Hello.
Did/Does anyone face the experience of telling a MG to deploy at position x and face direction y. The MG just ends up walking there and just chill. This is extremely problematic. I tried turning on/off vsync, gsync, cap frame rates, changing mouse, reinstalling game etc. etc. and nothing helps. It happens totally at random (maybe on average 3/10 deployments are bugged), i even tried 3 apm click and the same story happens. I dont have generally have that problem with AT guns.
It started to happen a while ago i've been just playing around it until now.
Wondering if anyone faced that problem and knows a solution to resolve it.
Thanks
P.S. i got 1800 hours on coh2 - im pretty sure i know drag -> face direction -> release to deploy weapon teams. |
Garrison Micro: Is there a way to tell garrison squad to attack a specific target? |
title
|
title
|
I call GG when winning all the time. and guess what? I win. so suck it? |
Sure, sure... Lets nerf poor soviets even more...
You guys wanna talk about over powered German tanks???
Do I read "over powered German tanks"?? Let me teach you something. Mark Target+SUs |
Dat epic triple vet scoutcar, 2 katyushas and one arty lol
love your name |
FYI. that was a bad game for me. too tired.
All units in base jacking off towards HQ |
Note: I'm going to try my best to give my analysis about the situation. Fell free to flame me.
I understand Relic's POV, players should pay more money for new "contents", and I am sorta ok with it for this following reason. I saw this coming a long time ago when EA started pulling this crap and no one complained until it was too late, therefore, it is partially gamer's fault.
Battlefield 4 franchise for example has the balls to tell you straight up, BEFORE THE GAME IS RELEASED, that there's going to be $50 DLC package associate with the original game. And that is ok, for BF4 to do so. Why? Because it is a FPS game and for the following reasons:
(1) BF4 DLCs involves new maps which indirectly divides player into different groups. One of the group will be people who does not pay for DLC denote group A. If other people who bought the DLCs and are just happening to be playing with group A on a server with original maps only, then no one has ANY competitive advantage.
(2) BF4 DLCs involves new guns which are side grades anyway. so it doesn't really make much a difference in game play.
(3) BF4 has a large enough player base to be divided that way
Now, COH2 is a unique game even when compared with other RTS game such as Starcraft. Why? because owning portions of the map gives player DIRECT advantage on economy, where as starcraft owning larger portion of the map gives you more vision only, and OPPORTUNITY to have a better economy if players choose to invest in it. What does this all mean? It means COH2 is a more COMPLEX game to balance in a sense because what happens in a game later is directly tied to what early game, in contrast starcraft allows strategies such as 1 base play in the beginning and have equal footing with enemy during late game if played correctly. This IMPLIES that COH2 CANNOT afford to introduce new contents that shift early territory control pattern so rapidly and expect game to be still in balance. It is not going to happen. Any changes like above would throw the entire game out of whack. Especially when new elements are only accessible to an exclusive group.
This being said, there will be a F2P RTS game out by EA called Command and Conquer (Generals). Now we don't know how the business model is going to shape out and how the commanders will be balanced. But one thing is different for sure. Even if they introduce some commanders that is more "OP" than others it would still not be as a big deal as coh2:
(1) In game currency. Those commanders can be bought with C&C in game currency so it doesn't really provide a hard-locked exclusivity to competitive advantages
(2) Different game play (Territory control). Like starcraft, C&C is based on COLLECTING resources and BUILDING economy by DIRECTLY INVESTING in them. So minor "OP"-ness in certain commanders would not have as big of an impact on game play, in contrast of coh2.
So what's the main points of all these:
(1) COH2 is a unique game that cannot introduce new content rapidly like BF franchise does.
(2) COH2 cannot introduce any noticeable competitive advantages and is only exclusive to certain groups of people. because there is no in game currency and this is RTS game so all players should be on somewhat of an equal footing.
(3) Even slightest changes made in COH2 would hugely affect game outcome so serious thoughts need to be put in before all deployments and changes.
This is wrote in a short period of time so please excuse the grammar errors and presentation methods. |
RELIC AND SAGA IS DIGGING THEM SELF A HOLE. C&C general F2P is coming out and C&C devs says its not a P2W game.
even if C&C is P2W it AT LEAST IS F2P in the FIRST PLACE ANYWAY!!!!! |