Profile of DevM

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 409 | Subs: 17

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/d3vm


Thread: DevM vs Theodosius G24 Sep 2016, 22:09 PM GG In: Replays
Thread: DevM vs Theodosius G14 Sep 2016, 22:08 PM GG In: Replays
Thread: OKW or OST for a newbie ?17 Feb 2016, 17:43 PM OKW is the easier one and the one that seems to suit better what you said . In: Strategy Desk
Thread: DevM's USF without Tears10 Feb 2016, 12:39 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Feb 2016, 06:37 AMedibleshrapnel How come you pay for UKF but barely play it? It was given to me ^^, plus its always good to have the other factions to test what they can do in custom games so you aren't surprised when playing against them. In: Guides
Thread: ESL Go4COH2 cups1 Feb 2016, 14:19 PM done, had forgot about those ^^. In: Events Central
Thread: DevM's USF without Tears26 Jan 2016, 16:01 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jan 2016, 09:03 AMedibleshrapnel IMO this guide needs to be updated after the last couple patches, you still around Devm? Yea stil lurking , unfortunately I haven't played enough USF this patch to update it. In: Guides
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace5 Jan 2016, 20:45 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Jan 2016, 20:33 PMAvNY No, i think the suggestion is in cases where perhaps two factions are "balanced" but one requires more micro (think US crew repairs to make up for the fragility of their tanks, or having to click on the ambulance heal instead of a passive heal). If 40 APM will be able to handle one faction and 50 or 60 will make handle the other, then for someone with 70-80 apm all the factions are an L2P issue. For someone with 30 apm vs someone else with 30 apm, those factions are imbalanced even assuming perfect game knowledge on both sides. One will be able to get more out of their faction than the other one would out of his/hers. This gets exacerbated by the asymmetrical-over-time balance (which you were complaining about). More mistakes on both sides also means the games will last longer as each side makes mistakes, but longer games in COH2 are much worse for Allies than they were in COH1. (Not least because you get to "late game" faster but have the same VP system.) So "balance" does mean something different at different levels of skill, not just different levels of game knowledge. COH1 (in its later stages) didn't have this. At almost every stage of the game US vs Wehr was a L2P issue, not one of assymetric faction design. Those are subtle mechanics that should be there (at least in my opinion) to distinguish good players from great players, there were actually a lot of those in vCoH, the first example that comes to mind is the motorcycle micro that you needed to make the MG Bike combo work, you needed a lot of control for that kinda like the one you need to do that fast repair on the tanks. That, however, does not mean that if you balanced the game from the top players that it would mean you had to micro more to make a faction work, those are little things envolving the outcome of the game. Assuming the factions are well balanced AND designed, design being key, means that each factions has its little "secrets" and perks that only top players will make most use of by being faster but that does not mean that the faction as a whole will be unplayable for players with less micro. Again ill refer back to US vs WM on vCoH since I believe it was done to near perfection, US was a faction that needed most micro to make it work at a top level that doesnt mean that at a lower level of play the faction was better or worse because you still had the things you needed and those easier to use units or whatever you might call them, just that as a player gets more efficient playing a faction they can diverse from that type of play and make more use or better use of riflemen for example (big part of US gameplay both in Coh1 and Coh2, that requires a lot of micro to perform well). EDIT: I also would like do distinguish "normal micro" from "smart micro" , which is why I believe game knowledge is heavily into how efficient you can do things in coh2, if I know more or less when a unit is going to throw a grenade, I know the timing to look back at the unit when I need to to ensure that it didnt get grenaded, that is in my opinion smart micro, while I guess people must think that a player is so fast that is always watching if the guy is going to throw the grenade. There are A LOT of these examples, im able to do so much in a game so quickly because I have the game knowledge to back up my micro so I dont do unnecessary clicks or keep my focus on the unit that is right while not losing the others to small little details. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace5 Jan 2016, 20:29 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Jan 2016, 20:18 PMOmega_Warrior No just that even top 250 can't micro at the level of top tourney players. And forming balance around expecting them to be able to will lead to a disaster of balance. It might surprise you to learn that 99% of players just aren't anywhere as good as you are. And can't do the things that you do. It might surprise you that top players are there because of their game knowledge rather than micro, it's actually quite funny that micro is such a heavy topic when in CoH2 it hardly matters past a certain point (which isnt hard to reach btw). