When I voted in the survey there was a checkbox about which upgrades/utility penals should have. If you leave it blank, I think it counts for no-upgrade Penals.
There was, and I of course used it. But my experience with polls tells me that the options that are included in the poll are usually used much more just becouse people are either too lazy to fill open answer field or just don't remember all the options and choose from the ones that are supplied.
As you could see in my poll here on .org, this option was dominant for a long time and is still on the strong second place, even though there were not many posts discussing it anywhere on the forums. That is why I feel it's bad it didn't make it to the official poll.
so many awesome changes
and i espacially love the ptrs penals. with 3 ptrs they really pack a punch early game on and the sticky satchel is awesome - and it still can be used to clear out positions, bunkers, buildings. also the availabilty to use molotov upgrade for cons and (ptrs) penals gives this update much more utility. good job!
and some short rant about penals in general without ptrs:
making them long range anti inf would help soviets the most imo, since non doc soviets are really bad at long range, and it would also make shocktroops a great option again!
Yep, the long range penal is the idea to support. Sadly it had no place for itself in the surveymonkey survey. But I hope that Mr.Smith telling about trying a PTRS free variant in next iterations ment that this idea is also going to be tested.
To think of the counterplay to flamer-Penals, try to think of how you counter Sturms in the early game.
If Sturms push, and they are at full health, you fall back to a supporting squad and gun them down. If Sturms take the cover, you harass them from far. Sturms will either have to move out, or be bled.
You do the same thing vs Flamer Penals, only that it's easier (they drop models faster).
In the lategame, when everything revolves around long-range, Flamer Penals will be terribly outscaled. Thus, your enemy will not want to upgrade more than 1 (2 max) Flamer Penals.
I'm not a native english speaker so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be beneficial for community and sportmanship if we always called the player we play against an "opponent" as opposed to an "enemy". We are fellow players, not enemies. Unless he is a fanboy, then he well and truly is the the public enemy of peoples republic of coh community
You likely match with the same player because you are both searching at the same time and of similar rank. Pool of players is not very large.
You may also get the same map because you both have same maps vetoed, or both of you have vetoed different maps and so they are unlikely to occur. For instance, many Allied players avoid certain maps while many Axis players veto other maps. The game makes it unlikely any of these maps will come up so the same maps appear for both players more frequently. If you change your vetoes to favor another faction you may find you play on more maps but potentially you will be playing at disadvantages.
Its better and easier to simply delete all the vetos. Then the spectrum of maps and players is the biggest, plus it finds closer matches and in a shorter period of time.
Generally it's best to use veto only if you start to get angry on some map. Blocking matchmaker and then complaining about bad searching is simply stupid. And players who try so hard that they veto all maps premptively just becouse there is a lot of places to fight on some range at them are not going to find the game any amusing anyway.
Rangers are quite cool but do mind that you need to play campaign twice to test all of the companies. In a single capmapaign you can only choose 3 out of 4. That's why I would buy the ranger company only if I decided I'm up to a second run after playing through the campaign for the first time if I was you.
Poland
Rudon
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
Relic Entertainment
