Profile of MilkaCow

No, should stay doctrinal for now. As Relic now stated several times, next patch will focus on vehicles. Wait for that patch +1/+2 months to test and solve balance issues with the new system and then redo the poll. Just prior to such a patch it just seems like the poll is rather useless

Porygon, this is a rather ignorant opinion, so let me present some reasons. Why "not caring" for team games is bad.

Relic said 4v4 is the game mode with most players. This shares a lot of similarities with vs AI skirmishes. So if Relic would actually want to care for the majority of the community, they would have to focus balance on this.

It doesn't change the fact that 1 v 1 players are a minority. An over-indulged, increasingly spoilt and disproportionately influential minority.

What BeltFedWombat said is quite true. The 1v1 players are a minority, but they see themselves as the most important part of the game, the only players with true skill and the only ones for which the game should be balanced. The CoH community is one of the worst communities ever and I personally think a major part is due to the thought of elitism of 1v1 players. Without the casual/teamgame part of the community CoH2 would not exist. Yet you treat them as if they are not even worthy of being recognized.

Balance wise a trickle down system COULD work, but only if Relic creates some kind of scaling factors for bigger game modes. As long as those do not exist, balancing solely for 1v1 is a balance for the minority of the community. There are a lot of units and vehicles that are really strong in 1v1, but weak in bigger game modes - take the IS-2 for example. In a 4v4 it's rather weak, whereas in a 1v1 it's death incarnate. Solely focusing on only one spectrum of the size for the balance would make it even worse in the other.

Now back to the top part:

It is the truth or law of RTS, it is made for 1v1 gameplay, or more or less for 2v2 too. Anything above 3v3 cannot be balanced or it will ruin the core system of the game.

You cannot find 3v3 RTS that is not casual-based, because they will be uberspammy.

AoE2 was pretty balanced in all game modes. Then another incredibly well done RTS game was actually made for 5v5. Yes 5v5, that's even MORE than the 3v3 you state. And it's not uberspammy. And it's an RTS. And it was successful and played competitive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict#Reception

I'm still trying to work out where the Maxim is better than the MG42, can someone tell me what that is?

Maxim:
+ 50% bigger squad size
+ Higher suppression at ranges above ~20
+ Low teardown / setup times
+ More reliable DPS/SPS (lower reload cycle, reloads less often than 42)
+ Great performance in buildings (gains higher arc)

MG42:
+ Higher damage (50% close range, 120% mid, 240% long range)
+ Higher arc of fire
+ Incremental accuracy
+ Bigger suppression AoE and percentage

So generalised in one sentence:
Maxim is good at long range suppression and against single troops where the MG42 deals more damage and works best against groups of enemies.


Both heavy MGs, but their actual stats and profiles (and therefor uses) are very different. Comparing them is kinda hard :/ Out of personal preference I love MG42 on maps like Langres (Sniper + 42) generally I prefer the Maxim :\ RGs are a bit too strong vs them atm, but that's more a problem of riflenades IMO

Sectors and actual terrain does not correlate at all, making the sectors feel unnatural. You could easily create a correlation without changing the points positions, making sectors feel more natural. Just to give a better understanding an idea of how to change (parts) of the map without changing cap-points or the structure.



Besides that I can't say too much about the map since I never tested it

wongtp - wooof has a great understanding of the mechanics of this game and knows very well how this game works. The problem is that the majority of the community doesn't and it's often hard to discern what they actually mean. If they use the term "destroyed engine" a lot of people mean engine damage. Overall I think both of you tended to misunderstand the other or ignore parts of what he said.

First of all, wooof never said that one should use T34/76 to fight a Panther, but rather tried to explain the values and mechanics behind ramming a Panther. I think the style wasn't great though I can understand him, we worked hard to get an understanding of the game and mechanics. We do not know everything, but a good bit. A lot of people do not know this, but post random numbers or say things work this or that way, even though they are not sure about this. That can easily annoy you a lot. Ignorance, subjectivity and favoritism (real and imagined) are huge problems of the CoH2 community.

Second - I think you still have not completely understood how ram works. At least your previous post showed a lack, so for a better understanding - Upon ramming the following will happen:
If penetration >= armor (which is true for the rear armor of all tanks except IS-2 and Tiger) the target vehicle will get 160 damage and a critical (see below).
If penetration < armor, then with a penetration/armor chance it will be a successful ram (see case above), else it will fail, damage and cause a crew shock.
If the ram is successful a dice is rolled for the outcome. The main gun is always destroyed. With a 70% chance it causes engine damage (.4 movespeed/acceleration), 15% for engine destroyed (.1 movespeed/acceleration) and 15% for immobilized (0 movespeed/acceleration).
A Panther might be able to limp away with a damaged engine, but usually the second T34 can block it off. Still in 30% of all cases with a rear ram and and 17.78% of all cases for a frontal ram it is not able to flee (destroyed engine or immobilized). 17.78% is a lot more than your estimated 5%

Third - Panthers are heavily armored AT vehicles. Trying to fight them with T34 can work, but it's not cost effective. Panthers have a heavy frontal armor, good mobility and a great gun against tanks, yet they are lacking against infantry. A T34, a Con squad and an ATG are worth 280 MP + 85 fuel + 240 MP + 320 MP, totalling a value of 840+85*5 = 1265. A Panther is 520 MP + 145 fuel or a value of 1245. So roughly a Con squad, a T34 and an ATG have the same value as a Panther. Using those 3 in combination (AT nade / ram for disable, ATG for damage) are sufficient to fight a Panther. Soviet Tier 3 is not great in the anti-tank role, but is great to support T2 play (Quad HFT to protect ATG from infantry, T70 for scouting, T34 to chase down or last ditch defense with ram). Using those units alone is not really what they are meant for and will always be subpar to a combined force.