|
Well if I understand OP correctly he says that over the long run you end up with many useless units if you want to step up into more heavy ones. That's true.
Bringing a "recall unit" mechanism a-la Vanilla Campaign would not be a bad idea, and it could actually allow for some flexibilities in manpower floating factions ie. OKW/SOV/OST (especially OKW, since they cannot put any floats into caches).
Although to be fair, out of all my problems with COH2, I never had a problem with pop cap simply because my units die and get replaced or I lose tanks and replace them.
At best this would chip away at margins. |
|
Only in COH2.org can we make a 9-page conversation about a faction that hard losses to almost everybody. |
I think it would do game unnecessary more complicated. Its either RA or Armor which should stay.
Advantages of RA - its easier to balance, since only accuracy and RA RNG are affected, at the same time lack of any complacency behind it means that RNG can screw you over. With either models being sniped, or squad taking almost no damage.
Armor on inf on the other hand provide somewhat more or less predictable outcomes, BUT in CoH2 armor was much stupider iteration of RA, when squad effectively ignored damage if hit wasn't a penetrating one.
vCoH "armor" was much deeper system, but at the same time a very complicated one, with different armor types and different weapons which had different bonuses against different types of armor. But essentially it was just either reduced or increased damage, depending on who is attacking who.
What I think should be done for CoH3:
1) Keep Armor in favor of RA, simply because it allows more macro balancing of units.
2) Inf armor should not work like in CoH2\vCoH.
3) Instead armor should act like a damage reducer. Meaning, say we have a squad A with armor value of 1 and squad B with penetration value of 0.5 and damage of 1.
*If squad A was hit and hit was a penetrating one, it takes a full damage.
*If squad A was hit, but it hit wasn't able to penetrate armor, it takes half of the damage, meaning 0.5, because squad B was able to pass accuracy check and was able to hit the target, there is no reason to force it pass another check to even deal the damage. Its better then RA\vCoH with only one check, and better then CoH2 old armor system with 2 checks.
As for cover:
1) It can still work as a damage reduction, which will lead to a tougher squads being more tougher in cover, but it can result in a stalemates behind cover
2) Or it can work as additional armor, meaning that squad A in yellow cover will have armor of 1.5 and in green cover armor of 2. This will make whole cover system easier to understand, but can result in squad being damaged quite badly if RNG isnt on your side.
3) Or just add new value "accuracy against cover" and leave armor\damage reductions without changes. This will allow to create squads which are worst\better against units in cover and performance of mentioned unit could be balanced on macro level aswell.
Agreed on almost every count for cover, since all I want is for the game to be more fluid and not end up in cover to cover stalemates that are just begging for a mortar/sniper/mg to break. I honestly believe that on this count COH2 is very good.
I am all for making tanks tougher though. Right now, every unit (except UKF) having a snare plus laser guided Shreks/Zooks/PIATs make tank play extremely underwhelming, and I mean that in every sense of the word. Tanks were the epitome of military technology in WW2, and in this game they are nothing more than paper nowadays. Snares eat up a lot of hp, etc. it's just way too immersion-breaking for me. I don't know if it's a personal preference or not. |
There's kind of 2 auto-match threads going now, but I'll add here as well: The issue isn't arranged teams, it's how they're handled. On paper, it should be possible to match any arranged team (except for the absolute best) against a random team; a 4-stack of 5,000 rank players will not beat a random collection of top 200s, for example. The issue is the handling of arranged teams is extremely naive right now.
Firstly, as Rosbone pointed out, any new combination of players is handled as a completely new team: 4x "top 10" players playing together? Totally new team with no way of knowing their skill level until they play 10 "placement" games. Then, if 1 person leaves the group, and a different "top 10" player joins, despite it being 75% of the same team, automatch says "no, this is an entirely new team. 10 placement matches please". This is pretty much the worst way of handling it. Instead, use the data we do have (maybe they played 1v1 a lot), and use that as a starting point. Even better, use an over-all "hidden ELO" score that tries to rate the players "average" skill level for all factions and all modes that they've played, if only to place them better when trying a new mode/team/etc.
Secondly, as pointed out by Rosbone and others in this thread, the match-making system can give some really terrible matches. While it does give even matches sometimes, in less popular modes, or in less popular regions/time zones, it gives some truly awful matches. Or perhaps sometimes it gives awful matches regardless of the situation. In any event, it clearly needs to be worked on, as the current system is just not very good, and it ends up giving a lot of players a poor experience.
