RNG absolutely does decide games. It absolutely does not reward good play. I've went over this repeatedly and it's irrefutable. This is factual basis I'm discussing, not "fun" or "cool" or "realistic"(fuck that shitty argument).
Adding RNG factually decides games. Adding RNG factually lowers the skill cap. Adding RNG factually trivializes important decisions. Adding RNG factually rewards bad play.
If you can prove to me it doesn't do any of the above, I will eat my words. When RNG is now a factor a player can control, when RNG does not ruin the good play and positioning of a player, when RNG does not allow a player to escape unscathed from horrible decisions, you can get back to me.
And by that time the sun will probably rise in the west and set in the east.
Go play another game man - coh is about random moments and so is coh2. Thats what most people love about the game, seems like you miss the point and obviously need another game to play.
Yeh Iv seen a game get decided by a random moment - that's what makes it awesome. it does not lower the skill gap, that's completely incorrect. Sometimes you might get disproportionaly rewarded ( ie by killing a squad with a mine which in turn sets a chain of events that loses you a game) but in that case you should of had a sweeper.
I strongly want to call you and idiot or other bad names but I wont - you have your opinion and I have mine but to say that randomness rewards bad play, is irrational to me. Can you give more than 1 example how this happens?
Could randomness then not help the better player by doing crazy damage that ends the game in 1/2 the time or does it only effect bad players? It's nonsense..
its completely refutable, infact you dont even have a leg to stand on. you are just ranting and raving without even understanding what you are saying. Ill will leave you with this quote to mull over
"Luck is a matter of preparation meeting opportunity."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca |
So much rage. Being patronising to the devs won't make you more audible.
Having a 100% reliable AT-nade + faust was, as PQ noted in the stream, killing vehicle flanking plays, especially with heavier tanks which are both slower and pricier most of the time (panther's an exception). I'd note that kiting the infantry is impossible when you have an SU-85 sitting around. The chance of engine damage on a heavy tank from a faust or AT nade to the front still seems reasonably good (from the devs stream), on medium tanks I think it's basically reliable. My main concern with it is the KV-8 but I think that concern is more a general balance one with that vehicle.
WRT ram: previously, T-34s were problematically weak against tier 3 and problematically strong against the more expensive tier 4, tigers, etc etc. You would ram a P-IV or anything stronger almost 100% of the time. Now you have more options against all German armour but also an incentive to not instantly ram anything just because you can. I take it you're aware of the greater amount of skill-based ram-related micro that's been added in with the patch? I believe that ram against P-IVs is still 100% reliable, right?
IMO, the genuinely reliable snares should be the ones that require, y'know, prior placement, rather than just oorahing conscripts at any vehicle not fast enough to get out of the way and then having the SU-85 bash away at it.
MG-42s have a lot of hard counters (sniper, M3 flamer, mortar) and some soft counters (conscripts in blizzard with molotovs, flanking conscripts, mortar smoke, maxims, ZiS barrage). More importantly, a lost/stolen MG-42 is an absolutely huge blow for the Germans. Not only are they much less able to decrew it but with the lack of molotovs, good snipers, etc etc they find it harder to displace it as well, and much much harder to steal. They may be a tad too quick on the suppression but I don't actually think they're that broken right now.
The suppression bulletin is probably too good right now but bulletin balance is kind of tangential to the core game, which needs to be nailed down a bit more before you can balance bulletins, I reckon.
Maxims are OK (they used to be insanely good vs. German T1 until relic raised the skill ceiling by making the MG vs MG battles dependent on using them well and by tweaking the set-up time, damage and suppression). They're not as strong as an MG-42 but they're much harder to punish, kill and steal. Soviet 82mm mortar needs to be a bit more accurate imo, otherwise I think the T2 building can offer you quite a lot.
Panzerwerfers are pretty good. Rare because T4. Quick recharge, reasonably accurate, high damage, indirect fire so don't have to go anywhere near an enemy's firing arc. All damage done in one barrage so you're not stuck firing at empty space for ages. Just as importantly, they're the reason T4 gives you another element for your army.
I've seen worse pathing. There are a few irritating reversing fails and vehicles getting hung up on trees (and fuck Pripyat Spring) but otherwise it's generally predictable enough. I thought blaming pathing was one of the main hobbies of DOW 2 players : p
On the RNG, CoH has always been a matter of playing the numbers, rolling with the punches, gameplay experience and creativity over clinical, accurate stat-based microing. Its version of the skill ceiling is very different to, say, Starcraft's.
----
@Pewpew,
Soviet mortars, maxims, conscripts with molotovs (especially on snow maps) and ZiS barrage can all soft counter MG42s with proper play. Snipers hard counter them as well. Yeah, tier 1 is *better* against MGs (especially on Langreskaya, I think) but it's not like T2 lacks options.
General curiosity: does a deflecting ram hit write off your T-34? (you still deal 160 damage, I believe)...
