Login

russian armor

OKW, the root of most balance issues?

PAGES (17)down
5 Dec 2014, 16:35 PM
#141
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7

We should stop looking at rankings and W/L ratios of players and think about the avg player. A person of equal skill on allies vs an OKW player will loose, simple as that.

The USF rifles quickly get out vetted and useless, they also are very fragile and lack the DPS to stand up against OKW Volks and obers. That being said, their tanks can counter the infantry but since the shrek is so good, it negates any of the armor usf can put out. The Scott dies in 2 shrek hits, the sherm in 4, and on avg 5-6 for the ez8.

I can understand if u want to make the FlakHQ good, but at least decrease its health to be able to counter it with an AT gun if the OKW player puts it to far forward.

Either all of the allies/wehr need to be buffed to OKW standards or you need to adjust the OKW. choose one


if you decrease its health it becomes EVEN more susceptible to offmap and onmap artillery. Onmap artillery (mortars and howitzers) are pretty effective against the truck, since continuous bombardment will not allow the sturmpioneers to repair it since they risk getting wiped. Also you CAN theoretically counter the flak HQ with 1 at gun, you just have to be careful for when the OKW player decides to counter attack. attacking with 2 different AT weapons (at gun, tank etc) is suggested.
5 Dec 2014, 16:38 PM
#142
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 15:46 PMsteel
Or just tone down the LMG34 to be closer to the LMG42.




Or maybe change the LMG to have flat dps all the way. My main problem is how they eat up everything at long range and that sick received accuracy modifier.


OKW needs a late game "Ober" infantry due to their lack of armor availability. I think investing 90 muni (or whatever the amount) on a superb infantry is okay with high accuracy and DPS.
5 Dec 2014, 17:36 PM
#143
avatar of steel

Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1



OKW needs a late game "Ober" infantry due to their lack of armor availability. I think investing 90 muni (or whatever the amount) on a superb infantry is okay with high accuracy and DPS.
I still don't think they deserve to get a shredder after paying 90 muni. It just seems excessive.
5 Dec 2014, 18:08 PM
#144
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

I don't want obers to be nerfws into oblivion tho. The should just shouldn't take on 3 squads at once. Maybe adjusting their long range dps would help. That way a shock troop squad isn't cut down to two Ken by the time they get to the obers.
5 Dec 2014, 18:09 PM
#145
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

This game wasn't and never will be competitive. So, if you insist in balancing it for the 100 guys in the top of the ladder, then only those 100 guys will be the ones playing and having fun.

This game is unforgiving and hard to grasp for the average player. Being OKW a terrible faction to play against, specially in teamgames.

Obers and volks+schreck blobs are an issue for most allied players, and personally I hate the stupid survivality that Puma has, making it a pain to destroy one if it's well microed.
I don't care if for high level players the game is well balanced if the number of average players decrease instead.
5 Dec 2014, 18:59 PM
#146
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 18:09 PMGreeb
This game wasn't and never will be competitive. So, if you insist in balancing it for the 100 guys in the top of the ladder, then only those 100 guys will be the ones playing and having fun.

This game is unforgiving and hard to grasp for the average player. Being OKW a terrible faction to play against, specially in teamgames.

Obers and volks+schreck blobs are an issue for most allied players, and personally I hate the stupid survivality that Puma has, making it a pain to destroy one if it's well microed.
I don't care if for high level players the game is well balanced if the number of average players decrease instead.


So what's your solution?
If you balance for the average joe, you are gonna have plenty more abusive things in the game.

I'm not saying Ober shreck blobs, 3v3+ axis predominance or USF late game micro tax are not issues. Just tell me what change has been done which affects the average player and not the top guys. They were gonna put a heavy micro requirement for the ISU152 and the JT and they back it up with the decision.

-3v3+ has been broken since the release of the game. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but always axis favoured.
-Then we have 1v1 and 2v2 which has gone back n forth.

The Puma is a great overall unit, pain in the ass to deal with when microed, but on the same scale such as double sniper with sprint, M20 or even M3 (eventhough less seen nowadays).

Since i see you just play mostly 2v2 Soviets, i'm sorry to tell you that if you have problems with the game, it's mostly your own issues.
The only problem as Soviets is when you try to go for more "hipster" doctrines or you get overconfident on trying to just play with stock units and your opponents manage to comeback.

