Profile of Mr.Smith

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

General Information


Thread: Should all factions converge to same late-game strength?5 Mar 2017, 00:07 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2017, 00:02 AMZombiFrancis Additionally, you've pigeonholed Ostheer players into rushing for mediums. Since Ostheer has linear teching with battle phases, discounts affect timing more than strategic options. Whereas USF's free squad comes regardless of how they tech to unlock units. With the idea of discounted Ostheer tech, the LT becomes even weaker because the M20 has less room to lay any mines. Both USF and OST become more predictable and more limited in viable choices. USF becomes forced to use their free squad (which is the origin of this problem) as much of a crutch as possible. Hurrah. The problem becomes the solution? Depends on the kind of a solution. Making USF pay for their "free" squad could also be a graceful solution to this problem. The solution you state is actually the obvious one. I'm just throwing another idea out there that doesn't sound a lot like homogenising the factions. Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2017, 00:02 AMZombiFrancis - UKF/OKW can be adjusted so that EFA/USF aren't forced to use specific commanders. You know, off the top of my head. That's synonymous to the first option, which is "make all factions scale comparably". This thread is an offshoot to a pleading thread about NOT harmonizing OKW/UKF scaling to match other factions. again, pls answer: Do GGthemachine and miragefla have the same opinion? and are you sure that relic intended this? All 3 of us are of the opinion that games should not end because X faction survived until minute Y. Also, all 3 of us realise the shortcomings of USF late-game, as well as the problem that the free officer creates in the beginning of the game. That's part of the USF power curve issue. The reason why we don't make such a fuss about it is because UKF power curve is much more obvious/game-breaking. We'd rather be allowed to solve 1 problem well in the next scope, than brush aside two issues in a half-assed way. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Should all factions converge to same late-game strength?4 Mar 2017, 23:57 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2017, 23:49 PMscratchedpaintjob Because USF for example would need a strong buff to its tanks and a further nerf to its infantry to stay competetive in 4v4, okw a midgame buff and a lategame nerf. Quite honestly, you would have to change it all! And it would make the game boring in the lategame and change something which belongs to the core of coh. One more questions: do GGthemachine and miragefla have the same opinion? and are you sure that relic intended this? (because many people dont think relic intended this to be) right now it rather seems to me like a "obsession" of you guys but not like a really good balance idea! USF already has issues late-game even in 1v1, if you don't pick the call-in commanders (Armor, Pershing). USF just has an insane power curve (free officers + with the right commanders you get both of them), and then it starts to teeter off. In order to fix 4v4 we don't have to fuck up 1v1. We only have to fix 1v1 and 4v4 will be reasonably OK. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Should all factions converge to same late-game strength?4 Mar 2017, 22:59 PM To give an example of how to address variability of strength at different phases in the game look at CoH2 USF vs OST. USF gets an incredible early-game boost in the form of a free squad (at a very critical phase in the game). To counteract this, OST could get a significant discount in their teching costs, thus allowing them to have a medium tank much earlier than americans (thus, forcing them to make use of their "free" officer advantage to prevent a -too- early tank. This could be an example of strength phasing done right. To get an example of strength phasing done completely wrong, look no further than the vCoH PE faction. At the very end of their tech tree, the PE faction gets access to the best tank in the game, at a price that's considerably cheaper than weaker enemy tanks. This mechanic works quite well if we are myopic about making everything right for 1v1, and 1v1 only, where PE's 3-man squads have to survive a very gruesome early game in Company of Snipers 1. For anything above that 500MP 0FU PE Panthers are beyond broken. If we transpose the PE Panther concept to CoH2, we're going to still have factions that run off with all the benefits, and no chance for EFA/USF to catch up with them. This leaves EFA/USF no option but to always pick a very specific, narrow set of commanders. Otherwise, the factions become completely outscaled by OKW/UKF. There is absolutely no way we are ever going to bother balancing around 4v4, specifically (mostly because