I find this whole NDA none sense ridiculous with most games,
let alone with coh2 and relic as it is, NDA has a place with pre-alpha concepts and any story/rpg driven game sure, but arbitrarily applying it to everything from the studio only distances them from the community.
And with it being an expansion that integrates directly with the content we already own it seems only prudent to inform us of as much as they can.
When you're a small company like relic and don't have the resources to do extensive play testing of every change and addition to the game its best to release it and let the community help with feedback.
Makes sense, however to appose NDA and to Take far to long to release patch fixes to glaring balance flaws breaks the whole dynamic of the development.
I can understand the extended schedule for big expansions, but like with every new commander that has been added, any game breaking balance flaw will take far to long to be patched, Some of which could have been avoided with a more open view to the community.
Relic seem to be treating this like a AAA console single player fps in close competition with a similar title.
To get balance to a competitive standard and continue to enrich the game it should be treated like as a perpetual beta, its the only way relic and us the community will get what we want with what we have.
Whatever the reason i think relic really need to take a look of how they are approaching this.
However i doubt this will change at all, its how it is, was and ever shall be.
That being said i love coh2, i figure i will get the expansion at some point so why not get it now, got it a couple of days ago, like i imagine most who are complaining have done 
Well said. As it stands I know next to nothing about the expansion and thus have next to nothing to be excited about. The closed alpha has pretty much killed CoH for me. With the majority of my friend list playing alpha I've found other games to play. Being constricted to the same team maps and same handful of strategies game after game was getting excruciatingly repetitive anyway.
p.s. War Thunder's tank battles are realistic, a ton of fun and free2play. And to the self righteous pricks suggesting that people are stingy if they aren't eager to endlessly spend money on DLC just to keep an already expensive game enjoyable/competitive, look at War Thunder's business model. The game is unquestionably premium in quality (complete with fancy features like user defined keys), is free to play with DLC that is neither P2W nor the least bit necessary to enjoy the game, and they still keep pumping out more maps and completing more vehicles for no charge. |
|
Why would you want your game record erased? Seems completely pointless at best, especially considering how big of a pain in the ass it is to get 10 games with every new team so you don't get matched up with noobs in AT. |
This makes me wonder what was the developers' original purpose for the barrage ability? Do they consider what I describe above proper and balanced role for this ability?
I can't speak for the developers, but I suspect this is precisely what they intended: an ability that lets a field gun provide indirect fire with HE shells. I think the balance is fine, seems that most people agree.
Its powerful in certain situations, but that can be said of any unit given the right situation--that's the basis for 'counters'. If barrage was consistently the most efficient use of resources compared to alternative options, we'd see that reflected in the metagame. The fact that players of all skill levels still opt to lay mines, upgrade weapons, etc instead of using all their munitions on barrage confirms that this isn't the case. |
Thread: S-Mines4 Jun 2014, 02:34 AM
What is this topic?
The same as most topics on this forum: "I lose at CoH2, but it's not my fault. Here's a list of things to change so I can win more without having to improve". |
|
Just one of many cut corners in this game. I wouldn't expect a fix any time soon, or ever. |
|
The Kar98 has an internal magazine that holds something like 5 rounds.
Cooldown = cycling the bolt action
Reload = every 5 shots (or however many) |
Buildings height gives you additional sight range. The taller the building the further you can see
I don't think this works properly, at least not always. I put a sniper in the very tall buildings in angermunde and it didn't increase sight radius (it was still less than the snipers attack radius) |
I don't get it. After the alpha Relic said that they did not implement tank traps because errors in the vehicle pathing occured because of them.
Now they implement them in a commander.
So what is the actual reason that pioneers/engineers can't built them without a commander?
Considering the poor vehicle pathing I think leaving them out was a reasonable choice. Putting them on 1 commander doesn't really affect that when no one uses them, ever. If it was a standard ability for engineers it might force them to spend more time working on pathing AI instead of DLC. |
|
Squads don't die if the trench they're in is destroyed now, I'm assuming that decrewed weapons are still unrecoverable but I've avoided that situation so I can't confirm that there hasn't been a fix.
The way tank traps are spaced, light and medium vehicles can still path through them, albeit clumsily. You actually need to make 2 rows of traps to properly block something off. I don't know if this is intentional, but I always prefer a full block off rather so enemy tank movement is more predictable. |
|
The defensive doctrines offer a unique ability to sculpt the battle field with obstacles that has a lot of strategic potential, but these commanders see very little play and tank traps have had virtually no role in the metagame. Little use of the soviet version is understandable, as it lacks off-map call-ins or late game units/abilities, and the units that are available (dshk, 120mm mortar, 45mm at gun) don't seem to offer additional utility over regular T2 units. The german defensive doctrine is viable, but the unique aspects of it (tank traps and trenches) haven't proven to be attractive to players. I've been using them quite a lot lately (in 4v4 team games) and think a few minor changes could make these staples of WW2 more usable in Coh2.
-move tank traps to 0 cp
-move trenches to 0 or 1 cp
-reduce build time of tank traps
-make weapons decrewed in trenches recoverable
Tank traps desperately need this boost. If tank traps aren't deployed in a thorough manner, they're as good as useless. Making enough to be useful obviously requires time and space to build them safely, but they also cost resources in the form of lost opportunity by having your pioneers not doing other tasks. Securing the space to build them is up to the players, but the time and resources are largely affected by design. I really can't fathom why these are at 2 CP and not 0 CP, as though using your pioneers to build instead of fight or capture before 2 CP would be "imbalanced". Also, considering tanks can destroy traps with their main gun, it should be such a burden to make them. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
