It might be proletarian and populist but it led to great frame rates.......
Gamers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains. Especially if you're already the type who buys a new $800 video card every three years!
|
Hi, how was your coma?
Was it easy to adjust to missing last week?
Once you're ok and back with us, I highly advise checking email for newsletter and watching attached video from relic or checking it directly on steam news for coh3.
Oh I found the video. Lol. I really haven't been keeping up.
I like that they said they accidentally defaulted most people to low settings. It's proletarian and populist.
|
I really just don't get the color scheme. It's super low contrast, but even in their promo videos the shadows on tanks and stuff are solid black, no detail whatsoever. It's like the whole game is being run through the cheesecloth Instagram filter but certain things are super high contrast.
From the little I've played it, balance will be a nightmare. The VPs tick faster but gameplay feels slower and less dynamic. I think the campaign will be fun, multiplayer is going to be a weird sloggy non-competitive muddle.
|
All I need is more existential dread in my chosen forms of recreation. +1
|
The zoom level would be fine if you could see your units at high resolutions. The overly realistic color schemes are ironically what's breaking immersion. Everything's drab tan brown, units blend in to much with the background, so all you can do is look at the unit icons. And all the ground clutter and detail does not necessarily make for a better game. They need to make major changes to make this interesting to play and look at.
|
Option 1 is best and really would solve the one major aggravation with retreat paths even for people who know the maps and possible paths well - if your unit is in front of an obstacle and has to go east or west to retreat south and you are near the middle of it, it's very hard to guess which way it's going to go. One way = squad wipe, the other, you save the unit. Most of the time people won't even need to use it I think.
Option 2 is just prima facie unfeasible. The murder stuff on retreat meta is already aggravating as hell and this would just raise it to silly new levels with camping of retreat waypoints.
Alternately, I am not a fan of this mechanic anyway - I totally disagree with Stormless that players should lose units for taking risks. COH already punishes aggression and risk-taking enough in numerous other ways and overly rewards caution. So you could just buff received accuracy on retreat to make retreats less painful, though I realize this lowers the skill cap. But keep in mind that making retreats less deadly would just lengthen games, the better player is still going to win, but it lets people make a few mistakes and indulge in some risky moves. To me, that would make for a more exciting and fun game.
A concrete example is the very common initial con/con/eng vs gren/mg/pio engagement. In the current game, unless the Axis player really screws up, this engagement gets lost every time these days by the Sov player because while the MG might get scared off, one con is almost certain to die on retreat because the damage output from the defending pio is so high. This engagement on paper ought to be a toss-up every time if players have equal micro but never is in practice because of the retreat damage.
|
Snipers with a 25% movement speed penalty after firing? Why not just take them out of the game at this point? The whole point of a sniper is a high risk/high reward investment that requires constant micro. If you have to keep it behind everything because it's too risky to do anything else with this new movement penalty, no point. Just remove them from the game.
|
If there was a way to counter the B4 in a 3v3 or 4v4, it actually feels pretty good and made the doctrine useful. But they took away counter battery, so there is no counter except suiciding a tank.
In 1v1 or 2v2 it's probably better, but on a rectangular map with any kind of mine play you're not going to get it.
It's a game breaking design failure. Really no way to rework it again I think.
|
Hard crashed here in lobby switching from 2v2 vs AI to 1v1 custom with one of the new maps (forget which).
I did play an entire 2v2 vs people before that. My first game went fine.
Oddly I just started to see the frame rate drop bug before the patch a few days ago, it would run at 80-110 and then suddenly go to a steady 15. So I doubt that has to do with the 64 bit update.
|
Just chiming in, I agree with the mortar cost reduction, maybe just for US though. The Ostheer mortar still has a longer range and is eminently more useful given how Ostheer is played. The Sov mortar sucks too but at least it doesn't get wiped as often. The US mortar is not built because its range sucks, so it's the unit you're most likely to lose. It loses a little health from a flank and then the Ostheer mortar has a very easy time wiping it. It's just never worth it.
Vs Ostheer in particular I feel like every game where I go rifle, rifle, captain/lt, I'm floating too much, but 3 rifles + officer is too much of manpower drain. I think if the mortar was cheaper it would ne worth the risk, open up the game and give US something to do with that extra MP early on if playing R-R-officer. Right now vs Ostheer you either go nades to have a chance against a well-microed MG or you try to stall for the flak truck/pak howies, a mortar just means a loss of map control.
MG suppression help is probably not necessary, if you want to buff, buff veterancy. That will also help late game. Don't forget the patch is giving us MG reload which will partially fix the problem of blobs sniping the gunner over and over.
|