Lategame: Vet3 Rifles with 4 Bars rapes anything, not adequate.
Why not stop the BARs from dropping in the first place?
SG44's don't drop. G43s don't drop. MP40s and their analog, the Thompsons, don't drop.
LMGs drop, but they are a crewed weapon like the AT weapons and don't have an analog in the US doctrine (though their Brit analog, the Bren, does drop). |
1. Yeah I think that's a pretty safe change, probably cut it to 30 seconds from the current 60 seconds.
2. It would be a very difficult change. The issue itself is due to the size of the hitbox on the puma- it's small, and therefore shitty RR accuracy tends not to hit it (however small scatter on the RR's means they almost never miss anything bigger than a Stug). It'd probably need a new model.
It would also have some pretty huge balance implications, as pumas would no longer be a counter to AB.
Pumas would still be a decent counter to AB. Perhaps a softer one. For one thing they still can shoot the reinforcing AB out of the sky like pigeons.
They don't cost nearly as much as a RR AB squad (375 mp and 125 muni) and are still able to do serious damage to any infantry. And an unupgraded AB squad has 0 counters to a Puma.
I don't think the Puma was supposed to be the hard counter "anti-AB" unit. I think that happened more as a side effect of the RR-phase issue than because of design. |
Except inverse applies this bland thing in comparison to depth that he found over several years. The game has hardly been out 1/2 year ?
True it has been out only 1/2 a year. But then it has vCOH to look to for inspiration, which CoH1 didn't.
Had they released a, let's call it less ambitious, upgrade, or at least a less drastic one, we would all be much happier.
Truesight is enough of a difference in both feel and strategy that if you added just that, and kept all else the same, it would have felt like more than an expansion. I don't even think you would need blizzards, just the snow tech, and that would already be a second major change. Then keep Wehr as is and introduce a Russian faction with lots of balancing.
They didn't need to mess with buildings, snipers, pathing, terrain, AI, new fausts, new nades, new mines, new pio/engineers, etc except to tweak the balance.
We would all have still bought it. It would have had fewer bugs and less development, and it would still have been better than most of what's out there (including probably COH2).
They could even have introduced DLCs in the form of a unit replacement here or there, skins, map packs, ToW, campaigns. Even license and resell popular mods for a buck or two (a la phone apps). |
Bombing run is fine as it is. Just the chances between nothing and overkill is sometimes too high.
Airborne gets enough mun from his airsupport
US Halftrack needs like 50 Hp more, thats true.
Bombing run at 200mun is bullshit. It would eliminate strafe after you get it.
Air support gives you 100 mun already, you could spam Bombing runs.
I don't like throwing around the fanboi term around and I hope it isn't the case here either, but when you say things like the bomb-run is effective anti-infantry or the supply drop allows you to spam bomb runs, than I have to think you don't play much Airborne.
Supply Drop is not spammable. While it is cheap enough at 100mp (though mp is the single biggest constraint on US players, and really any CoH player) the cool down is enormous. Also AB is more muni-hungry than other US doctrines since you don't have doctrinal artillery (and please please don't bring up the bomb-run when those of us who try using it will tell you how miserable it is to use).
|
|
Halftrack doesn't even counter T2 all that well. 2 shots will kill it, so a practically free one from the cloaked Pak and then the other from a pak, mine, faust, shrek or whatever happens to be in the area or can get there or intercept.
In other words, a T3 unit that costs an additional 100 muni to upgrade can at best counter only T1 units since Wehr T2 has hard counters (Pak, shreks, even the mortar can help with smoke).
Compare that to Wehr halftrack... It comes in T2, is pretty durable for the point in the game in which it arrives, and as a Stuka it is pretty survivable in late game play. |
I'm sorry but the quad 50 upgrade, is Really damm strong, it can completely obliterate any infantry quite quickly, also the fact that it doesn't supress as much as a single MG42 can be an upside, since supressed targets take less damage, and since the rifleman do less damage to supressed and pinned units compared to volks or grens, also if the supression was increased to the same as an MG42, it would be completely overpowered since it can already supress a squad well enough to escape from one.
The problem with your argument and Tommy's is that if it were true it would not explain why you just don't see these! I doubt you see a quad in 1 of 1000 1v1s or 1 in a 100 or more multi-player games and even then probably only for the kicks of making a quad.
If there was a valid trade-off on survivablility vs. firepower then for sure someone would be finding ways to use them, but the lack of these things proves that it they just aren't worth it regardless of what you think of the gun.
