Profile of Kolaris

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 308 | Subs: 1

General Information
Youtube: Kolaris8472
Xfire: gsrevan
Steam: 76561197989081921
Game Name: Kolaris


Thread: Who is going to be the All Time vCoH Champ?20 Apr 2013, 16:26 PM I want to say DevM because I got a fluke win against him in automatch once...but he's a close second to Sepha imo In: COH Central
Thread: CoH2 and the new Sector System20 Apr 2013, 13:46 PM Completely agree with Tommy, it's neither truly different and trying to be innovative nor an improvement on the vCoH method. Change for the sake of change. Cutoffs I'm actually not as worried about despite them being a larger issue, simply because the community will end up making most of the competitive maps I guess =/ In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Static defenses.20 Apr 2013, 01:47 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Apr 2013, 17:02 PMCombatMuffin AT traps can go IMO. There were some uses for them back in vCoH, but they weren't used THAT much. They didn't contribute that much to the metagame, even if sometmies they had uses. I can't imagine trying to deal with 2x PE on Lorraine without Tank Traps In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Explaining manpower income and upkeep20 Apr 2013, 01:43 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Apr 2013, 19:57 PMAmiPolizeiFunk Thank you for the detailed explanation! So what do you propose as a solution? Well the bad news is Relic obviously feels there was an issue with the vCoH Pop Cap/Upkeep system since they aren't addressing this one. They must want games to be faster so they inject a ton of Manpower into the early game, and they want to close the skill gap between players so they add this rubber-banding upkeep system to encourage "comebacks", which are really just out-matched players staying alive far longer than they should. It's so easy to adjust it to more reasonable values that I'm afraid this is exactly how Relic wants it to be. Like I said above: +300 Manpower Income No untaxed population whatsoever 1 Pop = 1 MP/Min upkeep This is essentially halfway between what we have now and vCoH levels. Early game Manpower injection = halved Maximum upkeep = halved In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Explaining manpower income and upkeep19 Apr 2013, 19:09 PM Losing a squad very early on in the game doesn't give you the same reprieve in Upkeep that it would normally. If you were to say "well if you lose a squad that early you deserve to be punished" I would completely agree with you, but for a system that's supposedly in place to help slow down the snowball effect it doesn't make much sense. And even later in the game, having untaxed Population doesn't help the player that's behind. Let's take a CoH2 example - you're behind with a Population of 25 against your opponent with 50 Population. You're earning 300 Manpower and he's earning 200. But if those first 25 Population were taxed, you'd be earning 200 Manpower and he'd be earning 100. The second scenario is actually better for the behind player. It's completely unreasonable because of the massive CoH2 upkeep, but still better for the behind player. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Explaining manpower income and upkeep19 Apr 2013, 18:41 PM A player with 0 units whatsoever gets +300 Manpower. A player with 25 Population worth of units also gets +300 Manpower. Your first 25 Population points are "free", or untaxed by upkeep. I've never understood it, since the general idea behind upkeep is to prevent snowballing, yet this mechanic actually harms a player that's behind very early on. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Explaining manpower income and upkeep19 Apr 2013, 18:27 PM That's correct, I guess that because of rounding you end up at +99. It's horrible to be sure. It's the most blatant and easiest to fix issue, yet Relic hasn't touched it yet...that makes me very very worried. I guess to avoid the +1 syndrome (which should be incoming) I'll ask why we need any free upkeep at all. What's the point in having 0-25 or 0-15 (in vCoH) untaxed? In this case it's the behind player that's actually penalized. The simplest way to fix this would be 0-25 and 75-100 are now taxed and Upkeep is 1 MP/Population. There's too much Manpower in the early game which is partly why there isn't an early game. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: New balance changes18 Apr 2013, 15:50 PM I would be ok with creating simple "tiers" for vehicles, although that's already pretty lazy. But mirroring those tiers across factions, when you only have TWO factions?! People were complaining about only having US vs WM all those years and those factions were actually unique. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: My 2¢ on beta13 Apr 2013, 16:26 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Apr 2013, 12:16 PMRagingJenni It wasn't perfect. You shouldn't be floating fuel every end game if the system was perfect. I actually like the idea of customizing your territory income for your needs; it makes way for more decisions and build customization, if they are willing to put in a effort to balance and tweak it. Yes you should, because in vCoH fuel-based units were not required for victory. Not the same in CoH2. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Blizzards11 Apr 2013, 23:55 PM I've been thinking quite a bit about the ideal role of Blizzards. A lot of good points brought up in the OP, so some of this is just restating it. What Blizzards should be Reset of cold tech terrain Opportunity to more easily flank and open up the map for harassment Opportunity to set up ambushes Opportunity to take advantage of specific units and build orders What Blizzards do now Occur every 200 seconds to 400 seconds Last between 160 seconds and 240 seconds Cut line of sight by 50% Reduce speed and maneuverability of vehicles by 25% Increase heat loss by some amount Disable Campfire construction Increase scatter of indirect fire weapons by 25% Increase barrage cooldowns by 50% Allow infantry to camo in deep snow Refreeze ice and replace deep snow The physical visibility impairments on players is a different matter (see Inverse's thread), but now that I look at them the effects of Blizzards aren't all that bad. The main issue is the increased cold and the inability to create new campfires. This alone is really causing the bogged down campy play. The first step to fixing Blizzards is to retool Cold Tech in general. It's a fine idea on paper, creating another resource for players to fight over - heat. The problem is it's difficult to leave your own heat sources (cover, buildings, fires) to assault your enemies. We need more dynamic sources of heat that allow aggressive gameplay. To that end: Changes to Heat Loss mechanic Moving units should have a further reduction to Heat Loss Units in combat should have an even further reduction to Heat Loss (I can't find anything that indicates they currently have any reduction) If possible, units around other sources of heat (burning wrecks and terrain, incendiary weapons, active vehicles) should gain heat or at least lose less Campfires are probably the biggest issue with Cold Tech and Blizzards right now. They're supposed to be your dynamic heat source, in contrast to stationary buildings and cover. I think most everyone agrees the Manpower cost needs to go. I also don't know why they should cost Manpower rather than Munitions, which has always been CoH's resource for field defenses and upgrades like this. Changes to Campfires Free to build in normal weather 25 Munitions cost in Blizzards Causes no criticals on vehicles Visible through the FoW Campfires visible through the FoW would create interesting mindgames between players and make realistic sense. You could spot them to get a drop on your opponent, or he could be baiting you into a trap. Drawing artillery onto a bait campfire sounds really cool to me. For completeness' sake, these are the current effects Cold has on infantry. What effect Cold has now Warm - Heat 40-50, no effects Cool - Heat 25-40, -1 Speed when not Retreating Cold - Heat 15-25, -2 Speed when not Retreating and 1.25x weapon Cooldown Freezing - Heat 5-15, -2 Speed when not Retreating, 0.5x weapon Accuracy and 0.25x Cooldown(?) Dying - Heat 0-5, -2 Speed when not Retreating, 0.5x weapon Accuracy and 0.25x Cooldown(?), squad members die every 20 seconds Units may also grow more resistant to further heat loss as they cool down, I'm unsure what chills per tick are. I'm drawing this from the tuning.rgd file as well as the coldweather_v2.scar file. The Cooldown penalty becoming a bonus when you go from Cold to Freezing doesn't make much sense to me, and it could be a bug. Outside of this I don't have any issues with the effects of cold, except maybe in Dying level units continuing to die off on Retreat. Back to Blizzards. With more dynamic methods of generating heat and fewer penalties for staying active in the cold, I think that Blizzards would already be much more interesting and less campy overaul. These are just some ideas I've heard that would go a long way in making them less random and damaging to competitive gameplay. Changes to Blizzards Decrease Blizzard intervals from every 200-400 seconds to every 360-600 seconds Decrease Blizzard length from 160-240 seconds to 120-180 seconds Slow the VP tick rate during Blizzards by half Reduce range of indirect fire weapons and abilities by 25% Increase Infantry LoS to 60% of normal, decrease Vehicle LoS to 40% of normal I'd also love it Relic added upgrades to individual units to mitigate the effects of the cold or Blizzards, but I find that unlikely at this point. Blizzards would serve to partially reset the battlefield, opening up certain avenues (ice) but slowing down others (deep snow). Low line of sight allows players to set up flanks on campers and slip out to corners of the map for harassment. Vehicles are penalized more/infantry less because vehicles are far more mobile than infantry during a blizzard (even beyond the 25% speed penalty). With campfires fixed you can actually use the deep snow camoflouge to set up ambushes. Artillery is mitigated in a more significant way (range) to break up stalemates. In: COH2 Gameplay