Profile of CieZ

Avatar Area

Offline United States
Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/riseofthephoenix_
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjV_ujoRNpEU_ERL9dW8H9w
Steam: 76561197995165748
Residence:

United States
Nationality:

United States

Show Latest Posts


Thread: Hello16 Jan 2014, 14:18 PM Welcome to the site man! Hope you enjoy your stay and hope you keep enjoying CoH 2. You should give Ostheer a try, they're fun too! And you can learn a lot by playing both factions. If you have any questions/need anything feel free to hit me up on Steam - CieZ23 In: New Members
Thread: 3 Small changes to add strategy16 Jan 2014, 14:16 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jan 2014, 13:35 PMHS King I have 3 small changes that I think would add some depth to the game. 1.Make molatov and rifle nade global upgrade - make molatove 2x the cost it is now to make it not always a "no brainer" make rifle nade upgrade substantial but less than molatov as it is less useful. ost would still have the faust without the need to upgrade but soviets would need to pay for at nades at 2x the current cost. This would mean soviet player would need to choose if they want early game inf battle dominance eith molatov or soft at options early - and significant tech delays if both are chosen. 2. Bring back pop cap in some way - doesnt have to be as drastic as coh, even if you are guarnateed 50 pop cap even if you own no map and get extra pop cap for map control. Good players should be rewarded for map dominance and "crazy comebacks" are just shit. 3. Change capping as its to fast - reduce cap by 30% if unit is passively capping, and make it full speed if the unit "clicks " to cap ( vcoh style) this would make it riskier as the units would take more damage but would allow faster uncapping/ map take over. optional - make support crew die even faster at 33% extra damage, and increase dps and reduce the need for crits for inf kills - this would give consistency to small arms battles which is what is needed What do you guys think? On point 1 - I agree with molotovs/rifle grenades in their current state are both too powerful and "no brainer" abilities because of their low cost. I'd really like to see them become more of an investment so that there is more of a choice when using them. I'm not sure drastically increasing the tech cost to obtain them is the right way to do this, but I agree with your general premise. On point 2 - Could you explain why you don't like crazy comebacks? Personally I find watching games like this most recent SNF (games 2 & 4) to be way more intense than having a KT + P4s + Mg bunker camping the middle of Semoskiy for 20 minutes to drain VPs. Coming back from behind in CoH 2 is still difficult with the munition/fuel disadvantage and can be so fun/intense to watch. On point 3 - I actually really like this idea. It seems like it'd be the perfect blend of vCoH and CoH 2 capping. If you're in a firefight you can still stand behind cover and cap slowly but if you feel like you're safe you can "click" the point and cap quickly - but be vulnerable. We'd have to play around with the numbers but the idea is pretty cool. I think it would also encourage more flank harassment/cutoff moves because if the enemy leaves their flank/cutoff exposed a squad could cap points very quickly out of combat by "clicking" the point. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Strategy in Company of Heroes 216 Jan 2014, 14:07 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jan 2014, 00:54 AMBasilone +1 That and doctrine system are my biggest gripes with the game. You know something is wrong when a Shocktroop is considered OP yet it takes like 3 times longer to kill a squad at point blank compared to a Thompson Ranger or KCH. I'm not entirely sure what game you're playing but Shocks kill infantry pretty quickly, especially weapon teams. Regardless of that, the real strength of Shocks is not their DPS output, but instead their ability to shrug off small arms fire damage - which makes them difficult to deal with. They're considered OP because of how hard it can be to deal with them at the timing at which they enter the field. @Sluz - There are multiple ways to deal with early Shocks, FHT is only one of them. People seriously underestimate the amount of depth in CoH2 and greatly exaggerate the amount of depth in vCoH. I've seen plenty of streams/casts where players use exactly the same build order/doctrine in every game(sometimes spamming no more than 4 different units, yay! very depth, much strategy, such vCoH!). Maybe they're just boring players that lack innovation, I don't know - I guess the same could be said about CoH 2 when everyone just spammed Grens/Cons straight into spamming medium tanks, but thankfully the meta has shifted away from that. Either way how is the SSSSS build strategically more deep than making 5 Cons/Grens? It certainly takes more focus/micro to play, but strategically it is boring. @Ami - I really don't think making PPSh a global upgrade is a good idea. Maybe now that they actually fixed the fact that PPSh were bugged and grossly over-performing it would be okay, but I'd rather see them become a stronger doctrinal choice and have Relic add different global upgrades to other Soviet units. Making PPSh global would further encourage Con spam in much the same way that we see BARS all day everyday in vCoH. I'd like to see more "defensive" structures/global upgrades available to players so that they have more options for spending resources/holding ground but I don't think tank traps fit into CoH 2. Lowering the number of commanders but implementing branching trees (maybe with 8-10 total abilities) might be cool but even with this system in vCoH there wasn't much doctrinal depth in reality - but I think with CoH 2's emphasis on commanders this might be an interesting option to explore. Finally, it would be silly to allow people to re-pick commanders or have access to multiple commanders unless they completely redesigned the way things work. I really don't want to be fighting off Shocks + Guards simultaneously in a 1v1 or trying to deal with Tiger + Elefant + Oppels + Strafing Run + leFH18 + G43s all in the same 2v2... In: Lobby
