Why don't you link the popcap to the territory hold? Just make sure it isn't possible at all to only hold 1/3 of the map and still be able to call-in super heavy.
All those issues are link to that "easy" popcap and upkeep design. And was mitigated in vCoh.
There are some other ways to limit call-in link having a Victory point cost per call-in unit, make Tiger/ISU costing 100 victory points and you'll definitively see less of them in hands of bad players. You can also do the same with E8 and all other med-tanks with a cost of 50 victory points per tank and all other freaky small units like falls/vetted rifles etc.. + dodge and mech troop cost 3,5 or 10 points.
In fact I don't care, the only unit I call-in is the dodge  for the rest I'm 100% with you, call-in meta is an issue.
Edit:
Coming back to popcap, you can link the call-in to territory hold. It was use in Sudden Strike game. You must hold 2 victory point for 10 or 15 minutes (not in a raw) to be able to call-in med tanks and 25 minutes to call-in Super Heavy.
In fact, CP aren't really working today cause they were design for vCoh meta, which isn't anymore the same than Coh2, so it need to be changed to something that has a cooldown or a timer linked to the game victory process, not anymore a timer independent of it like are CPs.
Trouble with original CoH territory = pop cap approach is that it makes come backs less likely, meaning that matches get boring fast if someone gets an early advantage.
In CoH2 there's more reason, at all levels, to stay in even if you are losing, because you might turn it around. |
Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining things. This issue isn't about me. I've beaten expert computer countless times. I've played thousands of hours of this game and the original.
I'm trying to build the player base by getting friends interested. And THEY are the one's who suffered in this game since they haven't learned much yet about how to counter the A.I. and quite frankly it makes them think the game sucks and not come back. This has happened to at least 2 people.
Ah, I suspected it was your friends having the issue.
Well, why not coach them first a bit on beating the AI? Those skills will help them in general.
As someone who plays low level automatch, I plead to any Relic devs reading this NOT to make the AI that replaces dropped players any weaker. People drop constantly and a weaker AI would punish people even harder for carrying on a game when their ally drops. There's already very little point in persisting in most cases.
I do NOT want to inevitably loose games when my teammate drops because people can't handle the AI. Along these lines, I also want games where an opponent drops to stay somewhat challenging and not just always result in the rest of their team also dropping.
The game's hard to learn and get good at, no way around that, unfortunately. It's not really aimed at people who would get discouraged so easily. |
|
[2v2]
I play at a low level, and rarely see a team with a dropped player win, whether my team drops or the opponent team drops.
I'm a novice automatch player but playing with a human ally who also isn't l33t, I can beat the soviet AI on hard or the US AI on expert.
Sometimes people get complacent when they see a drop on the other team. Remember that a team with a bot can still win if the humans on it play well, and if you're already aware of this, remind your allies.
It's not a L2P issue, it is a L2NGCWPAATWADP issue. Learn 2 not get complacent while playing against a team with a dropped player.
Edit - I've done a lot of comp stomps so here are some tips for playing against bots.
1. Bots are vulnerable to weapons that players easily flank. The soviet AI drives T-34 after T-34 right into a PAK43, marches straight into MG42 bunkers, Flak trucks, etc. Use these units more than usual if facing bots. The other AIs make similar mistakes.
2. Maybe this is in my head, but I feel like bots get some sort of resource boost. So when I play against them, I keep this in mind. Sacrificing a tank of yours for a tank of theirs is almost always a bad trade because they will simply build another one. Unit preservation is key. Well, it's always key, but in this case, it's way more important than killing their units so don't over extend.
|
|
Thank you for the input, everyone. Noted about streams, replays. I'm a fan of watching those anyway and hadn't factored that in, so if you include that, there's more...
To clarify, 2 games a week or so is what I would tend to do, but if upping play time just a bit could bring me into the lower half of midlevel, that might just be worth it. I was curious how much I'd have to step it up, as it were.
Also, was just generally curious about what an "esport" type game entails. The concept is new to me but it's something I'm interested in. Competing in a sport generally requires at least like ten hour a week commitment so what you're reporting makes sense.
So maybe a total of six hours a week in various MP stuff (mostly matches, a replay here or there) and that might be enough to play at a decent level?
I actually win slightly more than 50% of my matches when I do play, but that's usually against new players or other people who don't play frequently.
|
Question to those of you who play competitively at a medium to high level: how much time do you need to put in for that? As in, how many matches a week?
I like the game a lot and want to learn how to play better, especially better micro and multitasking, better grasp of unit strengths, etc. If I play like two matches a week, am I likely to ever get there? I realize this probably depends on the person, but I'm curious what experiences other people have had. I need the time for real life stuff... and to be honest, also other video games, of course.
The game radically changes over the months - consider what it was like in February, compared to March, compared to April. To me it seems like this means constant re-learning of balance and strategies which is cool but also time consuming and prohibits learning the game gradually since the meta is different every month. |
|
Casual player here.
I almost never play as the soviets. I dislike the soviets because I don't have the micro to control 4 maxims or 2 snipers. Also I inherently dislike spamming a support weapon. Additionally, the soviets were designed from the ground up as having an air of inferiority, hence a base infantry called "conscripts" - as if US riflemen and German grenadiers were all volunteer l33t warriors. Their other stock infantry unit is penals. They were designed to not feel or play like a normal army. I know Relic has backed away from that approach, but not completely, hence why cons are generally worse than grens.
If they wanted to make the Germans feel more elite and the soviets a bit more "quantity over quality," that's fine. It's just been taken way too far. The Soviets don't even feel like a normal company of heroes army. IMO they are the "out child," the British of CoH2. The rule for them seems to be "they suck but are viable with cheese."
With the Germans I can build grenadiers with MG42; or Volks supported by sturm pios, obers, etc, and that's viable.
The US I play about as much as either of German factions. I like most things about the faction except that it's basically a count down of you gradually getting weaker and declining from your powerful start. I dislike this because it means you HAVE to push hard in the beginning, whereas as OKW, I can choose whether I want to try that or not.
|
|
From my experience in game, it seems that Osttruppen reliably lose to combat engineers in equal cover.
To someone more versed in the stats - is that a reasonable assessment, or am I just seeing things? |
Serious, that video was a joke.
Drive rear armour towards 2 M1's, two BAR and a Thimpson at point blank. Begin setting up. Force off LT squad as all the supporting fire opens up and die. Hurradurr?
That was a terrible use of it, but for 55 fuel, even the rear armor should do a little better against small arms fire.
edit - it's hard to judge what the issue with the FHT really is, as it hits the ground so often. If that were adjusted it'd be a totally different unit.
|
|
Thanks for the advice! Forgot to mention this, but inbalanced or not, I definitely am also looking for tips on how to fight OKW forward bases on this map.
Those both sound like good counters for later on, but priests and incendiary barrage don't arrive until somewhat late. It just seems a long time to fight an uphill better on the critical center area of the map. |
This is a question rather than argument.
Does OKW have an advantage on Semoisky? I feel like their base trucks can cover most of the important points on this map in a way they usually can't. And there are plenty of buildings to put them behind so they're even a bit less vulnerable than usual. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just missing something.
I guess I just can't see why anyone would choose OKW over Wehr for this map.
In case you are wondering, yes, I did just lose against a double OKW team on this map . I have, however, always won on this map as OKW. Not many times of either case, and I am certainly no expert. Hence why I thought to ask.
Commence bickering with ideological undertones |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
