General Information
Register Time: 18 Nov 2012, 19:26 PM
Last Visit Time: 21 Oct 2024, 21:25 PM
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/AECoH
Website: http://reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes
Twitter: http://twitter.com/AECoH
Youtube: http://youtube.com/AECoH
Residence: United Kingdom
Nationality: United Kingdom
Timezone: Europe/London
Game Name: A_E
Currently I´m playing a lot with soviet reverse army int T34-76 (without knowing that someone else is doing that as well, because I´m player not a caster) and if I were allowed to, I could be able to write it down.
Imo it´s really stupid some strat by players name, it´s not a wheel that he invented it and recieved patent. Many other players may be trying this strategy as well, on their own without even looking at top coh2 scene (like I ever was). They may develop these strategies themselves without even knowing someone like that exists.
If you like it or not this is a competitive computer game and when you have 1000s of people that see Talisman use that strat in a tournament with a lot of publicity it becomes 'his strat', just like ostruppen is 'hans's strat'. It's not theirs to own, it's just that they are most famous for using it.
Why don't you like competitive side of CoH2, are you not interested in seeing the best players play each other for money and shit ton of pride at stake with 100s and rarely 1000s of fellow community members watching?
" A strategy that's overly obvious to 80% of the community and therefore not that interesting to most readers." Talk about stating facts, hypocrisy much?
If you start 'dumbing' down the guides to appease your interest from a casting perspective - no one will use the guides. People typically reference them because they want to win, not be interesting.
"Whilst guides for beginners are great and a guide like this could speed up the process of them adopting meta it also just gives them the prevalent approach that everyone already does and so denies them the opportunity to adopt their own strategies."
People look to the pros for new guides/meta, beginners typically don't set the meta. I think the majority of people prefer to hear a meta strategy/guide from a pro rather a beginner. (Don't quote me on that because I don't have any factual numbers though).
Haha true on the hypocrisy point, but it's not my fault that 45.5% of statistics are made up.
And I'm not suggesting beginners write guides, I'm suggesting pros give us alternative visions for playing the game so we can keep some variety in automatch, cus that shit's stale as fuck at the moment, and it's always cool when someone beats you with something interesting.
From my point of view, my guides are aimed to the whole coh2 community.
I always try to make them descriptive enough so newer players can understand the faction as a whole much better after they read my guide, not only being able to stick to one particular strategy.
I always give there tips that are useful in most of situations not only in 1 outcome of this single commander and strategy.
Every time you will meet light vehicles so it´s not like this is only about OP commader abilities, also the same can apply to early game capping orders. You can #ADAPT those little parts into any commader/strategy you play, while if you play for example with lenny #YOLO 10 cons build and you will hardly adapt it into any normal strategy.
I also try to aim the guide for more skilled players as well, this time it was for example capping orders, mattress scatter changes with range or wiping squads with commandos. Once again, you can use add this knowledge into any strategy (wiping squads with CQC units) where you use CQC units like commandos, falls, pgrens, rangers or even shocks to some extend.
Guys you both are right as this guide is so f*ucking long (had to shorten it because coh2.org doesn´t allowed me to post) and so descriptive in so many ways that you can actually call it a UKF Faction Guide with the aspects of UKF best 1v1 commader.
That's true I always have found something interesting in at least one part of any of your guides, I just always get excited for something that's new or interesting in general. Like something that could shift the meta. A guide on Talisman's soviet reserve army into T34-76s would be so cool to me. Not that he's playing at the moment but it was refreshing in GCS to see his approach, just things like that unique playstyles and ways of playing that are fresh.
The purpose of guides are to give people who are not familiar with meta a chance to compete.
You just attempted to make your your statement of opinion sound like a fact, the purpose of guides can be any one of a number of objectives, and I'm not sure this guide is even aimed at new players it's a guide about a strategy in general. A strategy that's overly obvious to 80% of the community and therefore not that interesting to most readers.