5 Dec 2014, 19:33 PM
#147
avatar of Rupert

Posts: 186

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 18:09 PMGreeb
This game wasn't and never will be competitive. So, if you insist in balancing it for the 100 guys in the top of the ladder, then only those 100 guys will be the ones playing and having fun.

This game is unforgiving and hard to grasp for the average player. Being OKW a terrible faction to play against, specially in teamgames.

Obers and volks+schreck blobs are an issue for most allied players, and personally I hate the stupid survivality that Puma has, making it a pain to destroy one if it's well microed.
I don't care if for high level players the game is well balanced if the number of average players decrease instead.


Competetive scene has nothing to do with balancing. CoH1 was most balanced when a dev and top players worked together (will probably not happen since that dev left relic).

If you balance it for the average joe, the top players will abuse whatever crutches meant for the average Joe and abuse it to the max.

This game is unforgiving and hard to grasp for the average player, and so is pretty much ALL MOBA games (dota, lol), and fighting games (Tekken). In fact, imo it's the most forgiving compared to games like the Warcraft III. You get a friggin retreat button.

Trust me, the number of average players will decrease a LOT more when such "crutches" are given because good players will abuse it, then the average players will learn how to abuse it, and that will lose a lot more players.

Besides, how can you be so confident that you are "average"? Just because someone is not in top 100s does not automatically make everyone else "average".
5 Dec 2014, 20:05 PM
#148
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971



So what's your solution?
If you balance for the average joe, you are gonna have plenty more abusive things in the game.


Well, to begin with, balance should be more focused toward team games, as they are the gamemodes played the most by new players. What fun does a game have knowing beforehand that your chances to win are lower than your enemy's just because faction design? That's why you always see more axis players than allied ones.

I prefer to see changes to help the casual player to have fun, even if that means that the top players will abuse them. I was going to lose equally against them, so I don't care, but at least I won't lose against a less skilled player just because his faction is better than mine in teamgames.

I play soviets, yes, and my playercard shows how this game balance has changed, as I have been usually between top 100-300, and after WFA was released I've been plummeting till #3000. I've noticed that allied random players are way more noobish than the axis ones, as if experienced players avoided playing allies because they know they are harder to micro, boring and less probable to win with. Having that in account (a more novice player pool) and refusing to play cheesy strategies like sniper+guards or B4 spam, makes playing as soviet a sure loss against equally skilled enemies (usually even againts less skilled ones).

OKW is just the last nail in the coffin. A faction that allows brainless blobbing without combined arms at all. All soviet T3 units can be screwed by just a couple of volks+schrecks, and all T4 units can be destroyed easily by an immortal Puma or even volks (again), and I won't talk about reinforcing and repairing near key points.
All soviet infantry is a joke except shocks, and they are doctrinal, and they became useless too when Obers take the field.

Although factions shouldn't be mirrored, they should have equal power in all stages of the game. Making a faction more powerful early or late in the game just creates imbalances impossible to avoid in bigger games. Relic should start by that. Probably making USF weaker early game, but improving their lategame units.
OKW main weaknesses are useless if their reduced economy enables them to field armored vehicles as fast as any other faction, and their lack of medium tanks doesn't mean anything if their cheapest infantry can destroy T34s face to face.

5 Dec 2014, 20:31 PM
#149
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

well i do disagree that balancing for the average players doesn't necessarily lead to more abuse. Some units can be made easier to use but that doesn't mean pros will use it as cheat
5 Dec 2014, 20:41 PM
#150
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 20:05 PMGreeb


Well, to begin with, balance should be more focused toward team games, as they are the gamemodes played the most by new players. What fun does a game have knowing beforehand that your chances to win are lower than your enemy's just because faction design? That's why you always see more axis players than allied ones.

I prefer to see changes to help the casual player to have fun, even if that means that the top players will abuse them. I was going to lose equally against them, so I don't care, but at least I won't lose against a less skilled player just because his faction is better than mine in teamgames.

