You're both complaining that the game is balanced around the top "5%" of players, but also that "Become better at the game" is somehow not a strong argument?
Please explain why balancing the game around better players is a bad thing. (And why this somehow translates to "bad balance").
"High Leveled" is clearly analogous to "Better players", unless there's something I'm missing here.
No, telling someone to just get better at the game when serious balancing issues are brought up isn't a strong argument. Imagine if the AVRE could shoot through the fog of war and instawipe units with no counter play and you bring attention to it, and the only response you get it is, "git gud".
With how large team games turns out most of the time in randoms I don't understand why you think the games balanced. The top 5% of the player base is balancing around 1v1 only, that is dumb and should be blatantly obvious why that is a bad way to balance the game, seeing as how the majority of the player base plays those large team games and not 1v1. |
crew, probably
It was on the tip of my tongue, thank you. |
PAK-43 is situationally strong because of this mechanic, so under maps like angermunde you will be forced to play around the kill zone of the pak.
Using katyushas is good, but use the creeping barrage, it does the job good. Change your angle of strike if building blocks the rockets. Especially good to utilize on angermunde due to horizontal roadways
I love what they did with creeping barrage on the Katy, like it's a game ender if you find where a forward OKW retreat base is. |
|
I seriously don't understand this? Last game some mechanic abuser hid it behind a building and just fired through it. I killed basically all his infantry so he had what every Axis late game looks like, pioneers/ engineers and spammed P4s/ Panthers, and most of his tanks were across the map so I was able to kill its gunners before he could use it much. A single non vetted ostheer P4 was there to bounce every shell from my two vetted KV-1s so I wasn't able to destroy it though. I looked at the replay, they had like 50-40 fuel per minute because their entire backline was made of caches (the only part of the map they owned), something that should have never been in the game, so even if you destroyed their tanks, they could spam out more with their 200 fuel and 600 MP surplus. |
There's no problem in balancing a game around people who know what they're doing. What's the alternative? Balancing it around people who don't know how to play?
Bad players can get better, and so will eventually learn to deal with things. If they don't become better then that's their problem.
No, that means that the rest of the playerbase is subject to the opinions of the minority. And if you dare question bad balance decisions you get hit with the learn to play, like with what you just said. |
Even though I do not agree with most of the changes, the QoL changes and bug fixes have been welcome. The biggest question is if they do it for free. If they really do-do it for free, then all the sh** one can give them has no merit and is non-bona fide. If they do get payed, then you can hold them to a higher degree.
Still, bug fixes and QoL changes have been great
I said balance, not bug fixing. I obviously am not saying that all they've done is bad, just most of the balancing changes. |
Allies dominated the finals in the last big 1v1 tourney 7-0. Axis pulled it's weight in earlier rounds.
Allies just dominated the 4v4 tourney.
And I'm not even saying they're op. All I'm saying is that they certainly have a chance. Because allied players have proven it when it matters.
There is a clear difference between the high level and the rest of us. This game is constantly balanced in favor of the high leveled, so about 5% or less of the playerbase. Do you see a problem with that? |
You need all the advice you can get.
These people have done a ton of work for free. For us. Regardless if it is imperfect.
I actually feel like the game would have been better off. I don't ever remember thinking that the game was awful balance wise until the community balancers came. All that's happened after that is, "why is Axis so strong now". And it's not even subtle, its widely known how much an advantage Axis has now. I can only hope that CoH3 doesn't go down the same road. Seeing as how the have overhauled the game and it's units, maybe it won't be and the factions will finally be different but equal. |
incoming "but it was spammed back in 2014 so it must be overpowered now"
su-76 should've just received a kv-2 lite mode that replaces ap with he along the long range and you'd fix the actual issue of the tank, no scaling post 15 minutes
Yes, it should be an infantry support gun, it should have the same kinda mechanic as the Sherman, switching to AP and HE depending on the situation. It would give players a actual good incentive to buy a SU-76.
Really, I see no excuse with how bad the SU is right now. |
|
I really, really, really hope don't take any advice from the current community team balancing CoH2. |
Relic Entertainment
