredibly complex. CoH is already a complicated system that is being simplified a little on some fronts (such as upkeep). Creating too much customizations could make this a spaghetti massacre.You can choose more than three "Commanders/Doctrines" this time around, if I heard the rumors right, then add Bulletins on top of that. Who knows, maybe even those Commanders can be further customized.
Whats the problem you might say? You'll watch a replay, and you'll have to remember the entire bag of tricks the other player had.
This also allows for more customization. No two matches will be alike. Yet, with all the options requires alot more time to balance.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
14 Dec 2012, 17:35 PM
#47
Posts: 41
Exactly. It would take even more time to make the game as balanced as CoH, than with just default 3 commanders for each faction.
You still think Bear Grylls is not in COH?
14 Dec 2012, 19:55 PM
#48
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
Poker is chance and skill. Just like COH. Why both are a great game.
The difference is poker (not online) takes luck, but it is genuine luck. Not luck decided by a computer spitting out random numbers. You can still get lucky in CoH without the random factor, like if you decided to scout his base and right before a Puma was finished you saw a completed tank depot> you cancel Puma and get a Stug instead. Another example is if your cloak storm trooper walked in to a sniper that you didn't even know was there, or if you started a huge flank while someone was repositioning their MG.
An example of the "bad" randomness factor is if a sniper walked over a mine and survived with 5% health, or if a Sherman one shotted a 4 man Grenadier.
14 Dec 2012, 21:42 PM
#49
Posts: 93
Poker is chance and skill. Just like COH. Why both are a great game.
Yeah right, and not because of interesting mechanics. Interesting mechanics are for the plebs.
Poker is a game that's about dealing with chance (among things). The RNGs in CoH are just a way of making the game aesthetically appealing, but from a competitive gameplay perspective I don't enjoy them at all. They're a necessary evil for a game like CoH.
14 Dec 2012, 22:36 PM
#50
Posts: 55
This annoys me, but appears minutely damaging; suppose each player begins with 3, no play time required. Assuming any 3 are equivalent (a valiant and bold assertion), it would under those circumstances be balanced.
Of course, I'm still annoyed.
Of course, I'm still annoyed.
15 Dec 2012, 00:17 AM
#51
Posts: 3293
This annoys me, but appears minutely damaging; suppose each player begins with 3, no play time required. Assuming any 3 are equivalent (a valiant and bold assertion), it would under those circumstances be balanced.
Of course, I'm still annoyed.
i heard they would only work in nonranked matches at least that's what i heard. however I think that if they were to make it into the final game. They have to have a trade off to each one. like maybe you have more pak damage but less accuracy or more accuracy less damage. or more tank gun damage but slower fire rate stuff like that. and only in slight very slight category's and also only be unlock-able only so that people aren't buying there way to all the bonuses. which leans the game in direction no competitive gaming community wants to go. the pay to win category whether its ranked or non ranked i feel that bonuses big or small to players that pay you more money is unacceptable to a competitive vs. game.
Failure is always an option. 
It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!)
Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. 
To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! 
and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
15 Dec 2012, 18:57 PM
#52
Posts: 65
The difference is poker (not online) takes luck, but it is genuine luck. Not luck decided by a computer spitting out random numbers. You can still get lucky in CoH without the random factor, like if you decided to scout his base and right before a Puma was finished you saw a completed tank depot> you cancel Puma and get a Stug instead. Another example is if your cloak storm trooper walked in to a sniper that you didn't even know was there, or if you started a huge flank while someone was repositioning their MG.
An example of the "bad" randomness factor is if a sniper walked over a mine and survived with 5% health, or if a Sherman one shotted a 4 man Grenadier.
Luck is all numbers and statistics. Regardless if it is computer generated or the natural numbers of life.
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
15 Dec 2012, 20:53 PM
#53
Posts: 35
Yep, everything can be explained in chances making "luck" a chance game. Also there are enough poker players who would disagree with poker being a luck game.
15 Dec 2012, 22:08 PM
#54
Posts: 93
Yeah, no one said otherwise.
CoH is not like poker. The RNG functions as a coin toss. "Will you win this flamer vs flamer engagement? The coin says yes/no." There's truly no fun in that, other than the visual appeal.
The sniper mechanic is a little different, I do think players are evaluating their chances, but there's only one relevant outcome: frustration. When the third countersniper misses your sniper, do you truly feel good about yourself because the coin happened to fall in your favour?
CoH is not like poker. The RNG functions as a coin toss. "Will you win this flamer vs flamer engagement? The coin says yes/no." There's truly no fun in that, other than the visual appeal.
The sniper mechanic is a little different, I do think players are evaluating their chances, but there's only one relevant outcome: frustration. When the third countersniper misses your sniper, do you truly feel good about yourself because the coin happened to fall in your favour?
15 Dec 2012, 22:40 PM
#55
3 
Posts: 368
When the third countersniper misses your sniper, do you truly feel good about yourself because the coin happened to fall in your favour?
No, on the other hand, shots having to penetrate keeps me at the edge of my seat and it doesn't bother me in game - it's part of the game I love.
