Profile of ZombiFrancis

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2742

General Information


Thread: Your top 5 most controversial DBP changes13 Dec 2017, 15:32 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Dec 2017, 13:36 PM__deleted__ Give rifles smoke back but make it auto-disabled when rifles are supressed so you must support your rifles, not yolo anymore That really is not a bad idea at all. All nades are more or less nullified by suppression, but smoke was never functionally impacted. In: Lobby
Thread: 2v2 usf infantry company12 Dec 2017, 23:04 PM Okay, so as a glorified minelayer. Similarly I've had good results over the years sneaking tellers with my first 60 munis as ostheer. Sneaky AT mines can be risky, but man can they pay off. In: Strategy Desk
Thread: 2v2 usf infantry company12 Dec 2017, 22:21 PM Good ol USF mortar HT. The unit time forgot. Out of curiosity, what is the situation that the m20 is useful? I always struggle with its mp cost and often end up using it as a glorified minelayer. In: Strategy Desk
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 19:00 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 18:26 PMMr.Smith If only the solution to non-linear teching had not been staring us in the eyes for many years now... Precisely. I still maintain that even EFA would improve with supply yard style tech components. But this potential solution seems forbidden, even in a test environment such as these preview patches. I worry that there will never be an opportunity to address this if we try to make do with changes without them. And if it will never be approved, which I really do doubt, then we're all squandering resources trying to balance with broken scales. I can never discount the massive volume of applaudable QOL changes or bug fixes, even the ones I disagree with (mines hitting 2 entities) because they don't try to sidestep scope restrictions or tempt fate with changes that may result in more bugs or imbalances. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 17:39 PM they maybe can't fix the game, but they can improve things, or atleast test stuff for maybe coh3. and when mr smirth and mirage started to doing balance stuff, the game just got better. Maybe so. Most of my friends quit playing almost altogether after brits, and none of them have come back. None of the patches since have been enough to convince any of them to come back beyond a game or two. And in most cases those games have reinforced their decision to not bother with coh2. This is the perspective I have. I'm the weird guy who never left and I'm particularly aware of the survivor bias in these balance forums and patches. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 17:25 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:38 PMBIH_kirov_QC dont you think that mr smith is doing already enough for this game? Like I've said being dragged through all their patches, if they just stuck to QOL changes and Bug fixes, they'd be unassailable in having produced excellent patches improving the game. But once the Jr. Game Dev hats get put on, we start running into endless issues. You can't balance, fix, or (re)design this game without either improving the game engine, or opening up what is available to the mod tools. (Or what relic is willing to do.) doing this for free A lot of people would give a lot for the opportunity to do what they're doing. But more than that many of the people involved with this patch find it very important how this will go on their CVS/resumes. This is still technically a AAA game. This is one of the most worrying aspects of this process to me. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 17:01 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 16:42 PMMr.Smith Ideally I would like to have infinite time to rewrite the patchnotes completely with consistent notation, etc. However, with the 1580-ish files that this patch modifies/introduces that's out of the question. Ouch. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 16:33 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Dec 2017, 15:49 PMMr.Smith You should probably explain target size and RA to people, or at least use consistent descriptions then. You describe RA changes and target size changes synonymously, which is confusing to those who don't spend hours in the attribute editor. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 15:28 PM CoH2 is strategically shallow, and it has always been. Players have, outside their initial build order one real meaningful decision: their first fuel investment. Buffing and nerfing that one decision players can make won't change the landscape of players really having no strategic diversity to begin with. It is not the luchs fault that strategy is shallow in coh2. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview12 Dec 2017, 00:35 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Dec 2017, 23:22 PMJae For Jett I'd argue thats the t70. Good AI, passable AT, no steamroll timing, decent late game scaling through its utility, good scaling with vet (without becoming oppressive) through its increased scouting abilities. These days I'd tend to agree with you. Back in 2015 when Stuarts and T-70s still were very powerful at sniping models. The T-70 has morphed a bit since those days, and it's current performance and cost are a little off, but I find it within reason. Irrelevant, but way way back when it could crush infantry was a whole other story, too. In: Lobby