One of the best posts +1 |
Man no offense - but faust and at nade are "soft counters" ie they have limited effect. IMO its a terrible idea to have them work to destroy engine every time... it means your teir 0 unit can always disable even the biggest tanks. In COH stickes did damage, they could kill tanks and there was also a chance for engine damage, destruction or immobilization - the higher the vet of your unit the bigger the chance.
THis should be brought back to make vet units actually useful, the way the change works now with the randomness is perfect The fact that it was simplified and the damage was always the same ruins the game, I cant believe they made the vehicle damage mechanics such a basic parody of the first game to be honest.
You are talking bollocks - real life and real war totally hinges on completely random events and that's one of the things that made coh amazing, the more they bring it back to the game the better it will be.
As to your answer - why you should ram a tank? Well its the high chance of using one of your cheap tanks to disable something that costs 3-4 times the amount and win the game.... Its a risk, and it makes sense. Did the red army just sucide their tanks all the time or something? Its a once in a while tactic that can pay off big nto something to constantly lean on.
Improving the way micro ( units doing as you say when you say it) works and the way cover works ( as well as flanking and small unit damage) will bring back the skill gap between good and bad players, randomness has nothing to do it as its so rare it just makes things interesting and not in anyones favour.
I want to add oen more thing - the MG. How exactly is it OP? Have any of you even played COH? The thing about the mg was - the second you get fired upon your quad drops to ground, and very quickly after it gets suppressed and pinned.. Thats how it worked, and if you stood there for maybe 2-3 seconds longer you started taking massive casulties if in open ground. Thats what cover was for.
The moral of the story was dont get caught in mg fire or your squad becomes usless, I think a lot more of the "balance" issues come down to terrible maps, and realyl sloppy game control delays amongst other things, its got nothing to do with the mg per se.
IMO mgs in coh2 are too weak as are all the small arms in the game - just feels more arcadey and forgiving. |
They should have it because it's a vital ability to the infantry-tank balance. Unless you want this to be a top-down game of World of Tanks you need to have a reliable infantry snare that can work with a level of consistency.
If we're worried about how powerful these abilities were there were other ways to nerf that made them more difficult to use but also maintained a consistent reward for players who got into the right positioning.
Now I can totally out position my opponent, he can overextend, I can nail him with one of these and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that I outplayed my opponent horrendously because RNG said it doesn't matter. This is what I mean by skill cap being lowered.
It should work or it should not. Otherwise there is no point to them. Snares are intended to be reliable because gameplay is built on snares and how and when you can get them off. What Relic has done is remove a cornerstone of the RTS genre(And in particular, Relic games) for absolutely no reason that I can discern. Changing things for the sake of it.
And yeah, I realize I am remembering stickies wrong. Rather foolish of me to forget exactly how they worked. But I still stand by everything I said. Consistency is the name of the game but it appears the crucial changes are attempting to make everything important as inconsistent as possible.
Why should I use Ram now? Why should I use an AT Nade? If Ram doesn't work I've lost a tank. If an AT Nade doesn't work I've lost the engagement. I can't depend on either anymore because of these random factors. One would think I would win or lose things on my merits alone as a player, not what some random number generator decides. This is what I mean when I compare it to a game of dice.
There are some elements of randomness that one must accept in order to play this game, because it's how the game works as an RTS. Like mortars one hitting your squad on the first go. Or all the rifles in your squad focusing on one enemy model. That kind of shit. But there are things that simply do not make sense when you add randomness to them, and these are some of them.
As for the MG42, M3s are extremely easy for Germans to control. Sit back with a second MG42 á la DoW2 or just park a Grenadier next to them and gg.
Man no offense - but faust and at nade are "soft counters" ie they have limited effect. IMO its a terrible idea to have them work to destroy engine every time... it means your teir 0 unit can always disable even the biggest tanks. In COH stickes did damage, they could kill tanks and there was also a chance for engine damage, destruction or immobilization - the higher the vet of your unit the bigger the chance.
THis should be brought back to make vet units actually useful, the way the change works now with the randomness is perfect The fact that it was simplified and the damage was always the same ruins the game, I cant believe they made the vehicle damage mechanics such a basic parody of the first game to be honest.
You are talking bollocks - real life and real war totally hinges on completely random events and that's one of the things that made coh amazing, the more they bring it back to the game the better it will be.
As to your answer - why you should ram a tank? Well its the high chance of using one of your cheap tanks to disable something that costs 3-4 times the amount and win the game.... Its a risk, and it makes sense. Did the red army just sucide their tanks all the time or something? Its a once in a while tactic that can pay off big nto something to constantly lean on.
Improving the way micro ( units doing as you say when you say it) works and the way cover works ( as well as flanking and small unit damage) will bring back the skill gap between good and bad players, randomness has nothing to do it as its so rare it just makes things interesting and not in anyones favour.
|
Hah. Sometimes you just have to laugh at the jive people come up with. Mark Target is fine. I'd love to see the game that made the OP rage post.
