I don't really think blobbing is a problem. In the end it's just concentration of force minus any tactics. You can always beat a blob using tactics as long as it isn't significantly larger than your force. If it is, then you lost the fight not to your enemy's tactical acuity but instead their economic and strategic superiority.
![](http://www.clker.com/cliparts/7/y/R/Y/J/T/correct-mark-hi.png) |
Blobs, blobs and again blobs.
Just stop people. There is no way to limit blobbing pehnomenon, and I honestly don't care. If I wanna blob, I should be able to, if I wanna counter the opponent's blob, I should be able to. As simple as that. There are plenty of counters, like demos, HMGs - recently buffed - AT guns with light barrage features, katiushas, wurframens, etc....
They should make howitzers more accurate and do something about that Fireworkswerfer, and you will have plenty of counters to chose from.
This anti-blob whinings begun to annoy me.
Bravo.
I'm just grateful none of these people who complain about "blobbing" will ever be allowed near a real army. |
Very few people even know what that term means. Anyway, I didn't say it was mandatory to include both, only that those two are the drivers of drama. |
Thread: XCOM14 Aug 2015, 07:24 AM
So a few people have non-negative expeirences; that doesn't alter the harm its doing to the industry. Even when companies actually deliver the product they advertised - unlike the case of Colonial Marines, to name but one egregious offender - they can change whatever rewards they offer for pre-ordering at whim. Or they can offer stuff that is effectively pay-to-win, or features which should have been in yhe game as standard but were cut to make an enticing pre-order offer.
I have not argued that you are automatically going to be disappointed by pre-ordering; I'm saying that you;re encouraging developers to put more effort into marketing than actually making games. |
Thread: XCOM10 Aug 2015, 17:13 PM
Pre-ordering breaks the relationship supposedly inherent in the transaction, in which you give them money for a working product. It takes pressure off companies to deliver games that live up to their advertising, or even just simply ship in a working state. After all they already have your money, and even in the worst case they can count on a lot of people not being willing to go to the hassle of getting a refund.
There once was a time video game reviews and word of mouth played the most important part in determining the success of a new title. There'd be a chance for either professional critics or like-minded peers to get their hands on a game and tell you whether it's actually worth your time or money. With games being so expensive, those opinions can be - and to be sure, are still in some way (especially word of mouth) - important!
They can also be bad for business if you're in the business of making or selling video games, though, so removing that roadblock is in both the publisher's and retailer's best interests. The cult of preordering is how this is achieved. By getting your commitment to purchase a game in advance, when all you've got to go on is a marketing campaign, you're signalling that you, as a consumer, are totally cool spending $40-$60 on a game simply on the strength of how it's been marketed.
And it works, with many games tallying up preorder counts in the millions.
Want to know why there aren't any demos anymore? This is why. Want to know why content is withheld from everyone's game and is instead sprinkled across various competing retailers? This is why. Want to know why there's now an accepted norm where those paying more for a game can sometimes gain competitive advantages? This is why. Publishers don't need to sell you on their games, because by slavishly throwing money down before they're even out, you've signalled your intent to take whatever it is they give you.
http://kotaku.com/5909105/stop-preordering-video-games-please
There's an old aphorism that you should never buy a pig in a poke, and that's exactly what pre-ordering tries to get us to do. |
Sex and death are the basis of all drama, and there's not going to be a lot of sex in a WW2 game. |
Well, he wasn't wrong. It's pretty much the same conclusion everyone came to, eventually, and why we're unlikely IMO to ever see that sort of thing again.
All I was disputing was that it was a "failure", seeing as it did in fact achieve its goals. Even a Pyrrhic victory is better than an actual defeat. |
OK but two points here:
1) IMO there should always have been a reverse button in CoH1, and while it may be easier now to do that sort of thing than it was, that doesn't in itself mean that it is too easy.
2) There are question about the possible over-effectiveness of the Su-76; if this was an issue that applied to assault guns simply by virtue of being able to reverse etc., then the same problem would arise with StuG's, but I haven't seen nearly as much concern about them. |
I don't understand Basilone's argument. Sure assault guns are more conservative in function, and sure a deep flank with proper tanks is inherently more risky, but that's precisely why those tanks have heavier armour and turrets. That is literally their design spec.
Whether or not there are issues around the Su-76, I don't think this has a bearing on the question of the defence of tank spam, which I think was really aimed at the T-34. The general thrust that too many people are too willing to cry 'spam' as soon as anyone builds more than one of a unit type is, IMO, quite correct.
It SHOULD be viable to use strength in numbers as a tactic. It only becomes problematic when it is such a good tactic that everyone does it at every opportunity, and it does not appear to me that this is the case.
Next up, some brave heretic needs to mount a defence of blobbing... |
I loved the old cinematic replay function in CoH1, or whatever it was called. Sure it was a bit shonky in what it chose to show, but it was great to see the units close up and the map from new angles. |