This is an interesting question. Why is it personal? I do feel it is personal. I feel cheated and continually lied to. Let me explain:
With one hand they are balancing the game with the patches (bar the 500MP patch), with the other hand they destroy balance with the commanders.
The patches speak to the competitive element of the CoH franchise. They are saying "Look, we care about balance".
The Commanders speak to the more casual players, saying "Look, we are adding content, keeping it fresh".
The thing is of course, you can't please both parties this way. The net sum of the updates is continual non-balance, but the patches are an attempt at appeasing the competitive element.
However, this is a lie. They are cheating. They keep paying lip-service to the CoH2.org creators and community, because we add value by perpetuating the lie that this is also a game with a competitive potential.
The sad effect is that this entire site is now based on a dream that will never happen. Sure, we can have tournaments with veto'd commanders, but this will not reflect the automatch reality. This game will never have a metagme, a 12azor, DrHorse or Seb - hell, we might as well be a modding community.
So yeah; Fuck you, Relic - but well played.
Not much to add to that. The game has taken one hell of a nosedive since Turning Point (meaningful name much?). What good balance changes were made are so completely overshadowed by pay to win bullshit that the game becomes unplayable as soon as anyone has them.
I mean, it's obvious this wasn't beta-tested in the slightest. Industry is the absolute worst offender, but instant vet 2 PGrens, P4s and the tiger ace are also very noob-tastic. The game has gone from ressembling the tug-of-war design of vCOH to devolving into a stupid spamfest where tanks rule the day at the 10th minute, or even earlier. Having balance issues at launch is fully understandable, and Relic has been fairly good with the patches even, but on the other hand adding such game-breaking idiocy pretty much twarts their entire effort. I have a feeling the balance department and whatever incompetent designed those commanders don't speak to each other much. |
Although true in the case of many RTS games, it doesn't have to be the case. Take chess, for example. Or vCoH, for that matter. Games can continue to remain fresh and interesting as long as they have sufficient depth (by which I mean, a great number of strategic choices where no single unit/build order/tactic is objectively superior to any other in a vacuum). It is a sign that a game lacks depth when additional units are required to keep it fresh- that game is substituting depth for sheer mass.
Aye, that's exactly what is happening. Novelty wears off; good design and good balance is what draws people in and makes them stay. I mean, look at Starcraft I, it's more than 10 years old and barely had any new units since its original release, yet it's still played by more people than COH2 for sure.
In this game's case it's even worse since novelty comes along with blatant nickel and diming. The only other major, full-price title I played with a similar model was Mass Effect 3, and even then in that game you could play and grind for the new stuff, COH2 forces you to fork over 4$ if you want to stay competitive. This kind of model is bad enough for a free-to-play game, but in a 60$ competitive multiplayer title it's just fucking unacceptable. |
|
I also think it's a bad move. Especially doing this right after such a big and controversial balance update. The balance was delicate enough pre-Turning Point, now it's in shambles as far as new commanders are concerned, but this could potentially manhandle it to the point Dawn of War looks balanced in comparison.
Not to mention that, as CieZ said, it benefits Soviet industry too much, and that doctrine is stupid enough as it is.
Man, if this keeps up, I'm going to have to stop playing until they get their shit together. That expansion for X-Com is starting to look more tempting by the day... |
Well, the inherent flaw with this assumption is that the Soviet Industry doctrine can actually field infantry any reasonable amount of infantry. Spoiler alert - it can't.
If all you have is infantry AT, it only takes a handful of conscripts to truly hurt you, or at least cap all around your AT defense. Or heavens forbid, a well-microed sniper. Kiss those PGrens and PAKS goodbye. -80 MP is not that dramatic.
And anyway, a doctrine should never, ever force such a drastic change of gameplay. Beyond the balance issues, it's just horribly designed in general. |
I beat it with schrecks in a 250 halftrack followed up by a PaK using assault gren doctrine (yes yes another paid commander) but the general trend is the same. Save your munitions for Schrecks, get a PaK and maybe a 2cm 222. Use this to stall for a Stug III or Pz4.
My general build to counter it would be 3-4 grens (depending on fuel control/timing) NO LMGs and NO rifle nades. Pgrens + Schrecks, halftrack, PaK and see from there. PaKs really are your best friend against this doctrine because they'll be EXTREMELY limited on infantry so you don't have to worry as much about infantry flanks. They doctrine really pushes them into mass amounts of tanks, if you force them into an infantry game from so much AT, they're destined to lose.
Every time I've seen Ivan or anyone else stream win with a very fast T-70 the opponent has been very unprepared. Any time I've won, the opponents have been very unprepared.
That being said... I haven't lost yet while playing Soviet Industry, but I also haven't lost to it while playing as Germans (to be fair I've played a lot more games with Sov Industry so far than against it though).
