|
Yeah as long as you get a vehicle out at some point. It synergizes will with heavy T1 T2 and one or two T3 vehicles |
|
If this doesn't happen in game, why waste time on this? It seems silly |
|
Antilles950
76561198023368657
|
|
Right now, it seems like Armor, Rifle, and Infantry company are the most used. They have unique and generally useful abilities. Airborne is still used every now and then, although the increase in tech cost, and cost decrease of the captain have done a lot to decrease it's utility.
Mechanized and Airborne are incredibly rarely used, at least in my experience. I want to use this thread to think of improvements to recon commander.
Second to maybe mechanized, Recon support is the most useless USF commander. I want to discuss this, and about ways we can make this doctrine more viable.
Right now, these are the doctrines ability:
0 CP - increased rifleman sight in cover
2 CP - I&R pathfinders
3 CP - M8 Greyhound
4 CP - Recon run
7 CP - 900mp drop of 2 airborne squads with random weapons and a AT gun
Current problems:
- I&R pathfinders are powerful in that they hit early, but have very little utility other than dropping 125 muni artillery drops.
- They greyhound is not very powerful, and comes late. It hits around the same time as a stuart, and yet the stuart is infinitely more useful. Although the standard gun of the greyhound isn't bad, the nerf on the canister shot has done a lot of damage. It doesn't provide the shock value that the AA halftrack does, and it doesn't have the scalability that the m20 or the stuart have. It's just not worthwhile.
- The major has a recon run as a special ability already. I think that having another at 4CP is just pointless.,
- A 900MP lategame drop is very problematic. Floating that much manpower, in most games, could cost someone the game. Further,
Potential solutions:
-I wish the sight ability had some mobile application. I think this is an alright ability, but abilities like rifleman flare are much better.
- Move the M8 greyhound to 2 CPs. Provide some way to allow it to scale better or to have more shock value. Maybe allow it to radios to provide recon (similar to coh1) for a moderate munitions or mp cost? Or maybe switch it's role to be a light AT vehicle like the AEC or puma?
-I&R pathfinders I think should function as a regular pathfnder squad, with the ability crit squads below a certain health level, with the additional ability to call in artillery. They need more utility in general.
-The airdrop needs a major overhaul. Personally, I think that airborne with bazookas is a massive waste of elite infantry, on a weak piece of anti-tank. I think that this ability should be pushed to 8 CPs, be 550 manpower elite AT drop. It should drop a Airborne squad with the ability to upgrade Recoiless rifles for 120 munitions, as well as an uncrewed AT gun. This would make this ability have late game utility, while still distinguishing it from airborne commander airborne troops.
- I'd like to replace the recon run with something like increased sight from tanks or something. |
|
1. On the issue of coh1 vs coh2: This is unimportant. COH1 may have been great, it may have been shit. This doesn't help with this discussion.
2. I agree with the idea of spreading out open qualifications more, but I think that it's logistically difficult to organize a bunch of people, casters, and referees over the course of multiple weeks as opposed to just one day. Maybe doing best of 1s over the course of a week, with replays sent in would be better. And then, we can do the best of 3's qualifying games over 1 or 2 days. I think that would be much more effective than the current system. This would limit the obligation of casters and referees to 2 weeks, but allow players doing best-of-1s to have more flexibility.
For registration logistics, I wouldn't be opposed to a registration fee of like $1 or $2 for non-contributors, in order to make sure people show up, and to help grow the prize pool.
3. Ya'll are hating on Ami so much. I love Ami, he always gets me excited about games. I started really getting into the Company of Heroes series when I watched Dane, and AMI SNF videos. I actually love how he names houses and snipers, I think it makes things more entertaining/exciting. I think that he synergizes really well with Ciez and Romeo, who are more analytical.
4. I think the best of 5 format for finals is fine; the winner of the Upper bracket gets huge advantages early on to compensate for not being able to drop.
5. For people defending the invite system; I just don't think that there's a benefit to having 1/3 of the tournament being invited in. I think it's possible that some of them maybe have been knocked out in open quals, and all it really does is give them an advantage, and decrease the competitiveness of the tournament. |
|
Sooooo, who else wants to discuss the OCF tournament, and potential future improvements? Kappa |
I think he meant the centaur.
If not, then I have no clue why comet is in the list.
Other than that, +9000
Yes I did, I edited that in, thanks for the heads up. |
Really? The comet? If the comet is op than i dont know what qulifies as balance
I meant the centaur. I edited that in. |
|
I do not regret my donation. +1 |
|
This thread is to discuss OCF, how the tournament ran, and what to consider in the future.
First off, I'd like to say that I enjoyed the event a ton, and definitely felt I got my donations worth. The casting was great; I watched people I've never watched before, and the coordination + teams were really great. Things seemed to run smooth.
A few things to criticize:
1. I think 4 invites were too many. That was 1/3 of the players in the OCF tournament, and although I am generally OK with those 4 players, I don't think they were so good that we should take it for granted that they would've been fine in open quals. I mean the first seed Jesulin got knocked out almost immediately. At the same time, other great players like GIAP and Paula had to struggle through playing in horrible timezones, when they could have easily qualified for invites. I think limiting invites to 1 or 2 people if we have large future tournaments would be a good call, because it gives such a huge advantage.
2. I think banning elite troops, rifle company, and partisans throughout the tournament was unnecessary. Elite troops isn't the insanely OP doctrine it used to be, partisans got fixed, and that rifle company insane flamethrowers were fixed with the most recent patch.
3. I honestly think the Brits should've been banned from the start. I think that banning the croc and those 2 commanders were a good call, but that this faction is still pretty broken. I mean, the centaur tank was pretty ridiculous (not sure if it's op but it's strong). At the point where the brits had the least amount of time to get balanced compared to the other factions, it might have been worthwhile to leave it out.
4. I wish the discussion of bans and map selection was more open to the public. I understand why it's not (most player's don't know the game that well), but it would be nice to see more transparency.
5. Just a personal taste thing, I wish semoisky summer had been in the map pool.
Anyways, I'd like to support future large community tournaments, and would like to start discussing how we can improve from here. |
0
Uzmanoy
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
