Login

russian armor

Congratulations balance team

9 May 2020, 23:54 PM
#21
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1360 | Subs: 3

9 May 2020, 23:58 PM
#22
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2802

10 May 2020, 00:17 AM
#23
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2949

Is this for real?

The game is downright unplayable for Axis atm.

You can tell me that I whine but that is my honest observation. Disadvantaged at any stage of the game. Axis inf gets steamrolled by durable Brit, Cons or Bar blobs and the tanks get wiped by 60 range AT dominance.

May I introduce you to the wonders of the g43
10 May 2020, 00:23 AM
#24
avatar of BlueKnight

Posts: 297

so I though most people here would find it kind of nice and wholesome if I made this thread so I’m sorry

That's so nice of you <444>3

I know players me (included), who changed their opinion about factions and units after playing some more. It's normal to sometimes be wrong. Cheers!
10 May 2020, 00:23 AM
#25
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2333


May I introduce you to the wonders of the g43

You mean, the STOCK G43 that only immaginary OST players have?
Ah no... you mean a doctrinal tool to fix a core meta stock units issue... Where did i heard complaints about it before??? Yes! it was an allied thread complaining that riflemen were worse than pathF.

Well if people learnt that needing doc tools for standard games is an issue, this is no exeption.
10 May 2020, 00:26 AM
#26
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2333

Im glad SJ found peace in his/her heart. Thats good to hear. All factions should be enjoyable at least from their main playerbase. I think UKF deserves attention to be viable as much as USF and SU are.

I would though agree with Cardboard Tank that recently i have seen a lot more oppressive IS blobs from very early stages of the game, but with a pitch perfect play the match is still possible to win.
10 May 2020, 00:32 AM
#27
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2802


May I introduce you to the wonders of the g43


Osttruppen meta vs USF/SOV, German Infantry doc with sniper vs UKF
10 May 2020, 00:33 AM
#28
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 292


That's so nice of you <444>3

I know players me (included), who changed their opinion about factions and units after playing some more. It's normal to sometimes be wrong. Cheers!


It's quite normal to be wrong and make mistakes. It's not normal to call people out in your community - people who care about the product we all use. They too make mistakes but they've done a far better job than I could have ever hoped for while simultaneously delivering support for a game far past what the original CoH received at the same point in it's lifespan.

I was pretty disappointed with the original thread and I can't say that I felt anything other than an awkward silence about it. My appreciation for the balance team is quite high and I'm positive that I'm not alone, despite all the goddamn shitters that bitch about their contributions.

10 May 2020, 00:35 AM
#29
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 7208 | Subs: 1

10 May 2020, 00:35 AM
#30
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2802



Never seen Evangelion, but I saw this vid a few years ago and it was literal megacringe. LUL
10 May 2020, 00:36 AM
#31
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 448

...

Well I'm surprised to see this kind of thread here. I've never personally had an issue with you though you have sometimes been hostile to the balance team- and not excusing your behavior, but it is a common issue amongst posters here for whatever reason. I'm skeptical about your quick change of heart, and I'm not yet convinced about the brits, but I think you are trying to extend an olive branch and that's a good thing.


Maybe it will be a reminder for some other people that tend to trash other people's opinions on the forums with sometimes unbeliavable self-assurance and complacency that they actually might not be that right and they should really take a step back.




Hmmmm who are THESE people? They dont sound very nice...
10 May 2020, 00:39 AM
#32
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2802

jump backJump back to quoted post10 May 2020, 00:36 AMSerrith
I'm skeptical about your quick change of heart, and I'm not yet convinced about the brits, but I think you are trying to extend an olive branch and that's a good thing.


Have a look at my recent games, I've been having a blast with them.
10 May 2020, 00:44 AM
#33
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 448



Have a look at my recent games, I've been having a blast with them.


It's not just that you've been playing brits recently, but your paradigm shift in attitude.

Like I said, I have no issues with you personally, but rarely do I see people change fundamental stances so quickly. I'm glad that you are enjoying the brits, personally I've always struggled to have fun playing them- admittedly I havent played them a lot nor terribly recently.
10 May 2020, 00:49 AM
#34
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2949


You mean, the STOCK G43 that only immaginary OST players have?
Ah no... you mean a doctrinal tool to fix a core meta stock units issue... Where did i heard complaints about it before??? Yes! it was an allied thread complaining that riflemen were worse than pathF.

