Profile of Jae For Jett

They care enough to keep the servers running and to let the community continue to work on and improve their game. I'd say that's pretty damn great and more than I'd ever expect from a 5 (almost 6) year old game.

I don't know, the bottom line for me is that they had the game in a relatively unbalanced state, then fucked off and said "we can't spare the developmental effort to balance this game any longer, so how about you guys do the work for us?"

Case in point is when you buy a car, you paid the dealership or whatever so you take it and drive it, you don't have to thank them so the damn thing keeps running, get the hell out with that logic.

That's a pretty bad analogy... a REALLY bad analogy. You literally have to constantly pay to get a car serviced to keep it running. You pay up front for the car (which in your case is your 200 dollars), then you have to pay for replacement tires, oil changes, tire rotations, general servicing, etc. I don't know how you could possibly think buying and maintaining a car is LESS of a "product as a service" than anything else is. You basically just named the quintessential example...

Dont forget about the silent majority. I know alot of people who, instead of being vocal and/or complaining, will just leave quietly if they dont like a change. Dont quote me on this, but from my experience, I would say the game's population is currently being held up by new players from china.

He's arguing the silent majority is relatively satisfied with the game, and you're arguing the silent majority is not. I mean, I also know a lot of people that enjoy the game, and instead of being vocal and/or expressing their satisfaction, will just quietly continue playing. These things are completely anecdotal. The only actual measure we have is player numbers which, without any other context, indicate a constant playerbase. As you recognized, it could be artifical inflation from chinese players, but that supposition is also based on anecdotal evidence. Based on anyone's best guess, the player base seems relatively stable (and not just constant in number).

Youre missing the point. Youre not just trading a carbine/garand for a bar. When you put a bar on paras, you also lose the possibility getting thompsons or 1919s. Youre trading thompsons/1919s for a bar. Its opportunity cost.

Merge with weapon team? Maxim death loop to remind. Mortar get cut by flanking squad without chance to react, AT Gun become easier target for tank's hull/top gun.

Fyi, weapon team models have higher RA than con models do, so merging actually makes the weapon team more durable.

I find unnecessary to reduce the number of slot to 1 for all infatry.

On the other hand, imo normalizing and simplifying game mechanics is a much better investment of resources than over buffing and then over nerfing units/commanders/abilities which seems to be the pattern with COH2's patches.

The pattern with nearly every online multiplayer game in existence* (my point here is that's kind of just how balance tends to work with these kinds of games, up to opinion on whether given units were overnerfed/buffed at the end though)

(Edit: just realized you said UNnecessary, so imagine the next paragraph reworded with "mechanics" instead of strictly "weapons." And also take the last two paragraphs as not necessarily directed towards you then)

Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, normalizing weapon slots would likely involve (over/under) buffing a bunch of weapons, then subsequently (over/under) nerfing them. No real point here, just a comment.

Finally, the existence of multiple weapon slots makes the game more interesting, even if it can lead to imbalance in certain situations. Axis vs allies would no longer be a 1 weapon vs 2 weapon dynamic (higher cost, lower efficiency, but more potential) and would probably be a "whose upgrade is better" dynamic. Of course you could make try to make the dynamic more interesting by further differentiating the profiles, but im not sure how far you can take that idea before you have to essentially create clone weapons. You could also adjust the number of weapons given per slot, which sounds workable, but I still don't like how it separates upgrades into singular spikes instead of the tiered ones that multiple weapon slots provide.

As with a lot of things, this is a matter where the specifics (the numbers and the actual hard implementation) would probably be more important than the concept alone.

It oneshots a T70 out of cloak then HYPERS

Perhaps you remember, but two vet 5 jadpanzers used to be able to instantly pop an is2 if they used HEAT - fun fact for you there. I'm just sad I never got to personally witness it.