I'm amazed that this has only been found now - the ability has been in the game for nearly 8 years now?
I don't think this is something that can be "tuned" though, if the flaw is in the counter-barrage's 'script'. My guess is that the "order of operation" is incorrect, and it's:
1. Is enemy in fire-cone? If not, turn to face them.
2. Fire barrage
If the "fire barrage" step is the same as a normal barrage, then step #2 includes step #1 and it's redundant. However, since it needs to wait for #1 to be "true" before firing the barrage, it can be exploited pretty easily, as shown in the video. Alternatively, the counter-barrage could work on some other strange system - I'm not familiar at all with how CoH2 works, technically.
Regardless, I think the best change is to replace the ability as a whole; zero-input/high damage abilities have always been pretty bad. My suggestion from another thread:
9. OST/OKW (multiple docs) LeFH "Counter Barrage" replaced with something else. The amount of damage this does with zero user input is a bit much. Perhaps replacing it with something like a "precision barrage", where it fires 1-2 rounds (with more delay between them) but with half the scatter (and a shared cooldown).
edit: did some testing
1. Counter-barrage still respects the LeFH's maximum range; it'll still turn to face your units (even when it can't see them), but if your units have moved outside it's range it won't fire.
2. The LeFH has a tiny window where it can "re-setup". If the target is outside it's cone, it will turn to face it (as in #1 above): however, if during the tiny period of time between the LeFH stopping its turn and the "setup bar" being displayed the target leaves the cone again, they'll pick it up and turn again.
3. As soon as the "setup bar" shows up (even at 0% filled) its barrage location has been chosen; even if the target keeps moving, etc. |
|
I don't think that "ost sucks" - but I do think the expansion factions (OKW/USF/UKF) have pushed OST into a really strange box, design-wise.
The initial premise at launch for OST was an "expensive/tanky defensive" faction to contrast Sov's "cheap/squishy offensive" design - with Sov making up the eHP difference through numbers. Grens were more expensive with 4 models, compared to Sov's cheaper (but weaker) 6 model cons, P4s were more expensive and tankier than T34s, the MG42 was much better than the Maxim (but had 3 models), etc. Additionally, for extra variety, Sov generally had a fairly noticeable advantage at close range, which further pushed OST into it's "defensive" roll. As a result of those trade offs, a single unit loss for OST was always more costly than for Sov, but that single unit was usually more powerful. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good design, if a bit simple in concept.
The problem is, the expansion factions don't fit between SOV/OST in terms of offensive/defensive nature; they actually surround OST (and Sov, but to a lesser degree), which makes balancing them really, really tricky. Take the standard roster of units (i.e. non-doc):
The strongest defensive mainline is UKF's double-bren/bolstered Infantry Sections, not LMG grens.
The strongest offensive mainline is USF's double-BAR Rifle squads, not conscripts.
The most mobile faction is OKW/USF (FRPs, no T0 MGs), not Sov.
The most defensive faction is UKF (cover bonus, emplacements, old MG vet 1 bonus, etc.), not Ost.
So, how do you balance that while keeping each factions initial "flavor"? Do you buffs grens to beat IS' at range? Then you'll melt cons (and rifles) before they can get close. Do you buff cons to be better than Rifles? Then OST will get steamrolled. Do you make USF/OKW less mobile? Now they'll get pinned by Sov/Ost defensive units. Do you make UKF less defensive? Now they'll be overrun by OKW.
What we have right now is probably as close to the best that it can be without massive faction redesigns. Unfortunately, what that means is that Ost's "powerful but expensive units" design flavor has been pushed to the maximum; that single unit loss that was "more costly" than Sov's unit has now turned into "devastatingly costly" while also being more powerful than it used to be. As a result, OST requires an absolute minimum number of losses to use effectively, which can be really hard to do when the game is as RNG-heavy as it is - and even when RNG isn't involved, it means that a single loss early on can decide a match. |
|
#224 (me) and #1100 vs. #20 and #1000
How does that make sense? It certainly wasn't a fun match. At this point, the only way to 'play' is by cancelling and re-queuing every minute or two, to prevent the ELO range from getting too high. Still better than the weekend when it matched me (several times) against top-100 pre-made teams as a random #250 player.
edit: #234 (me) and #760 vs. #17 and #360
edit2: 2 days later I get this - #276 (me) and #380 vs. #144 and #211. This seems reasonable, until you notice that the #144 player is the exact same player as the #20 and #17 from earlier. Even worse, this was 1-2 minute queue. Effectively, there's no reason to play if specific people are on, because the MM will assume that a #250 player can take on a top-20 player. |
All AT vehicles and mobile ATG squads start with prioritize vehicle active.
While this works, and the units correctly spawn with the "prioritize vehicle" icon above them, the UI button toggle is now inverted. It seems that the UI button isn't also set to "on" when the unit is created, so clicking it actually turns it off. Clicking it again (which would turn it off) turns prioritize back on. It's just a bit confusing if you're setting the mode while not looking directly at the unit. |
|
Yea, they really need to address this issue. The "spread" on ranks in some games is absurd, and just results in an awful experience for everyone - high-rank players are bored due to playing against "easy" opponents or are frustrated by teammates who can't play at their level, and low-rank players are frustrated by playing against an (effectively) unbeatable opponent. No one wins here.
Yes, technically the "average ELO" works out, but it's just not a good experience.
I'd gladly trade an extra 5-10 minutes in queue if it means not playing with/against players 10+ levels below me, or playing with level 8 players against top 100s.
My take: Level 18, 19 and 20 should never match against players below level 16, and everyone else should be locked to a +/- 3 or 4 levels range when solo queuing.
