I would argue that it is the "wrong way to play" but I agree it can be used as a valid tactic. The problem is the risk/reward ratio for blobbing almost always works out for the blobbers advantage.
The game sells itself as a combined arms tactical RTS with an elaborate directional cover system. Why bother doing any of the micro work of cover, spacing, and unit composition if the player that just blobs infantry to zerg around the map can easily win. If the blob picks a bad angle they can just back out, pop smoke, and approach from another angle very quickly.
I read a lot of mashing of teeth about auto-reinforce mechanic because it relieves some micro tax. However, blobbing with attack moving around the map removes much more micro compared to someone taking the time to space out their infantry, position their MGs, and build a mortar crew instead of just another infantry to add to the blob. I imagine players thinking with that extra infantry crew to the blob maybe we can even one volley a light vehicle if we add AT rifles.
Adding some kind of penalty or more effective counter would balance out the risk/reward toward the player using the combined arms cover based tactics which the game markets itself as IMO.
Simply directly punishing a certain way of playing the game rather than adressing the underlying issues is incredibly poor design. It would also feel super out of place in the context of how CoH works. I don't wanna have to keep a certain distance between my squads just for the sake of it when double teaming another squad for example. It would disrupt the gameplay flow. It's not rocket science to figure out why blobs are so prevalent in teamgames and adress these issues.
Here's some issues with solutions in brackets:
1. Forward reinforce (reduce HP on all med trucks to 240 at minimum, preferably 140. They should get one shot by tank destroyers and almost one shot by regular tanks. No autoreinforce on heal trucks. No reinforce or heal on non-friendly territory. Double the reinforcement time.)
2. Ubiquitous, cheap and super impactful Smoke (smoke no longer blocks LoS, now only decreases suppression or damage, increase cooldown or add cost for smoke abilities across the board)
3. Unreliable MGs (increase AoE suppression, i.e. a squad getting suppressed directly should reliably put suppression on squads nearby)
4. Terrible maps (have more maps like General Mud, Vaux Farmlands, 4v4 Arnhem and less maps like Redball, Ettelbrück, Kharkov; ironically a lot of people don't like more complex maps because they require brain activation but then you can't complain about bad gameplay)
5. VP tick rate forcing players to keep field presence for the entire game and therefore punishing dynamic attacking gameplay (keep 3-0 vp tick rate, slow down 2-1 VP tickrate)
6. Artillery access and potency (give US a Howitzer by default maybe as part of Infantry support center, look into the other artillery pieces and assess whether they could be tuned up a bit, I'm not sure about this because arty in CoH2 was obnoxiously strong) |
ok, let's just stop balancing 1v1 then, because aerafield doesnt play it
and dont tell me that map control is almost irrelevant in 2v2, not sure if youre trolling or not
pathfinders arent any less broken just because there is a choke point map you can kind of control them on... which is not easy given that they get free smoke and flares, plus good rifle nades
You're talking past each other. He's not making the "normative" claim saying that 1v1 balance shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. He's just saying that whether pathfinders are OP in 1v1 does not give you any information on whether they are OP in teamgeames.
Same for map control, he's not saying that map control as in "the amount of sectors your hold" is irrelevant, but rather that capping power is irrelevant in teamgames. Which again is completely true. This is the primary reason why it's impossible to balance all units for both 1v1 and teamgems (hence for example in CoH2 stuart was useless in 4v4 and ele was useless in 1v1 etc.).
The difference is even more egregious in CoH3 becasue capping power is WAY more important in 1v1 than it was in CoH2, and in teamgames it is even less important because of how ridiculously choke pointy the maps are.
Frankly, 99.9% of people don't have a clue what they're doing in teamgames and Aera belongs to the .1% so I'd trust him if he doesn't consider paths op. Also my impression from using them in teamgames is actually that they suck because they scale horribly and you can't use their numbers advantage. The only good thing is that you can comfortably rush AAHT with them and that Rifles are extremely hard to use/straight up bad in teamgames (unsurprsing given that the entire design of the unit just doesn't suit teamgames at all unless they finally include some maps that offer sufficient space to maneuver in teamgames). |
glad someone else is saying this, thought I was going crazy, out of all the weird one-trick-pony strategies I feel like this is weakest one I've seen thus far; especially since USF has soooo many strengths.
player card shaming is a bit much tho aera, we've all been around ages.
Paths are bonkers op in 1v1. They have the most ridiculous map presence. Feels like playing against Wehrmach tPio spam as brit in CoH1. DAK might be a able to cope a little bit with Bike opening but it needs to outplay super hard to be even imo. |
And back to the aerefield point, CoH2 being guaranteed dead regardless of CoH3 success: AoEII Remake is more popular than 4, Dawn of War 3 is the least popular DoW... There is a good chance CoH2 will outlast CoH3.