I also happen to disagree with you on the strength of the gun. I LOVE this weapon in concept, not really sure why. But even though I actively look for the successful ways to use it I haven't found it myself on seen it in anyones streams or playbacks. Instead, while I seek a glimmer of their utility I find instead that they do... not much.
I am open to being wrong, but I made an argument, and coupled with the EXTRAORDINARY limited use of this, it is really up to you to show how that is wrong. I am really sorry, but a few assertions on your part just don't cut it without a playback or clip.
Maybe it belongs in T2? Maybe the upgun needs to be cheaper? I don't know, but there is not vehicle in the Wehr arsenal that is used so little. |
M3 could possibly be buffed but you've gotta bear in mind just how freakishly strong the gun actually is when upgraded. If it was as strong as an M8 but with the same gun (and also cheaper to build than an M8) there's a good chance people would pick it almost every time over an M8. It's worth considering indeed, but I think there's quite a fine line to be achieved there.
If the upgun was freakishly strong then more people would pick this even though it is a glass cannon. But that just isn't the case. The quad, which would mean 4 x 500 bpm .50 cal machine guns, doesn't even provide as much suppression as a single mg42 let alone doing much damage at any significant range.
No one ever really knows if it does damage at short range since it can be killed so easily by shreks, fausts, paks, etc... which makes it a very risky use of 25 fuel and 100 muni.
I don't think it is the unarmored nature that makes it less used but the poor return coupled with the expensive cost. It just doesn't serve a purpose except in some very select situations (PE anti-AC, Allied Anti-air, or a use for floating munitions). Also remember that the cloaked nature of the pak means the first hit is "free" and almost unavoidable and that is a big reason no one uses m3s and also why no one uses an m8 without a skirt.
Perhaps an alternate upgrade choice? 50 muni for a crew on the regular 50 cal and lose one or two of the crew slots?
Arbitrary hardcaps are bad. They limit options = limits strategic depth. I don't want to _stop_ people from building double or triple snipers if that's what they wanna do; but I want to force them to micro harder to use them, or face being more flankable or more easily countersniped.
Why a defense of hardcaps only in the case snipers? We have caps on other units (admittedly non-doctrinal) like Tigers, Pershings and Calliopes. And there is an effective cap on spammed arty (they use a ton of population as each costs 11pop).
There is a fair argument to be made that sniper spam just isn't what COH was supposed to be about. Once a sniper, let alone 3 or more, shows up the game seems to become all about the snipers. |
The point of the thread was claiming ost is easier. False, not the case and these type of threads don't help anything.
And if you watched the tourney players switched sides and played both factions (won with both too) so you can not say one side is easier. If that was indeed the case then players would constantly win with Germans... It all boils down to the skill (and some luck) of the players.
I still think that comparing the balance at pro levels is not relevant to this conversation.
The argument is that at below pro levels the game is not balanced. I think that balance at those lower levels is fundamental to the commercial success of the game, which is fundamental to its survival.
To argue that it is balanced at pro level doesn't respond to all the arguments made that it isn't at the lower levels or in other game modes (3v3, 4v4). |
Threads like these are pointless.
Recent tournament showed "pros" can win with Soviets just as easy as the Germans.
uhhh, ok..... Except that a game isn't made for the top 20 or even 200 players of a faction. It is made to be sold commercially, which means pleasing at least a few thousand people down the side of each ladder, preferrably including 3v3 and 4v4 ladders.
If you don't manage that then the game isn't likely to last long enough, and sell enough other content (DLC's, expansions, what have you) to support further patches and other things we like.... Like for example; servers.
So it isn't pointless to point out the things that keep people from wanting to play both sides happily and at different skill levels. |
Stale metagame breaks easily. In this sense, German players have to rely on soviet (in)ability to micro their units to gauge their own ability. If the Soviet's micro is faulty, a German player is not required to put forth a micro intensive effort. The ball is effectively always in the Soviet's court, so to speak, as far as micro impetus is concerned. Hence, German players are only ever pushed to put forth high level micro skills when up against high level Soviet players, whereas Soviet players always must put forth such an effort in every match.
So in a simple manner of speaking, and especially where tournaments are concerned, Soviet players are much more able to maintain a high level of practice in their gameplay strategies than German players. The Germans must rely on their opponent's level of competitiveness to even begin to gauge their own gameplay for practice. And this is not taking into account any perceived issues with ELO ranking and automatch matchmaking, either.
Please correct me if I am wrong. But the way I read this is.. Ost is essentially easy enough that the only time an Ost player is challenged to step up their game is when they meet a good or better Soviet player. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