Whilst guides for beginners are great and a guide like this could speed up the process of them adopting meta it also just gives them the prevalent approach that everyone already does and so denies them the opportunity to adopt their own strategies.
In my opinion I prefer when guides show off an interesting way of playing the game that isn't overly common and is not the prevalent meta. This is not not that, this us just reiterating what is very obvious, Mobile Assault is overpowered as fuck in many facets, it gives Brits a flamethrower, rocket artillery, and instant garrison-spawning infantry. That's not interesting to me personally.
Also the fact that those guides are outdated doesn't really mean much, COH2.ORG averages 3 new strategy guides a year, there's not many to chose from.
Other than that I actually find all of Hector's guides to be well written etc. and think they're all good for people that have never really played automatch before to give them ideas, if they're not familiar with prevalent meta. I'm just expressing my opinion on what I'd like to see.
Whilst guides on commanders everyone knows are extremely powerful with abilities that are easy to use can have some merit...
I personally just don't find them interesting. I'd love to see guides in future that show interesting ways to play with commanders and abilities people don't often use, and give people inspiration to play something they wouldn't usually consider. I think every Brit player currently uses this commander at one time or another.
Examples of guides that have done the above would be Hans's ostruppen guide when it came out, the US Mechanised guide, NKVD guide, or Sephas Brits guide for CoH1. Just food for thought.
edit: On the A_E's sister comments that was after I was shown a screenshot of Hector claiming the £100 engraved pewter trophy Luvnest won was plastic and likely worth £10... I did not react kindly.
I agree with what you just said, most of it makes great sense, and I understand your frustations.
All I'm saying is the following criteria need to apply for a CoH2 map to be competitive in the formula that we have built up over time as a community.
Formula for a good CoH2 1v1 Map:
Three evenly spaced VPs in accessible locations, without strong garrisons watching over them.
Strong garrisons in general should not dominate the map in key locations. Due to lack of flamethrowers for three of the armies' base tech trees.
Two cut offs per side in defend-able locations but accessible to the enemy.
Base exits that are far enough apart to allow escape from a pin attempt, and base mgs that cover them.
Red cover in clear and logical places in small amounts. Roads are a good platform for these as players are familiar with roads as being negative for infantry and positive for vehicles.
Green cover in key locations outside of capping circles but of equal opportunity to both starting locations.
Good width and depth to the map, a square is roughly the right shape, the more rectangular the playing area worse it is, as a rough rule of thumb. This due to if it's too wide it spreads the play too much, if it's too narrow it confines it too much.
Enough sight blockers that there are some distinct channels, but not so many that open play is overly mitigated. Site dependent support weapons need areas in which to operate.
Stick to that and you can do whatever else you want, make it a windmill orientated map in a big corn field, put it on an island with a castle in the background, whatever, but in general add character but stick to the overall proven formula.
I find it hard to weigh 'Menu UI' as much as 'Balance' and 'Faction Design' or what you mean by "Social Interactivity"...
I think social interactivity in a game is really important, it's how players get hooked and drives player retention, no social interactivity leads to dead game.
Great video! I liked it! One thing I wondered, why give CoH2 more points for faction design, when the vanilla factions of CoH are far more complete than CoH2's vanilla factions that needed dlc to have some basic functions such as tank traps?
5 factions baby, sure Wehr and US from CoH1 on their own are amazing, but they're not on their own, the're trapped in a car with their retarded children PE and Brits.
No one faction in CoH2 is as good as Wehr or US from CoH1, but all 5 are decent. CoH1 has two amazing factions, one kinda ok faction (PE), and one terrible faction (brits).
rate each game 1-5 to give a score out of 100, try to take into account both games in 2017 to take into account CoH2's improvements, but give some weight to the fact that CoH1 came out in 2006.
What are your thoughts what would you give each game, based on those criteria?
United Kingdom
Luvnest
Insane DevM
Insane DevM
Luvnest
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