It is so intersting how the tables have turned. All these discussions are almost identical to those 2013-early 2014. Now CoH2 is regarded as the gold standard for coh games.
|
This was a thing even in CoH2 for a short while and it got patched out quickly because people would constantly ALT + F4 out of unbalanced games
I don't think it was ever a thing in CoH2. Although the reason you state is correct. I feel like in 1v1 they could be displayed. |
The faction does not need complete redesign.
It needs cost adjustments.
Besides, it's actually impossible to judge how the base faction gameplay in CoH3 would play out because everybody seems to just be playing 1 broken strat (fallpio, airborne, italy tanks). It's weird because I didn't remember this degree of "meta adherence" at the CoH2 release. Maybe it's the fact that ladders exist and everybody sees their big chance to finally make it big in life by getting an 80%+ winrate. We're basically lacking the data to make any statements about how factions should be changed. |
This is biggest delusion I keep seeing about CoH3
The new version of the engine was written up from scratch and all features were re-written for CoH3 to allow for more flexibility and less hard-coding mechanics.
Saying they recycled engine is like saying UE5 is just recycled UE4.
Ye, and people are completely ignoring a fact that a lot of the "steps backwards" are due to this change, which came with the advantage of massively improved performance. |
Seriously? You want a positive review bomb? Players should not publish negative reviews because they are 'fans of the franchise' and because it does not help dragging in new players? This robs them of their right to phrasing their opinion how? What is the point of reviewing at all then if all you're supposed to do is to pad Relic on the back and congratulating them for the dump they've taken?
There's both unsubstantiated negative and positive reviews, you're only complaining about the negative ones though. You don't want players to give their honest opinion, at least not if they don't agree with you. If the review is positive, it's alright, if it's negative, it suddenly is low effort, review bombing, nonsensical. And because of that, it allegedly is the fault of the bad reviewers that CoH3 has too little players. You're shifting the blame, nothing else. Relic should fix their game before release, Relic is the only one at fault.
At first I really thought this is just a rant of a player that loves CoH3 and disagrees with most reviews, but since you're not only doubling down but even using more crude arguments, you're giving me a hard time of not viewing this as fanboyism. Which really surprises me because I remember your previous posts always as well founded, even if I did not agree with them.
I just can't stand the negativity in this community. So many people are constantly whining. I would never suggest stripping the moronic steam community of their god given right to shit on everything. I'm merely saying that hardcore CoH players should put the survival and growth of their hobby above principles. People who give shitty positive reviews aren't gonna harm the growth of CoH so I could not care less. The worst thing that could happen is that a few more people make the decision to buy one of the most underappreciated gaming series in history. Criticize relic as much as you want, but they are the only ones who can provide CoH. No other studio will create anything close to it. |
snip
You've done far more for the game than me, so you've earned the right to complain. But I kinda feel like you fall into the category of people I was adressing. I just think you're waaaaay too negative. Constantly trashing Relic at every opportunity, instead of having a more pragmatic view. Cuz let's be honest, there is no alternative to CoH. Just look at the pile of shit that is Iron Harvest. So we should try to make the best of it rather than having a strong negative bias. That doesn't mean blindly throwing money at relic, no one is obliged to buy the game obviously, but I'd say take a MEASURED approach to criticizing and try not to carry the negativity outside the CoH sphere as to not harm the growth of the game. Ranting on CoH2.org = okay (commendable even, look at what I'm doing); ranting on steam = well within your rights but I'd argue not in your interest as a CoH fan. You could even rant on steam but then qualify the complaints with a remark about how great CoH is at its core.
They do, because the game is not finished to a an extend that you should expect from a release. Since it overall works as a game, but has just so many smaller rough edges, you'll have to list those rough edges. I it is not only the icons, but the sum of all the issues. And the icons are one where it is just strikingly obvious that Relic cheaped out or misplanned or whatever, especially because they are rather quick and easy to do. Yet, Relic did not fix them.
Listing small rough edges is sensible. Basing the main part of your critique on them, when the core gameplay is good is lazy and misleading. It's funny because the usage of old icons would normally indicate a much worse state than the game is actually in because it is something you would usually see in an alpha version. So yea relic relly shot themselves in the foot with the minor but really glaring faults.
For your example regarding your friend, I fully agree with you. For CoH3, no one is guaranteed to play thousands of hours. They played maybe 10, 20, 30 hours, they're free to give a negative review.
Not literally guaranteed, but there are a lot of hardcore fans who will very likely end up playing the game a lot. And frankly, if you've played 30 hours in two weeks the game can't be that bad.
