|
I feel like this topic has derailed and gotten out of hand, resulting in petty insults and trolling.
Now, I agreed the beta looks and sounds better, but that's it. I played the beta extensively when it came out, and everyone here saying it played like dogshit is right. The balance and input lag was at its worse, but that isn't really what King is arguing against, so why are people even bringing it up?
King, there is no "other engine". Relic most likely "optimized" the game by removing some visual and audio elements, and that's it. Let's not throw around wild absolutes when the only proof to show for it, is some casts from over a year ago. |
|
Before I watched the video, I was scoffing at your post thinking you were delusional, but after seeing some of combat play out in multiple scenes it really does look better.
I can't quite put my finger on specifically why it has changed visually, but it does look different. I feel like it sounds different too. |
snip
Nope, sorry, you can't point to two doctrines that have muni conversion and say, "if you only use these, then you don't have to worry about costs anymore!". That's just absurd. Also, the "the muni heavy army" only really appears once you pick any of the other doctrines you WANT to play with that are MUNI HEAVY, so your argument is even more ridiculous.
You also completely sidestepped or missed my point. LMG grens are fair because that's 60 muni on one squad, the cost needs to equal quality in the meta regardless of the bigger picture, because a player is potentially spending a large pull of resources early game on a single unit expecting it to make a difference.
What the blazing hell does bringing up the fact that Soviets can be muni heavy depending on the type of commander you choose have to with anything that I mentioned? I specifically am talking about the feasibility and purpose of the molotov in conjunction with small skirmishes. |
Thats kinda the point of molotoves you know? I mean it suppose to kill people right? Its the only thing conscripts have going for them in the ai department, bedsides PPSh's, but those are doctrinal. The point with maxims is the rifle grenades can kill up to 2-3 members if you are lucky and cause the unit ai to go full retard and sit there for 5 seconds and do nothing, a problem that also plagues the mg42. This allows you to easily out flank it and force it off, if it wasn't already forced off the field. If you are really lucky it will out right destroy the maxim completely(the rifle grenade). Grens are better than cons with or with out the 60 muni upgrade i said that, with out factoring molotoves of course. For some reason allowing conscripts to have some equal footing with German infantry and have the ability to scale alittle better in late game is op. Pgrens destroy then easily especially at vet two.
Yes, molotovs should definitely be able to kill models. The problem is that molotovs can quickly(if RNG is on your side)utterly half the unit composition and dps of an already small unit size, even if said unit is at full health. What I, and many others are proposing, is that molotovs should have increased damage over time, meaning the molotovs should kill units if the german player stays withing the flame circle for more than a few seconds. It should primarily be used as area/cover denial, giving cons the advantage in 1v1 fight. |
So, lets quickly recap your post:
Soviet mp and fuel upgrade that needs muni to use and is easily dodged is bad, because it might instantly kill one model and might kill more if you happen to be AFK to move out of fire(because not everyone knows that standing in fire=bad).
German muni only upgrade is good, because its an upgrade and should be good.
Don't you see a lil bias here?
And to drop significantly DPS of LMG grens youneed to kill 3 models and still more then 50% of the dps will remain.
Cons and grens are two most balanced units in game, their abilities and upgrades as well except pointless disparity between AT nade and pfaust.
My comparison was between the lmg/g43 with the ppsh, not with the molotov. You're ignoring the fundamental differences between a universal upgrade that relies on crits/rng, and one that doesn't. A costly 60 muni upgrade in an army that is already muni intensive, should have a strong reward to go with that cost. That's not to say that a fuel/manpower universal ability like the molotov shouldn't also be rewarded, but the way it's currently used in the meta is based purely on lucky rng and the weird ability to utterly destroy full health models in small sized squads.
Now if you were to compare the riflenade with the molotov that's a different story, since that's more fair. |
So what I am getting from reading this thread is that the Molotov should be nerfed because people can't micro out of the way. Also are to lazy to move their mg and conscripts can orahh up to a mg42. Grenadiers can just riflenade a maxim and force it off the field. Vanilla grens and lmg/g43 grens will easily beat vanilla cons, but ppsh cons are op because they finally have chance against German infantry and kill then? So, German infantry should always kills Conscripts? This is the most biased thread I ever seen. Why is relic even reading this? It is being primarily posted by people who have admitted to being primarly German players
Dat strawman. How about you actually read what people are actually saying, hmmm? A molotov, when it connects successfully, very often killing at minimum one german model instantly, ripping 25% of the dps of that unit, usually forcing a retreat. People feel that it would be better if molotovs did more DOT than crits, turning them into tools of area denial.
I have no idea what your second sentence is even saying since it's worded so poorly. A maxim has six men available to man a piece of equipment that can surpress/pin any other infantry, and one rifle nade hardly ever kills enough men for the mg to no longer be useful.
Holy smokes, a 60 muni upgrade makes a unit way more effective against a fresh unupgraged unit, no shit. Also to significantly drop the dps of a ppsh con squad, you need to kill a minimum of 4 models, but other than that, I don't consider cons to be nearly as big of an issue as others here think they are, since their dps has been nerfed already. |
|
+1
I completely agree with all of your proposed suggestions. |
|
I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet, but after playing a few games in the new patch, I noticed that all artillery, including mortars, create a much larger and more extravagant plume of dirt and smoke when the shell lands. I'm almost positive the devs have executed this change since the last patch.
Am I going crazy, or you guys seeing this too? |
As negative as the portrayal was up to that point, it was to my viewing centered on representing the war, state and propaganda machine of the Soviets as an enemy equally as deadly and inhumane as the actual invading enemy.
This was then used as background to throw into stark contrast and highlight the suffering, sacrifice and heroism of the main protagonists, who represent the actual human participants in this terrible period in history, not only at the hands of the actual enemy but of their own ideological state as well.
Its just a different way of telling the same story, that instead of glorifying war, shows it for its inhumanity, and the hard decisions millions had to face when placed between a rock and an even harder place. I dont really understand why some people choose to fixate on the controversial selected background setting, rather than the actions of the protagonists IN those settings.
To my viewing, it portrays personal heroism, great sacrifice and the enduring struggle of the main characters to maintain even a semblance of humanity and morality, in a terrible time when there was precious little of that and a human life was considered sometimes cheaper than the bullet it took to take it.
I think its a better and more "modern" way of telling the story, and in retrospect, I wish it had been done sooner in more war-related games, rather than glorifying war, and could just as well have been applied to a Nazi campaign with equally horrific and inhumane backgrounds highlighting personal heroism of people atleast trying to do "the right thing", the humane thing, even in war.
This. couldn't have said it better myself, thanks Nullist. |
Snip
That analogy doesn't make sense, because the deeds of one individual would never even be considered as a representation of a whole organization or group. We as human beings here and now can see today pedophiles who are also priests, but no one is assuming that the those priests are who and what the Catholic Church compose solely of. That's ridiculous!
On top of this, no where does it even remotely state within the campaign that the deeds of the corrupt are a representation of the entire Russian people. Especially since we see other Russians who are completely fine reasonable people in the very same campaign.
Try again. |
0
TheCrimsonSpire
Porygon
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
