Should have used double kubels, against the only viable strat, faction on life-support (and objectively proven by experts to be the weakest) has. As for scotts just rush them with panther army  |
Anyone know what was the rationale Relic gave for refusing to rework bolster? Just asking out of curiosity.
Probably mostly because it was considered mandatory faction feature (like 6 men soviet crews) and maybe because Relic didn't think balance team can pull it off, since with reworked bolster whole faction rework will be mandatory.
As well as, despite balance team done fine job overall, you could expect faction to be broken in some aspects for at least multiple patches. It happened pretty much with everything new\overhauled: penals, VSL, 6 men cons, volks, JLI and so on.
On top of that, considering Relic didn't allow moving maters and cali to stock units, most likely because they were intended to be locked behind either grind or paywall and making them stock would have upset people who either farmed or payed for them. Same with UKF, because lets be honest they were released objectively as P2W DLC, despite them stop being P2W after changes, most likely then not same philosophy was still applied and only minor adjustments were allowed. |
The first aspect I want to touch on is the economy. The idea of bolster and weapon racks being optional was supposed to facilitate a choice between mainline infantry stronger than the axis and a faster medium tank timing. This choice is almost nonexistent because going with the first option is basically mandatory. ... leading to an awful manpower economy, constant sniper bleed and awful map control which means you can't get the fast cromwell in the first place.
Aren't this one is how its supposed to be in a first place? I mean, when timings\tiers were balanced, the idea was to make all armor have more or less same timing.
If, as UKF, you somehow managed to win and avoid "side-grades", you can get your T3 units significantly faster then other factions.
But objectively you cant even make bolster\weapons-racks part of a tech, simply because T2 comes way too fast and T3 too late to make them part of tier tech. Not to mention that if you increase prices of T2\T3 and add bolster\racks to them, it will mess up already questionable timings.
Thats the whole problem with those fake side grades. I think there were only 2 possible solutions:
1) Make IS\Eng have 5 models strate of the bat, but keep their power similar to 4 men squad, with bolster just increasing their power to the current 5 men squad models
2) Make bolster either cheaper\part of T1 but lock 5 men squads behind individual squad upgrade, to allow at least more or less smooth power increase, rather having it as a spike. |
Just picking out this one point:
The far AoE range is super strong.
The AVRE forces you to predict the retreat path almost perfectly, if a model is only a tiny bit outside of the 8 meter radius it does not get damaged at all. The ST allows for way worse path prediction. It kills a model with half 44 HP up to 14 meters radius. So even if you misjudged the retreat path or timing, you have a good chance of wiping the squad if it has been damaged before by small arms fire, or the other way around: If you have a squad nearby, it this one has a good chance of killing off the remaining model(s).
In team games this is basically always the case since the unit density is super high. No ST/AVRE operates on its own.
On paper yes, ST AOE technically much better, but the main problem is, even considering that it has better chances at wiping retreating units, ST still need much more pre-positioning to be able to roll in, unload and roll out.
Not to mention that, support weapons like AT guns cant soft-retreat from AVRE aswell, unless pre-spotted and retreating support weapons have very big chance to be wiped as well. Also, unless its volks\PFs\Ostts all squad models will be in kill radius of the AVRE anyway.
Objectively ST AOE provides better blob control, but its still imo very debatable if its bigger AOE actually that much powerful and impactful.
But if we only speak about scenario where ST rolled in, successfully shot and rolled out, ignoring everything what comes before it, then yes its AOE provides much more. |
...
In CoH2 smaller narrow maps are preferable purely, because of multiple factors:
1) Stronger factions and the most played ones - Ost\Sov dont have retreat points, meaning they are in huge disadvantage.
2) CoH2 res system has only 4 main income points, making large chunks of such maps rather pointless. Strategic points are already pointless to waste your time on (unless its a cutoff or 1v1) and on large maps they are even more pointless to attack.
3) Its super easy to spam caches without pretty much any repercussions, since time wasted getting to them isn't worth it most of the time.
And as a bonus to point №1 both Sov\Ost can utilise support weapons strate off the bat, making smaller maps much preferable because they are simply stronger on them.
vCoH for instance had much bigger maps, even redball express is like at least 1.5x if not x2 bigger then CoH2 remake.
So, liking of smaller maps is dictated by how CoH2 works, rather then genuine desire of players to play on small maps, at least for me. |
You know that the Sturmtiger dominated the game a few months back? Like you would literally win every game when you had it in the game and didn't completely suck? You could fire out of the fog of war, it had a stupid one-click infantry counter, ez self-repair and was nearly unkillable while only costing 165 fuel?
Its not that ST was nerfed, its the fact that AVRE was buffed in the same patch with ST nerf. This was pretty much an absurd.
AVRE and ST are literally identical units (premise of which community generally arent really enjoy).