I see your point, but by the time you get all this there won't be only 1 T-70, and T-34s are probably un the way. PAKs are also very map dependant: While this may ok on smaller maps, good luck doing this by the numbers on Semois or Kharkov. The very concept of having to use a commander to beat another is also very silly, you only have three to choose from.
It's beatable, sure. But it's unbalanced and, worse, not fun to play against at all. |
Most humorous part to me is watching people QQ about losing to T-70s when they're trying to play gren gren gren HMG mortar extended tier 1. Sorry, but I'm not sorry that that isn't going to counter a T70. You know it is coming, it is obvious that it is coming - tech sooner to compensate.
I'm not saying the doctrine shouldn't be changed, I think it should, but the game isn't doomed because one commander warps the meta-game. Unless you're in the top 25 or so pretty much every "balance" issue can be overcome by playing better. I know it is hard to admit and easy to QQ about "pay2win" commanders but at the end of the day learning to adapt and counter builds is part of any RTS.
I think the ''learn to adapt', argument only goes so far. If a commander allows a less skilled player to win just because he bought it, then it's BS and needs to be changed. I mean, sure, if you fight an uphill battle using specific strategies and assuming you're better than your opponent, you can beat it, but ''beatable'' sure as heck doesn't equal ''balanced''.
Also, what tech do you recommend then? Because a well-used T70 will never be hit by fausts and will probably be able to avoid PAKs, as well as make a mockery of panzershrecks. What else is there, sink 60 ammo into a Teller and pray the random god he steps on it? I also strongly dislike that a single commander shifts the game into ''counter the T70 or die'' mode. It's one-sided and very much unfun to play against.
|
Link0: Sounds like it could perhaps use an increase to atleast CP1 then, to avoid extreme early game fuel leveraging. Vetted Pio spam just occured to memas an idea, but I think thatnkind ofnfuel expenditure would cripple teching severly.
As to the match you cite, Id have to see it to comment, but T2 seems to be a solution with Maxim or Sniper, presuming you can maintain enough fuel control to tech, which Id think you can owing to the Ost player dumping esrly fuel into infantry rather than tech.
I'd put it at 2 CP myself. It would still be problematic mid-late game, but at least the German player would have to fight for that early map control rather than click on his gren and then a-move to your cutoff. On Semois it's basically unbeatable.
My personal counter as of now is the Defensive community doctrine. A DSHK can suppress and do damage much better than a Maxim, and you can go T1 to grab a sniper. Quickly follow up with SU-85s to deal with the inevitable P4, hopefully having mines planted and/or a light AT gun. It's not perfect and the ability is still stupid, but hey, if Relic is willing to break their own game for $ it's up to us to hold it together innit? |
....strong against 2 conscripts maybe.. but slaughter?..hyperbole much? Blitz is end all be all ability?
If what you say were true I would never lose.......Nor anyone with vet 3 grens or a vet 1 tank
It doesn't destroy 2 conscripts, but it can and will send even more of them packing if the squad is supported. And if the german player has a modicum of diligence, he'll follow with an LMG which is even more deadly with the accuracy buff. You pretty much need higher skill to beat that. |
I agree with this. I have no idea what the DSHK is bad at. It is a better maxim and replaces it entirely. I Thought the point of the new unit was to provide different strategies not make better versions of the same thing.
Aye, I was also on the receiving end of that one. It's an uber-Maxim that also shreds light vehicles. The whole doctrine is extremely FHT and AC proof, in fact. But you pay for it with no end-game ability and no elite infantry, so that's the trade-off IMO. If you don't manage to get in a comfortable position early game, you will probably lose. And the DSHK sucks on some maps too.
So while it's not perfectly balanced, it's a far cry from the ridiculous pay to win sillyness of the other two. |
|
To those who say vetting infantry is not worth it, you haven't faced a good player who used that vet 3 gren squad to push you off the map easily. 20 fuel is not that much, it's barely a minute if you have a decent income, and it ensures that the gren squad will utterly melt conscripts, even without the LMG. If it does get the LMG (and considering the state of the metagame, it will)... good luck. You are pretty much forced into using shock troops or a sniper, which sucks. No doctrine should force you into a playstyle if you want to survive, that's not their purpose.
And we're not even into mid-game, where this doctrine really hurts. One click gives panzer 4's vet 2 IIRC, enough to give it very good bonuses on top of instant blitzkrieg to create a potent murdermachine. It's even good vs infantry at this stage. You need SU-85s to destroy it.
As for the Tiger Ace, while the ''do or die'' aspect is interesting, it makes it a nightmare to balance. I'd say it should have an initial cost, then halve the player's ressource rate. It's just a bit too good to have the best unit in the game come instantly and without expense. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
