IDK mate. The first month of the balance patch was basically focused exclusively fine tuning their third healing option
To the topic. You can't balance the brits because you can't balance a faction where the infantry has to be balanced in 2 states. Bolster is holdong back the brits so hard in terms of balance. It never ever ever EVER should have been a global. Taking that away and those tea drinking swine can be on the way to a balanced state. Until that point tommies will be disrupting balance by being in a state of OP that justifies other things being too weak or UP and justifying things being strong.
Im under no illusion that balance is easy, but it straight up doesn't make sense for there to be such a balance variable in something as core as mainline infantry and the counterbalance in place to accommodate them.
Just like trying to balance commanders with a fucked up core full of holes you can't balance a faction with fucked up infantry.
The issue with Bolster is primarily that it's a non-exclusive global upgrade. If it were both exclusive (I.E, taking (a) weapon slot(s) and/or locking out Pyro or Medical Section upgrades) and not global, then it wouldn't be quite such a nightmare for balance... but the issue is that the current design necessitates either;
A: Underwhelming 4man sections -> Usable 5man sections.
B: Usable 4man sections -> 5 rapists bending Volks and Grenadiers over a sandbag wall.
This is then compounded with Brens, particularly so in B;s case, where it's as though you're equipping your Sections with sandpaper condoms.
Lelic needs to bite the bullet and let the Balans team overhaul Bolster (and Section upgrades) entirely. I really don't think there's much else that can solve this.
The only other solution I've been able to fathom is making the "Assault" Officer a fiveman starting rifle unit that UKF can be expected to rely on, using "Underwhelming" variety Sections/RoyEs and the UC to support it until Bolster comes online to make Sections able to go toe-to-toe with Axis infantry. The Officer would subsequently have the ability to upgrade into either the current SMG variant or into something else (Snipe-enabled scoped Enfield squad, for example).
Also: I'm led to believe that the Medic Squad is (At least in part) intended to benefit the Lend-lease Doctrine, specifically Assault Sections, as they cannot upgrade into being Medical Sections.
correct me if i wrong, but abandon happens when your hp is very low.
imo we should get the maths and alogrithm right so that abandon can happen to any players, any units, any place, any map, any time, in a match. so that players wont feel 'hard' done by it.
back to an earlier mention that some 'pro' player drop coh2 because he found the mechanics not esport ready.
to be honest, i agree with him. coh2 lacks the viewership, the fame, the hype, the sponsorship and the money that is needed.
in an alternate earth, sega organises annual league of 2v2 coh2, with the top team winning $1m, and 2nd 3rd 4th get good rewards, but we keep all the meme and rng mechanics that is coh2.
you may fight and practice but you may also leave empty handed if a plane crash on your head randomly.
i wonder if 'pro' players will still think it is esport not ready? or just make the best and adapt to a different expectation of a 'competitive' rts?
ironically, i believe most coh2 vet will agree that castings of coh2 is more exciting and potentially more viewership dollars than your sc or dota, no?
if the viewers want it, can the 'pro' not work towards that?
Abandon happens when your Vehicle's HP reaches 0 or below, entirely randomly and with no way for you to influence it. (Excepting in the case of the Sturmtiger, which has an alternate Abandon mechanic)
I doubt most viewers find random abandons and MGCs to be the most exciting parts of a CoH2 tournament, and instead find the displays of skill of either team to be the biggest draw.
I can't see why someone would find the computer deciding to randomly fuck someone more interesting/exciting than a genuinely good play from either player.
Abandon would be fine if players had control over it, rather than it being determined capriciously by an algorithm. Same with MGCs, have them be caused by particular unit abilities or a vehicle being destroyed in a certain way, rather than being entirely random. All these things do is reduce the effect a player's skill has on the outcome of a match.
Absurd Randomness is not interesting, despite people insisting that reducing it is "Castrating" the game somehow. Tripping in Smash Bros Brawl isnt a fun and interesting mechanic either, its just an annoyance for anyone with the skill to play the game normally.
The idea being that T1 is the "Aggressive" option and T2 is the "Defensive" option for Soviet (With ZiS being tier 0 (And perhaps requiring T1 or 2? It probably isnt a balance concern to allow SOV to build a ZIS immediately.) to prevent Soviet being without an AT option (And the power of the ZIS barrage).
UNIT CHANGE BRIEF:
Penals are changed into a more "Aggressive" Conscript alternative.
Relative to Conscripts:
~ Same price/reinforcement costs.
~ Same build speed.
~ Same Population space.
~ Similar throwables, HE grenade and (weakened)AT Satchel Charge/AT grenade vs Molotov and AT grenade.
~ Both have access to OORAH.
+ Improved close/mid DPS through either SVT rifles or PPSH (And "To The Last Man").
+ Improved on-the-move DPS through SVT rifles or PPSH.
+ Retain ability to upgrade to PTRS.
