|
And further killing any desire for preservation is the upkeep system, which makes it practically more economical to lose your squads and rebuild them than to reinforce them.
It's a wonderful cycle! |
The spectacle of a close game is also enthralling for the stream audiences.
I remember (I believe it was the second TFN beta cast) the 2v2 between Ami on one side and some other randoms coming down to literally a single VP, the winning side having sat on that single VP while draining 60 or so points from the opposition..
That's the problem- literally the only thing the game has going for it in the 'epic game' department is long, VP close games involving a lot of tanks. There's no epic MG micro to look for because it switches targets automatically, there's no awesome light vehicle stuff because LV's get owned by ATGs due to the removal of target tables, and so on.
While it is indeed easy to get vet (just retreat in time) and the vet is boring stats wise, saying that it is of "little significance" is pretty out there considering that most wher units get 1.78x damage increase at vet 3.
Actually, even though that does sound like a lot in one go, compare that to the combined veterance of a rifleman at vet 3:
- 1.65 x accuracy
- 1.5 x damage
- 0.8 x rec'd accuracy
- 0.75 x rec'd suppression
- 0.85 x rec'd damage
Just the damage and accuracy buffs alone are superior to a flat 1.78x damage increase. |
|
The loss of SY upgrades and global veterancy is indeed sad- all you can do is grow your army, vetting them up happens anyway and is generally of little significance, due a) because it takes no skill to get high levels of vet anymore and b) the vet itself isn't very interesting. |
|
Nothing I mentioned here has anything to do with budget, but design choices. It doesn't even have anything to do with 'newbs' vs 'pros' or anything like that- that is literally the entire point of why I gave the thread such a title. They could change these things with just fixing a few numbers in a spreadsheet and instantly make the game better, but the fact that they haven't shows that they either don't want to or they just haven't done it yet. If it's the latter then fine, great. If it's the former then we're all fucked. |
|
Apparently it's intentional.
... |
Haha, I meant the opposite, it was kind of a typo, just with whole words in a sentence  I meant that now it punishes playing good(or doesn't reward enough) and rewards playing bad(or doesn't punish enough) and for competative play it shouldn't be like that.
Ahh now that makes a lot more sense! In that case I agree with everything  |
I'm not against that at all. But the playing field should be level to all imo. I'm not even a good player imo, more like average, but I prefer getting rewards for getting better, not being handicaped by the system that is in place to cater the unskilled ones just because there are more of them.
To be honest it's not only coh2 problem, I feel that most of the games that come out now are dumbed down versions compared to the games of the past and this trend is just getting stronger. You get more graphical details and more effects sort of bigger "WOW" factor, but skill required to play them just gets lower and lower. But that's just my opinion.
Well, yeah, I mean I agree with you- but in the previous post I thought you were saying that bad players are punished and good players are rewarded, and that's the opposite of how it should be? |
I'm not talking about ballance issues, but the game mechanics in general. The manpower, the cut off mechanics, those punish players that are bad at game and reward those that are good at it. That's the opposite what should be in a game that wants to be a competative arena.
God forbid the game should encourage people to get better. |
There seem to be quite a few errors in here:
1) bigger army = lower upkeep? In CoH1 upkeep rose with the unit count and therefore your manpower income diminished the bigger your army became.
2) more territory = lower upkeep. Strategic points and only strategic points granted an additional manpower income of +3 (+4 with an observation point built). The upkeep was at no point lowered by this, but the income increased by 3 times the number of held strategic points. Other held points (resource points) had no influence on upkeep and only served to raise the population cap.
3) (I already mentioned this) Global veterancy upgrades of the Kampfkraft centre had no influence on the manpower income to my knowledge.
1. Exactly, that's what I'm saying By lower upkeep I meant lower manpower income ie small army = +300 mp/m and big army = +200mp/m (totally arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point)
2. Manpower income basically = upkeep for the sake of the post, let's not argue semantics.
3. Not directly no, but you have less upkeep if you can get 1 elite infantry unit instead of two lesser units. |
|
The UI and doctrine system, as a lot of you have pointed out, are probably bigger issues than these. But what I really wanted to highlight was stuff that not only should, but can quite easily, be fixed, and stuff that isn't going to lead to the detriment of the game in any way. As far as I can tell from the developer feedback, the UI just isn't changing, we've basically been told to get used to it. That doesn't stop me disliking it, but if it's a no-go zone then it's a no-go zone. Same with doctrines, it's been categorically stated that they're not changing. So, yeah, in an ideal world I'd like to see those things changed too, but these 4 areas are, at least to my mind, relatively straightforward fixes and should be done. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