I play soviets, yes, and my playercard shows how this game balance has changed, as I have been usually between top 100-300, and after WFA was released I've been plummeting till #3000. I've noticed that allied random players are way more noobish than the axis ones, as if experienced players avoided playing allies because they know they are harder to micro, boring and less probable to win with. Having that in account (a more novice player pool) and refusing to play cheesy strategies like sniper+guards or B4 spam, makes playing as soviet a sure loss against equally skilled enemies (usually even againts less skilled ones).

OKW is just the last nail in the coffin. A faction that allows brainless blobbing without combined arms at all. All soviet T3 units can be screwed by just a couple of volks+schrecks, and all T4 units can be destroyed easily by an immortal Puma or even volks (again), and I won't talk about reinforcing and repairing near key points.
All soviet infantry is a joke except shocks, and they are doctrinal, and they became useless too when Obers take the field.

Although factions shouldn't be mirrored, they should have equal power in all stages of the game. Making a faction more powerful early or late in the game just creates imbalances impossible to avoid in bigger games. Relic should start by that. Probably making USF weaker early game, but improving their lategame units.
OKW main weaknesses are useless if their reduced economy enables them to field armored vehicles as fast as any other faction, and their lack of medium tanks doesn't mean anything if their cheapest infantry can destroy T34s face to face.



This. Spot on and couldn't have said it better
5 Dec 2014, 21:16 PM
#151
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

I don't think anything needs a major overhaul in my opinion, some units need an obvious buff like the t-34/76, su-76, light infantry support gun, stug III g and what not, while some units need an obvious nerf.

As a 1v1 and sometimes a 2v2 player, i can say that the game is pretty well balanced at this point. Theres just one thing with the balance that is bad.


It's boring balance. The gap between a "good" unit and a "bad" is HUGE. Theres not alot of viable units in the game, because most of them just suck.

Compare su-76 to anything else of similar cost, and see just how terrible it is.

Compare T-34/76 to M4 sherman and see how the t-34 is just utter crap.



I could go on and on and on and just point out that some units just clearly are utter shit, this in my opinion needs to be adressed.


For me this kind of balance just gets boring very quickly. Altho the metagame can change, it's fairly obvious nobody ever will figure out how to use su-76s to good effect, because it is simply IMPOSSIBLE.


Also, it doesn't really matter that OKW isin't historically accurate of the german army in 1944, hell it's not, it's possibly the exact opposite of it, but then again, this is not a ww2 simulator.
5 Dec 2014, 21:39 PM
#152
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 20:05 PMGreeb


Well, to begin with, balance should be more focused toward team games, as they are the gamemodes played the most by new players. What fun does a game have knowing beforehand that your chances to win are lower than your enemy's just because faction design? That's why you always see more axis players than allied ones.

I prefer to see changes to help the casual player to have fun, even if that means that the top players will abuse them. I was going to lose equally against them, so I don't care, but at least I won't lose against a less skilled player just because his faction is better than mine in teamgames.

I play soviets, yes, and my playercard shows how this game balance has changed, as I have been usually between top 100-300, and after WFA was released I've been plummeting till #3000. I've noticed that allied random players are way more noobish than the axis ones, as if experienced players avoided playing allies because they know they are harder to micro, boring and less probable to win with. Having that in account (a more novice player pool) and refusing to play cheesy strategies like sniper+guards or B4 spam, makes playing as soviet a sure loss against equally skilled enemies (usually even againts less skilled ones).

OKW is just the last nail in the coffin. A faction that allows brainless blobbing without combined arms at all. All soviet T3 units can be screwed by just a couple of volks+schrecks, and all T4 units can be destroyed easily by an immortal Puma or even volks (again), and I won't talk about reinforcing and repairing near key points.
All soviet infantry is a joke except shocks, and they are doctrinal, and they became useless too when Obers take the field.

Although factions shouldn't be mirrored, they should have equal power in all stages of the game. Making a faction more powerful early or late in the game just creates imbalances impossible to avoid in bigger games. Relic should start by that. Probably making USF weaker early game, but improving their lategame units.
OKW main weaknesses are useless if their reduced economy enables them to field armored vehicles as fast as any other faction, and their lack of medium tanks doesn't mean anything if their cheapest infantry can destroy T34s face to face.



