Profile of AvNY

Too many people are talking about balance in a vacuum.

The first criteria, and most important, is that there IS a game. If that means tales of War, Ardennes Assault, or 4v4 balance exists, then so be it. Without a Relic you don't have a game, without the game, balance is of zero use.

Is it harder to make a game balanced in 1v1 that is also balanced in 4v4. Definitely. It might even be impossible. But there had better be game modes that are selling big numbers of COH2 copies or there is no one around to balance 1v1 (whatever level of play) and no one around to pay for hosting the multiplayer.

I don't know the sales figures. No one else here does either (unless they work for Relic, and even those may not know relevant P&L information). So it behooves us to come up with ideas that create balance (or something like it) across as many game modes and skill levels as possible. Even if ToW or AA are enough to pay the bills, the game can't suffer if the player base of 2's 3's and 4's increases.

My own opinion (business opinion) is that we are 3 years on and it is unlikely COH2 will become some huge esports success. But playerbase and sales still matter. Working on more creative ideas, and learning from the developers what types of changes are or aren't possible, might allow us to offer the kinds of changes that would balance 3's and 4's without damaging 1's.

Or maybe P2W commanders, AA, and ToW really are enough to pay the bills? And only balance at the top 100, 50, or 20 (or 10?) in 1v1 is what matters? In that case PvP 1v1 still becomes a special snowflake of game design where you will only get the attention of the developers when they feel like it.

There seem to be two arguments here. One about whether it the game is balanced because it is balanced at the top levels and one is whether you can balance it in any other way.

The problem really is different.... If the factions are designed in such a way that balance at the top means there are glaring imbalances along the learning curve, then you have a HUGE BUSINESS PROBLEM. If it isn't fun along the way for people then they are less likely to play your game. I don't' see how that is a good thing. This is where the huge differences in the factions become not some sort of gorgeous design element but a detraction from the growth of the franchise and the player base. The factions don't have to mirror each other, but to be so different, especially with some sort of designed asymmetrical-balance-over-time, makes a balance across skill levels that much harder.

They had such a beautiful model to work from. The Wehr/US balance in COH1 was not perfect, but the imbalances of noob cheese switched from faction to faction as the skill levels progressed. rifle blob > Wehr blob, then you learn that one mg can stop rifle blob, then that a flank can kill the mg, then that a mine or some wire or a bunker stops the flank, etc. And blobbing lost its potency pretty early in the learning curve. Sure late game Wehr was really powerful (because they couldn't lose their vet with squad wipes), but that late game also came really late as compared to COH2. In fairness the "late game" in COH2 keeps getting pushed back (now at 20 minutes instead of 12-13?), but I think it isn't back far enough yet considering the point system is the same.

Did those factions LOOK to similar to the designers so they came up with the Opposing Front Factions and then the COH2 factions? Why can't each faction have a doctrinal mortar, an mg, etc. without that of one factions or the other being crap?

I am not arguing that balance now is crap. I am arguing that if you can design so that there are balances (or at least a shift in balance) at all or most levels of the learning curve then you are more likely to increase the player base, and then the arguments of whether to balance around the top 100 vs top 500 players becomes less critical.

See, this is where you're horribly wrong.

Balance is not based on opinions and definitely not on opinions of lesser players, we can discuss balance all we want and that is why we are here on this boards, but about 99% of this feedback here is, well, worthless.

Balance is based on complicated relations between game mechanics, units performance, army concept, its performance alone and in team games against usual opposition, the popularity of units or the lack of it, but it most certainly isn't based on anyone's opinions.

We can judge the balance by the prism of our own experience in the game, the better we are, the more accurate insight we -might- have.
Why only might?
Because even top players can say utter bs at times and be biased, opinions are always subjective.
You can have your own, but it won't be as important as one of Luvnest or Jove for example.



Because that is how it works, always did and always will.

You create balance with competitive players and high level play in mind, because these players know the game, know the mechanics and can use them to their benefits. Low skill players often don't see certain unit relations or even map details that make a difference, not to mention lack the micro and awareness level needed in competitive play, issues they often accuse balance of come from their own lack of ability.

You don't balance competitive multiplayer games around players who can't play the game effectively, otherwise you wouldn't have "skill shot" abilities in mobas and competitive FPS games like CS would have aim assist.

If we considered balance for the amount of people playing, instead of the skilled top, blobs would be considered high level, micro intensive play.

Some players would cry, because they have only played 4vs4 in arranged teams, and mostly against randoms. They would not be able to win so much either in AT vs AT, or in randoms.

Then they would just have to deal with the fact that they are not as good in reality as they have convinced themselves. This is a good thing. People's subjective self-image should fall somewhere in the realm of objective reality or life will eventually hand them a big dose of unhappiness.

(Failing that they can come on the forums and whine constantly about imbalance in game design..... )

Sometimes a "wait and see" approach is important. I have a fundamental dislike for the OKW overhaul, but a lot of people seem to like it (with caveats). Usually though Relic's method of balancing is to make something a little overpowered, get everyone using it, and then they can tone it down from there to get it just right. It's hard to buff something that is underpowered straight to a balanced state without a lot of gameplay experience, and if no one is ever using it you simply don't have the data.

Personally I've felt the biggest problem with Coh2 is that they are too quick to compromise on their vision for the game/faction to appease the community. It no longer feels like CoH2 to me, more like CoH1.5 now. The OKW overhaul fucked so much simply because it was a half baked.

COH1.5? If only.

Truth is to overhaul the OKW could have been done more simply. First take away the resource penalties and adjust all the resources coasts UP from there by the same percentage, then adjust them down slightly (then slightly again).

That the more regular, and incremental, approach isn't done leads me to think there is something else at work that we don't (and might never) know about. What if they only get the coders necessary (from other projects) on a infrequent basis? or what if there is some sort of cost accounting formula that makes it internally more attractive to do fewer (and hence bigger) patches? Might they be charged by Steam on a per patch rather than per mb basis? Someone has to be paying for the bandwidth for each patch. It may be cheap but it isn't free.

TBH, Volksgrenadier Shrek should be much less accurate than Panzergrenadier and Stormer counterpart. This way it's a defensive AT weapon and not the a-move tool it is now.

IMO RPG launchers ingame accuracy should be from highest to lowest:

Stormer Shrek
Bazooka/Panzgren Shrek equal accuracy
Steep drop-off
Volks Shrek
PIAT (lol)

There are PIATs in this game?!?! Who knew?