Profile of Cannonade

I'm assuming you mean Comp Stomps. You can definitely get items from comp stomp.

The way to get stuff is by playing the game. You play and you get stuff.

Yes I know lots of you would like a set of rules to get everything you want. But then you'd go out and do those things and you'd be done.

We built this system so that people can get stuff after a few games, and after a few months and after a few years. If your goal is to catch them all within the first week of playing, then this probably isn't going to help you that much.

If your goal is just to get War Spoils then I understand that this is frustrating. We build this not so people would create games that they don't play just to mine items, but so that people who are playing the game get rewards for playing the game.

We're also going to continue evaluating how it works, and tweak the system. So feedback is definitely welcome, but try to live with the system for a bit before deciding that you love or hate it.

Two things come to mind from this:

1) Run AI battles in the background, while not actively playing. Seems this should add up the hours (apparently required) to get drops. So when you play an actual match, you are set for drops.

2)We cant give feedback on a system we dont even superficially understand. Also, if infactndrops are reliant on hours played as a faction, you wont and cant get feedback on those drops until potentially months from now, when players have accumalated x hours of play. This is a very impractical, protracted and uninformed means of providing feedback. Not only for the drop rates themselves, but, and more importantly, on the balance implicatioms of those drops, because it might be months until even a few players get them.

Perhaos not the entire internet, but its certainly not doing this site any good.

Maybe its time to put the word "fanboy" on a block list?

Or atleast we can, as a community, ignore anyone who uses it, as its a pretty clear indicator the poster in question is a tard with no interest in respectful or constructive discussion.

The Matchmaking % indicator means next to nothing.

Its an intermix of weekday, time of day, geographic region, the amount of players in your ELO range at that spedific moment (presumably, not certain), only those not currently in-match, how many even have WF armies, and last and least, any one individuals "preference", which probablynchanges for most players constantlynformmost players as they swapmfaction between matches for some variety. That and we dont knownif the % indicated there is even "real" or foundednat all. Ive had matches start even when the indicatorsays 0%/100%.

If it showed a concrete number of players, like 533/664, Id have some confidence in it, but as it is, its largely as bullshit an indicator asmis countinf the blips on the radar image (Ive counted, they are constant )

Dont try to base any arguments on it. Just makes you look like a fool.

Trying to base arguments on it is like looking up at the sky in Mongolia, and trying to argue from that what weather it is like in Brazil.

I dunno if Steam carries any good stats or accurate stats for determining faction preference, but until and if Relic releases any info on it, we just dont have any real evidence for any of it.

Best homemade stats we can determine are from compiling and comparing, for example, the top 10 players preferences, but even those are only representative of a small faction of the community, whom play at a completelyndifferent level than most, and who themselves are also still playing different factions for practice, as well as sometimes focusing on one for longer because something just so happened to catch their interest in it and they want to try it out some more.

This thread, however, is clear evidence of a certain number of idiots here.

Do you mean that CoH2 doesnt cater for the Air and Naval sides of the Theater? (which isnt part of the game anyway...)

or

Do you mean that there wasn't enough Air and Navy stuff in real life for CoH2? (in which case you would be wrong...)

I mean both.

Due to the peripheral and distant nature of the theatre, and its environmentalmproblems, neither navy nor airforce participated particularly prominently. Youd think with the Brits holding Gibraltar and having general naval supremacy, that there would have been many amphibious actions and bombardment, but actually they where very rare and especiallynthe landings resulted in terrible failure.

Airfields where a key strategic focus, but again, though you would think air superiority would be crucial, especially in such open terrain, airforces played an astiundingly small roll, with some few key exceptions where entire armor collonades got wiped out in a clear day with good reconnaisance.

What made airfields so crucial, was their resupply potential. At the time, and to this day, N.Africa is mostly a barren expanse. The recent Libya engagement was almost comical in this regard. Basically trucks driving up and down the same coastal highways ad nauseum (though in a modern setting, air superiority was absolutely devastating to that, but notably, carrier based, which was never a British strength, and US carriers of the time where almost entirely in the Pacific). Back then thoug, the signifcance of airfield was primarily as a resupply point. Desert warfare is extremely taxing on vehicles and men, and there is nothing around in the wastes to use. The poisoning of wells was considered extremely unsoprtsmanlike, but happened on both sides, inevitably. The SAS found its inception here in an outrageously effecrive and fortuitous small group of British commandos. And Rommels strategic adaptation to the theatre is a modern legend.

But that is abitrary to my second point, which is if you look at other RTS, such as RUSE, and Total War, it is important to start more acrively involving air and naval forces as a "feature" of an RTS, rather than just vanilla land battles. Know what I mean? A product has to evolve and progress, and inclusion of naval and airforce is the logical extension.

Havent experienced this myself, but I dont think it could have anything to do with color pallette.

Infantry however, especially, does blend in with its surroundings quite well, so I suppose the eye has to work a little harder to differentiate them than in games where there is a stronger contrast or some kind of distinct outline when unit is selected.

My best guess is it has to do with the rather limited and close in view of the battlefield, which means the eyes have to pan back and forth a lot, especially on larger screens, rather than the player being able to zoom out a bit for a higher, wider, birds-eye perspective (which however, in turn, would make distinguishing the camoed and blended in infantry even more a task).

There was a lot similar complaints, especially from vcoh vets, when coh2 first released, but mostly more specifically on difficultynof distinguishing units on the field, rather than eyestrain. I attributed that mostly to the lower contrsst between units and backgroundmin coh2, as a result of the graphics being, infact better. Funnily enough, I personally had this problem between dota and dota 2. In the first, contrast was very prominent, in the second, grapbics are better, but as a result everything blendsminto the field, rather than standing out.

Cataclaw just ran a 24hr marathon, and seemed to manage fine, so whatever eyestrain there might be resulting from whichever factor, seems to be more strongly user-based in nature, rather than concretely in the game itself.