Well said! I agree completely. I would like to see a separate patch for 3 v 3 + game modes but that is unlikely. The developer should look at the core fans who mainly play 3 v 3+ and develop a strategy to make the game fun for the 80% community. Right now, I am having a hard time keeping some of my friends from ditching Coh2 to play Men of War or BF4 soley because the game imbalances with WFA. I understand it will take time, but once you lose quality core players, the franchise is in jeopardy.
5 Dec 2014, 21:51 PM
#153
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276



Well said! I agree completely. I would like to see a separate patch for 3 v 3 + game modes but that is unlikely. The developer should look at the core fans who mainly play 3 v 3+ and develop a strategy to make the game fun for the 80% community. Right now, I am having a hard time keeping some of my friends from ditching Coh2 to play Men of War or BF4 soley because the game imbalances with WFA. I understand it will take time, but once you lose quality core players, the franchise is in jeopardy.


Its scary to think of a world with out COH. =(
We need a balance patch ASAP. Its getting hard to get even my friends who play COH on the reg to play.
5 Dec 2014, 22:45 PM
#154
avatar of NigelBallsworth

Posts: 207



Long story short: no.


lol. yeah...short story even shorter : yes. For all the reasons already mentioned.
6 Dec 2014, 00:38 AM
#155
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 20:05 PMGreeb

...


You are just asking for things that had being request for a long time and has nothing to do with the average player or other things which are balance related and has nothing to do with skill.
Relying less on "cheesy", same old strats, call ins, Obers, Shreck blob... Just check the balance section.

OH and SU are on equal foot level, USF is heavy micro at mid-late game and OKW is simple but risky with it's vehicles.
USF needs a reduction on micro tax and OKW needs an increase on it
6 Dec 2014, 05:11 AM
#156
avatar of NigelBallsworth

Posts: 207

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Dec 2014, 17:47 PMRomeo


GORILLA TACTICS! :D


Why, that's just bananas ! Although I admit that it has a-peel !
6 Dec 2014, 07:51 AM
#157
avatar of Rupert

Posts: 186

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 20:05 PMGreeb


Well, to begin with, balance should be more focused toward team games, as they are the gamemodes played the most by new players. What fun does a game have knowing beforehand that your chances to win are lower than your enemy's just because faction design? That's why you always see more axis players than allied ones.


Terrible idea. Tell me one game that balanced team games in favor of 1v1 in RTS and managed to survive.

Also, if you search for a nifty little tool called CELO, you can see that average ELO of allied players in team games are lower than that of the axis even in the "below average" echelon.

It's just simple - new players often tend to start of with the "good guys".



I prefer to see changes to help the casual player to have fun, even if that means that the top players will abuse them. I was going to lose equally against them, so I don't care, but at least I won't lose against a less skilled player just because his faction is better than mine in teamgames.


I'm sorry, but the chances are... you didn't lose to a less skilled player just because his faction was better than yours. You probably lost because he outplayed you - that includes fending YOU off when you should be at the strongest : i.e. losing an M20 or T70 as soon as it arrives.


I play soviets, yes, and my playercard shows how this game balance has changed, as I have been usually between top 100-300, and after WFA was released I've been plummeting till #3000. I've noticed that allied random players are way more noobish than the axis ones, as if experienced players avoided playing allies because they know they are harder to micro, boring and less probable to win with. Having that in account (a more novice player pool) and refusing to play cheesy strategies like sniper+guards or B4 spam, makes playing as soviet a sure loss against equally skilled enemies (usually even againts less skilled ones).


Uh...I'm sure thats why Soviet is considered the strongest in 1v1 AND double soviets the strongest in 2v2 as well in tournaments?

You not being able to utilize something to its full potential, hell, just half of the potential - is not the faction's fault.


OKW is just the last nail in the coffin. A faction that allows brainless blobbing without combined arms at all. All soviet T3 units can be screwed by just a couple of volks+schrecks, and all T4 units can be destroyed easily by an immortal Puma or even volks (again), and I won't talk about reinforcing and repairing near key points.
All soviet infantry is a joke except shocks, and they are doctrinal, and they became useless too when Obers take the field.


If that's how immortal pumas and volks are, explain this :



FYI Langreskaya is considered an very OKW-friendly map due to wide open areas that prohibit flanking....



Although factions shouldn't be mirrored, they should have equal power in all stages of the game. Making a faction more powerful early or late in the game just creates imbalances impossible to avoid in bigger games. Relic should start by that. Probably making USF weaker early game, but improving their lategame units.