Snipers are just the worst part in the 2.602 metagame. I don't think it has to do with chance per se, but that so much of the game is hinged up on this one unit, even though the mechanics are crude. If snipers were less important, like costing 200Mp and missing half the time, chance would be much less of an annoyance. Now, a single dice-roll seriously effects the game, since they are so all-important in the MP-war.
Hence, it's not chance itself that is annoying, it's the poor implementation of the chance-mechanic. It's like adding Black Peter to poker
- imho, of course
/Uninstalled
15 Dec 2012, 23:07 PM
#56
Posts: 93
No, on the other hand, shots having to penetrate keeps me at the edge of my seat and it doesn't bother me in game - it's part of the game I love.
Now, a single dice-roll seriously effects the game
How can something keep you at the edge of your seat when it DOESN'T seriously affect the game?
I'll be frank here: as I see it, the only people who seem to appreciate the chance mechanic are those who do not take their own competitive play seriously. You seem to have accepted your fate as a no-more-than mediocre player, and consequently your CoH experience is a passive one, as a spectator first. When you watch a replay, you have no personal stake in that game. You might prefer one player or the other, but it doesn't really matter who wins. You're there for the spectacle, and well, a grenade wiping a full squad delivers, a sniper surviving a mine with 3% health left delivers. Did the best player win? Who gives a toss, look at those explosions!
"Luck" does seriously affect the game. I do care who wins, when I play I do have a stake in that game: I play to win.
Furthermore, I think the purpose of a computer game is to be played first, spectated second. The amount of matches played greatly surpasses the amount of matches spectated.
15 Dec 2012, 23:24 PM
#57
Posts: 93
Double post, editing failure somehow 
I can use it anyway, for a little nuance:
I do realize the "random" spectacle is very much part of CoH, the look and feel just aren't the same without e.g. mortar or tank shells landing in "random" patterns; like shells miss in real life. However, as you play the game more competitively, the interest for that spectacle slowly but surely moves to the background. At some point, you don't even see the game as a WWII game anymore.
My preference therefore lies not with a CoH that is without RNGs - that's simply not doable regarding "authenticity" and the setting - but one that features them in a minimal role. As I mentioned in an earlier post: as a necessary evil. As such do I appreciate RNGs.
I can use it anyway, for a little nuance:
I do realize the "random" spectacle is very much part of CoH, the look and feel just aren't the same without e.g. mortar or tank shells landing in "random" patterns; like shells miss in real life. However, as you play the game more competitively, the interest for that spectacle slowly but surely moves to the background. At some point, you don't even see the game as a WWII game anymore.
My preference therefore lies not with a CoH that is without RNGs - that's simply not doable regarding "authenticity" and the setting - but one that features them in a minimal role. As I mentioned in an earlier post: as a necessary evil. As such do I appreciate RNGs.
16 Dec 2012, 00:07 AM
#58
3 Posts: 368
Too much snub, Sem.
If a StuG lives or dies affects the game, but not in the same way the early/mid-game sniperwars does.
I would actually have appreciated if you had spared us both some time and just said "lol nub", because your offensive wording didn't accomplish much more than that. Playing from time to time makes me appreciate good players for being good players. By your rationale, I should enjoy a "Vire River Vally" replay just the same or even better. And if you're into some poetic bs, my fate is chosen, not "accepted".
"Chance" is an old discussion and I'll not get myself dragged into it again, but just state my opinion; football players play to win, chess players play to win - CoH can be played to win.
Finally, if a game is not spectated, it does not become a sport.
Edit; this was mostly written before I saw SemInts second post with nuances.
If a StuG lives or dies affects the game, but not in the same way the early/mid-game sniperwars does.
I would actually have appreciated if you had spared us both some time and just said "lol nub", because your offensive wording didn't accomplish much more than that. Playing from time to time makes me appreciate good players for being good players. By your rationale, I should enjoy a "Vire River Vally" replay just the same or even better. And if you're into some poetic bs, my fate is chosen, not "accepted".
"Chance" is an old discussion and I'll not get myself dragged into it again, but just state my opinion; football players play to win, chess players play to win - CoH can be played to win.
Finally, if a game is not spectated, it does not become a sport.
Edit; this was mostly written before I saw SemInts second post with nuances.
/Uninstalled
16 Dec 2012, 00:34 AM
#59
Posts: 35
Yeah, no one said otherwise.
I think mister Basilone made that argument. Now not to derail the thread further, it is true that the RNG is pleasing for casual play. But for competetive it sucks. No I do not feel goed after missing my 3rd counternsipe.
16 Dec 2012, 02:26 AM
#60
Posts: 11
Just saying, I loved command and conquer. In that game if you had two tanks against each other, they would damage at exactly the same time and each kill each other with their last shot.Sometimes the m10's will mishoot 3 times in a row, or a pak will hit dirt. These elements make for such an unknown, this makes coh so much more fun to play.I would hate to see them take away the randomness.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
77 | ||
 |
|
|
13 | ||
|
|
|
|
0 | ||
 |
|
|
128 | ||
 |
|
|
105 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
15 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.840223.790+3
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.927408.694+1
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.306114.729+2
- 9.1123623.643+4
- 10.266140.655+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1257