Profile of NinjaWJ

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2070

General Information


Thread: The Problem of Axis in Teamgames16 Aug 2014, 21:06 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 21:00 PMMajorBloodnok That may be so,but discussion will be more realistic if established norms are taken on board. The game is currently - and historically - balanced on 1 v 1 and 2 v 2. i agree, game devs have to start somewhere, and assuming that the mainstay of competition is 1v1, then it should be balanced there first. I just wished there was an easier way to make balance changes that would be great for 1v1 all the way to 4v4 In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: The Problem of Axis in Teamgames16 Aug 2014, 20:56 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 20:38 PMKreatiir That is so much bs. Only 1v1 is balanced? Dude. I thin the game should be balanced for all modes. I love the game but i have only played 4v4 so far because i think it is fun. To me, balance makes the game even better, so i hate when people say the game is not meant to be balanced for 3v3 and 4v4. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Faction Imbalance16 Aug 2014, 20:51 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2014, 17:27 PMDarthBong420 well i agree about faulty faction design. but im just saying that allies will win if you are good this fast in 4v4. but, i also think that allies are allot more powerful late game than you guys try to make it sound. sounds like allot of it is l2p and l2p 4v4. I understand your point. Of course you should push your advantage at a time when you theoretically have the advantage. However, it seems that if you don't end it fast enough as an allied player, it becomes extremely difficult to win. I don't think this is fun at all. Both allied and axis make mistakes during a match, but if late game comes, Axis mistakes seem to be nullified by calling in a Tiger or bringing out a KT. It is very frustrating experience. There are many posts by different players addressing this issue so i don't think it is an isolated problem. Even good players have described their frustration over this problem. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The Problem of Axis in Teamgames16 Aug 2014, 04:27 AM my god this topic is like rehab for me!!! i have encountered this so much!!! I just had a 5 game loss streak which featured much of this (and my crap play i guess but still). Even a stalemate in map control is considered a loss basically. If you can't crack Axis quick enough, then you basically lost In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Faction Imbalance15 Aug 2014, 23:58 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 23:42 PMvoltardark I just had another idea: Why not implementing an option to make the income of strategic points variable (random with a min and a max)that would be cast at the beginning of a game ? As an example : (more thoughts would be needed for the min/max for sure) A normal strategic point producing 3 fuel and 5 mun., could produce between 1 and 4 fuel and 2 to 6 mun. A dedicated fuel point (7) could produce between 3 and 9 fuel income. A dedicated munition point (11) could produce between 5 and 13 munition income. We would have to look at the strategic map before making our planing.... As an option it could be disable for tournaments and events.( but would be on for all casual random matches) Its would add to the replayability of the gameat the cost of some random. (but random balance on the long run) Cookie cutter strategy would have to be more flexible too. It's my wild suggestion, but it think i would like it. What do you think ? hmm too random i don't think people will like it. People already complain about RNG so random resource points may be too much. It might create a lot of unfair games where one side luckily has the high producing point and another side may have a crappy resource point In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balance by game size15 Aug 2014, 20:20 PM thanks for this topic. i would like to see what everyone thinks as well In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Faction Imbalance15 Aug 2014, 20:16 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 19:19 PMwooof well then i guess theres not much to discuss if you dont care. why even bother posting? your "evidence" is simply the number of players playing axis/allies. beyond that you just state your opinion as fact. looking at your playercard, you have only 29 games played as axis with only 13 wins. thats a 44% win ratio overall. you actually havent even won a game in 3v3 or 4v4 axis. sorry, but your stats arent matching up with your claims. not tryna defend his comment (it was kinda rude), but 4v4 allies (at least soviets for me) are very difficult once the game reaches the end stage. It is like fighting an uphill battle once the tigers start rolling out but back on topic: not sure why its so lopsided at times. Some times it is pretty even but i never see a huge allied:axis ratio. It is either equal or a bunch of people searching as Axis usually 70-80 percent In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Faction Imbalance15 Aug 2014, 20:06 PM oh makes sense haha. im a noob In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Faction Imbalance15 Aug 2014, 19:11 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 18:31 PMGreeb Whitout playing any 3vs3/4vs4 game in months I've raised from place ~#1800 in the rank to #200. So, I suspect that soviets are losing horribly since last patch in those gamemodes. can u explain to me how your rank change means soviet is losing? not criticizing you, i don't really understand your sentence. I am a pure soviet player too In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Each Armie's performance in the diffrent stages of the game15 Aug 2014, 17:47 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 16:20 PMDarthBong420 i was talking to ninja greeb and queen. but how do you propose to make germany equal to allied early game? how are you going to make allied late game equal to german? i agree it can be done. i am also sick of the early game have to win as US. but, it cannot be buff the US to equal german late game and no buff to german early game. that is not balance either. i understand where you are coming from. I understand that it is going to be a tricky solution. I suggested toning down the extremities of the factions (strong U.S early and lategame OKW). This will probably involve buffs and nerfs but i am certain that an overhaul or reorganization of units and tiers is necessary. I think buffs and nerfs will only be a bandaid remedy. However, we have to know if these imbalances throughout the stages of the game are: 1. intentional design choices made by relic 2. how much change and what changes are necessary to solve the problem I sorta feel that commanders are the issue. Some factions rely on commanders extensively, and/or some commanders provide amazing units. Players have been skipping tech just to rely on call-in units. This makes the game even harder to balance. It would be a little easier if there was an identifiable "midgame" "early game" or "late game" section. Since players skip techs, it becomes difficult to implement changes to which stage the game is in. There should always be an incentive to tech up so there is an identifiable "progression" of the game. I hate to use starcraft as an example, because that is a different strategy game than COH, but in Starcraft, players need to tech in order to get stronger units. In COH, balance seems to be all over the place at different points of the game, which makes it very difficult to change In: COH2 Balance