A lot of these responses are acting like the OP said RNG should be removed from the game. Only morons ever suggest that idea. The title is "Lets fix RNG". At least as far as I get a feel from playing is, there is a lot more random outcomes of minor engagements that should just go one way. I think that is the point the OP was trying to make. Some engagements that even should be a roflstomp end up going the other way, and way more often than vCOH. This is what makes it seem more like making units, throwing them at other units, and watching while flipping a coin sometimes. Maybe my luck is just worse and this happens more to me, but meh. Cuz dat sniper video was mine, tell me that's happened to you.  It's a perfect example of this as well.
This may also be from more of a lack of factors that contribute to the outcome of engagements. Like the cover system being less of a factor meaning positioning is less important, and the absence of units like bikes/jeeps/kettens pushing and other factors that the player can control to change the outcome of an engagement from one that might be a straight up loss. It was way more fun to watch a game in vCoh and have these tools at the players disposal to change the outcome of an engagement. These were required micro and skill. In COH2 it seems more like you either run in a building or gamble on your riflenade, nades, or moli's to turn an engagement, or pray on the rng coinflip. The lower raw infantry damage doesn't help here either. It may not really even need to be rng that needs to be addressed so much as these other factors taken a look at. Then rng would play less of a role on its own.
Random squad wipes from single mortar rounds and normal soviet mines also add to this frustration, however that is another issue slightly different.
The problems you mention can be dealt with by toning down the chances/risks of a certain situation to happen. For example reducing the Su-85s probability to hit infantry, or the recent flamer crit decrease. All of this can be achieved by "simply" changing numbers in the equation, in other words by balancing the game.
In that specific scenario in that sniper video it should be more like, how many men do you lose before you kill the sniper instead of losing the whole squad to him.
I agree that factors such as positioning, use of cover etc. need to have a bigger influence on the outcome of engagements. |
|
CoH is all about calculating risks and making decisions, similiar to poker. That's what makes the game special and interesting.
The changes you seem to ask for would destroy the very character of CoH. |
MG42 is the top non-Commander balance issue at this moment.
Nobody has said its "completely broken", as you are imaginarily reading and falsely implying that anyone has.
Suppression increase is only one of many possible options, and until the very second a change goes live, there is every reason to continue discussing it, both here and on the beta.
I'm with Nullist here in terms of balance priorities.
The mg play is and was the bread and butter of the german early game as is flanking for the soviet's. |
Right now the Dushka and the Maxim are outperforming the mg42 in every role.
Please discuss
I do not recommend to comapre these three with eachother since they all fulfill different roles and in the case of the mg42, are not used within the same faction.
The maxim serves as a mobile, agressive suppression tool to help deal with superior german infantry (lmg Grens, PGrens, AssGrens).
The DShK's purpose is similiar to the maxim while offering the possibility to skip t2 and counter light vehicles. In my opinion it's only problem is the early availability.
They both regularly face 4 man squads. Their heaviest counters (early-mid) AFAIK are rifle nades, bundle nades, fast firing mortars, FHTs.
The mg42 is a suppression tool, meant to make handling superior soviet numbers a bit easier. But for this discussion --> go here |
With this in mind, the sweet spot for it is not quite so perilously narrow - even in its old state it would not be quite the monster it was.
When you talk about it's old state, what patch do you refer to? For me personally the only problem the mg42 ever had was that retarded +10% suppression bulletin (although I didn't mind the changes to horizontal traverse speed etc.). |
About gren spam
This strategy in the hands of good players is very hard to deal with. If you don't have ppsh you have to solely rely on a lucky molotov hit. A good german player is alert and will move away once you miss the grens will mostly win 1 squad vs 1 squad engagement.
in the original coh you could instead of throwing a grenade, close in with your riflemen and make use of their higher rate of fire. This mechanic is abscent in coh 2.
Add to this the lmg42 wich eats cons alive. The manpower drain delays your teching and while you finally build your tankiyov (or whatever it is called) you'll here the first pv4
gg..
First of all, nearly every strategy is hard to deal with when executed by a good player.
Secondly, the more grens you field the harder it gets to dodge molotovs and even if the molly itself doesn't kill any grens, it still forces them out of cover giving them the common moving penalties thus giving the cons an advantage if you play well.
