do you guys really expect a coh3 ?
I mean, you shit talk relic so much (not you, it seems to be general) that I'd be Relic, I'd have given up on the coh franchise.
The only reason there won't be a CoH3 is if they don't believe it will be successful. Large scale business decisions are not executed on the basis of spiting fans who didn't like the direction that a sequel went in, but bought and played it anyway and bought and played a bunch of DLC for it as well. |
Comments like this are counter-productive. We're trying to give constructive feedback so that Relic can improve COH2. If I was a developer and I read a comment like yours, I simply wouldn't want to come back to the thread, which wouldn't do anybody any good.
I think CoH2 is a bit too late to salvage for big changes to the way it works but something like displaying Elo could be implemented if they wanted to. I just get the feeling they don't ever, ever want to show a casual player that they went down a rank. The reason they have these superfluous meaningless Call of Duty progression bars is to make it feel like you're always achieving something.
The DLC proliferation, the commander system, the rank system, the bare-bones feature set it had at launch... it all feels very much like a product of first THQ dying and rushing the development + focusing it on making as much money as possible, and second the product of Sega buying them and wanting to recuperate their costs as quickly as possible to make it a profitable acquisition. I really do think that we need a CoH3 to be a clean break away from some of the poor decisions they made during dev. I hope it's currently in development actually, with a Q1 2016 release |
Are people talking about how it's on par with T34 AI or "as OP as the SU76" serious? I mean, I don't think it's an OP unit, but I don't know how you could deny that it's a very effective AI platform. It has a good ROF and thanks to unit clumping can be exceptionally deadly at times. Based on my experience it's much more effective than T34 at wiping large numbers of infantry. And it's cheap, comes with a good doctrine, and doesn't require teching! The comparison to a T3/T4 stock soviet unit seems puzzling. |
This hundred levels of stars where everybody gets XP for everything they do was a bad idea from the start. If you don't have to earn it, how could it matter? Now we have 300 levels of badges and prestige that don't matter at all. Very poor design.
- Create a rank system that matters and reflects skill and ELO.
- Show players their own ELO.
I assume there was a design meeting as follows:
"Should we show player the enemy stats?"
"Nah, they'll just quit if they are hugely outranked!"
"You're right, better to just let them get frustrated by the uneven matchups wasting 20 minutes of their life."
"Agreed!" |
Having visible rankings in the load screen would be extremely good. It's possible to have another laptop or something or alt tab to find out people's ranks if you're dedicated anyway, so IMO it should display. As it is, you get to see what their in-game level is which is so meaningless. But I do get grumpy when it pairs me up with people who are Prestige 3 or something and have obviously played 2-3x more games than me. Even though it should theoretically be in the same skill level anyway. |
never had any issues with blobs. neither usf nor okw. the ppl i see blobbing are always rank 1000+ish and its a really bad start map control wise
The majority of the gaming population exists at rank 1000+. In 2v2s that includes me. Considering the 500 rifle starts and sniper cheese I see from higher ranked games I'm not really convinced that the problem lies with me, but rather in the state of the meta as dictated by the current balance situation. |
And this brings us back to the original problem, if you buff Jackson Ost cannot use T3. It cannot really use it now but that seems like a bad idea. Without a further "level" Americans will continue to suffer. They need a way to stay in the very late game.
So reduce damage and increase penetration+ROF to compensate. USF players don't build Jackson because they're worried about PzIV, they build them because they're worried about Tigers and Panthers and KTs. It's their only option for heavy stuff. But it's not even very effective in that role because it's such an underwhelming flanking tank that blows up when a stiff breeze rolls its way. And as a tank sniper against heavies it's not amazing because you need favorable RNG to penetrate and enemy tank hunters like the Panther can and will roll up,garden them, then blitz or smoke away while giving you the finger. And I hope they didn't actually kill one of your paper mache tanks, because you can't afford a battle of attrition against Panthers. |
For the last few weeks my team games have lived or died purely based on whether or not I can shut down their blobs with B4.
Tonight we lost to a critical mass of panthers, which was the first time we'd lost to something other than infantry blobs in a long time. |
I meant in the context of reality.....
That's just the way they balanced the game. They decided that OKW gets super units and that the Tiger should not be much worse than the ISU to make the lategame OH vs Sov matchups somewhat symmetrical with heavy callins. Actually I seem to recall that at various points it was better in some ways, although I may be remembering wrong there. |
The Pershing wouldn't be a "superior tank", it would be probably the least powerful of the 3 "tiger class" vehicles - IS2 > Tiger > Pershing. It could be uniquely AT focussed, or AI focussed, or forced to switch rounds like the Sherman. There are a lot of possibilities for how you could handle it.
I'm just saying that conceptually, adding a heavy to USF will not ruin balance in and of itself. The specific stats of the tank would dictate whether it was OP, along with the quality of the doctrine it was included in. For example, no Airborne, no 1919 unlocks means the infantry that support them are less effective. |