Sorry this is rather a long and rambling write-up, I've been trying to think of interesting solutions to make tier 1 more attractive, and despite the essay above, this requires minimal tech changes, and not too drastic a rework of the Shtrafbat in terms of core functionality. Please let me know which parts of this (If any) sounds somewhat workable. Precise numbers are not included at this stage.
(I assumed they would escape fine as my opponent wasn't an idiot but he couldn't get away at all)
While I missed the memo on that change, testing it now with SP/CE/Pio wire on Lienne again, the squad can't escape that house at all, even pressing retreat. Tried escaping whilst attributing friendly/neutral/hostile wire but the same result occurs - The wire's fully functional. I've tried exiting the other three sides with TAB just in case there's a funny shaped door like a window, but there really is only one door. Whatever they did to fix it back then, doesn't seem to work any more. Or at least not with this house.
It's not a big issue anyway I suppose, the vast majority of houses have more than one exit.
This is different, the wire becomes void if the doors are physically blocked by the wire, such as if you place it perpendicular to the door, within the entrance, that house appears to have a box formed around the door by the wire, which bypasses this.
Everything is possible with Relic Spaghetti Code. Remember the Ober LMG 34 SWS trucks a few patches ago even though there were no changes to either units?
I believe Stormtroopers and AB Guards use a special kind of upgrade for their free weapons, which is why they're the only ones affected.
Odd, is there some reason they'd use a "Special" kind of upgrade? Isn't it possible to have a unit upgrade cost no munitions normally?
I suppose a quick fix would be to give the upgrades a nominal cost of 1-10 munitions, if this is the case.
Those games are designed around those mechanics, and guess what, those games tend to not have a PvP or it's more decorative than anything else.
The whole 1%/5% extreme results had been removed from the game. If you were to follow that line of thought you are just giving more reasons to the players who wants to remove this mechanic from the game.
There are no random death crits on flamers nor grenades. Flamethrowers don't randomly explode. Vehicles don't have infinite lives because you keep getting crits instead of killing them. Mines don't randomly destroy your engine neither infantry snares. Heavies don't randomly stun vehicles. The list goes on.
The problem is not the mechanic per se, it's that it's attached to any vehicle randomly dying.
If for example, all tanks that die through a snare, be it mine or infantry one, have a 50% of abandoned and you need to pay X amount of resources, you will give players something to play around.
Preferably there'd be some 100% guaranteed way to cause abandons, rather than it still being a 50/50 (Though that's still much better than live)
Hell, forcing abandons could even be a Doctrinal unit's ability, if it destroys a vehicle. That'd be a lot more interesting than the current implementation.
I'm thinking of a more advanced system now, that would feel a bit more fleshed out and be easier to implement.
The tank would be able to get repaired and recrewed like normal, but its gun would be unrepairably disabled until you 'refit' the vehicle for a certain cost.
Cost could be like:
- 50mp + 50% the fuel cost (minimum 5) for a light vehicle.
- 100mp + 50% the fuel cost for a light tank.
- 150mp + 50% the fuel cost for a medium tank.
- 200mp + 50% the fuel cost for a heavy tank.
Then it at least requires some economic investment besides the recrewing models, which makes the impact of abandon not quite as big and punishing.
Unless Abandons and MGC can be intentionally caused in some way, in the same way as Engine damage from snares, then this is still really not a great fix. It's still a massive (And completely random) reward for a passive player with no real counterplay beyond "Don't try and dive", which isnt something that should really be discouraged.
MGC and abandon are not nearly the same in my opinion. MGC has a decisive impact. Abandon is not directly decisive, because the tank would just die otherwise. I like abandon (in custom games) because it creates a moment of extra attention. You need to defend the area and repair the destroyed engine in order to use it. Therefor the opponent has time to interfere.
Yes if the tank gets abandoned behind enemy lines it has a huge impact, but diving is a choice and you are the only one who can influence that. If you support your tank then you should have the tools to avoid your opponent to crew your tank.
Except it disincentivises playing aggressively with your tanks, because there's the potential for both your diving vehicle to be abandoned behind enemy lines or even for the vehicle you're diving to be abandoned.
Imagine diving your enemy's Katyusha with your Puma, and killing it as it rolls into their base while you lose your Puma in the process. Now imagine the same scenario when the Katyusha is merely abandoned instead of killed. There was no way for you to influence that, you have simply been fucked randomly by RNG, as your opponent can recrew and repair the Katyusha with exactly 0 risk. Imagine if the Puma is abandoned, too. Dives are already adequately punished by losing a vehicle, they don't need an extra RNG risk of the opponent's vehicle magically not dying, or handing your own vehicle to them.
It rewards passive play, and punishes active play.
I can also advise you to get away from people who love this. Because your problems are your problems. This mechanic has always been here and I want her to continue to be here.
Then make a real argument, if you want to convince the Balance team not to remove them.
You, and about two other people like these bad mechanics, but that has absolutely no bearing on what changes are or are not made. Anyone with any sort of competence at the game thinks they're utterly terrible, and would be ecstatic at their removal.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
