Paradox knows how to make a good damn game.
...and they also outclass Relic in their ability to offend and insult their customers.
If Relic gave the same feed-back to players that Paradox does, half the posters on this forum would have been kicked in the face by people like Johan. |
I think Relic would've added this if they could. This has been an issue since alpha and Alpha players asked for this but Relic constantly ignores these topics.
Ah, OK. A shame.
Could it perhaps also be a design decision that Relic does not want the player to be able to control targeting? |
I don't want to sound impatient but that's been 12 days now. When you released the Cold Blue DLC you guys hot fixed the issues with the new DLC commanders the next day I believe. Why is it taking so long here to implement the changes you have mentioned in that post?
Well, who cares - they are not really fixes anyway.
The socalled Tiger Ace change for example.
'Want to die now or 1 CP later?' is no fix. |
I'm a WW2 buff so I'll probably stick around.
But the frequency I play with might be affected by how much Relic continues to spam crazy commanders. |
I'm pulling this from one of the mega threads because I think it'll never get noticed if it stays there (and I don't think this has been suggested before??).
Give tanks and AT (possibly also other units) a target toggle button. Preferably with a key-short cut too.
The idea of the target toggle is to give the player the option of telling the unit its priority target: 'Infantry', 'Vehicle' or 'Any'.
The benefit of that ofc, is to avoid the present problem where e.g. a tank in pursuit of an enemy vehicle starts firing on the infantry it is passing.
I believe it would be better to introduce this option as a toggle instead of for example 3 different buttons.
Default should be 'Any', which means that if the user makes no choice, the unit behaviour should be as today.
This suggestion would add depth to the game play IMO. And since target priority is allready in the game, I suppose it should not be too hard to allow player control of it.
|
But I have - fairly much.
And I can say as far as team games go, that they are good for the early to mid game. After that they become obsolete (for the soviets) because they do nothing to stop the endgame Steel Train *).
Team games are also - strangely - played on the maps with the most choke points. TTs are a real factor here and the point of not making them too tough is absolutely valid.
As far as 1v1 games go, it's a bit different. It will in principle be possible to derail a GER strategy based on SC or FHT rush.
But I estimate that this is not going to be a major deal for 95% of the players. Simply because of the micro time and (more importantly) the engineer time needed to build TTs.
In general I doubt that it will be cost effective in most cases to have an engie running around, making TTs away from the action.
AFAIK all the top level replays sees the engies be part of the fighting with flames and an occasional mine.
I could be mistaken ofc., but I don't see the TT being anything that would break competitive play. It could degenerate casual team play OTOH if it is made too strong.
--------------
*) Thanx to whomever it was who were participating in that 3v3 on Rzevh last night (ending 0-19). Kind of perverted of you to group 2 elephants and 4 panthers on the center of the map, but I admit that it was fun to destroy it... |
I prefer tank traps that can be dealt with within reasonably over tank traps that are pretty much indestructible. This way it can still delay the enemy tanks, allowing you to reposition your AT units and thwart his plans by delaying flanks.
If tank traps were to be tougher, they'd need to cost resources. Be careful what you wish for.
Agree with this. They were too good in COH1 and were part of the Vire River Curse.
But it's a good point that they shouldn't be doctrinal. And they should be available to both sides. |
Thread: SNF25 Nov 2013, 13:12 PM
As has been touched upon earlier, I think too that the feed-back on forums like this one, is not helping Relic much.
Too many suggestions are either ignored or automatically ridiculed without seriously being considered. And too much is being blamed on Relic creative staff allthough the commercial driving force in this menace, is likely the strongest.
You can't blame the Guys at Relic for largely ignoring user feed-back (even in beta?) if the general impression is that most feed-back is just noise.
So maybe for a start consider how YOU give feed-back to Relic and on the forums?
If it's just in the shape of 'L2P', 'Your idea sucks', 'OMG it's SO OP!!!' or 'LOL/'No', you have homework to do. |
Thread: SNF23 Nov 2013, 16:45 PM
Sorry to hear that.
But I'll take this opportunity to say that I think your interview with Greg was first class!
It was good interviewing technique. And asking him about the mayhem in january in a way that did not make him uncomfortable, was well done.
All in all, I think you are doing a good job here.
I'd like to contribute something if I can. I will take a look once the list computerhaet mentions is made. |
I didn't know it was possible before today, but apparantly so (I have been unable to test as I had no friends on-line). It sort explains why I've been running into an increasing number of same clan players on one side.
While it is a nice option to be able to play an arranged team with your friends, it does present a problem in automatching. Basically what you end up getting, is typically one team being arranged with prepared strategy and task sharing - against a throw-together team.
I don't think that is a good idea because it puts one side at a serious disadvantage and the lonely automatcher can only automatch 1v1 to avoid such a situation.
But is this intentional? |