Its not one game, its just a bad ability IMO. In reality its basically a tank insta kill ability.. Its take no skill to use, its super powerful and its spammable.. seems op to me |
these are very vague things overall not very helpful from a development point of view. in otherwards okay its your opinion fine but clearly these 3 "simple" things aren't really that "simple" or "fast".
however i agree on what these issues need to be addressed. its just there much more complex than you make it seem.
Yeh I cant comment on the behind the scenes stuff as I know nothing about developing a game, but they could just look at vCOH and take queues from that.. I mean they did make it and it does all 3 of these points excellently. But yeh I agree with you, but the point I was trying to make is its not about testing new units, or doing any changes to the armies ect but more from a game play perspective. |
When I saw your title, I thought : oh no, one of this guy again who thinks he knows better than everyone how to make a game.
But actually, I totally agree with your 3 points.
haha thanks man |
I agree, but inf jumping around for no reason happened on vCoH
Yeh but in vCOH it had the intended effect, reacting to the environment, explosions ect it was awesome. Its too sloppy in COH2 actually detracts from the game as opposed to adding to it. |
|
As the title says
Step 1: Bring back proper cover - I am sick of seeing 2 inf units standing in a open field about 5 m away from each other and shooting till the end of time. It should be like COH out of cover = massacre if you are infantry against other inf in cover. I cant belive they messed up probably the biggest mechanic of COH, the cover system literally made the game what it is, and in coh2 it plays a much smaller role.
When you put troops in cover in coh they tended to stick areound in cover, and in green had a considerable - fire fight winning advantage, even against superior troops ( if they were not in cover). This leads on to step 2
Step 2: Bring back small arms lethality: As mentioned above with 2 inf units out of cover both standing close and shooting, it takes forever for combat to finish. What happened to the quick casualties in COH? It was so refreshing to see, made the game so much better. Its like the took vCOH and put it into wet sand. How does that help anyone? Flanking makes no difference. I just watched a game on Propaganda cast where a Halftrack with a HMG and Gren unit ( with mg I think) flank a 120mm mortar, set up and unleash hell. From the graphics on screen it looked like a massacre - I mean they fired for a good 6-8 seconds, dirt was being kicked up ect as you would imagine when 3 MGS fire in a small area.
What actually happened was after all that, 3 crew members packed up the mortar and sprinted off... unbelievable.
Step 3: Make micro work. Why on earth is there a huge delay between unit orders and them carrying it out? You have to struggle with the game to just move your guys around. COH was so crisp and responded beautifully, now its a struggle to move your guys move when you ask.
This goes hand in hand with the glitchy animations of the infantry, they dawdle around, jumping and stalling, resetting their ability to use weapons ( grens with mg anyone?) where they constantly reset their weapon firing due to all the unnecessary fumbling around. This sort of stuff never happened in COH and its ruining the game.
Iv seen plenty of inf jump into a molatov instead of running out of it when ordered, or bunch up like a accordion when told to move from a bundle nade. Movement and control is the bread and butter of a RTS game... If you cant assert control over your units then you cant play the game properly. I wonder how many beautiful maneuvers these problems have prevented from happening.
Balance is great, but if the game was working properly then it wouldn't be the biggest issue in the world and people would still be enjoying the game, these basic fundamentals need to be improved for the caliber of COH2 to be raised back to that of vCOh. |
No...just no.
It is an ability that costs 80 munitions and REQUIRES combined arms to actually inflict any damage. Typically, it is Guards buttoning at tank, marking it, and an SU-85 destroying it. Combined arms should defeat your tank in that case. Or you can just pop-smoke and run away.
You can't spam it, since the cooldown is 60s (I believe, if not longer). If it seems like it is being spammed, then probably multiple enemy commanders had chosen a doctrine with Mark Target. But Guard Motor tactics does tend to float a lot of munitions, as there aren't any call-in artillery or bombing options.
The plane that flies around has a very limited LOS, basically enough to get LOS on the marked vehicle as intended. It is not equivalent to an actual Recon Run.
You could make the same type of complaint about Strafe planes, too.
I dont see it as a balanced option in my opinion, 60 second cool down is a lot less then the rebuild time of a tank, its completely nullifies any Armour in the game. You say it takes a "combined arms approach" but ill phrase it in a different way, you have an army as the soviet, a firefight begins, you pop mark target and basically with the units in the area you kill the tank 4 times faster than normal.
Since soviet army already has some pretty powerful anti tank units, such as SU85, buttoning on guards or even the 6 man zis gun, its pretty much a no brainer, its cheap enough to spam all game every 1 minute, so every engagement it can and will be used and throws out the balance of the game.
You may be right about the limited LOS bus you still get some, and just to get LOS as ost you are paying 80 muni for a super heavy muni based army ( if you want to have a chance at winning at all) |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
