|
Not that I personally take too much of an issue with the games DLC commanders, particularly now that at leat you can get access to some of them for free through rotation and War Spoils, but strictly speaking CoH 2 is a Pay-to-Win game.
If you invest money to buy new commanders, you will have an advantage over someone who didn't. Case-in-point: American Rifle commander, without him US player will have no access to Easy Eight.
Ofc you can play the game even without the additional commanders, and it is an enjoyable game, but nevertheless it might be an even better game if Relic had sticked to DoW II format and made DLC-stuff non-gameplay like skins, campaigns and so forth.
As I said, I can live with the system as it is, but I agree with the OP that the current system is definitely not the ideal one for a competitive RTS. Personally I don't understand why people claim that this is not a "Pay-to-Win" system when it obviously is.
The very fact that you have more options is an advantage, and never a disadvantage. I'd argue that ANY DLC that directly affects gameplay crosses the "Pay-to-Win" line and has no place in a truly competitive RTS. |
|
The Ostheer Panther sucks because it actually is WORSE than the OKW Panther. For whatever reason OKW get a buffed Panther for the same price.
I think Ostheer Panther would be fine if it would simply be standardized with the OKW version.
Other than that, T4 needs to be cheaper so it's actually possible to get access to the Panther within a reasonable timeframe.
Differences between OKW Panther and Ostheer version (according to Cruzz in another thread):
30% smaller scatter penalty on the move (1.7 vs 2 multiplication)
30% smaller accuracy penalty on the move (0.65 vs 0.5 multiplication)
up to 40% higher accuracy when standing still (0.035 vs 0.025 far)
25% higher dps on hull MG (8.1 vs 6.4)
|
|
If I go Rifle Company in a 1vs1, it's just pure Easy Eight spam when I hit 9 CPs. Why would you invest 90 fuel for T4 when all you really need are Easy Eights?
They're much more versatile than Jacksons and even have almost the same anti-tank effectiveness if you factor in their better survivability.
Anyway, to the point.
Light vehicles and infantry absolutely should not be tied to Tiers because there is no real reason for it. If the US Dodge was tied to Lieutenant, for example, it would never be built because AA Halftrack and M20 are much better options at that point. The Dodge is an early game vehicle like M3 and Kubel, it won't survive for more than 6-8 minutes.
However, the heavy hitting vehicles with big fuel prices should absolutely require teching to unlock, because at the moment it is far more efficient to just not go T3 as Wehr even and just save the resources for late game Tiger-spam. Same deal with other similar call-ins (ISU, IS-2, T-34/85, Easy Eight).
That said, they should be tied to tech in a way that does not reduce your options. As Soviets, for example, heavies should only require EITHER T3 or T4, and as Wehr I think the requirement should be just T3. That way you need at least some technology to get access to the more heavy-hitting call-ins, but the system does not restrict your options too much. |
|
I agree that Cruzz's idea of turning LMGs to some sort of AoE weapon that spreads damage across the squad doesn't sound good. Frankly it sounds like an unnecessary complication that doesn't really adress the problem.
And even when considering LMG equipped squads, I'd say standard Grenadiers are fine. LMGs only really start causing problems if it's possible to spam them, such as the American 2xLMG per squad blobs. Or alternatively Obersoldaten blobs which achieve similar damage potential since the LMG-34 does 2xLMG-42 damage.
That said, Obersoldaten have already had some nerfs, so perhaps they're bit less of a problem now. I'm also still rather uncertain whether Americans M1919s should be nerfed or not. Possibly just reduce M1 Garand effectiveness at long range to make them closer to Penals in terms of performance. Then see if there is a real need for furter nerfs. |
|
Another argument for increasing the Easy 8 cost is that the Soviet Sherman costs the same as the Easy 8 (380 MP, 135 Fuel). The Soviet version being significantly worse than the Easy 8 (the Soviet one has only 160 armour, and it's main gun has 140/130/120 penetration). |
maybe if you pine over an excel spreadsheet it does
when you actually play the game, the pak gun is going to pen the E8 and damage it
implying the armor of the E8 is too good because AT like PaKs and shrecks have a miniscule chance to bounce off of it is bullshit
Actually Panzerschreck does have a pretty good chance to bounce, particularly at longer range (74% to pen vs 215 armour at far range). However the argument wasn't just that the Eazy8 has overall similar toughness to T-34/85, Eazy8 itself also has better AT capabilities than T-34/85. Also, the fact that you can call them in 1 at a time makes them relatively easy to spam.
In other words, Eazy8 performance itself isn't necessarily a problem, the problem is the spammability combined with the performance, hence the call for a cost increase, as currently the Eazy8 is underpriced relative to its performance. |
|
The 215 armour is far from meaningless. Sure, it's not very good vs Paks, Panther or Tiger. But who seriously parks his tanks in PaK range?
The armour does help versus PIV, StuGs, Panzerschrecks and Panzerfaust.
VS Panzerfaust
T-34/85 vs Easy Eight
Far: 140/160=88% vs 140/215=65%
Middle: 150/160=94% vs 150/215=70%
Near: 160/160=100% vs 160/215=74%
VS Panzer IV
T-34/85 vs Easy Eight
Far: 100/160=63% vs 100/215=47%
Middle: 110/160=69% vs 110/215=51%
Near: 120/160=75% vs 120/215=56%
Basically the Easy Eight has on average 17-18% better survivability in terms of armour. This obviously isn't insignificant, although the T-34/85 can take 5 penetrating shots instead of 4 from most AT, thanks to it's increased HP. |
|
I 100% agree that the Easy Eight is too powerful for its cost. It's not just the 215 frontal armour (compared to 160 on a standard Sherman, 150 on T-34/76, 180 on PIV or 160 on T-34/85).
Easy Eight also has the best anti-tank gun of the medium tanks excluding Panther. And from what I've seen it does just as well VS infantry as any other medium tank.
Easy Eight Gun penetration: 175/165/155
T-34/85 penetration: 160/140/120.
PIV penetration: 120/110/100.
Basically the Easy Eight is just a beefed up version of the T-34/85 for pretty much the same price, except easier to spam as they don't need to be called in pairs. The only thing T-34/85 has over the Eazy8 is 800 hp (pretty much all mediums have 640 hp, including Eazy8).
Nevertheless, 215 armour vs 160 seems to give more survivability than the extra hp of the T-34/85 does. Basically you don't even necessarily need Jacksons to counter heavy armour with Easy Eights, thanks to the high penetration gun.
So, the Eazy8 clearly needs either a cost increase to reflect it's performance or it's AI effectiveness needs to be reduced to a point where it's clearly inferior to HE round Sherman. |
Finland
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