A steam review is not a journalistic piece, but from your points I get the feeling that you kind of expect everyone to list pros and cons. That would obviously be desirable, but the casual nature of steam reviews lends itself to players either giving a positive or negative review and then just writing why they chose what they chose. This goes both ways, you'll also find many positive reviews just writing positive things. Overall, I don't see your point here. It's ordinary steam reviews, nothing special.
I'm more bothered by people's decision to publish a negative review, even though they are long time fans of the franchise. You don't have to write an essay to come to a more reasonable conclusion than "the game feels off/icons are missing etc.
With the amount of stuff missing and place holders in the game, Relic heavily misplanned. That's an error of the management, nothing else. The original release date of November is a testimony to this. They should have either opted for a smaller game or delayed for longer. They might have been under financial pressure. But then again, their business decisions are none of my business, and I can't know either. I can only judge their product, which they put out to the public and labelled as "finished" for their release.
Seeing CoH3 as an unfinished product that should have gotten more polishing before release is fair critique. Blaming the critics for the small player base is unfairly shifting the blame. It's Relic's responsibility to fix their own product and ensure longevity, not the customer's responsibility to neglect problems so that more people buy the product.
Yea, but why is it useful for us as fans to make the situation worse? This is not about assigning blame. It's about the stupidity of some hardcore fans from a purely pargmatic point of view.
Overall, your thread mostly reads like your new favourite game is being criticized partially unfairly and you want to rant about it. You can do this for sure, but if you want higher quality reviews, then maybe don't read the ones on steam. In steam's system, you're expected to read multiple reviews and distill out the essence yourself, otherwise it does not work at all. You're trying to shoot the messenger, not the one responsible for the message.
If you read this as pure fanboyism I think you've missed the point. I'm mostly saying that even if I grant that the game is in a poor release state, it just doesn't make sense to shit on it in public if CoH is one of your favorite franchises. At best it contributes negligibly to forcing change in the gaming industry and at worst it leads to the decline of CoH as a franchise. And I've seen plenty of people on steam do exactly that, and I've seen very few reviews trying to counteract it. Like I wonder how many of the 1000 or so super hardcore fans have given a positive review? I might be wrong but I think it's a pretty small portion. Frankly, if anything the community should organize positive review bombing.
|
|
I have to rant about a few things that annoy the shit out of me with regards to negative user reviews on steam and reddit. Wonder what your thoughts are, don't take this too seriously.
1. Why on earth do people constantly harp on about minor unfinished/sloppy elements of the game like icons, weapon symbols and faction flags. I saw someone on reddit declare that usage of old icons to be "UNACCEPTABLE" and the primary reason he gave a negative review. In one of the youtube reviews the guy demonstrates how he can recreate the faction symbols in 5 minutes in photoshop. He literally spends more time on this tangent than he does talking about gameplay. How dense do you have to be to completely ignore the actual GAME. You know ... the part that matters. If you dislike the gameplay we can agree to disagree. But to just brush over it and complain about the menu art instead is just infuriating.
2. Why do people who are guaranteed to play the game for thousands of hours and basically have CoH as a mainstay hobby give negative reviews? Steam reviews primarily communicate to the general public. If someone unfamiliar with CoH comes across the newest iteration and sees shit reviews they will likely never get into the series. I have a hardcore CoH2 1v1 player in my friendlist that has like 4000 hours in the game and still has a negative review complaining about balance issues. Why? How does that make sense? So many people don't even know CoH or are only vaguely familiar with it. And in my experience almost everybody you show and explain the game to ends up liking it. So why scare off that crowd just because of your own agenda?
3. Why do people completely neglect the strong aspects of CoH3? Doesn't the fact that we have 4 factions and amazing performance make up for some of the shortcomings? Isn't having 4 factions upon release preferable over having a super polished game in terms of interface and multiplayer functionality? Maybe not, but then it would be more of a case of relic being overly ambitious in their desire to provide a lot of bang for your buck. No one would have complained if it was just two factions at release, but they went the extra mile and maybe that cost us polish.
4. A bigger playerbase would be so cool, but people actively prevent this from happening by shitting on the game. And I absolutely loathe the high and mighty do-gooder argument that this needs to be done because the gaming industry deserves a lesson about early releases. This is after relic already delayed the game and it is obvious that they ran out of options. Of course the same people would also agree that working conditions in the gaming industry are horrible and that pre release crunch should be avoided.
5. Anyone german who gave a negative review because there is no german voice acting needs to seriously ask themselves if they would actually NOT RECOMMEND CoH to someone new for that reason. Is that really sufficient to make CoH3 a bad game? REALLY? The average German's english is light years behind the Dutch or Scandinavians so maybe it's time that we stop putting our own voice acting over everything?
|
Germany
-虎贲-PauL.a.D.-CPSSS-
ghost
Quiritz
Niklas
Quiritz
Relic Entertainment
