|
I haven't been playing very actively for quite some time. Is there a general overview sort of resource that documents the changes that isn't the change log? Without most of the context of the changes it's just alot of text.
Just the general gist of "Okay well Soviets have light AT now in the form of penals" or "The americans have a mortar and it's guided by satan himself" |
|
If I had to guess it would be COH3. Not super good for the Iron-Harvest guys but I'm jazzed. |
|
I am very interested to test this out. I Like alot of the content and really appreciate the initiative required to go and change things you don't like.
Is there a group of folks who are playing this or is everyone still really busy facerolling new players from the steamsale? |
|
I'd go as far as limiting 1919 by making it a two slot weapon.
Bars and zooks are fine in theory but I find the only time I see zooks on riflemen is when the us player fails to anticipate and early vehicle and has to knee jerk a reaction as he has no re'd handy.
I really think the idea of racks is cute but in all honesty they may as well just be an upgrade offered to specific units. As much as I enjoy double bar on my pathfinders it's the only call in unit I'd ever equip rack weapons to. Rangers/paras are not really that great of candidates since they would forgo their SMG/lmg respectively and their abilities that go with them.
By the same token rare few people are putting double 1919s on re's because that's just silly. Double bar re spam is cute but not really effective either. |
|
I think it would be a productive talk to think about how to monetize the game.
In CoH2 we had commanders DLC, theater of War and then additional factions.
Lets break down how these failed to meet our oft-impossible requirements.
Commander DLC
-Few good commanders, mostly filler with the oddballs being picked due to flavor of the month bugs or quiet shifts in the meta. Party-sans with shocktrooper dps for example. I understand its a way to introduce new ideas but doing it for financial incentive is deeeeply flawed.
-Added units in organically which are nigh impossible to balance
-Frequently forgotten about or overlooked once they are in the discount bin
-Constant cries of "pay 2 win" because Soviet Windustry/Assgren spam/etc were never taken into account in the bones of the game and are this weird duct taped addition.
-Because you paid for the specific commander nerfs to that specific doctorine are viewed as personal slights and not really looked at in a justified/unjustified way. If I bought elite troops and loved the mechanics but then it changed by 75% I am going to feel like I got the short end of the stick
Theater of War : I have played exactly 30 seconds of this and cant comment on how good or bad it was but :
-There is a very large portion of the community that preferes the cinematic game experience rather than a tightly balanced mechanically complex 1v1 game. This is now their game mode.
-4v4 compstomp personified. These are a great opportunity to do the narrative thing and let the more casual players still do their thing while getting some income from it.
Additional faction Expansions
- The power creep here has been exponential. The game has changed so much from launch day that really they are doing the best they can but it really highlights how dated some of the core concepts are for other armies.
- I don't agree at all with releasing additional factions after launch if they are not the most tightly controlled, well balanced and well thought out additions you could make. When they are on a completely different system of values than when you initially made the game and then shoe horn them in ofcourse they wont fit very well.
So it leaves the question : how could they do the DLC thing that is so ubiquitous with gaming at the moment? Would you pay 100$ to get the game and have all the content unlocked? Would you prefer skins/voice pack DLC?
Personally I'd prefer them to sell off DLC as missions for theater of war, skinpacks, voice packs and if they MUST make an expansion faction, make it as a 4th faction which can fight anyone else.
|
|
I think putting it entirely on the modding community is a mis-step (these guys have jobs and lives and such outside of this game) I think having a cabal of 10-15 guys who are capable of expressing opinions in a constructive way is a good start.
They're basically the farm-team as far as balance goes. They can look at ideas, play with them in the editor and suggest actually viable changes that aren't "add side armour" tier work.
I am 90% certain they already have a pool of people they call on for balance stuff and it's not likely they'd make it more transparent.
I think what we "as a community" could use is more transparency/roadmap sort of stuff that we can all bicker about like children. Smaller more frequent updates are preferable to March Deployments (as good as it was over all) because they let people acclimate and see what small changes do to the game as a whole. |
|
The idea between picking a bar or a 1919 should be "how do I want to engage" not "what is the most dakka I can fit on a squad"
A 1919 is going to have less damage but allow you to engage from green cover and long range. They will do less damage over all but be doing it from a favorable range that they would normally lack.
Double bar should be a choice you make when you decide you want your squad to be more mobile and close/mid oriented. To that effect I think they should suffer quite a bit at range but I don't have the stats handy to suggest by how much.
As it feels right now double 1919 is a no brainer because its alot of dakka, it's at max range and it turns the riflemen into a unit that is good at all ranges and generally unapproachable when in the ball of doom. |
|
Yes more health is a bad idea now that the math is laid out. The general concept would be that they are durable as the game goes on and can absorb some of that double bar/double vickers/double bren/doublemint punishment but realistically limiting those elements would go farther than just escalation of stats.
Squad spacing, LMG limitations on infantry and some normalization of AOE would all be welcome to help out the OST as a whole.
I liked the Mirage-Fla edit that just buffed the MG's on the T34 as a way to deal with infantry better that didn't require the maingun to be buffed. I think something similar could happen across the board. This would obviously not play well with things like the Sherman's HE round which is designed to roll on the RNG table until you get a squad wipe.
I'd also like to see mortar damage reduced but the aoe be slightly larger so that even if the mortar hits dead in the center of the fresh and healthy squad you aren't going to lose them due to RNG.
I feel OST vs SOV is a pretty solid match up at the moment. The WFA/Brit power creep is what gives the biggest headache |
|
What if they just made a side grade that both flavours of grens got +7 HP per tier unlocked?
Explosive weapons destroy all squads with RNG but it would make then slightly more resilient and cost efficient without making them dramatically different. I don't really like the idea of giving a unit more than the traditional 80hpts but it seems the least invasive way to give them a slight buff that doesn't throw things out of whack |
|
I feel like being able to pick up just the one LMG would be a huge boon and a big change in and of its self. Just having the item take up two slots would be fine as the ability to pick up an additional death-ray really does mess with trying to balance them.
Double bar seems like it's probably okay since it's suited to middle/close like the unit it tends to go on but something to keep an eye on.
Double Vickers/1919 has to go though, it creates alot of issues that could be handwaved away rather quickly.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