Thirdly, even if the existing system worked flawlessly, the actual implementation of arranged teams is pretty bad. As-is, it assumes that a 4-stack is exactly equal to 4x randoms provided their ranks are the same. This is pretty flawed, as chances are that the 4-stack has voice communications, experience playing with each other in the past, and pre-made strategies/combinations that they like. Meanwhile, the 4x randoms have none of this, and might not even communicate in the same language. As a result, even if the "ranks" are the same, we need to assume that the 4-stack will be playing much, much better. Perhaps something like:
This would mean that a full pre-made team would match with players with 20% higher ELO than they actually have, and it would scale for a 2-player pre-made in a 4v4 game, for example (a 2-stack in 4v4 would give +10%).
Decent points.
I would observe that the vast majority of people are FOR them, however a small but vocal minority opposes them in order to not "ruin" their plasmatically good streaks.
Most of them would suck in random 2v2 and I am willing to bet good money on this. |
If people are this penile about fighting better people, then why bother playing the game to begin with?
Shit is bad in coh2 as a randumb in team games simply because there are only ~6000 players online on average and each of them are fractioned up in different game modes or simply only do comp stomping.
(Also why on earth would you endure randoms in this game?)
If, and that is a big IF, Relic doesnt poop out another mediocre game, then AT's wont be a problem in coh3 simply because of a larger playerbase and the leaderboards working (in theory).
Alternativly, simply dont have CELO running and just play the game. I only play coh with my friends a couple of times per week and not all premades are terminators like aerafield, ishtari or sturmpanthe premades.
Theory in COH2 has died years ago.
If a game gives the same possible ELO outcomes to 2 strangers vs 2 player AT, then the game is FUBAR. |
Due to this, explosive weapons often behave unexpectedly bad. Most prominently, it is often better to wait and leave your squad in the blast radius of a grenade and then retreat if you reacted a little bit too late, because that way your squad benefits from damage reduction.
Big if true |
I think you didnt understand what I was saying. AT vs randoms is a non-issue because you can count the amount of actual tryhard-squads in CoH2 with 1 or 2 hands. The rest of them are some casual noobs playing together who either dont use voicechat or who talk about what they had for lunch today.
I win at least half of my random games versus arranged teams, because it's teams like this which you meet many times:
And keep in mind this is a "top 200" team of 4. No matter who my teammates are, it's pretty much a balanced match.
"Better coordination", yeah I'm sure Random McGee and his casual friends who play coh2 for 3 hours per week are gonna pull off some insane plays against you. And for the rare case you meet actual tryhard squads with bad teammates, you do the exact same as when you get trash random matchmaking: surrender or leave after few mins.
I am very sorry to ruin your coping. |
And here is the future CoH3 steamchart when co-op multiplayer isnt possible because of crybabies that had to waste a whole 5 minutes against a sweaty premade team in CoH2. (meanwhile 95% of premade teams are supercasual and not better than randoms)
You are coping hard sadly, and I doubt I can fix you.
Randos vs AT is especially cancerous on COH2, since being better coordinated than your opponents actually wins half the battle. And judging by the average IQ of the average random player, chances are bleak on this one.
If anything, it would fix the game. I would gladly trade in "losing" the miniscule amount of arranged teams that unironically play COH2 hardcore for "winning" a fairer matchmaker for everybody.
Guess what? I don't regret it.
|
Lets see what stat have to say then:
EFH Pioneers = 4*80/1 = 320
EFH Assault grenadier = 5*80/0.95 = 421
EFP Assault IS = 5*80/0.97 = 412
EFP Ro.Eng = 4*80/0.9 = 355
EFP assault Engineers = 5*80/0.9 = 444
EFP RoRE = 5*80/0.9 = 444
So asking you if you agree that RoRe are one of the most durable smg units for its time frame is trying to gaslight you. It seem that you do not really know what the term means.
You think I care about stats? |
- not really art related - crossed my mind watching all those bullets:
Did anybody every play around with ammunition resuplly?
Say a tank comes with 20 shots and then needs a halftrack or base.
An Mg has 100 burst.....
not sure if it would add something good or simply be annoying.
Was this every played around with in mods or similar games?
You mean add mindless micro on top of a game full of useless microing?
1000iq idea for sure.
The only way I would be for such a mechanism would be to make tanks scary vs infantry and not lego cars like they are now, so it would make sense to make them so demanding to cruise around. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
