Profile of tigerhunter

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 20

General Information


Thread: Do we need Coh2 expansion?23 Oct 2015, 06:26 AM Jump back to quoted post23 Oct 2015, 06:14 AMxSakox I like the idea(even though it has some problems), but i doubt that Relic would even consider making changes as drastic as these. They've been unwilling to make structural changes to the game, despite of communitys demand since the beginning(except the recent soviet tech overhaul, that nobody even tough about). + people less dependent on commander call ins = less money for Sega/Relic Yeah I agree with you. I think they are chasing little money. Coh2 has potential to become number one RTS in the world. It can beat Star craft 2. I really hope coh 2 become a e sports game. (then I won't be able to get in top 500 players. well that is fine with me.) In: Lobby
Thread: Do we need Coh2 expansion?23 Oct 2015, 05:55 AM For 2 years Coh 2 hasn’t been completed. So I want to fix it. I really want to play enjoyable Coh2. May be Coh2 expansion would be a answer for it. Here’s my plan for the coh2 expansion. ost For the ost, I think they are most perfect faction in coh2. Yeah there are some balance issues but It is not serious cuz ost’s tech-tree is very stable. We can easily fix balance problem by buff or nerf or modifying cost. There is no need to change tech-tree or adding some units. However I think many ost player feel unhappy about infantry and battle phase. Therefore it would be great to change these things. Infantry. Grenadier : need cost increase and buff Battel phase Give some advantage for Battle pahses. Battle phase 1 – medics Battle phase 2 – Repair crew Battle phase 3 – Nazi Officer.-Discuss it's ability later. Dear relic Ost is most balanced faction in the coh2. You can make commanders a lot without destroying game. In other words, U can make money without destroying game! Ost needs more commanders. Soviet. I think soviet is changed from the original concept. To deal with Nazi elite units, they have a number of reliable units. But before and even after soviet tech-tree overhaul, Soviet call-in meta haven’t changed. Why? Because Soviet non-doctrinal unit combination is not effective as call-in meta. This deficiency of basic harmony makes soviet player depend on call-in or somewhat op units. Adjusting some unit’s over performance is good thing and Fixing call-in meta is also good thing. However don’t forget the ultimate purpose of the overhaul. Actually making same win-rate is sub goal of the overhaul. Purpose of the over haul is to make more enjoyable game. I think relic tried to give versatility to soviet union but clearly it is failed. It just changes soviet’s first armor(t34 to t70 or t76). Still Su players are tied in call-in. As I said, defendant on call-in units came from the lack of the combination of non-doctrinal units. That is the only reason why soviet players are tied in call-in meta. There are two ways to fix this problem. First, Make soviet tech tree linear like Ost. Second, strengthening tech choice and giving stability in each tech. Honestly I prefer second one so I suggest second one. Soviet Like old tech tree you can choose t1-t4 or t2-t3 or t4. Starting fuel 40 T0 -no problem T1 fuel 35 Sniper – just need to increase rate of fire. M3 Scout car – fuel 10/ though cost is reduced, you have to gather 5 fuel point from the start just like now. Penal – need 1PTRS as an option. I want to give T1 soft counter. For 222 or flak-half track. So they don’t have to choose guard or T2. But have to give up flame- thrower T2 fuel 40 Don’t need to change before bug or balance problem. T3 fuel 120 or 130 M5 Half-Track / fuel 20 – compensate tech-cost t-70 / fuel 50 – same as luchs. –compensate tech cost. You can choose two t70 or just one t34. In the old tech tree, you can access t34 because it needs 30 more fuel to make t-34 comparing to t-70. su-76 / fuel 70 – same as now t-34 fuel / 100 – as it was T4 =fuel 140 – T4 should have more cost than T3 as they provide more advanced armor. t-70 / fuel 50 – I think t-70 takes same role as 222 or luchs. KV-1 / fuel 140 – Cost increase is needed because they need more health it actually feels like mini Churchill. Su-85 / fuel 120 – As it is.  Dear Axis player. Yes it is buff for Soviet. To balance with it, cost modification of the ost’s structure and tech up will be needed. My goal is giving player’s lots of strategic option. Not fuck up the axis player. I love to play ost even if I play ally most of the time (cuz my teammate hate to play Axis but my Axis ranking is higher than ally I believe perfection of Soviet basic army makes more accessibility to tactics and unit combination which don’t contain call-in units like KV-8, T-34/85 and so on. USF Someone said that Usf is horribly designed and I agree with him. In my opinion, it has more serious problems than soviet. But powerfulness of USF set off this problem by giving victory to USF players. However compare to soviet. At least soviet use more variety commanders and has variety early tactics. So I want to restructure the USF Tech tree. Like British forces, USF can tech up in the base but they need to build officer to get additional units in the tier. USF Starting fuel 15 T0 Rear Echelon Troops Rifleman WC51 30cal / fuel 10 – WC51 is positioned in same position of universal carrier and it can be upgraded to 50cal with 60 munitions. ===================================== T1 upgrade/ manpower 100 fuel 20 Access to 50cal Access to Lieutenant ===================================== Lieutenant- fuel 30 Access to Pack howitzer Access to AA-Half Track M20 swaps it’s position with WC51. ===================================== T2 upgrade/ fuel 40 Access to 57mm ATG Access to Captain ===================================== Captain/ fuel 30 Access to M5A1 Stuart Access to M8A1 Howitzer Motor Carriage ===================================== T3 Upgrade- Require T1 or T2 / fuel 90 Access to M4A3 Sherman Access to Major ===================================== Captain/Fuel 30 Access to M36 Jackson Access to Advanced Sherman (calliope, crocodile etc…) I put down fuel points on the board but that is not the point. The point is splitting tech cost between structure and Officers. Is it going to be an enjoyable? Dear relic Expansion pack may can solve both money issues and a turmoil. And it can reset the mess of the war spoils and commanders. U can erase all the commanders for the overhaul except dlc commanders. I know it is pretty dangerous for your company but company of heroes 2 is gonna die if u keep shake by fanboys.As i said erasing the defendant on commanders is key point to revive Coh2. After that u can release various stuff freely without any rage from the players. In: Lobby
Thread: I’m planning a coh2 mode22 Oct 2015, 15:51 PM Your text.. I’m planning to make a coh2 mode For 2 years coh2 hasn’t been completed. So I want to fix it. I really want to play enjoyable coh2. Here’s my plan ost For the ost, I think they are most perfect faction in coh2. Yeah there are some balance issues but It is not serious cuz ost’s tech-tree is very stable. We can easily fix balance problem by buff or nerf or modifying cost. There is no need to change tech-tree or adding some units. However I think many ost player feel unhappy about infantry and battle phase. Therefore it would be great to change these things. Infantry. Grenadier : need cost increase and buff Battel phase Give some advantage for Battle phases. Battle phase 1 – medics Battle phase 2 – Repair crew Battle phase 3 – Nazi Officer. Dear relic Ost is most balanced faction in the coh2. You can make commanders a lot without destroying game. In other words, U can make money without destroying game! Ost needs more commanders. Soviet. I think soviet is changed from the original concept. To deal with Nazi elite units, they have a number of reliable units. But before and even after soviet tech-tree overhaul, Soviet call-in meta haven’t changed. Why? Because Soviet non-doctrinal unit combination is not effective as call-in meta. This deficiency of basic harmony makes soviet player depend on call-in or somewhat op units. Adjusting some unit’s over performance is good thing and Fixing call-in meta is also good thing. However don’t forget the ultimate purpose of the overhaul. Actually making same win-rate is sub goal of the overhaul. Purpose of the over haul is to make more enjoyable game. I think relic tried to give versatility to soviet union but clearly it is failed. It just changes soviet’s first armor(t34 to t70 or t76). Still Su players are tied in call-in. As I said, defendant on call-in units came from the lack of the combination of non-doctrinal units. That is the only reason why soviet players are tied in call-in meta. There are two ways to fix this problem. First, Make soviet tech tree linear like Ost. Second, strengthening tech choice and giving stability in each tech. Honestly I prefer second one so I suggest second one. Soviet Like old tech tree you can choose t1-t4 or t2-t3 or t4. Starting fuel 40 T0 -no problem T1 fuel 35 Sniper – just need to increase rate of fire. M3 Scout car – fuel 10/ though cost is reduced, you have to gather 5 fuel point from the start just like now. Penal – need 1PTRS as an option. I want to give T1 soft counter. For 222 or flak-half track. So they don’t have to choose guard or T2. But have to give up flame- thrower T2 fuel 40 Don’t need to change before bug or balance problem. T3 fuel 120 or 130 M5 Half-Track / fuel 20 – compensate tech-cost t-70 / fuel 50 – same as luchs. –compensate tech cost. You can choose two t70 or just one t34. In the old tech tree, you can access t34 because it needs 30 more fuel to make t-34 comparing to t-70. su-76 / fuel 70 – same as now t-34 fuel / 100 – as it was T4 =fuel 140 – T4 should have more cost than T3 as they provide more advanced armor. t-70 / fuel 50 – I think t-70 takes same role as 222 or luchs. KV-1 / fuel 140 – Cost increase is needed because they need more health it actually feels like mini Churchill. Su-85 / fuel 120 – As it is.  Dear Axis player. Yes it is buff for Soviet. To balance with it, cost modification of the ost’s structure and tech up will be needed. My goal is giving player’s lots of strategic option. Not fuck up the axis player. I love to play ost even if I play ally most of the time (cuz my teammate hate to play Axis but my Axis ranking is higher than ally I believe perfection of Soviet basic army makes more accessibility to tactics and unit combination which don’t contain call-in units like KV-8, T-34/85 and so on. USF Someone said that Usf is horribly designed and I agree with him. In my opinion, it has more serious problems than soviet. But powerfulness of USF set off this problem by giving victory to USF players. However compare to soviet. At least soviet use more variety commanders and has variety early tactics. So I want to restructure the USF Tech tree. Like British forces, USF can tech up