If the numbers are not true (not objective), then tell me what exactly is wrong. But it is "objectively" to say that everything is in order with mg34, when this is obviously not the case.
If you're not saying these numbers don't lie, then what do you mean by "objective"? I see only an attempt without arguments to prove to me that I am wrong.
Look, I know this is probably just a case of info or intent getting lost in translation, but your opening question was:
[...] Why the German machine guns are insanely strong, and in particular, please pay attention to the MG34.
To which people responded that it isn't that insanely strong in many areas when compared to other MGs, except maybe suppression. Which is the actual point you tried to make I guess? If so, that was totally not obvious from your OP and slamming people for this is pretty much uncalled for.
As far as the info given on the site goes, how is something like ranking suppression and 'whole line damage' (?) as good, medium or bad anything else than subjective? There is no metric or explanation given how those assessments are derived (which is totally fine for a subjective ranking btw), not to mention that some info like damage per bullet means nothing at all for comparison if other values (accuracy, rate of fire, burst length, delays, etc) aren't given as well.
In short, the data presented on the site you linked is surely helpful for newer players to get a rough idea about the relative performance of the MGs listed, but I would take it with a grain of salt. Some of the data is rather questionable or based on outdated stats, other info is just plain wrong (such as the incediary rounds ability for the MG34 not providing any damage buffs, for example). |
This whole thread is about fun. Relic is robbing us of that fun. Instead of spouting L2P as the player base continues to decrease, maybe make an account on Relics site and start asking for MM to get fixed. Then everyone gets to have fun. And you are helping the community instead of dividing it even further.
EDIT:
People play COH2 to feel like a General in battle, not feel like an NPC in Leisure Suit Larry.
So what's your solution then? I'm genuinely curious. All I read is you throwing shit at relic for supposedly ruining the fun for everyone by not fixing the MM system (for whatever nefarious reason), while not providing any clue of how to fix it.
I mean, I totally get the frustration of getting skewed or unfair matchups, but with the playerbase CoH2 has there's just no way to guarantee an equal skill level on both sides for each and every game. That is, unless you want to spend as much time playing radar simulator as you do now leaving game after game you deem too unfair to play out (which, btw, probably ruins the fun for those left on your team as well in the process).
The whole arranged team vs randoms issue is the only thing where I'd see any reason to complain. This could probably be improved by giving premade teams some sort of seeding handicap against randoms to even out the communication advantage. But other suggestions, such as to split random and arranged team ladders that would only further dilute the player pool just make no sense.
Maybe the most sensible solution would be if all the poor souls trapped in ELO hell with similar skill level group up via chat and play as arranged teams by default. That way you could at least no longer blame MM for your inept and useless team mates, could you? |
It is a mistake to waste your fuel on this. Stuart has been garbage for years.
Depends. At least in 1v1s the Stuart is anything but garbage and hence is picked in probably 90% of all games. It has decent enough AI to render ignoring its presense a costly mistake and, if used correctly, can even hold its ground against a Puma. |
snip
So in other words: "God giveth and God taketh away"
Statistically it all evens out and I believe that by being top 100 for more than 2 years now proves the point that, while ELO hell exists, it's not inescapable.
This. Even though there might be something like ELO hell where games are an absolute pain to play, your own skill is what puts you in there or gets you out. It's that simple. Bad matchmaking or people leaving, crashing or failing miserably at the game happens on both sides equally, and if you're on average better than the players you get matched with you'll climb the ladder nonetheless. There's surely much more statstical jitter involved the larger the player count gets, increasing the time you potentially spend below your true skill level, but this again works in both ways.
That of course assumes you are better than the average ELO-hell dweller populating the lower end of the skill spectrum - but if that's not the case matchmaking won't help in any way either. |
stack four of any infantry together and you're going to do considerate damage to two squads of anything
obersoldaten are not supermen who can magically defeat enemies with their eyes closed, 4 paths equal to 1200 manpower and 480 munitions for the BARs, compared to 680 mp and 160 muni of investment for 2 ober squads
you'd think that this would really be common sense, just like the fact that one lone mg won't magically stop a blob of 4+ fully upgraded infantry sections in its tracks. |
Any future patches still planned for CoH2? Besides maybe some bug fixes/optimization
I don't know if it's just getting to my head or I wasn't paying attention, but it feels like over the past couple months CoH2 has been getting small updates here and there. Something feels different
While certainly anything is possible, I wouldn't get your hopes up too much tbh. Some of the more closely involved folks have already said that even another hotfix would be highly unlikely at this point, especially with CoH3 rather soon to hit the shelves and binding resources.
And as it stands now there isn't anything desperately calling for a hotfix anyway, so I'd expect this really is the end of the line as far as updates are concerned. |
|
Some of the issues you posted sound very familiar, especially units not moving behind cover where I had ordered them to, MGs not setting up correctly, rubberband selection not working properly, etc. As it turned out, in my case my mouse was to blame since one of the buttons was doing double clicks every now and then when I drag-moved somewhere. Getting a new one fixed this immediately, so maybe it's worth a try to see if you have the same problem.
Other than that, RNG is strong in CoH as everyone knows, and sometimes it's difficult to judge how likely something actually is to happen. Some stuff, like a Firefly bouncing off the KT's armor multiple times in a row seems astronomically unlikely at first glance, but may be much more probable than you think. |
Very interesting post (also from a human factors/ergonomics POV)! So the take-home message would be no longer to blame your losses on your opponent outplaying you or (ab)using OP stuff, but on having to play with a serious sleep deprivation handicap.
You also live longer if you sleep more.
I also heard from multiple sources that playing CoH reduces your life expectancy by a fair bit... So cutting down play time in exchange for more sleep should yield double the profit  |
There are different adjectives that can describre RE but great isn't part of the list. Better planting those cheap slowing mines than spending 100 munitions to cover your atgun. RE/zook are only ok vs light vehicle push.
Oh well, I wouldn't call vanilla REs great by any means, either. I'd still take a pair of bazookas over a bunch of light-AT mines though. I personally find those mines pretty underwhelming, to say the least, and haven't seen anyone make good use of them outside of memeing in ages. Plus, what unit would you give zooks to otherwise? Out of the stock line-up, only the Major would kind of make sense as anything else looses way too much combat value and will bleed you even harder than REs. Rangers and Paras are of course an obvious alternative due to getting access to the beefed up zook variant, but those will bleed MP even more when used offensively. Things may be different in team games where you can quite easily build up a critical mass that one-shots almost everything on tracks, but for 1v1 I'd rather not gimp the AI capabilities of my elite infantry with hand-held AT. |
Many people keep bringing up the weapon upgrades. I don't usually find it to be worth the munitions, especially the bazooka. Maybe it's because I usually play 3's or 4's where the bleed from trying to use a RE with bazooka(s) is way too much. If I go Infantry, putting a M1919 on them and either putting them in a house or behind tank traps can be useful.
Funnily enough, I'd almost always put zooks on my REs at some point and find them the most valuable weapon upgrade to get. Though as you said, their utility drops off quite hard once heavily armored tanks arrive and they start bleeding MP excessively, but I consider them supplemental AT against anything bigger than a P4 anyway. Still, REs with zooks are great to have as an additional layer of protection if your AT guns get caught out of position or against dives.
I've seen Tightrope using REs with M1919 in his FPV with quite some success, but I haven't tried it myself yet. Though considering Echelons get their offensive Vet a lot earlier than Riflemen, I guess this could be well worth it. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