For arranged teams, I'd suggest taking the average rank of the players, and then adding half the difference between that average and the highest teammate to it. This would at least somewhat compensate for the 'coordination bonus' arranged teams have.
For example: for a level 8, 12, 16 and 18 arranged team, the average rank is 13.5. The difference between 13.5 (avg) and 18 (top) is 4.5, meaning half is 2.25. The 2.25 'offset' added to the original rank of 13.5 means their "team rank" is really 15.75.
|
|
OKW's Med Truck is a bit buggy, in terms of unlocking stuff. From the original patch, the "mechanized battlegroup support" upgrade was supposed to unlock the "251 Flak Half-track, the UhU Searchlight Half-Track, Infantry Weapon Upgrades, and ability to reinforce". However, the infantry upgrade tool tips don't reflect this (volks STG, etc.) - they just say it requires any converted HQ.
Additionally, the upgrade is required to deploy the Schwerer HQ (T4), which doesn't appear to be an intended change, and if it is, isn't indicated via the tooltip (also says 'any converted hq'). It's also required to unlock Panzerfausts, which also isn't listed as a change (and isn't explained by the tooltip) - as pointed out by 'Stug Life' above. |
|
I'm sure I can think of a bit more, but these are the first that come to mind.
1. Off-map "friendly fire" damage multiplier standardized. Some off map abilities do full friendly fire, others do half, others do nearly zero: can we standardize this? My vote would be for 50% FF.
2. Any off-map "recon flares" (essentially OWK and UKF) replaced by standard recon planes. I don't think this is very controversial, and should be done for both consistency, and as a way to make the ability have a counter.
3. OKW (Elite Armor) Remove the sturmtiger decrew-on-reload chance. This doesn't make a lot of sense, and doesn't match the UKF's AVRE (which historically also had a vulnerable reloading procedure). Possibly increase the range by +5 (maybe with vet?) to compensate for the low projectile arc often causing the rocket to land short.
4. USF (Tactical Support) Slightly increase the "wind up" time on the Calliope barrage. It's currently nearly impossible to react if this is used at close range. Alternatively, increase the minimum range.
5. Sov (Sov Industry) "repair station" and OST (Defensive Doc) "reinforced repair bunker" given minor pop costs (3?). This is pretty niche, but there are team-games where one (or a few) players build several of these, allowing for their team's armor to be repaired nearly instantly.
6. OKW (Feuersturm) Flame-Hetzer no longer requires Panzer Auth, instead requires 3-5 points. Right now it shows up too late in terms of tech. Considering that it's a case-mate tank with moderate armor and zero AT power, it's almost always better to save up a bit more fuel for a P4. Allowing it to arrive earlier (but not too early due to point reqs and still requiring T3) would give it a bit more impact.
7. Soviet (Urban Defense doc) "Forward Headquarters" ability increased to 2 points (from 1). On some this ability arrives too early and has an insane impact; such as when used on the train stations on Lienne Forest and Ettlebruck Station. Considering it can be used to make any building password protected, arriving before most or any indirect fire is available seems a bit much. Alternatively, if possible, give it a "setup time" instead, to allow the ability to be countered.
8. OST (Jaeger Armor) "Spotting Scopes" no longer go on Elefants. This gives an 80 range TD effectively self-spotting, which is a bit much.
9. OST/OKW (multiple docs) LeFH "Counter Barrage" replaced with something else. The amount of damage this does with zero user input is a bit much. Perhaps replacing it with something like a "precision barrage", where it fires 1-2 rounds (with more delay between them) but with half the scatter (and a shared cooldown).
10. OKW (Spec Ops) "Radio Silence" replaced with a copy of OST's "Ambush Training". This ability is pretty '4th wall breaking' in the sense that it affects the game UI to hide units; replacing it with an in-game variant (infantry/team weps can cloak) seems similar in concept. |
|
I realize this is vague, but a friend of mine is constantly disconnecting and/or crashing when we duo-queue - I'd say he drops from nearly 50% of the games we play (sometimes 3-4 DCs per night), especially early on (within the first 5 minutes). What's really strange is that after DC'ing, he can often still see the in-game chat. We don't have any issues with discord (he stays on), or in 1v1 custom games where we've never had a single issue (3+ games in a row, multiple nights, etc.).
This could be a general 'CoH2' issue, but we've found that it's gotten significantly worse since the x64 update. Before that, he disconnected/crashed quite rarely. Again, I realize this is quite vague, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency; sometimes he crashes or DCs during loading, sometimes it's after a while in-game; but it's gotten to the point where the game is nigh-unplayable due to crashes/DCs on his end.
If there's any logs (for DC's) that would help, I can probably get them. |
|
CPU: 5950x
RAM: 32gb 3600mhz/CL16
GPU: GTX 970 (for now)
Game on SSD
Everything to maximum except AA to low, 2560x1440 (how I normally play).
Min: 37.77fps
Max: 91.54fps
Avg: 58.35fps
In an attempt to make the game CPU bound, I tried the same settings but at 1280x720 with 50% render resolution (so 640x360) and no AA.
Min: 86.65fps
Max: 233.77fps
Avg: 139.93fps |
Hey I had this issue when I first booted up CoH2, but it fixed itself after it connected to the server. It takes a lot longer than it did previously (which was almost instant) but it got there eventually for me. So If I had to guess it's because you're currently attempting to connect to the servers.
That worked, thanks.
Seems to be a lot slower the first time I click any mode (30s+), but after it loads the first time it's faster when I back out and try again (3-5s). That said, both situations are much slower than before the update (1-2s, or instantly). |
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