there is no way to set up "proper" matches using a balance patch). Making all factions converge to the same end-game strength is the only realistic way to allow balancing efforts to scale. Otherwise, it boils down to: - Either all factions scale to comparable strengths - EFA/USF are forced to use specific commanders to be relevant in 2v2+ (e.g., Calliope for USF, Bombing runs for EFA), and everything continues to revolve around OKW/UKF In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Arguments against possible upcoming OKW/UKF nerfs4 Mar 2017, 17:05 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2017, 16:58 PMscratchedpaintjob together with the heading i would rather say it does. but anyway, i will make a poll First of all, describing a faction's lategame strength in absolute terms is nonsense. This is determined also as a function of the opponent. OST vs USF? Sure, OST cannot be described as having the advantage in any point of the game apart from the lategame. OST vs UKF? Completely different story. Second of all, the heading describes what each faction's strengths are. There's no point denying that USF's main strength is infantry. However, even if we take this particular infographic as the gospell, there's no faction that's supposed to dominate over other factions in the late-game (10-o-clock to 12-o-clock). In between, factions are supposed to have different spikes in strength (e.g., USF officers) that create tussles. However to bias a particular faction to overperform in the late-game (10-12-o-clock) is horseradish. This part of the "design" has been thrown out of the window with the introduction of the Brits. - Should you just /quit just because you didn't manage to drain the VPs by minute 30? (in other modes, with resource inflation, by minute 15?). - What does this lack of comeback potential mean for player engagement? - What is this over-focus on ending games early, or prolonging games mean with respect to viable strats within factions? Now all factions are supposed to be able to compete in the late-game. This is because the game can take arbitrarily long to finish, and greatly depends on map, composition and other things. Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2017, 16:50 PMZombiFrancis Wat? Soviets most polished faction? How? They've had fundamental design issues since launch. Probably even moreso if Penals do end up getting PTRS. Best polished means that (with the coming of WBP) all 4 Soviet tiers are viable. Nearly all stock Soviet units are viable almost into the late-game (everybody knows which Soviet units are still OP/UP and how they will get rebalanced). Stock unit strength is relatively well balanced with respect to each other. This means that people can enjoy diverse Soviet builds, and evaluate the performance of every single possible Soviet stock unit. We can't say the same for OSTheer (the other contender), given that OST T4 is neither viable nor useful. There's a big gaping hole in OST roster at the moment. In short, Soviets have a reasonable transition from early-mid-late-game, and people can already grasp at what the late-game strength of the Soviets is going to look like once the remaining units become ironed out. In: Lobby
Thread: Arguments against possible upcoming OKW/UKF nerfs4 Mar 2017, 16:55 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2017, 16:34 PMscratchedpaintjob This relic-made graphic contradicts your statement Picture The design you linked actually completely supports my point. Notice that no faction has the advantage in the extreme-late game. In: Lobby
Thread: Arguments against possible upcoming OKW/UKF nerfs4 Mar 2017, 15:39 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Mar 2017, 22:01 PMscratchedpaintjob what is wrong with okw being op in the lategame? it clearly has weaknesses, especially in the middle game... No faction should be allowed to be OP in the late-game. This makes it impossible to allow balance to trickle down graceful from 1v1's all the way down. That is, unless we want to ensure that certain factions remain OP, and remain the focal points of attention in those gamemodes. vCoH was different: - USF had their lategame strengths (e.g., earned veterancy, doctrines) they could use to stand a chance in the late-game - There are literally only 2 4v4 maps in the map-pool - Scheldt was the most-played map (and no amount of balancing could help that) - inertia CoH2 doesn't have to be the same way. All factions respect roughly the same scaling mechanics, and there's no fundamental reason why we should break teamgames by design. The design of CoH2 so far is: - Different factions should have different strength at different phases in the game (to promote aggressive play) - All factions should have the tools to survive to make it to the late-game - Ideally, all factions should converge to the same late-game strength Given that Soviets have been the most polished faction by now (i.e., not 100% perfect, but still far better than the other factions), you can tell we will be using them as the benchmark for what late-game strength should mean. In short: there's no reason to throw certain gamemodes under the bus by making them revolve around OKW/UKF. This is, especially if minor modifications that won't negatively impact 1v1 diversity and balance will achieve this. In: Lobby
