|
I remember the first time ever I played vs OKW last year, I pushed hard to decap the territory where he put his T1 truck, I thought I would win the game since he could not use it anymore without capping back the territory...
I guess you know the story, I don't remember if I won the game at the end but I felt really disappointed when I saw him able to reinforce and heal around the truck without capping back the territory.
I don't really understand the mechanism, or absence of mechanism to have all type of FHQ and OKW trucks fully working while the territory they belong to is not anymore friendly.
I learn that at the beginning during the Alpha, OKW was so hard to play, it requires it to save it from being completely scrap. But now?
In Coh1, Brit could be hardly push back with this mechanism, same if you couldn't destroy the truck, it was a kind of soft counter. The truck was losing life over time if you didn't pack it back and move it. OKW truck cannot be moved from their deployment location, but it just need to remove the over time damage penalty. The truck can stay here until the player cap the territory again.
As for FHQ, if I remember well, USF and Wehrm FHQ get disable, PE one as well (or partially) if not anymore in friendly territory.
So why not in Coh2. What would you think being a good reason for that?
If disabling entirely the truck is too punitive, I guess special abilities could be. So you still can produce unit belonging to the truck but you cannot reinforce / heal from the T1, repair from T2 and the T3 gun get disable.
FHQ get simply disable and (don't know if it is possible yet) your opponent is able to decap the FHQ like in Coh1. |
|
Not sure if increasing the price will change anything, usually you're waiting for the CP more than for the fuel to call-in it. And what 5 more fuel can do?
Now around M10 vs P4, the M10 is a tank destroyer. Apart from its crushing ability which wasn't probably design at beginning, it has nothing vs infantry. when you buy a P4, you buy it for its good performance vs infantry and armor.
To me, the price is fine, one M10 may win vs a unsupported P4 but you need more than one if the game last long and raising it prices to 90 or 100 wouldn't make sense at all in that perspective. |
|
I don't see Relic doing the same, I see Relic doing nothing, in accordance with their NDA policy and 6 months / work schedule plan to analyze data and bring minor changes in the balance.
As I say it is disrespectful for Valve to be compared with Relic in term of reactivity and quality.
What I see is
1- Relic does the strict minimum to develop features to improve the game experience.
2- Players complain that is not enough or broken.
3- Relic argues they are too busy (and excited) but will do their best to improve it but never do it.
Right First Time concept is probably unknown at Relic headquarter. But this is the only way to save time and money and being the strongest and important KPI in term of impact on customer satisfaction since its the first one anytime a customer evaluates.
Last point about Valve being lucky of having so many players... Here again, that nothing to do with Luck. Luck is part of everything and the only way to improve you luck rate is to work better and deliver better.
Indeed Relic would have been really lucky to have the same playerbase than Valve with their actual community management policy. |
|
Another simple solution.
Rewarding killing planes for the allied.
Option 1. Gives the ability ammo cost as reward to the allied player who shot down the plane.
Option 2. Put a long cool down to all stuka stafe abilities if one is shot down.
Of course, gives the sov aa ht capability as usf aa ht has. |
I have the fact that Valve, in spite of their massive player base, actively worked to prevent segmentation of their matchmaking queues in much the same way that Relic is doing right now. That suggests very strongly that they feel shorter queue times are more important than more balanced matches, since their actions explicitly sacrificed balanced matches for less waiting. That right there is evidence that the developers of one of the largest multiplayer games around believe shorter queue times are most important when it comes to maintaining the health of the game.
I would not put Valve and Relic at the same level of awareness of what's good or not for their playerbase. Its a bit offending for valve or at least the team inside valve managing dota2 and all the work they are doing to make their game enjoyable.
At least Valve tries on regular base to overcome those situations and patch their game asap when there is something wrong or not meeting their quality requirements, unlike Relic.
Now I join you on the segmentation issue. coh2 has a primary segmentation dota2 hasn't. Factions. And from what I see many teams and random are more likely interested in playing Axis than allied. And since it took Relic around 6 months bring a first change into the 1st root cause of this situation, balance issues more evident in large tramway, we're not going to see any improvement anytime soon. |
|
I would like someone to explain me how you're supposed to come back and take back your cutoff with only riflesquads if you face a luch or two and have no fuel to invest on hard counter...
