Anybody seen this movie at theatre yet?
I plan on going sometime this week. It's been getting good reviews.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fury_2015/
Some of you guys' comments about how that scene relates to CoH2 were hilarious. |
Peter is in hiding, lol.
Don't see Dane anywhere either. |
I assure you Peter Qumsieh and co. have a method to their madness. Keep in mind they are paid to think about and adjust balance as their job. So when you are playing other games or sleeping or w/e, they are thinking about how to balance the game better.
It's hard to argue that, today, the game is not better balanced than it was on launch. The number of viable strategies is much higher than it was before. The problem is that the number of viable strategies is still quite low in relation to how many units and abilities are in the game.
With respect to Peter, I think his approach to balancing over-used and underused units and abilities is too conservative. I think he tends to look at underused units as unimportant on the priority list as long as those units don't affect faction W/L ratio. This is why the SU-76 has gone untouched so long. I'm sure they can see from the data that almost nobody builds it, but I think Peter figures that if the unit isn't built and the Soviets can still win, then addressing said unit isn't a high priority.
I completely disagree with this line of thinking. Buffing units that are statistically underused should be at the top of the priority list to make the game more dynamic and fun. If it turns out that a unit was over-buffed, then do a reactionary fix. I'm FINE with that. But I'm not fine with certain units and abilities living in a cellar all their lives. It's like, why even have them in the game if nobody is using them?
What makes an RTS game fun is not only the technical aspect of out-playing your opponent in micro, but also outsmarting him with ingenious tactics. We see this all through real wars... Rommel using 88 flak guns as ad-hoc AT guns in the desert... The US using decoy radio transmissions and inflatable tanks to fool German intel. The Russias using a scorched earth policy to slowly bleed the advancing Germans.
CoH2 is proficient in terms of rewarding technical execution but lacks when it comes to allowing organic and divergent tactics to flower. Currently, with few exceptions, players are punished outright for deviating from standard methods of winning.
When we go back to CoH1, we find that even though there was less "stuff" in the game to balance in terms of units and doctrines, all of it was usable. So I could choose to make Tigers and go armor heavy as Germans, but I could also choose to rely on my infantry with tough bunkers and 88s for defense.
As Americans I could build a Pershing, or I could go with a Calliope or howitzers or strafing runs, and all of this was equally viable if I used it properly.
Whereas look at CoH2. Choosing a doctrine that lacks Shocks/Guards or IS2/ISU is pretty much like taking a hatchet to your chances of winning. So is attempting a build with fewer than three starting Riflemen as Americans.
Players might be playing a "balanced" game, but when the balance comes at the cost of such tactical restriction, balance becomes a secondary issue to the lack of strategic variety in your strategy game.
Regards,
ZR |
It's actually a very good unit, but only excels in certain scenarios.
-Use it against blobs. It has HUGE AOE, especially at mid-range. If it fires into a blob of 3-4 squads it's going to thin the herd in a jiffy.
-Stall blobs into firefights while it auto-fires
-2 of these, while expensive, will make blobbers really pay the price
-Once it gets HEAT round, it's a decent stand-in for the 57mm against light and medium tanks
-Barrage is terrible and does almost no damage... use it only when autofire is not an option
-It's possible to autofire and then barrage fire a shell immediately after for a double shell... one other niche use for barrage
-White phosphorous doesn't seem cost effective since it doesn't kill anything. Might be alright against OKW reinforcement point before bum-rushing it with your army. |
It seems everyone wants to forget that you have to spend MP and FUEL before you have to spend AMMO and that you have to return to base losing map control while you do it.
Meanwhile the AXIS players just spend AMMO and can do it everywhere in the map.
I only use grenade (Smoke is needed) and the M1919A6 Browning LMG that comes with the Infantry Company because you don't have to spend MP and Fuel for it.
They could keep the weapon rack at base but make them cost only AMMO while having to go back to base to get them.
I agree with this. Could do the same for bazookas.
If they are kept bad, don't make them slow teching.
Otherwise buff them up a bit (especially bazookas). |
I knew this was a problem the first game I played after the patch. Kubel is objectively OP in that it costs no fuel, suppresses fast, can rotate to stop flanks, and can reverse out of danger quickly. It has none of the vulnerabilities of regular MGs.
