|
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm too keen on the idea of default Thompson's. |
Vehicle crews are vulnerable for a reason. I don't see much reason for this, other then to subvert that.
And I think there are plenty of better options to fixing advanced vehicle crews. Vehicle crews shouldn't be fighting in the first place. An extra man wont change that.
OR give Thompson upgrade more utility. On top of that, asking for a window of forgiveness for using the worse unit to fight with is asking for a noncombat unit to be great at combat.
If you get raped disembarking vehicles for repair, then that's honestly a L2P issue, isn't it? Vehicle Crews aren't even fast at repairing, I barely bother disembarking due to risk of getting attacked.
In my mind I don't see a difference between a vehicle crew and say, Pios, CE's or RE's, which we equip with weapons all the time, in fact the M20 bazooka/Thompson seems to suggest their original intended role included some degree of combat equity which they really don't actualize in their current state. An extra man would give them a little bit more survivability, and hopefully a window to actually have some staying power in a firefight. I agree, the disembark + repair is a risk reward proposition, but it's also supposed to be a unique feature which gives the USF an edge, not counting super glue... so, it would be nice to see such a design choice have a little more flexibility and use. |
Even though vcoh had some pretty bad one dimensional balance for a good while, the differences in upgrades and doctrines really enhanced it once the units were balanced. Once COH2 units are balanced, those other 2 systems that were the meat and potatoes of 1v1 still won't be there.
Its also worth mentioning I'm pretty sure coh2 has already passed coh1 in number of patches delivered, plus more content is still coming for an indefinite period of time. It could take another 30 patches to get the final product balanced/unbugged.
Something to consider, and this is something Pez told me a while back, is people were more willing to suffer through the faulty stages of coh1 because it was a revolutionary game at the time. When sequel releases 7 years later, a lot of people jump ship when its in a bad state because it doesn't have that novelty factor.
100% and to your second point, even transitioning to your last about context, which I think either Marcus, Inverse or Budwise brought up in a post somewhere around here, so excuse me if I'm misquoting, but the situation revolving around the collapse of THQ, and the obvious turnover in staff are I think reflective in the game state, principally optimization and strange bugs/dependencies which seem to suggest an unfamiliarity with the code--- I'm not sure we'll ever see as solid a game as vCoH-- leading into your point about expectations, they are higher, and rightfully so, but I think again given this context surrounding CoH2, I think Relic have done a fairly fine job. Perhaps points could be leveled against Relic for pumping out content that is either poorly thought out or is buggy, rather than working on the core, but again, it may have reached a threshold where it's simply non-fixable by the current team. I do find it ironic now that I think about it that commanders such as Windustry and Elite Troops, even the community defensive doctrines, although broken, if as you say they included things such as status buffs and upgrades, for instance G43's, conceptually they would have the ability to change the core dynamics of a faction and give the diversity that vCoH exhibited, shame that commanders haven't been properly implemented in that sense or rather, haven't gone that far. |
|
gogoggiap! |
|
Do you think five man vehicle crews would be an interesting addition? It just sort of struck me after my last game playing as the USF. I apologize if this has been brought up before, but I think it would more accurately represent the composition of vehicle crews, possibly give more utility to the Thompson upgrade, as well as give a slighter window of forgiveness in case you disembark in not quite the ideal spot to repair/fallschrimjagers/jaegers/storms/etc decide to spoil your repair party.
What do you think? |
|
One of the biggest failings of coh2 is the lack of the same sense of community with the in-game leaderboards and lobby. I have fond memories of alttabbing to gr.org andt promptly losing faith in humanity watching the irc chat scroll by.
Smurfing was pretty dumb too. |
I feel Devm offers the most complete vision of how tech and commanders have changed. Although arguably the choices were more limited they were more specific which added more effective diversity.
What I find very unsatisfying in coh2 is that you have to change the faction every few games or it gets boring.
The only change to that is when there is a new patch and the "flavor of the month" meta changes...
Later when I played coh1 there was never that "unit X is meta of the month"-feeling.
Sure there were times when some units were the "got to get that"-thing, but it was never as bad as in coh2.
I think you're mistaken on that point, even 1,07 pre OF there was stug vs sherman then m8 v puma and the ubiquitous riflespam vs. semois pin. Then Ofs elite infantry spam, reborns scout car spam + luftwaffe gf, wehr pio spam to t2, or the particularly irksome which never changed T2 gren spam to KT, brit pins against flamers and an ht. There were very specific strategic flowsand evolutions throughout time, arguably more diverse to your point |
|
|
Yes, now that cold tech is dead, let's kill vaulting also to make the game more static and promote MG camping! Then all we need is to eliminate that pesky true sight feature (real men don't hide SMG troops behind buildings).
Come on man, can't you be more charitable to the arguments of others? Is this slippery slope really necessary? |
Because if blizzards slowed your game down to a crawl you clearly didn't understand the cold tech mechanics. Passive play during blizzards is an issue with the players, not the mechanics.
If ones play style catered to blizzards, they did not understand the core mechanics. In order to "take advantage" of cold tech, if that's even the right terminology, because again, when it comes down to combat, a blizzard has, near as makes no difference, 0 bearing on the outcome of a firefight. Blizzards effected logistics, but again, to take advantage of these situations you required two things: vision and mobility, but in any situation, ask anyone, do you want to hamstring yourself during the other 2/3rds of the game that aren't a blizzard by stalling tech, or spreading your economy even thinner by requisitioning weaker or specialist units for the blizzard, ie, half tracks and spotters, that may or may not give you a microscopic edge during a small slice of the game? No, of course not, don't be preposterous. The blizzard only slowed the game down, and did not have any value tactically, because again as you have mentioned, it was not a high risk reward state. Wiping an entire army isn't any more likely simply because it was during a blizzard, and if anything it was more unlikely because these effects will also attry the attacker. So, why take the risk. The cost/benefit analysis just doesn't favour attacking in any scenario.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, if ypur complaints are the game was too slow why did people petition for thngs like more expensive tech costs and slower vp bleed? It was a much faster game before the vCoH crowd convinced Relic to neuter it.
Pace hasn't changed. What has are the windows of opportunity. The changes implemented have slowed down the acceleration, stretching out the game and allowing for more engagements relative to advancements in tech. No longer is the game a rush to heavy armor and then a slug fest for a half hour. The game is more evenly spaced, but the pace at which it plays is still the same.
You didn't have the option of turtling because you'd be way down on VP's. As it is now if you hold one vp and one fuel for the entire game you're guaranteed a king tiger, regardless of what your opponent's larger map presence and vp drain.
Come now, this is hyperbole and you know it.
This is by the by why competitive play is obsessed with squad wipes.
An emphasis on squad wipes is due to the new economy, essentially tied to pop-cap, and as an aside, if you blame this on catering to vCoH, surviability of everything with the exception of vehicles is factors higher than before.
Map control means dick in this game as long as you have fuel.
Map control equates to fuel.
^^^^
but all these arguments are digressions away from the conversation of cold tech.
|
0
Canada
United Kingdom
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