Thread: Is there ANY comprehensive, updated source of CoH2 stats?2 Mar 2017, 14:10 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Mar 2017, 09:06 AMShadowLinkX37 I wouldn't go by a site that tells me a pershing is only 150 fuel An astounding amount of resource values are incorrect on that site. The KT and OKW panther to name some. Even that part of the site is perfectly up-to-date. The entity cost of the Pershing (which affects how much XP it awards to enemy units hitting it) is indeed costed as a 150 fuel tank. The problem with stat.coh2.hu is it often gets its cost from the wrong source. In the case of Pershing this is the Pershing call-in ability. In the case of 222, the proper MG value should be scraped from the autocannon upgrade (which now comes for free), etc. In: Lobby
Thread: Arguments against possible upcoming OKW/UKF nerfs1 Mar 2017, 16:31 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2017, 16:10 PMscratchedpaintjob i think there has already been a lot of discussion about vet 5 cp. the only time, where that was reached in competetive was one game with noggano i believe and the enemies had several moments where they could have traded one of their tanks vs the vetted cp iirc. and getting there requires a fuckton of luck and micro, therefore it being a completely broken unit at vet5 is fine ergo, make vet5 attainable, but make it reasonable. All armies are supposed to converge to similar and/or comparable late-late-game strength, otherwise it becomes unmanageable to allow for 1v1 balance to trickle down on other modes (i.e., making it a nightmare). Therefore, all armies should reach their peak strength at a comparable point in time; ideally within the timescale of 1v1. Since veterancy contributes to strength, that should also be factored in. Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2017, 16:10 PMscratchedpaintjob its popcap is already 21, 25 may be still alright, but 30 just means that the rest of your army gets really small they get a good amount of received accuracy and accuracy buffs, but all other buffs are more or less buffing their pioneer capabilities. wouldnt say that this is too many, especially considering cost and fragility The JT forces a massive shift in playstyle on the entire opposing team (unless they want to lose, or unless allied BS that goes above the Soviet-level goal; calliope/party cover). It is a fair trade-off if the army of the 1 guy that fields the JT has to shrink to accommodate this. The dudes that need to kill the JT have to work in unison. Similarly, the dudes fielding the JT should be required to work in unison to "carry" the JT-fielding guy. There are issues surrounding 5-star OKW vet, but it's probably not the top-most-broken thing out at the moment. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal Artillery Regiment1 Mar 2017, 15:39 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2017, 15:25 PMImagelessbean Last thing to note about airburst shells is that they have 0 scatter. So they all land exactly where you place the ability. This is what makes them so lethal. You can pinpoint the retreat point through the FoW three times. I assume this will be fixed at some point and this commander will struggle unless it receives buffs elsewhere. Yeah, it's too cheesy. No doubt this will get rebalanced in some way. You either get to keep the fire-in-FoW mechanic, or fire accurately, but not both. On the other hand, I see no good reason why the ability would require you to tech up, and tech Anvil, in particular, if you are to gain access to Airburst shells. You're still paying the same cost, after all. Also, I can't believe that nobody mentioned the prime advantage that Priest has over the Sexton; the crew can jump out, allowing you to have mass Priests. Priest should, ideally, be worth 12 popcap, non-decrewable. Sexton could be 10-popcap with its current performance, non-decrewable. Valentine could also stand to shift from maphax-cheese-enabler to actual-synergy with-Sexton. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Is there ANY comprehensive, updated source of CoH2 stats?1 Mar 2017, 15:25 PM stat.coh2.hu is always up-to-date. Unfortunately, it is a reliable source only for single-shot infantry weapons (e.g., Kar98). The DPS formula used for burst-weapons is wrong. Also, the fact that all attributes are rounded down at the 2nd decimal digit make the resource wrong and/or misleading for tank-related stats. As Wouren said. Soon™. In: Lobby