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace5 Jan 2016, 20:16 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Jan 2016, 19:59 PMOmega_Warrior All I want is to come home from work, turn on my computer, and play a game where I can realistically win just as easily no matter what faction I play. I fucking hate all this high level casting tournament bull. The game is already balanced from the top down. It's just balanced from the top 250 and it's pretty well balanced at that. But that's not good enough for you guys, you want it balanced for a select few tourney players. The truth is that doing that will destroy balance, because you are left with factions that can only be effective in the hands of the absolute pros. The balance wont scale down because the micro skill won't scale down. At this point we aren't talking about balancing from the top. We are talking about making large changes to pander to a couple a dozen players while disregarding the entire playerbase. If grens become as good as rifles, USF winrates will drop like a sack of hot potatos. You can't just remove the US's only advantage and think they will still be able to stay in the game when ostheer can do better at everything else. USF can simply has more options to invest into the early game and general infantry then whermacht. The problem isn't grens but the vehicles. Whermacht is a vehicle and support weapon based army and rely on their vehicles to support their aggressiveness and contain harrassing infantry. The problem is in those early phases their light vehicle game sucks, when it should honestly be better then USF. Buff the 222 and whermacht will actually be able to be aggressive within their intended design. Which is better then making them as good as USF at the only thing they can really can do which will lead to disaster. Are you seriously suggesting the game can't be balanced by top players because lower level players wont be able to micro as well? I have seen about everything now. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace5 Jan 2016, 18:21 PM Ciez is right you need to balance the game from the top. There isn't a specific line to draw where players are allowed or not to have input but I think the input from the best of the best will be more trustworthy than the rest. I'm going to be honest and say I haven't played the december patch at all but since they haven't changed the design of the USF faction or soviets Im still going to take a guess that in the case of USF its still the same pattern, allied factions in CoH2 have an easier time being agressive due to the fact that their "normal" infantry are better earlier on, while german factions usually have the better support units that entails a more safe gameplay. With that said that doesn't mean thats the issue at hand, I don't think that is what makes allies stronger in a 1v1 scenario since as for me personally I can ostheer as agressive as I play with USF. Im going to be specific here and talk about the USF vs Ostheer match up which I think is perfect to address this, USF has access to earlier tech which means you will often see the captain way before ostheers T3, this tech that USF has is however weaker than the opponent counterpart. What this means is that you will see a stronger showing of the USF faction right off the bat but as the game goes on they start getting outscaled in every sense,which means that in hands of good players these advantages will often snowball to levels where the other player cant comeback. In fact as ostheer I usually do double sniper against USF because I know that will drain my opponent out and let me get to the long run or late game plus since USF is flawly designed, they hardly can get to the sniper without suiciding a unit (usually the m20). I dont know how many players here played CoH1 but the US vs Wehrmacht match up was in my opinion one of the most perfectly done things balance and design wise, both factions had access to units that made them be able to agressive but Wehrmacht still had more support units right at the start (MG,sniper,motorcycle) while US had the riflemen and jeep at their barracks, what that means is WM was more about combined arms to survive the early game and later on to the game that role passed on to US since they needed pretty much a bit of everything to survive the later stages. Now coming back to CoH2 USF has no healthy way gameplay wise to do well in the lategame, you have these 2 commanders that have the pershing and calliope and thats pretty much if for your late game, and I hate when you have to rely on a thing that isnt implemented on the faction itself to actually do well on a stage of the game. The USF at guns are lackluster, there is no sniper available for USF so you have to rely on RNG artillery or get a good flank on the sniper which is only possible usually usually more in the early to mid game. So to briefly put this: -Game should be balanced from the top players -Many factions are flawed in design (usually to cover up something that is missing another thing is buffed which may be or not be stronger for certain skill levels of players) which means that win rates between the different tiers of players are very different -The fact that in CoH1 WM and US were well designed and balanced at a 1v1 level, meant that in all other modes (2v2,3v3,4v4) there were all the available tools to the players to survive each stage while creating dynamic gameplay around the strengths of the factions on these stages of the games. That is my opinion so dont take it as facts. In: COH2 Balance