If you've been outplayed, the only comeback mechanism that should be available is "watch the replay, learn, improve and rematch".
Comeback mechanism, like rng are bad design that let thinks players they are better than they really are.
|
The "find some friends hurr hurr" line holds no water as far as I'm concerned. It just places you on one side or the other of a pretty pointless set-up: either you are in the pointless position of being stomped by an AT, or you're in the equally pointless position of stomping some helpless pubs. I can't see that appealing to anyone, bar weak people who were probably bullied at school and for whom safety in numbers completely overrides any desire for a challenge.
What I'd advise is playing 2v2. You may get stuck vs an AT, but it's easier to impose yourself on the game, and work with a single partner.
This.
I don't find people dropping all the time, or not in my timezone, but playing vs a AT team is challenging once a day, not more. I have think many times to join a clan but in term of automatch it doesn't change anything. Instead of being stomped, you are the stomping one and honestly, masochist as it is, I prefer being on the wrong side - it is more entertaining and if not winning, at least your can found way to improve your playstyle. |
|
My personal opinion is that the RNG cursor is badly set.
if I completely agree with the OP and Romeo Translation, I think the entire concept of RNG + Armor is wrongly design today to make COH2 a competitive game. In a way, the game follows 100% Quinn Duffy's goal of entertaining spectators before players.
RNG shouldn't be set as a Yes Damage / No Damage position like today.
But a Always consistent (low) damage / RNG Critical hit makes more damage.
So a player always knows he will make damage or take damage. He always knows there is a cost for his action and it need to be evaluate before pushing, plus a potential additional RNG critical damage.
When you play as USF, you know you'll get hit by anything because the chance to deflect are ridiculously low. So you can go medium, you can potentially play with any unit you have if it doesn't under-perform too badly.
When you play as Sov/Ostheer/OKW, you know that your late game can make you invincible with some RNG favor and its why everybody prefers the call-in meta that going medium.
Now imagine:
If you consider that any tank can damage any other, and potentially crit, so you can consider to build 4 Panzer4 to counter a IS2 because you are confident enough to overwhelm him and make consistent damage to kill him and maybe, 1 or 2 crit damage will make it easier if the RNG god likes you. It will probably take time but it is feasible.
And of course, your 4 Panzer4 don't pop at the same time with the IS2, 4 Panzer4 can make a lot of trouble before an IS2 reach the battlefield. But since everyone knows 4 Panzer4 can't do much vs a IS2 (with a bit of support), nobody think to play that way.
And the same goes for Puma or T34-74.
Make sure every unit can perform a minimum consistent damage and with RNG sometime critical damage would bring more fun in the game and makes it less RNG dependent.
|
Before patch, I was building Obers maybe one time in four OKW games. I don't think they were that necessary and I don't realy feel this change as a nerf. In fact, I don't feel any nerf at all with OKW, but the idea that such a unit with such a big price and an upgrade that you pay amo for performs as now, doesn't seem to ok today. They should lower their price a bit, that wouldn't harm anybody.
I agree with you, as I say, OKW has combined arms solutions that are effective. But it is also really easy to A-move blob with.
From the 10 games I have played vs Axis factions since the patch, one time I have faced a player using combined half-truck + JPZ4 + inf and I lost vs him. Every single other games, blob A-move volks + falls/sturm/fusillers into panther.
And the majority of players loves that. They love this faction for that the same Principe they love campy/arty maps like Sittard Summer or Shled in vcoh. Because you can play really easy with and still win a lot of games.
Obers nerf was required, in a way or another, but in fact OKW faction need a redesign around volks if we want to remove the blobbing issue with. Since it is not going to happen, OKW will remain the blobbing faction by excellence. |
|
From what I have seen so far, OKW players have effectively stopped to rely on Ober to spam more volks + sturmpio/jaegersfusillers/falls... I guess the problem comes also from the people who just prefer spam an A-move blob than use combined arms.
OKW faction, appart from all the combined arms options it offers to play will remain the A-move blob's players favorite faction. |
0
Relic Entertainment