Their stats are asymmetrical but in the end they are giving the same result. For example ST has more HP since armor is pointless against allies TD, while AVRE has less HP but more armor, pretty much almost every single stat works like this for them. AVRE max speed is slower but it reaches it faster, ST is vise versa and so on.
Difference being ST has bigger AOE (which hardly means anything since you still need direct hits to wipe) for the cost of manual reaload and lack of turret. AVRE has smaller AOE as a price for having turret and auto-reload.
But point is being, why ST price and CP was increased (alongside deserved stats nerfs) while AVRE remained at the same price\CP and got a huge buff via projectile fix which made ST OP in a first place. Multiple balance patches and human time spent, to recreate old balance again where ST is pointless most of the time, while AVRE is superior in every single way considering the role of the unit. Yet, they become even more stronger and frustrating to play against, because both now have projectile fix.
This situation pretty much illustrates one of the core problems balance team had imo, which resulted in fuck ups people like to bring into the disscussion.
|
How will you play? You will communicate with your mate to find best strats using chat or voice chat or even play in the same physical space.
How will I, a complete rando, play? At best with PING PING PING PING PING "GO HERE gardenING kitty" with a player that maybe does not even speak english. lmao.
And I've said that communication is almost the sole advantage over randoms. I'm not bringing all the other shenanigans about unfair MM, different languages, shit ping. In a game where MM is more or less balanced, against equal opponents skill vise AR team advantage - communication. And this is the common concept for any games, you play as a team in first place to have good communication.
Really? Mental gymnastics level over 9000 if you unironically believe that.
Except its not. The main point of the thread was that game was balanced around AT teams, harming randoms in process, which is just false. AT team are tend to abuse and create the most cancer strats, meaning that good randoms can do it as well, and nerfing something because its create OP synergy in AT teams is a perfectly common approach when balancing games.
Good USF player will know without communication if he is paired with soviet against OKW and soviet is going for maxim spam, USF have provide fast ambu. If he doesn't do it, its a bad USF player. And I've already told, that I'm not bring shit MM into the discussion here, because its 100% pointless, since if you have idiots in your team it doesn't matter who are you playing against. |
|
Arranged teams vs Randoms is BS in CoH2, but not because its AT vs Randoms in a first place. The only and main problem, is that AT teams have its rank separated from ranks of individual players with-in the team. This only leads to X games being ruined for other players, during this AT team ranking up. Whole AT system in CoH2 is a legal way of smurfing.
As for the idea that "game was balanced around AT teams", even if this was true, whats wrong with it? If randoms are good they still will understand how to create synergy with each other, just because they know how to play.
Sure AT teams will have an advantage in terms of VO and understanding of teammates capabilities, but still in terms of actual gameplay and strategy there is little difference between good AT\Randoms, because this is how game is supposed to be played in a first place.
|
...
Well duh. We would never know how game would have looked like if all ELO games were balanced. Maybe if all the games were always more or less balanced ELO vise it would allow to make more balance changes.
I dont understand the point of your rant. If you was around WFA release, you should remember how WFA factions actually worked.
With double LMG Obersts and Schreck Volks, because OKW don't have X thing.
USF having terminator rifles, because they dont have any other unit.
UKF ... to stomp AI, but relic forgot to disable UKF in multiplayer.
We've been there, concept of "lack of basic tools traded for raw firepower" is shit concept applied by Relic and WFA factions in their core are based around it. It wont work, because it will always end up creating overpowered units.
And balance team objectively has nothing to do with it, despite occasionally making mistakes. And especially it didn't help at all that Relic in a first place didnt allow to fix all the mess they lest behind.
It a good thing, that CoH2 in terms of balance is just having toxic and frustrating metas. Its an achievement considering how rotten the game\factions foundation is.
As for the fact that tournaments have only OST\SOV picked ... honestly its almost 8 years game, who cares.
You can't make each units around their equivalent in other factions somewaht equal and say factions are balanced if some of them are missing units in their stock.
And Relic at multiple occasions had forbidden adding new units and global factions overhauls. At least CoH2 was a really good testing ground of what you absolutely shouldn't do in terms of game design, so CoH3 might end up being a good game. |
|
I believe its just a misunderstanding of concept of "balance". All factions are playable and can win games, there are few underpowered units and few units which are stronger then they should be.
Main problem of CoH2 - its very toxic to play. All factions have situations were you literally have to fight up hill battles.
It feels unbalanced because most of the times power-level of factions goes up and down constantly, without any smooth curve.
On top of that, because of how factions are made there is a huge gap within the players base in terms of how they perform.
Like 222 for example, in hands of average player it performs alright, but in the hands of good players its almost a godlike unit which is super hard to deal with.
On multiple occasions units were buffed\nerfed solely based on the top player perspective. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