Thread: Strategy in Company of Heroes 215 Jan 2014, 18:15 PM I would assume that adding more units to the base game would be possible. They can add new units via commanders so I don't really see why they couldn't add more units to each faction - if they wanted to. I think one thing that would really help out and possibly attract the attention of a lot of people that used to play, but quit, would be a big commander overhaul focusing on the commanders that come with the base game. I'm sure everyone has seen the massive thread about commander overlap being a problem so I'm not going to rehash any of that... but I do have to admit that most of the basic commanders aren't very intriguing, at least on the German side of things. They also tend to have little impact on how the game is played. Not sure if redoing those commanders would be possible/considered by Relic but as I've said in this thread... we already have a LOT of commanders. Continuing to add more and more will eventually prove to be more of a problem than a solution. In: Lobby
Thread: Strategy in Company of Heroes 215 Jan 2014, 16:44 PM Jump back to quoted post15 Jan 2014, 15:59 PMInverse Honestly, the best thing for the game competitively would be if Relic just went all-out with commanders and made them extremely diverse and game-changing, but made them available to everyone somehow. There are a lot of ways to monetize commanders while still giving players the option to unlock them over time (timed releases, experience unlocks, etc.). Unless an expansion comes and adds factions that drastically change how the game is played, commanders are the only things that are going to add interesting variety to the game, because the base game is really lacking variety from a strategy point of view. This is really the best hope for competitive CoH2 play I feel. Make commanders integral and give them abilities that drastically change how the game has been played, but make those commanders available to everyone so they can actually be used in competition and properly balanced. This is basically my hope as well. A lot of the newer commanders have this potential to drastically change the entire course of games, which is really cool/fun/keeps things interesting but... not everyone has access to them which sucks. Even if as Inverse/myself have suggested there was some way to unlock them by earning experience/some form of "currency" by playing the game it'd be great. In addition to this, Relic could keep releasing crazy-bonkers-overpowered commanders for use in single player/custom games/ToW and charge for these commanders - but at least they wouldn't affect automatch and they'd be pretty easy to restrict from tournaments. Or something like that, I think we all can understand Relic releasing paid DLC so that they can continue to support the game - that is more than fine. But when paid DLC is so important/vital to being competitive in automatch/tournaments it has a hugely negative impact on the competitive scene and (I believe, maybe I'm wrong) that it drives new players away which ultimately stagnates the game. There seem to be plenty of ways that Relic/Sega could monetize this game on a continual basis if that's necessary for continued support. I'd gladly buy a skin pack every now and then or a faceplate if they're cool enough, and if I could get my friends into the game I'm sure we'd buy ToW content because some of those missions are damn fun. But asking a friend to buy what is now a $120ish game isn't easy, especially when it will cost about half of that for them to just try the game (free trial pls Relic!) As I've mentioned before, I don't see why we can't take the best aspects of vCoH, the best aspects of CoH 2 and make a freaking amazing game. I'll admit that while CoH2 commanders are cool, they can't prop the strategic aspect of the game up forever on their own. Sure not everything from vCoH would translate well into CoH 2 but I wouldn't mind seeing some more options for global upgrades, especially on the Russian side of things. Or just a few more units being added to each faction - perhaps some more diverse light vehicles if people think that that would help spice up the early game. Deep, impactful CoH2 commanders + deep, impactful upgrades similar to what vCoH had = tons of important player choice and an awesome game. Or so it seems to me... In: Lobby
Thread: The high health unit problem14 Jan 2014, 21:24 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2014, 16:33 PMsluzbenik And the difference between a high health unit and a high armor unit is? Does my failure to remember shocks have more armor (and so do tanks for that matter) rather than health invalidate the argument? There is a huge difference. (also @ Strummingbird) Infantry armor gives a chance to not take damage from small arms fire. It does not reduce damage from small arms fire and it does also not reduce/prevent damage taken from any other sources. This becomes extremely important when factoring in flames, mines, grenades, mortars, basically anything that doesn't have a rifle or SMG - which just so happens to be a LOT of units. Another way to illustrate this difference: Let's say there was a 6 man squad with 1.0 armor but 160 HP per model. This squad is (on average) going to die faster to a Grenadier squad than a shock troop squad, but will have twice the survivability against, for example, a FHT. An example more specific to the current state of CoH 2: Conscripts, Guards, and Shocks all die equally as fast to a FHT despite all these units having different armor values. Armor sort of acts like increased HP against small arms fire and small arms fire only... but not really. They're two separate values with completely different functions and purposes. It is best just not to mix them because they behave in such different ways. You forgetting this or not knowing this doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument, but personally I think that the premise of the argument itself is flawed. I don't think that the HP on units needs to be addressed. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Strategy in Company of Heroes 214 Jan 2014, 20:51 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2014, 20:41 PMcataclaw There are recent rumors that SC2 is becoming F2P, which it highly partly is, you can play unranked terran as it is right now. SC2 is more competitive but significantly less intriguing and way more repetitive than CoH 2. I'm not sure anyone that thinks CoH 2 is shallow would like SC 2 at all, there are almost no strategic decisions to be made, and there is next to no tactical choice involved. The game is a lot more about memorizing build orders/timings/maps/unit compositions than it is about strategically/tactically outplaying your opponent. It is a good RTS/game, I just don't think most of us that find that the strategic/tactical depth of CoH 2 to be appealing would enjoy SC 2. In: Lobby
Thread: Strategy in Company of Heroes 214 Jan 2014, 19:58 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2014, 19:48 PMVon Kluge You can love CoH2 and voice critisism at the same time. We all know CoH2's flaws, it would be stupid to ignore them. What bugs me the most however, is that Relic's work isn't appreciated ( or not shown to be honest.) I played since the beta of CoH2 and along with some rubbish marketing decisions, Relic implemented a lot of stuff to make the game better. Imagine if you were a Relic employee. Working your ass off and when browsing community fora, seeing that your game is being bashed upon. Hell yeah we should point out their mistakes and flaws, but at least realise that Relic's work since the release isn't all moneygrabbing P2W shennanigans. It speaks of great passion that a community is angry because of the state of the game at any time and that's good. But respect everybody who tries to make the game better and understand that CoH2 is very young. The state of vCoH after 6months of release wasn't all that good either. We have been spoiled with vCoH and expected much of CoH2. We had to wait several years for vCoH to be what we wanted it to be. The least we can do is give Relic and everybody involved with the progress of CoH2 some time. I'm happy that this thread is reasonable and respectfull towards everybody, I hope it stays that way... cheers ! +1 good post. I think another thing that annoys me, and possibly others isn't necessarily the criticism itself - because a certain level of that is warranted. Rather it is the seemingly incessant vCoH >>>>>>>>>>>>> CoH 2 stuff that is annoying. Feel free to constructively criticize the game in an attempt to make it better but putting in the shoutbox "LOL vCOH IS BETTUR BCUZ IT HAS MORE STREAMZ THAN cOH2" is just ridiculous. Also @Inverse and anyone else that hasn't played CoH 2 since the beta/early release. I really think you guys should give the game a shot again. As I mentioned earlier I took a break from the game shortly after release because of the state of the game and the massive imbalances which directly resulted in a stale meta game. Things have improved significantly since then. Better maps, better commanders, more balanced units, better tech timings, buildings, input delay, pretty much everything has been improved and the meta game has evolved. The game is very fun now. In: Lobby
Thread: RtN Sponsored/Run Tournament14 Jan 2014, 19:22 PM Hey guys I was talking today with a couple guys and the idea of running a tournament after SNF came up. The initial idea was just to have a fun 1v1 or 2v2 tournament within the clan to help everyone get to know each other better since our initial group consists of two sets of people that I met in different places. However, as we discussed things in more detail we thought it might be a good idea to host a 2v2 tournament. Perhaps we could get some small prize support if people are willing to donate? Anyways I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on if we should try organizing a tournament, and if we do when should it happen? Any rules suggestions that you guys have are welcome too. My assumption is that we'd only let SNF legal commanders be used and we'd have to come up with a fair map pool. Also if anyone wants to go ahead and volunteer to be a ref or anything like that that'd be awesome too. Just let me know any kind of feedback that you guys have, and if you think it'd be to difficult to run a community-wide 2v2 tournament let me know, in the end it might be best just to keep it as an in-clan event. In: Remember the Name
Thread: Strategy in Company of Heroes 214 Jan 2014, 18:46 PM Yeah an increase in the number of global upgrades, at least on the Soviet side of the spectrum would be awesome, I think. I'm the type of player/gamer that always supports increased player choice because the more times you have to make an important choice in a single game, the more chances there are for your skill as a player to shine. Another issue I see with the commanders is that after a certain point (and I honestly think we're almost to that point) there will simply be too many commanders for them to ever be balanced or competitively operational. Sure we could start having tournaments limit things to the commanders we have right now today, but then practicing becomes tedious where you constantly have to organize scrims and can't ever automatch/ladder for practice. So while the current commander system is pretty cool, I don't think it is necessarily sustainable. I believe we're getting to the point in CoH 2 lifespan (or will be there soon) when we need to find other ways of adding/increasing depth and content. And this is where vCoH veterans could really help CoH 2 and the CoH 2 community. vCoH did a lot of things right and applying some of those aspects to make CoH 2 better (one example being more global upgrades) would be amazing, I think. And this is where the developers and us CoH 2 enthusiasts should look to you guys. I don't see why CoH 2 commander system + vCoH global upgrade system couldn't somehow combine to make an amazingly deep/skillful game. In: Lobby