I did not like the vCoH mechanic because closing in is always easier than staying at distance, a disadvantage that could be compensated with mp44s or the proper use of mg42s. I don't think this mechanic would work in CoH 2.
The lmg42 is a beast you are correct. Remember it costs 60mun to equip, so in an equal game your opponent should not be able to field more than 2 lmg grens without having disadvantages elsewhere. |
Doesn't that seem problematic though? Having two concurrent beta tests? How can either make or release a change without completely undoing the work of the other team?
I mean, how can DLC be balanced or DLC implemented in a balanced fashion if they're exclusive of each other? I really don't aim to criticize, I'm just very curious about the logic behind the method.
I feel like this is exactly the example of why the community (At least here on this site) has been so frustrated by both the balance and the DLC of this game.
I guess one group only tests the core game plus the already released commanders while the other group tests the core game plus the already released commanders plus the future dlc commanders.
Everything else would not make sense at all. |
When Lynx used to answer questions about when things where going to happen with "Soon" it became a joke and eventually something you guys didn't like. The reality is on timing issues sometimes we can't share times because things in software development have a habit of taking longer than you think, and if we gave dates and then missed them people would be more upset than us being vague.
So do we keep saying things like "Soon" which eventually just start annoying people and sounding repetitive or do we just let people speculate a bit more?
It's the same thing with feedback. There has been a ton of great stuff posted on these forums, the Steam forums and our own. A lot of it's the same thing again and again, which is fine it shows which ideas have caught on with the fans, but I don't have the time to respond to every thread and even if I did we can't take everyone's advice.
If all I wanted to do all day was post "That's a great idea" in reply to every post, I probably could. But how long would it be before that seemed annoying, or like a joke? How long would it be before people started to draw conclusions from when I didn't post?
"Noun didn't say that's a great idea to my post? Maybe he hates my idea. Maybe Relic are going to do that and it's a sign!"
And a lot of the time we can't use the great ideas, because we have other stuff planned or it's in a different direction than we want to take the game.
We're running two betas right now for CoH 2, one for DLC and one for balance. The people in that get a chance to give feedback direct to the balance team, or the designers creating the DLC. I think BC is looking for more beta testers for the balance beta, and that thread is on our official forums.
That's a great way to get specific balance ideas right in front of the people who make the changes, exactly when they're making changes.
Ultimately we're listening to you, even if we're not pipping into each thread to say so. And we consider all your feedback, even if we don't end up taking it because we have to balance that with the feedback of other people and our own ideas of designing the game.
The other thing to consider is the speed of changes. The idea that it's been 12 or 15 days since a change was proposed and it should be live now, is based on a very aggressive update schedule. Even the most basic balance changes need to be tested, sent to Q/A to test and then made live. That's costly. And that's when everyone agrees exactly what needs to change.
We feel the cost is worth it, but pushing that faster raises that cost. Sometimes we've done that, made changes quicker because we felt it was necessary, but it's not something we can do all the time every time.
Lastly we can value your feedback without agreeing with it, or following it. My wife tells me that my hat looks stupid and I should wear different pants and yet I still dress like a hipster idiot. It doesn't mean I don't love my wife, or value what she says. It just means that I might also like wearing these pants or this hat.
We value frank and constructive feedback. It's best when it can come from a place where everyone assumes that the other side is intelligent and only wants the best for the game. If not, well we filter out the passion and pass on the meat of the message.
And it's all good. Passion is a good thing. If you didn't care about the game you wouldn't be here complaining. We like that you care, that's what we want.
Thanks for the clarification. The community gets very bitchy when feeling unheard  |
Now that's a slap in the face (not from you obviously) since it's a whole other thing to actually be in the game itself and be able to move around anywhere you'd like, compared to watching a livestream.
In the interview with Ami and Relics producer he said vaguely that they have a spectator mode on their roadmap. Whether that's true, how long it will take until we have it and of what quality it is remains to be seen.
Well I don't know, that's just an assumption. I guess Relic has a deal with twitch and a spectator mode would kind of rival the twitch system. |
Do you want more things like what we got from "Turning Point"? Then no.
If you refer to retarded commanders that break with basic gamplay mechanics then the answer is NO! OH GOD NO!
If you refer to balance changes such as the veterancy overhaul or the +240mp start, then my answer is ok why not.
So should we be demoralized now? |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
