Profile of elchino7

Once everything that broke down the game is fixed.

Snip

1- It's not unfair to put it that way, because there's a difference between a "re-skin" of a unit or trying to use, rework stats and implement unused abilities/units which are already in the game versus trying to invent a new mechanic or inherently fix something which hasn't been done in 8 years.
Things get done when at least some proof of concept and execution is already in the game.

Howis

2- In YOUR eyes it's fair. Probable on many other eyes and maybe Relic (we can only speculate here) limiting units is not necessary or desirable, specially for niche units. You are not solving artillery spam on teamgames by just limiting Howitzers to 1. Rocket artillery exist. Static Howitzers can also be easily decrewed and bypass any 1 time limit.

3- Raid section see response 1

Recent last call changes

4- Which was a bad call in their part, as it looks like a band aid at most.

5- In regards to that voting discord pic, this is my opinion.
If anything, that shows that team game "casual" perspective can take precedent over mostly 1v1/2v2 opinions.

Imo, from personal feeling, dev team do tend to make better changes then Relic back in the days. Their changes are for sure closer to the reality, then Relic ones, but overall aproach is still the same. And if anything goes wrong its "scope, not a full time job, relic forbits". Maybe its not like this and I'm completly wrong, but it sure looks like it.

I feel like people on this community throughout the last years have been privileged in how much their input can be heard and implement to the point people feel way too much entitled and arrogant as far as when things don't go their way or feel like they aren't heard or responded to. At points, it feels like they don't play any other PvP game which requires fine tuning balance at all. Good luck having this kind of interactions at all. Or even an explanation as to why X or Y was done at all (at least my xp from other games which big enough that bureaucracy is a thing)

We are entitled to our own opinions, enjoyment or disappointment in regarding to the patch or game. Anything else is extra.

No wonder best we can have is forum discussions, which btw rarely even have a disscussions in them, since the fanboy\rant threads tend to be much more popular and collect 100+ messages, while constructive threads do not.

It's simple. The admins/owner philosophy is that anyone should had a voice therefore the balance section was nicknamed the "Latrine". You can't give everyone a voice and expect to have a constructive thread when there's so much gap in game knowledge between users.
Which in turn lead to the creation of either private steam groups or in this days Discord. Which, yes, this is counter productive to been transparent but from a pragmatic point of view more effective. And it's not like it's such a selective "exclusive" group. The invitation hand has been extended throughout the years to those who have help or willing to help, open minded and don't have a crystal ego that will make them mald at their first clash of opinions.

...

I think you don't understand what i'm implying. I could care less about un-implemented units, i'm talking about a new different mechanic to be created from nothing.

You are describing a mechanic which not only obliterates "blobs" but single squads. The same problem we had with things like demos or old damage profile of mortars.
For it to work, someone needs to figure out a different way to apply it.

if concept was working in vCoH it can be make into CoH2, with proper stat ajustments to represent differences in gameplay.

We don't have the luxury to "hope" for something to work or be created by "SOMEONE". Which is why i said: unless someone provides already a implementable concept in the form of a mod, the only thing we can do is change stats.

Because even when we had mods, most of the time they are done in a "hack" way that is not applicable into the base game (see USF new redesign base).

...

Correcting some mistakes.

Well... in terms of suppression been given to small indirect fire, it was already tested and extremely disliked by the whole community and deems as one of the biggest mistakes done by Relic balance team.

It was applied to both the ISG and the Pack Howie and the game revolve around spamming 2/3 of them and just seeing how they would suppress and pinned everything from distance.


A single shell hitting a single model on the distance won't force you to retreat that squad. Been suppressed and unable to move or fight back will do so. And it's the same problem with "demos". It does not discrupt blobbers in any way higher than every single alone infantry squad.

And applying it to barrage only doesn't work as well, cause blobs tend to be mobile (although at least it would be more bearable since it would at least require player input)


In regards to friendly fire, that's a thing i have always asked myself as to why it was at least not standardised so they all share similar values for equal weapon categories. We have friendly fire, but it goes from trivial to deadly and there has never been a patch which fixes it.

I noticed that in the latest versions of the game, the infantry is simply crazy melting other infantry. If you look at the versions of several years ago, there is no such thing. I think need to slightly slow down the pace of the game and either slightly reduce the damage for all infantry, or it can reduce accuracy or some other options.

Which version?
People forget how lethality was back in 2013, 2014/2015.

2013: Low fire arms lethality, high lethality in everything else.

Cover didn't matter at all, support weapon spam was a thing. Games generally ended in the first minutes with LV rushes or call in spams.

2014: High lethality on everything.

We are not even close to post WFA/UKF infantry lethality. And if anything certain units have become more beefy with vet (which reduces lethality).

Double weapon been the norm (1919s, G43 + LMG42) or elite units been stronger. Pre nerf Shocks, that time they buffed PTRS for Guards, Paras, pre nerf Rangers, Obers, old design Falls/PF, etc.

If anything i would say burst was the norm, not necessarily high or low TTK. Because pre rework Volks were not necessarily high dps units (although they had way higher vet values which would put them way above current Volks with no STG) but the PSchreck doubled as an AI weapon.

Noone actually is quoting stats and numbers here.

I still highly doubt, that the game has become more lethal.

A lot of weapons has been moved from 1 hit killers with a lot of rng to constant damage over time.

The game has become more predictable. Thats all.

Exactly.

\

I mean, I might argue that heavy cover -> heavy cover engagements being very slow could actually make the game more strategic. It would further incentivise the use of things such as Mortars, flamethrowers, assault teams advancing through smoke, and other specialised tools, in order to push combat in your favour.

Very strong cover bonuses combined with otherwise very high damage while out of cover might actually make blobbing less effective.

I'd agree that just outright reducing damage would be an abysmal idea, but I do think that making cover even stronger while making units absolutely melt outside of it might be interesting to consider.

That's a possibility but it's far too great of a change. Specially with how eecky we still are with sandbags and late game abundant light cover situation. Not to mention map balance and garrisons.