Well if people learnt that needing doc tools for standard games is an issue, this is no exeption.

No one who has any idea how to play the game thinks riflemen are worse than pathfinders.

Also, imagine complaining to a USF and brit player about how you need to select a doctrine to get some nice stuff. I have to choose a doctrine to get basic gameplay tools like infantry garrison clearance, indirect fire, mines, rocket arty, and more than one kind of infantry squad.
10 May 2020, 02:20 AM
#35
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2333


No one who has any idea how to play the game thinks riflemen are worse than pathfinders.

It was almost a year ago. No worries it ended up being fixed.

Also, imagine complaining to a USF and brit player about how you need to select a doctrine to get some nice stuff. I have to choose a doctrine to get basic gameplay tools like infantry garrison clearance, indirect fire, mines, rocket arty, and more than one kind of infantry squad.

I am not complaining, i said that people complained back then to say that doctrinal tools to "fix missing gaps" in the rooster was bad design.
10 May 2020, 02:44 AM
#36
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2949


It was almost a year ago. No worries it ended up being fixed.

I am not complaining, i said that people complained back then to say that doctrinal tools to "fix missing gaps" in the rooster was bad design.

They didn't even change anything except make rifles like slightly better at extreme close ranges. It's not like paths were ever seriously overshadowing rifles in any regard except in 4-digit rank teamgames maybe. All you have to do is close under 25-ish meters and their snipers are significantly less accurate.

And it hasn't been changed. Just brought it up because you were reeeing about how g43s are doctrinal.
10 May 2020, 03:20 AM
#37
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2333

... except in 4-digit rank teamgames maybe. All you have to do is close under 25-ish meters and their snipers are significantly less accurate.

I know its a high standard but if a 4-digit rank player can play without abusing or missusing units its a good design. Skill its not a definitive nor the best criteria to judge balance/design features.


And it hasn't been changed. Just brought it up because you were reeeing about how g43s are doctrinal.

How was i reeeeing if i answer to your recommendation to use of doctrinal tools "to get some nice stuff". -quoted from yourself.
10 May 2020, 03:45 AM
#38
avatar of EffenNewbie

Posts: 1535



That's a very specific number, but okay.


It was more than a little tongue-in-cheek.

I was pretty critical of the first community balance team, but it seemed like they ignored anyone who disagreed with them, and didn't care if they completely screwed over 3v3 or 4v4. I don't know how many people on the balance team have changed, or if they are just listening better and executing better. In any case, the work that they've put into the last couple patches is obvious and I didn't think they deserved the criticism that they received.

I don't really have a strong opinion on the Brits. I've tried them a few times and thought they played better than they did before, but still not so great that I'd pick them over USF or Soviet.

Somehow, people seem to forget that the "massive" RA buff is only 1/2 of the RA nerf that they received in the previous patch. Their moving accuracy got "buffed" to where it is the same as other mainline infantry, but I've yet to see the massive steamroller Tommy Blob of doom that everyone is so worried about.
10 May 2020, 06:26 AM
#39
avatar of Elpern

Posts: 34

Bygg enheter, bli belönad
10 May 2020, 06:57 AM
#40
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2560 | Subs: 1


You mean, the STOCK G43 that only immaginary OST players have?
Ah no... you mean a doctrinal tool to fix a core meta stock units issue... Where did i heard complaints about it before??? Yes! it was an allied thread complaining that riflemen were worse than pathF.

Well if people learnt that needing doc tools for standard games is an issue, this is no exeption.


Soviets have had this problem since release and still do. So it isn't actually that much a problem for most people.

There are many Wehr doctrines with some variety of G43, 5 man squads, Ostruppen, or assault grens. Play them if you want to play meta. Play the other doctrines if you want a challange.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag Reto.GarGamel
  • The British Forces flag °NOOBMarkov.-
uploaded by Augustine

Board Info

204 users are online: 5 members and 199 guests
GachiGasm, Sir Edgelord, Sander93, Kronosaur0s, NoktDraz
146 posts in the last 24h
941 posts in the last week
4264 posts in the last month
Registered members: 24800
Welcome our newest member, isbenldep
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM