|
Good stuff. Partisan changes are good so far. I'd also switch SU76 with T70. |
|
This bugs me a lot. The commanders are lacking in a late game, and while Relic has worked to improve these units, I still think some more changes are needed.
Irregulars have RGD-33, AT nade, and randomly come with a soviet or nazi LMG.
Partisans have molotov, mines, barbed wire, can be spawned from buildings, and randomly come with a whole mess of shit (everything from ppsh to lmg34).
Personally, I'd like to see these two units merged as they are already very similar; additionally (and this is really just more of a pet peeve than anything) doing this would clean up the bulletins, why do we need a partisan +3% accuracy AND and a irregulars 3% accuracy bulletin? Why not merge the units and have one for both commanders?
My thoughts on how to merge these units are as follows:
The "new" unit should have the RGD-33, mines, barbed wire, LMG kit (still randomly soviet/nazi lmg, but no other weapon types) and the ability to spawn from buildings. This means the new unit would lose molotov and AT nades (this isn't a big deal as conscripts already get both, and Partisan Tank hunters get the AT nade as well).
Additionally, I'd like to see them given a demo kit. These guys should be sappers and work behind enemy lines to blow bridges, booby trap points/buildings, etc.
It's not much, but I think they just need a little less randomness. Beyond that, I believe the commanders in general could use a little tweaking, but Relic is pretty firm on never changing a commander once it has been released so this is unlikely. |
|
Has anyone tried it? It's a pretty cool mode. |
Your idea has a problem. You only have white and black, people how like only MP and people who like only SP.
Sorry man but there is also grey. People who like MP and SP. And with your logic they are fu..ed!
I didn't mention them because historically Relic has released their expansions at the current market standard ($60 being the current market standard), which included the single and multiplayer content in one package. Considering the price of both the western armies and ardennes totals to $60, I don't see how the players who enjoy both are screwed over. Had Relic launched the content as they have in the past we would have seen a price tag of $60, I guarantee it. |
|
As long as multiplayer isn't changed (except for bug fixes and balance) with the launch of this SP campaign I'm perfectly fine with it's price.
Most players here have stated countless times that they do not care about single player/coop campaigns, and I generally agree. However, there is a large number of casual players who do appreciate content like this and I do not think Relic should abandon them. Ultimately, mission/campaign content like this is more expensive to develop in a video game, so charging $40 is fair, especially because they gave us the western front armies independent of this expansion; rather than charging $60 for the campaign and armies together like previous games/expansions.
With this campaign and the new approach they are taking to separating multiplayer and campaign content, I'd actually suggest to Relic that they also sell the eastern front armies separate from the eastern front campaign and have a 4 army bundle available for purchase as well.
I'd like to see something like this:
campaigns/coop missions: priced by content
individual army: $12.99
western armies: $19.99
eastern armies: $19.99
4 army bundle: $37.99
Anything purchased from this list should unlock the game, independent of the other stuff. Yes I'm suggesting that even minor campaigns like Southern Fronts should be unlockable independent of the main campaigns.
This would allow multiplayer only gamers to ignore the campaign stuff, while allowing the campaign only players to ignore the multiplayer stuff. Seems a fair balance between the two types of gamers that buy CoH. Also, it allow Relic to keep a continuous flow of money coming in, giving revenue for multiplayer patching and balance fixes. |
Thread: 4v415 Sep 2014, 04:25 AM
The real problem with 4vs4 (and 3vs3 to a lesser degree) is simply that the time to recover from a rout/retreat in the early capping stage can be crippling. The time provided between a retreat and a return in force is more than enough time for the victors to dig in and defend until they obtain enough fuel to tech their end game tank spam.
Considering this with regard to balance, I can't really say why allies have such an issue with the early game in larger matches. I tend to think it's a player and teamwork problem more than anything else, and I think the boring nature of the allies tends to exacerbate the problem, causing them to be played more by newbies than anything else in 4vs4. As allies, I've held sections of the map without issue in 4vs4 all while I watch my entire team fold before the axis players, only to be the last man standing; at which point the entire enemy team moves in on my portion of the map and sweeps me aside. By the time we all return to the fight it's too late. Bunkers, MG42s, etc hold their line and soon after you see the tank spam starting.
Despite all of this, I don't find 4vs4 to be so terrible to play, and in many ways I think it is MORE challenging than 1vs1 simply due to nature of the all or nothing early game; you have to stay in the fight much longer than is comfortable, and if your team mates don't help you, or at least share the burden, it's easily game over in the first 5 minutes. You've really got to fight that urge to retreat.
How do you fix/balance this? I have no clue, but I'd like to see someone have the courage to run a 4vs4 tournament to see what high level play can look like. |
|
They really only need to make the allies more compelling to play. It's that simple, and there are a plethora of examples of how to do this scattered all over these forums to put it bluntly. |
So are Ostruppen now viable?
I think they are very good now. Far better than I could have hoped for as a player who enjoys screwing around with them far too much for my own good. Personally, I think they were fine with only a minor reinforce cost reduction having been required. But they are genuine early game infantry now. But perhaps I got so used to using them when they were considered weak that I'm thinking they are better than they are with the serious buffs they received. |
|
Agreed that the SU76 is design trash in T4. However, if swapped with the T70 in T3 and T4, you have room to turn the SU76 into something more useful since it is no longer constrained by competing with the SU85 and Kat. In T3 there is room to balance it independently of the T4 units. It has potential, but in T4 it is overshadowed by the SU85 and Kat, in T3 it can be buffed to offer a better AT support for the T34, without stepping on the SU85 in T4. |
I wouldn't make them cheaper. When they were so cheap people used to abuse that fact to recrew support weapons. Since the Osttruppen penalties do not carry over, that meant you had normal support weapons at part of it's popcap / reinforce cost. AFAIK making them more expensive was done to prevent them to be used in such a role, as it was against the desired role.
There is a ton more I'd love to say but NDA -.-
I wouldn't make em cheaper either. They have improved/normal cap speed, so they are worth 200mp alone for capping early, however, their reinforce cost could be reduced to 10 since they are pretty much shit and die in droves. 200MP initial cost prevent/slows spam, while 10mp reinforce allows them to be used as the sacrificial unit they are meant to be without bleeding the owner as much. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