in the base but they need to build officer to get additional units in the tier. USF Starting fuel 15 T0 Rear Echelon Troops Rifleman WC51 30cal / fuel 10 – WC51 is positioned in same position of universal carrier and it can be upgraded to 50cal with 60 munitions. ===================================== T1 upgrade/ manpower 100 fuel 20 Access to 50cal Access to Lieutenant ===================================== Lieutenant- fuel 30 Access to Pack howitzer Access to AA-Half Track *M20 swaps it’s position with WC51. ===================================== T2 upgrade/ fuel 40 Access to 57mm ATG Access to Captain ===================================== Captain/ fuel 30 Access to M5A1 Stuart Access to M8A1 Howitzer Motor Carriage ===================================== T3 Upgrade- Require T1 or T2 / fuel 90 Access to M4A3 Sherman Access to Major ===================================== Captain/Fuel 30 Access to M36 Jackson Access to Advanced Sherman (calliope, crocodile etc…) I put down fuel points on the board but that is not the point. It is the point to split tech cost between structure and Officers. Is it going to be an enjoyable? (We will talk about okw later.) In: Lobby
Thread: OH recent buffs. Justification?19 Oct 2015, 07:41 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Oct 2015, 07:36 AMDullahan I really wouldn't put much stock in it. Axis Games played: 984 Allied Games played: 1851 Allied winrate is higher because allies are playing more games and thus the chance of playing against players outside the top 150 is far more likely. There's two ways to do this properly: Expand the bracket to 1000-1500 instead of just top 150. Only include games played between players in the top 150. (Probably not a large enough sample size if you do this though, and it's not possible without being Reric.) that is a good point! I have a doubt about coh2 chart. It is small basket to judge win rates between allies and Axis. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OH recent buffs. Justification?19 Oct 2015, 05:43 AM ost is fine.But I am totally agreeing with that sov has had the problem since it was restructured In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis incendiary grenades19 Oct 2015, 05:28 AM Axis Incendiary grenades (x) Axis Insane grenades(o) Just give them damn molotov and normal grenades. What the x are u doing relic? plz. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviet's tech tree needs to be look at12 Oct 2015, 06:39 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2015, 14:45 PMDullahan That'a the whole point. You had to make teching decisions based on the situation. Now Soviets may as well have a fucking linear tech tree like Ostheer. I can't agree with u more. But not many people like old soviet style which is quite trilling. I just miss versatility of soviet and it's aggressive style. Nowadays Soviet's tech tree is very stable and soviet players can get all cards to deal with Axis. it gives player very controllable situation which makes game very predictable. I hate it because it doesn't help much to reverse situation for Soviet or Axis players. However, I think many people like controllable situation more than unpredictable situation. Well that's okay but it is just boring to me. In: Lobby
Thread: Soviet's tech tree needs to be look at11 Oct 2015, 05:06 AM playing soviet union used to be very exciting because it was double edge sword to tech up. At that time u can get a early Armour but it was hard to get t3 and t4 coincidentally. It make su player play more aggressive as they knew they don't have late game advantage against Germans without doctrinal tanks. However It makes problem people started to skip tech up for doctrinal tanks especially t34/85 and commanders whch don't have tanks were not used. So relic change t34/85 into tech tree and combine t3,t4 tech. For the consequence, Soviet's tech tree is now very stable like ost. Actually it is enjoyable for sometimes because i can use t76 and t70 which wasn't used much before. however it brings another problem. When soviet players are winning against ost, they can make t34/85 too quickly. sometimes stug-e is coming out same time with t34/85 and soviet bring katusha easily after that. They don't give chance to ost to win with heavy Armour. When ost is winning, I have p4 against t70. it is easily hunted down by p4 and soviet goes two zis or su-76 which makse me rush to tier4 panther. where is the p4's rival t34? It should be going out at right time versus ost's tier 3 but it is not so soviet is going to be passive at that time which make game too slow. So I suggest to change soviet tech tree like before but little bit different. Split T3 and T4 tech again. Tech up cost should be expensive like before but T3 and T4's gas requirement must be different as T4 gives su much more better option. I think T3 should get these Armour. -m5 half track. -t70 -t76 -t34 I think T4 should get these Armour. -t70 -su85 -katusha Upper tech tree t70 becomes core unit like 222 which can be used in both t3,t4. And to compensate tech cost t70 should have less cost (i suggest 50 gas). Then how about the problematic t34/85 tanks? There are two ways for it. one is that treating t34/85 as heay tank counter option so their numbers of produce should be limited to 2 for call in, another option is putting in t34/85 in tech tree but gives them cp limitation like before prohibitting early t34/85. + I think T3 and T4 tech up cost would be very controversial. In: Lobby