Profile of Jae For Jett

Jae for Jett
76561198054196501
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198054196501

If you want to troll pls do not quote me.

If you want to mention history thou I suggest you get your facts right, USF where actually very strong for quite some time and it was actually the buffs that other faction received that left them behind.

Strong for reasons unrelated to teching or their tech structure. They were strong in spite of it, not because of it. When USF no longer had its crutches removed (armor company, rifle company), it was considered weak.

Actually my suggestion was that the officer comes with the second unlock and not optional.

We considered that and decided it would be worse than the current system.

Forcing USF players to have an officer early on is better than forcing them to have an officer later on. The early timing of officers was chosen because that way they don't come out AFTER you already built all of your mainline units. Previously, you had to get 3 or even 4 rifles before you teched...at which point you would be stuck with 4 or 5 infantry squads - usually more than you wanted. Attaching officers to the second unlock would bring that exact issue (that I would say we managed to fix) back. Now, you can build two squads then the officer, or very comfortably build three squads before your officer.

Basically, that suggestion brings back one of the key issues we wanted to fix with the rework, and even besides that, I honestly can't see what benefits it brings.

The Facts simply disprove you. Since Relic stopped the monopoly in patches OKW have been redesign, Soviets have been redesign and now USF have been redesigned. Up to an extend Ostheer and UKF have also been redesigned. That magnitude of changes has been at least equal if not greater than Relics times.

Relatively safe reworks that have had very little outside impact? That's what the USF redesign seemed like. I mean, the USF redesign came down to "split the tiers, switch the stuart and AA half track." That initial stuff took around a week (was it two?). Even then, changes as small as that ended up in a lot of work on the back end. A multi hour discussion on how we need to adjust tech prices now. Another multi hour discussion spanning a few days on whether or not we can remove officers from teching without taking away too much of USF's identity (yes, its something we considered). Another multi hour discussion on whether we can push officers to the .5 upgrades of each tier or not. Another multi hour discussion on whether or not having officers being purchased can work (to make up for this nerf, initial tiers would be manpower-less). A multi hour discussion on how LT having the BAR brought too much power and meant that LT would always be preferred over CPT because of it. Fine, we finally have the test build ready for release after 1-2 weeks...

Well now we just screwed over airborne. A multi hour discussion on CP and cost adjustments for airborne's weapon teams. Later, a multi hour discussion on recon's airdrop. Cool, we lowered recon's CPs now... and made the doctrine super overpowered. A multi hour discussion on how to fix recon.

This is a simplification, but you seem to think that these redesigns "just happen somehow." They don't. What started with "lets split the tiers and switch the AA HT and stuart" ended up necessitating 10+ (probably quite a bit more than that, tbh) multi hour discussions to accommodate those first two changes and avoid screwing up the game. Even then (evidenced by this very thread), some people still aren't happy with the result. Arguing design principles and how things "should be" is cool because it allows you to discuss things that sound cool, even if they're bad ideas in practice or are much more complex than they seem. You don't have to think about the consequences when you argue this way because you can just hand wave issues away or hide behind some more theory. When you look at things more practically or try to actually implement these changes, then you can't hand wave or argue away issues that changes cause.

Since I have been part of all the alpha and beta groups, I am actually in position to know and not just "think".

You should probably check this articles and get more informative opinion:
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeterQumsieh/20150115/233644/Balancing_Multiplayer_Games__Intuition_Iteration_and_Numbers.php and some other of his articles...

Forgive me if this sounds a little confrontational, but what stock does being a part of the alpha or beta feedback group have? Unless I'm misremembering, balance and faction design was all over the place for COH2's release, so being a part of the group responsible for that doesn't seem like a selling - quite the opposite. I guess I'm also confused as to why you're implying that previous, early COH2 design decisions that happened to coincide with a pretty unbalanced game should be what we aim towards. Fair enough, Relic had THESE design principles early on in the game's life...and look how well that turned out. If anything, examples of previous Relic design principles seem like an example of what doesn't work and what we shouldn't be aiming towards. From what I can tell (I want to emphasize the fact that it's hard to tell for sure), people generally seem to think that the past 6 or so months of balance have been the best in the game's entire life (...perhaps ignoring the time right before WFA were released, but I'd say that's not relevant since they only had to balance a single matchup, not 6). Does that not suggest that moving away from these design decisions has been for the better?

This is the part where I get especially confrontational/personal. You were a part of a test group that happened to launch what was a pretty poorly balanced and awkwardly designed iteration of the game, at least in my opinion. Maybe you gave great feedback and were ignored. You could have been a great asset that got talked over by others or ignored - thus resulting in a poor game state in spite of your feedback. If that were the case, however, why were you not further personally consulted with on the game? I could be mistaken - you could have been asked to contribute beyond that, but were too busy with other things to accept...though I do personally doubt that was the case with just how active you are on the forums. But if you were a valuable alpha/beta tester with good feedback that led to or would lead to positive changes, why were you dropped/not brought back on to a feedback group? And to restate my first paragraph, why look to design decisions from an era of the game that people hold in disdain?