Profile of zarok47

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 587

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/Zarok47
Steam: 76561198007472278


Thread: Crossroads by WhiteFlashReborn17 Aug 2017, 08:11 AM Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2017, 00:13 AMTric This is also what makes coh 2 great, the standard resource layout for territory points is 8-12 (usually being even). This will allow for different timings, styles of play, pressure, map movement, ect; IMO there is nothing overtly negative to having 12 points is besides cluttering the map (which is negated here by LoS blocking), and providing (very slightly) more income. Its just as a slight adjustment of play. Nothing that needs to be looked at UNLESS cutoff play or map movement is being comprised, and here it isn't an issue. A.Standard strat points is 10. 8 and 12 points are not. B. Increased resource income affects different factions differently leading to balance issue's, but besides that, It also leads to muni expendure being less of a choice (LMG"S and Riflenades everywhere), drawn out matches going wack and messes with teching to a point that i find going for a lv is even more of a no-brainer on this map (there is fuel coming out of my ears once the map is mine thanks to the lv). And most importantly, I ask you aswell, what is it that makes 12 strat points a good choice over 10? Because so far, I only see arguments not to change away from 12 strat points because (and this is crude) "it isn't that bad". Let's look at some math. 2 strat points equals 5 fuel and 11 muni Average game lasts about 15-20 minutes, but due to the lay-out of the vps, 20-25 minute matches are normal on crossoads. For sake of simplicity, I go for a 20 minute match. Leaving us with 100 fuel and 220 muni extra in a match on crossroads vs a match on a map with normal points. This is basicly a free tier of tech for every faction and g43's on every gren *besides the normal income. And this is just 20 minutes, if the game drags out and we get a 40 minute match (quite likely due to the same vp lay-out) we get 200 fuel and 440 muni extra, a tier and a tank, g43's on every gren, a riflenade in every engagement besides the normal income*. And again, there is no reason for it, no justification as to why this extra income is warranted. So again, i ask everyone now: Why does this map have 2 extra strat points? In: Mapping Discussion
Thread: Crossroads by WhiteFlashReborn16 Aug 2017, 08:08 AM Jump back to quoted post16 Aug 2017, 01:17 AMWhiteFlash Exactly. A serious number of changes have been added to the map compared to the current ladder version. Considering this version of the map has had almost no serious testing and after thinking a lot about it im going to keep the sector count the way it is unless someone can come up with a seriously compelling case otherwise. In the past competitive maps have been temporarily made worse by balance decisions from Relic, if there is a light vehicle issue then it will be resolved in time. More feedback is appreciated, replays illustrating a point (any point) are the best resource. For example when 15 minute KTs are claimed, please keep in mind, matches between evenly skilled players are the only thing that matters when determining a maps balance. Thanks again for the continued feedback everyone, it is appreciated Why? Why do you need a reason to change away from 12 strat points? Even the one's argueing in favor of 12 strats points admit it affects balance (eventho they all focus on lv's while there are numarous other things listed). No mapdesign should affect balance, no faction should have an advantage or disadvantage based on mapdesign, especially if that design is different from the norm. So I ask again: What is the reason for 12 strat points? In what way does it improve this map? How can it affect balance but still be allowed to persist? And why do we need to come up with a "compelling reason" to move away from it, when so far there has been no reason to go for 12 strat points in the first place? In: Mapping Discussion
Thread: FBP EFA positions and issues14 Aug 2017, 08:05 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Aug 2017, 18:08 PMDangerous-Cloth With your experience, do you find maxims to be albe to function as mainline infantry again? I find they do. Oh yes. Bulletins are unneeded aswell, if you know what you're doing. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: FBP EFA positions and issues13 Aug 2017, 17:54 PM The reason people spammed maxims had more to do with maxims being OP than cons being underwhelming (tho it certainly aggrevated the issue). Besides, maxims are usefull again in FBP, very usefull I might say. Other then that, I agree with most of what you say (especially ost t4 but that's a dead horse at this point). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Crossroads by WhiteFlashReborn12 Aug 2017, 17:52 PM Interesting graph. Who knows what gives your map such statistics, perhaps it's 12 strat points, or perhaps it's the lay-out of the vps making games last longer allowing good players a chance at a comeback, or it is the great way cover is designed around the eastern fuel. Point I'm making here is that asking us to proof a statistic is useless, I might aswell claim that your 12 strat points are holding your map back from perfect balance since neither of us can connect any aspect to the map to any part of the statistical outcome with absolute proof (tho it should be noted that your map, as a whole, seems to be among the better maps). What we can do is pointing out the drawbacks of 2 extra strat points and asking for a justification for deviating from the norm of 10. There has to be a reason for you to choose 12 strat points over 10 when you made the map and it can't be those statistics since they didn't exist at the time. And that reason should be good enough to cover the drawbacks I and others have listed (Like the example of devm spamming riflenades). In: Mapping Discussion
Thread: Crossroads by WhiteFlashReborn11 Aug 2017, 13:33 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2017, 16:36 PMWhiteFlash Ive gotten mixed ideas on that. Im likely going to leave the 12 strat points unless i see some data or groundbreaking perspective in order to change it. Reason being, the level of balance that the map is achieving may be driven by unseen variables and i want to change it as little as possible, but still improve it. This strikes me as odd, why would you need convincing that 12 strat points should be changed, when it really should be "why change the 10 strat points every other map has". I've listed before why the 12 strat points mess with many balance factors (teching, nades/upgrades and snowballing), and removing 2 strat points on this map is very minor (the strat points near the muni points come to mind). Basicly, I am asking what groundbreaking perspective there is to keep 12 strat points, how does it improve balance and this map? In: Mapping Discussion
Thread: Kick out 1vs1 maps7 Aug 2017, 07:50 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2017, 21:02 PMOutsider_Sidaroth I rather veto stuff like Camping in the Woods, Langreskaya or La Gleize (screw winter maps) than Lost Glider. As a USF only player, that makes sense, but for those who play all factions, Lost Veto is a lost veto (no judgement). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Kick out 1vs1 maps6 Aug 2017, 09:24 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2017, 04:52 AMOutsider_Sidaroth The only issue of the map, in my experience, is the unkillable Church in the middle. Other maps have a lot more issues than that. Green cover everywhere, shot blockers everywhere (cqc funfest), not enough strat points, stone garrisons that cover base exits and cut-off of the entire map on both sides, grindfest in the middle after 20 minutes because flanking is impossible and the searching sound plays in a loop on this map. This map is called Lost Veto for a reason. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Strange game20 Jul 2017, 07:40 AM "The only winning move is not to play" In: Replays
Thread: Fall Balance Preview19 Jul 2017, 10:55 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Jul 2017, 09:57 AMMr.Smith Alright. So, I expect to see a replay from you two where Major was teched (before either M10 or a Bulldozer is fielded, btw), Bulldozer hit vet2, and that the Bulldozer was actually worth the manpower and fuel needed to field it (which is equal to the Brummbar, by the way). Before I go, i will get that replay for you. Now we have that out of the way, why do I need to tech mayor? The point of the call-in is to by-pass tech and as such, you balance it around it. If the bulldozer current buff is jusitfied because of the mayor tech making it cost equal to a brumbar, you need to tie it to that tech. If the mayor is not accounted for in the justification, than the dozer is far cheaper to field than a brumbar (tech cost inculded, without mentioning the viability of ost t4). Now on to some smaller questions: Did the current dozer not perform well in GCS in your opinion? Why does vet 2 matter? if i can get the cost out before that, it is enterily irrelevant to the subject at hand. Lastly, do you want a replay of the live dozer (which i argued is fine) or the mod one? In: Lobby