I'd like to get word from a balance dev on when or if Kubel will be adjusted. |
Give Volley Fire to BARs as in CoH1? |
If 3v3 and 4v4 are in the game in a ranked capacity, then they deserve to be properly balanced instead of just being ignored.
If Relic's plan is to ignore 3v3 and 4v4 then 3v3 and 4v4 should be banished into the custom match sewers and begone from ranked.
That's of course the inferior option. The better option is to actually balance the game on all levels of play. Those who say this is an impossible goal do nothing to further the game and make it enjoyable for a wider audience.
I'm actually of the mindset that most of the "imba" stuff we see in 3v3 and 4v4 is actually imba in a 1v1 and 2v2 setting. It's just that when the imba stuff proliferates, it becomes far more obviously imbalanced. So while KT might be "kinda" imba in 1v1, when we see 4 players with 4KTs, the problem gets a magnifying glass put over it.
Same if pre-patch 100 range ISU 152 was imbalanced. In 1v1 it's only a bit imbalanced. In 4v4 it's very imbalanced, but the fact that it's imbalanced in the first place doesn't change.
Same thing with stuka strafing runs. "Kinda" imba in 2v2, but super imba when they can be called in non-stop in 4v4.
But nobody will say "zomg Conscripts are imba in 4v4" because Conscripts are not imba in 1v1. Same for SU-76. The units that are fundamentally imbalanced can be produced en masse in a 4v4, to make the opponent's life more miserable several fold. |
Thread: Esports16 Sep 2014, 12:31 PM
Can anyone watch this and say "Oh yeah, Kubel is fine." ?
Suppression buff was overboard. It's a mobile suppression platform, and that's okay. But now it is essentially an MG42 on wheels. That's cool and all, but the fact that it can rotate on a dime to suppress flanks and tank ZiS rounds (all with no fuel cost, mind you) is very alarming. |
I'm just saying it's a clear cut issue when a maxim can be spammed to hell because it has virtually no down sides in comparison to its German counterparts. I realize the point of the German MG is to be used defensively but it can't even do that job well.
Maxims lock down and shut down entire sectors, even more efficiently when they are spammed. German MG's.. eh they are just disappointing. Especially against blobs of infantry.
Often I hear the excuse "You can't expect 240mp MG's to stop 1000mp worth of infantry." Which I feel I rightfully can disagree. That's the entire point of a machine gun, to shut down a sector until it is properly flanked or sniped or destroyed with vehicles or indirect fire. Unfortunately the Maxim has proven extremely efficient in these areas while the German MG's have proven to be woefully outmatched.
Let's compare them shall we?
MAXIM
- Pros
-Frighteningly high suppression and pin rate.
-6 man squad.
-Very fast deploy and redeploy time.
-More damage at range compared to German MGs.
-Firing arc increases inside buildings.
-Can continue firing while suppressed and pinned.
- Cons
-Can get trapped in a fatal loop where the carriage runner is killed while on retreat.
-Smaller arc of fire. (Can be mitigated by using maximum range or garrisoning in buildings.
-Vulnerable to artillery strikes
GERMAN MG34/MG42
- Pros
-Wide firing arc.
-Incendiary rounds upon veterancy.
-Amusing dialogue.
- Cons
-4 man squad. (Easier to wipe)
-Long deployment and redeployment times.
-Unable to suppress quickly, especially through "oorah" (Often ends up molotoved or grenaded)
-Especially vulnerable to artillery strikes due to long redeployment time.
-Less damage at range compared to maxim.
-Cannot fire while suppressed and pinned (To my knowledge.)
You left out the biggest Maxim weakness and biggest MG42 strength... Maxim has very low AOE suppression (or none?) whereas MG42 excels at AOE suppression.
Essentially, MG42 by itself can suppress / pin an entire blob due to the AOE. Combined with its massive firing arc, MG42 becomes the premiere machine gun in terms of routing enemy infantry.
Maxim does superior damage but is far worse in the role of suppressing and routing infantry that MG's are supposed to excel at due to its narrow arc and low AOE. This means flanking it is super easy.
In short, if you have problems killing the Maxim, you have no idea how to flank and you're bad. |