COH2 isn't really a historically accurate game. It is rather inspired by history, and well so.
But maybe one significant historical effect should be added to the game: break downs or failures of mechanical equipment.
This is something that played a large role on the easfront. For example with tanks, and it overthrew quite some plans and operations.
Now, I'm not suggesting to let this have a major impact of the game, so please do not go nuts over this suggestion. For now, it's just a consideration.
How it should be implemented and to which extend, is left open at this stage. But my opinion is, that it could be interesting because as the end-game is right now, it relies a lot on armoured columns. Tanks should be less reliable.It would add more nerve to the game that there is a chance that your heaviest investments might fail for a short time?
And it would increase the value of infantry in the late-game if artillery can fire duds. Or even in the early game if MGs can jam?
Let's face it: Dices are allready rolled in this game. I'm not in favour of making it totally russian roulette, but perhaps redistributing some of the randomeness to mechanical failures might be worth a thought? |
First off, thanks for making the ladders available now that Relic couldn't figure out to make it in-game from the beginning.
That said, I have been wondering if the ladder position is actually working right.
What got me started was that I was like position 1.600 one day and the next day - without playing at all - I was at 6.000 and something.
I thought that might just be because I had been surpassed by other players who had scored wins in the meanwhile. After all, the player base must be growing (albeit slowly?).
However, yesterday something odd happened. In the - for competitiveness totally unusable - 3v3 category, I was at a non-aweinspiring 98.000-something place(yes, lots of losses due to ppl not ocooperating in automatch 3v3+). My win ration was 42%
Then, after 1 win (yes, it DOES happen), my win ratio was up by about 1%, BUT MY POSITION HAD JUMPED 90.000??
Now, I understand that these ladders use ELO? And that they probably include a lot of players who may not have played more than a few games. Or maybe it even includes players without any multiplayer games in 3v3+ categories at all. So maybe these players are lumped together in the middle of the ladder and not moving ever.
In that case, however, I would expect them all to be standing with either a 50% ratio or with a zero ratio/zero rating. In either case, my single win should hardly let me overtake all these idle players?
Because I assume, that is why I jump 90.000 positions. It can hardly be that as many as 90.000 players have ratings that close that one single win promotes me that much?
A final explanation is ofc, that there is a technical problem with the ladder. I have no idea, I just wonder what is actually going on? |
Hello there and thanks for this splendid site with many interesting features.
Some of you might remember me from years on gamereplays.org. I will also still be active there (no offense, I hope).
I did not play any of the betas, so it's all somewhat new to me. Atm I mostly play soviets because I want to sort of save germans for later so I can revitalise the game when it starts to become stale.
Anyway, lock and load - carry on! |