Profile of NinjaWJ

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 15:48 PMvoltardark

«Comments do not applied to 1vs1 or 2vs2» maps

Our main concern is about 3vs3 and 4vs4 on the largest maps.(the one with a lot of strategic points)

The more strategic points the largest the Axis advantage.

This Axis advantage reflected mostly of the time by the huge majority of players wanting to play Axis.

Solution : On the largest 6-8 maps remove 1 fuel production from all point. (It won't have any effect of the 1vs1 or 2v2 match.)

Why:
Game always finish the same way: Axis stand off with their supported AA-bases, then the heavy tanks supported with some shreks will kill everything, 1 shot all at-guns and kill all allied at-tanks like they were not there.

The american faction is fine in the beginning but is powerless in the end game.
Jackson at_tanks dies always from 1 panzershreks squad as their mg cover will be obliterated by the tigers.

Russian tanks (Su-85) who could do something are not enough mobile to go help their friends on those large maps.
Only an all Russian team has some chance of winning and that's sad. (Even skilled players)

It's not a rant, but the game fun factor is in danger. If all players go Axis then there is no game played anymore. Those who don't understand that fact just try to play Allied on the largest maps and you will agree if you are honest.

«Tanks-you» in advance

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 01:23 AMGreeb

I not against asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game each faction is best.

The issue here is that CoH2's upkeep system favours comebacks even if one has lost more than 80% of the map, so factions which are better at early game are at disadvantage because the game is more kind with early game mistakes.

vCoH was much more punishing, once you lost your map control it was truly hard to do a comeback.

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 01:14 AMThoseDeafMutes

I broadly agree with OP. I hate that they have (intentionally?) made part of the asymmetrical balance related to the stage of the game you're in. It makes the game impossible to balance equally in different game modes, since the modes (and to some extent the maps) dictate how late games will go on average. While Relic probably doesn't care much about 3v3 and 4v4 balance, I think they do care about 2v2, and I certainly do. Team games almost always go late, it's much rarer for a game to "end" in ten minutes or less. So in team games, the factions that are stronger later get an advantage, and in 1v1, where you don't have an ally to "average out" your successes and losses, the games are much shorter, and factions that are strong early have an advantage.

It's going to be very tricky trying to juggle the blaance to make OKW and Wehr "equally good" as the Allies at all stages of the game. I am a 2v2 gamer primarily and main USF. Even though I spend most of my time in 2v2 with a more or less equally skilled partner, my 1v1 rank is enormously higher than my 2v2 rank, it's like 300 for 1v1 and 2500 for 2v2 AT. These ranks are not directly comparable I understand, although it feels so much harder in team games - double USF team games I might add, where the weaknesses in lategame get magnified.

Half the problem is that when we win games in 2v2, it has rarely been a "good fight" - we got some early squadwipes, sometimes because we got lucky and sometimes because of great positioning on our part, but the small victories cascade and we've wiped half their army in < 8 minutes. They drop, we win, GG. But these victories are only a fraciton of how satisfying it is when you win a 30 minute or 40 minute match that features several back and forths. Those are often frustrating to lose, because you're not losing because you're less skilled (well sometimes you do), it's because at that stage of the game your faction is simply weaksauce and all these supersoldiers are appearing on the field backed up by supertanks and you can't keep up, gradually watching your victories turn to nothing and your forces dwindle until they kill you on VPs.

Wins are often unsatisfying, and losses are often incredibly frustrating. That's bad design, conceptually!

Jump back to quoted post15 Aug 2014, 10:20 AMCannonade

I agree completely.
R
And yet the irony we see is masses of Sov posting for Cons/Penal/Guard/Shock improvement, when infact it is Ost that is shoehorned into relying on Gren LMGs to deal with those options.

It is Ost that actually has no option.

That is the actual issue all this endless Sov sarcasm is intended and deliberate for hiding, derailing and stonewalling discussion on.

Buff any of the above Sov infantry options, and what is the result? An even harder reliance, even more limited meta, for Ost, forcing it into even more LMG Gren builds.

Jump back to quoted post13 Aug 2014, 22:20 PMsteel

LMG spam became a necessity in Elbe day when the HMG42 wasn't working very well and stealing Maxims was the best choice. We German players have learned the high dps is important for victory. I don't want to do it myself but LMG42 upgrade just makes the gren squad powerful at every range while the old LMG42 made the squad better at short-med range only.

Can't say anything about OKW blobs though. I always regarded the 2 new factions as super blobby factions and a lot about spamming whereas the original factions are about using your units to work together: ie combined arms.


Btw, won't swapping AT gun with the AA halftrack make the captain's tier seem super crappy? You have to units that do essentialy the same things. The AA Halftrack and Stuart crews will be fighting among themselves for the spotlight


I used this conscript spam strat the other day against OKW bug forgot to save the replay

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=294359369&insideModal=1