Profile of thomasthetank

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 26

General Information


Thread: Study on APM?13 Nov 2014, 17:07 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Nov 2014, 16:53 PMm00nch1ld Apm doesnt mean much in this game. Not really sure about that comment. If you require twice as many actions then the other player to deal with situation you are detracting from a players ability to manage the rest of the field. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Study on APM?13 Nov 2014, 16:35 PM Has any one done a study on APM for each faction versus win and losses? I am curious if there good balance of APM for all factions. Perhaps people could share thoughts on this matter. I have feeling that the average APM required by allied players to deal with Axis late game armour is higher because often one needs multiple sources of AT to counter the armour. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Pathetic Anti-Aircraft Capability.15 Oct 2014, 16:22 PM I was watching Imperial Dane's last cast of a 2v2. I believe that the OKW flack hq destroyed 3 out of 4 spotter planes sent up by a Soviet player. Maybe someone could confirm that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YnSc9GVcxc&list=UUyUcNdOxXcVt3o9eZKdza9w In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The overbearing balance of 4's15 Oct 2014, 09:17 AM Jump back to quoted post15 Oct 2014, 00:54 AMZeaviS I think it's not because there are more, it's because you gain control of your side of the map quicker, and because you can afford to save up fuel more, because of your fortified position. In 1v1, you probably wouldn't necessarily rush a stuka at 7 min because you'd need a puma or a luchs for support at some point. The problem is a stukka so early in team games it invalidates Allied support weapons reducing the ability of Allies to fortified position as current team game meta requires. The problem is the whole idea in team games of controlling the key points. The Axis are just better at it, better fortification abilities and tools for breaking fortified positions. Either concept of fortification needs focused balancing or needs to be reduced out the team game meta. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Solve balance issue regarding call-ins14 Oct 2014, 11:42 AM Jump back to quoted post14 Oct 2014, 11:19 AMKatitof Terminators? Banewolf?(correct name for the IG toxic 'flamer' thing?) Autarch? Seer Council? Rippers? very few call ins. Out of 18 commanders there very few which brought call ins. Many of those calls you have listed where common to the faction and not to the commander. Terminators, Autarch and Rippers where common the faction thus can be seen as tech. The commanders where apparent from the onset of the game and one could plan accordingly. CoH often invisible commanders only becoming apparent when calls in or events are shown. Allied players seemly tend to pick much earlier then Axis players placing Axis at slight advantage by been able to select the commander better suited to later field conditions. This mainly has to do with allied infantry call in where the allied player needs to pick early to get an advantage of earlier call in infantry. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Solve balance issue regarding call-ins14 Oct 2014, 10:12 AM Opinion piece: Ideally there should be no calls and commanders should impact the usage of assets on the field. DoW2 did this in some respects with commanders bring abilities to the field which supported or were supported by assets, very few call ins. Commanders should bring both advantages and disadvantages to your select approach. An example would be an armoured commander which improve armour ability but put your infantry at a disadvantage. Players would have to play to their advantage and try limit their disadvantage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: One-shotting entire squads14 Oct 2014, 09:44 AM In 1v1 one-shot squad should be really rare event especially when you have little control over the event. Squad losses should be punishment for silly mistakes not unlucky conditions. Team games in the current meta it is a little different. One-shot tools are currently the only effective way dealing with blobbing. These tools at least games force player to reconsider blobs and utilization of mass retreat. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Alliesl14 Oct 2014, 09:38 AM Jump back to quoted post14 Oct 2014, 08:58 AMThe amazing Chandler Comon guys, i have seen the opposite.100% Allies, 0% Axis! Yes it does happen but it is often a rare scene which become increasingly rarer as player numbers increase. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Alliesl14 Oct 2014, 09:37 AM Jump back to quoted post14 Oct 2014, 02:26 AMGTTV Also, I am increasingly concerned that with all the calls to nerf Axis for the sole purpose of team games, 1v1 matches are going to be seriously negatively impacted. I really don't want to see competitive 1v1 play destroyed because of people who only play team games want only that game mode to be balanced. All game modes should (in theory) be balanced, but for competitiveness 1v1s should be the priority going up the chain with 2v2s a close second. I would agree with you if CoH2 had a very strong e-sports scene in which balance makes or breaks players ability to win large cash prizes such as you seen is Starcarft. I realise this what Relic is aiming for but to do this you need a large and supportive community base. Relic currently relies on continuing funding through purchases of DLC which relies on a happy community. Under mining the balance for the more popular team games undermines community well-being and makes a fairly large majority of players feel marginalized. This causes a risk that players will leave the community and decrease potential customers for new dlc. Clearer communication from Relic about balance design and direction across all game types would go a long way in increasing community moral. Even an knowledge about the flaws would help. Currently it very small tight knit community which has access to direct balance influence. Jump back to quoted post14 Oct 2014, 02:26 AMGTTV 4v4s are rarely balanced in any RTS - admittedly it is particularly bad in CoH2 right now. I have suggested previously in a thread to change the way team games fundamentally work rather than blanket nerfs/buffs which impact all game modes. But even now this is getting off topic with this thread. Yes team games are rarely balance but I believe this due more to the lack of active balance then anything else. Focus is given to 1v1 and with decreasing levels of consideration as the player numbers increase. I too have made calls for change to they way teams are played by forcing into 1v1 style if the trickle up balance is to work. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The overbearing balance of 4's14 Oct 2014, 08:50 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Oct 2014, 18:03 PMOmega_Warrior Unfortunately I have to disagree on you solution. Not because it wouldn't balance team games but because it would require far too much work and would leave the games in a far less enjoyable state. To balance the maps for team games like they are in 1v1s you would have to essentially scrunch all the maps down so that the time to arrive in the battle is similar, and then spread out the map large enough for more flanking and harrasing to take place, essentially spliting up the players. All you will left with is a long but shallow looking map with every fighting their own 1v1s and slightly interacting with their neighbors. And that doesn't leave much room for variety in maps. I only suggest this because I doubt Relic will create separate balance profiles for team games. If they stick to their 1v1 trickle up balance then team game will have to be forced to play like 1v1. Maps are the only direct impact the community can have on balance. Perhaps a community made map forcing players into a 1v1 style may produce better win/loss ratios. Jump back to quoted post13 Oct 2014, 18:03 PMOmega_Warrior Besides I don't think there is anything wrong with the 4v4 meta and maps. I think it's perfectly fine as is and both sides are able to succeed depending on teamwork and skill. That is until the late game hits and the axis side get's a variety of extremely powerful weapons that are easy to support with extremely effective support units and maintain even while taking losses, while the allied side either has to depend on doctrines to compete or simply unperformed compared to their opponents. The problem is in the late game, there is no need to change how 4v4 works in general. That's why I have been such an advocate for fuel upkeep. Which would help keep the resources flowing around in the late game under a much more controllable state. I agree with you that resource flow is major contributing factor to state of the team games. In team games I have encountered stukkas at 7 mins and KTs at 20 mins. Ideally it should be looked at but if I remember resources are tied to the maps. Fuel upkeep would a solution in part if done correctly but that is tired to the units stats and would require Relic to introduce into 1v1 balance without a separate profile. In: COH2 Balance