Profile of Antilles950

Jump back to quoted post4 Jan 2016, 23:01 PMCieZ

Okay after some thinking here goes my response to Vindicare's original post... hopefully I can make it make sense in text because some of the concepts are abstract... I understand them in my brain but that doesn't mean that they will translate well...

I think the underlying point that Vindi is making is that each faction should be roughly equally strong at each distinct phase of the game (early, mid, late). This means that each faction should have about the same chance to retain and maintain map control during each stage of the game, thus removing the notion of "live for 45 mins then autowin cuz of vet 5." I think this is a good idea, especially when you look at other popular games like SC 2 and AoE 2.

I worry that Relic is tunnel-visioned on their "faction strength infographic thing." These sorts of approaches to balance and design are, in my opinion, bad choices and I'll do my best to outline why below. (Edit to fix this part to not sound like such a dick, sorry about that Relic. Also I have been lead to believe that this (silly) assumption of mine is wrong, I hope that is the case )

First let us take a look at what are in my opinion currently the most balanced match-ups in 1v1:

Ost vs Sov and OKW vs USF

In each of these matchups the starting strength of the factions is close to equal. OKW might have a slight advantage over USF because of the Kubel (which is EXTREMELY overperforming this patch) but with that out of the equation both match ups come down to who is able to micro/position their infantry better (well that and the map choice... yay Relic maps). The point being, neither faction is going to take control of the entire map simply because of a match up related imbalance.

Moving onto the later stages of the game each faction is equipped to counter/react to tech choices that their opponent makes, in an appropriate time frame.

Sov rushes T70? Ost can have tellers, schrecks and/or PAK40 as well as access to fausts.
Ost makes a 222? Sov can have mines, AT nades, guards, ZiS.
USF rushes M20? OKW can have mines, schrecks, Rak, 251 Flak
OKW rushes Luchs? USF can have Captain, AT gun (kind of boned if they go Lt though which is why AT gun should be T0 but that is for another topic).

The point I am making is that in each case, in these match ups, the players are able to react and adapt to the current situation. Sure the Luchs is still strong against USF but USF can prepare for that unit in a proper time frame so they're not just auto thrown off the map.

Now let us take a look at the more imbalanced match ups. It is also important to note in these cases that your economy in CoH 2 is tied directly to map control. RTS games are won by exploitation of advantage(s). Generally advantages can be used to snow-ball into greater advantages, and it is unwise to try and gain ground in an area in which you are already behind... this only leads you to staying behind (again, a topic for another thread or maybe a video). This is the point that I am making in this little paragraph: In other RTS aggressive players generally have to sacrifice some of their economy in order to place aggressive pressure on their enemy. In CoH 2 this opportunity cost does not exist. The more map you control, the more resources you gain. The defensive player does not gain much by being on the back foot. In SC 2 for example if I sacrifice my economy to place pressure on you I am gaining map control at the loss of my economy. If I do not do enough damage to you, you will out-pace me in tech, leading to you taking back the map and me having to find an advantage elsewhere. Again, this dynamic does not exist in CoH 2.

So, those imbalanced match ups.

Ost vs USF:

Rifles outclass Grens... really at all stages of the game these days, but the early game tends to be the most important. It is extremely hard for Ost to have a solid start against USF in 1v1. Rifles being stronger than Grens gives USF a map control advantage early on. This can be somewhat mitigated by really good MG42 play, but even that is placing emphasis on holding an area rather than capturing territory. Good building, green cover use and flanks are negate a single MG42 on most maps anyways. I think it is safe to assume that the USF player is going to have a map control advantage over the Ost player in the early game, assuming equal skill.

This then snowballs into a resource advantage for the USF player which then further translates into a tech advantage. Now the aggressive player, which in other RTS games would be sacrificing something in order to maintain aggression is actually rewarded in every aspect. The M20 can hit the field before the Ost player can field a PaK and along with it comes a "free" Lt squad (equipped with a thompson and BAR for extra "free" firepower). At this point the Ost player is going to struggle to keep up. Maybe a lucky teller will stop the M20 against a lesser player, but that is not reliable. The M20 can drive up to Grens, eat a faust and self repair. It can cap, it has a bazooka, it is effectively immune to small arms fire, it can plant mines and it has smoke (making it ridiculously difficult to kill). Oh yeah and it costs 20 fuel (While the UKF UC costs 15 fuel... Relic pls).

The Ost player is going to struggle to hold onto his own fuel/cutoff. The mobility of the M20 means the USF player is utterly dominant logistically. It is a nightmare. The 222 is okay-ish at keeping the M20 at bay, but the bazooka crew/smoke/threat of mines means the 222 cannot chase. You're really stuck having to try and turtle on a small portion of the map while your important sectors are constantly harassed.

In the end this leads to a major economic and tech advantage for the USF player. A fast Sherman can easily seal the deal. Even if it doesn't USF has access to CalliOPs, dual M1919s or BARs, Pershing, etc. Their late game is super strong now.

The same can be seen in the UKF vs OKW match up. UKF just has nothing to deal with an early Luchs. The AEC is absolutely garbage. Probably the worst unit/cost in the game (or maybe that is the UC, or perhaps the Bofors). OKW seize early game with proper Sturm/Kubel micro into a Luchs that is free to run amok without the threat of a reliable snare and then some sort of medium tank to end it.

Basically... what I am trying to say... and what I think Vindi was getting at (correct me if I am wrong).

Balancing/designing factions specifically to be strong at certain points of the game, rather than factions being designed to be equally strong (or roughly so) at all stages is, in my opinion a poor choice. At top level play in an RTS like COH 2 the faction that has a significant early game advantage over another faction has such a potential to snowball that it makes mounting a comeback overly difficult. It is also frustrating as a player to have to concede so much early map control just because my opponent's faction arbitrarily has an early game advantage over me. The better player should be rewarded for making good decisions, proper choices and out playing his opponent - not punished because "lol OKW is an early game faction and Brits aren't, have fun dealing with my 5 min Luchs bro, no snare? too bad lol I'm at your cutoff watcha gonna do?"

Top players want to win because they have outplayed their opponent in some fashion. Not because they were able to cram Rifles and an M20 down their Ost opponent's cutoff for 12 minutes until the Sherman comes to seal the deal.