I highly doubt the whining will stop after that, because if that happens than most USF players with no idea or concept of kiting/flanking/harassing will then cry "OMG USF IS WEAK EARLY AND LATEGAME!" instead of "OMG USF IS OK EARLY BUT SHIT LATEGAME!". Trust me, most people will never try to get better or realize their mistakes - they just keep blaming balance when statistics clearly say no.


OKW main weaknesses are useless if their reduced economy enables them to field armored vehicles as fast as any other faction, and their lack of medium tanks doesn't mean anything if their cheapest infantry can destroy T34s face to face.


FYI a single M20 can wipe a 5 vet volks squad without taking a single hit from shreks, just with micro - and it's not that hard. T-70, T-34, and Shermans can do the same with their agility. In order to fend of mediums with volks, volks need to be massed. Massed means moving together. If they're moving together, they're not capping everything on the map. If they send lone squads to fend off that engineer, a light tank will wipe it. If OKW sends two squads, the demo is waiting for them by the fuel they just lost.

OKW main weaknesses are useless IF the enemy has no strategic thinking of how the game will flow. And to be honest, removing that "necessity of strategic thinking" will pretty much kill the game.

Maybe between 4 digit rankers, they probably both blob and OKW will easily come out victorious due to their versatility and ober dps. But just because new players can't dribble doesn't mean we should allow everyone to hold the ball with their hands in football(soccer). It's a fucking RTS. Strategy involves out-playing the opponent.
6 Dec 2014, 09:03 AM
#158
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

Rupert, you are assuming too much things and your only answer is L2P.

And that's precisely what I'm complaining about. An average player shouldn't learn to play until mastering all lame strategies to be able to win a match again a equally skilled enemy. When you can't win a match against someone of equal skill following the proper teching tree of your faction and using stock units, then balance is fucked up.

Instead, the game forces you to read forums, see replays and learn which commander and what combination of units work together. That's fine in high level games, but the average player doesn't see replays, and doesn't register in forums.
They only see that their elite penal squads or their mighty guards can't do anything against cheaper units, and their tanks must flee at the sight of a single panzerschreck. So, the only option is to avoid playing multiplayer (which happens) or switch to axis with which is easier to play and win at low skill games (which happens too)

Soviets being the most powerful faction in 1vs1 and 2vs2?? Yes, I can believe that. What I don't believe is that they managed to do that without abusing stupid strats like no-teching and wait for call-ins, spamming B4s, or sniper starts.

Well it seems that in your fantasy world balance is perfect and everyone who loses a game is because he got outplayed, and stupid units like ISU152, JT, Obers, King Tigers, etc, doesn't mean anything in the outcome of a game.

By the way, in team games is perfectly possible for a player to blob mercilessly and still not losing cap power.
6 Dec 2014, 10:03 AM
#159
avatar of hames

Posts: 2

I think that the main problem with the balancing is that Coh2 has 2 different audiences: Average-Joes and Pros. They both need very different kind of balance and Relic has to think both of them since they are both important for them.

Averages Joes need reasonably simple tactics and units so they could enjoy the game as much as possible without need of a reading tons of strategy guides or watching million replays. And obviously we cannot force them to be like the pros, they are allowed to have a balanced game too.

For the pros instead, we can have more complicated and micro-intensive strategies and counters and it will be just fine.

Is the OKW the root for all the problems ? Well it is broken but it is not the only problem.

I hope Relic will come up something that would please even the half of the people since everyone will never be pleased.
6 Dec 2014, 11:20 AM
#160
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1276

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Dec 2014, 09:03 AMGreeb
Rupert, you are assuming too much things and your only answer is L2P.

And that's precisely what I'm complaining about. An average player shouldn't learn to play until mastering all lame strategies to be able to win a match again a equally skilled enemy. When you can't win a match against someone of equal skill following the proper teching tree of your faction and using stock units, then balance is fucked up.

Instead, the game forces you to read forums, see replays and learn which commander and what combination of units work together. That's fine in high level games, but the average player doesn't see replays, and doesn't register in forums.
They only see that their elite penal squads or their mighty guards can't do anything against cheaper units, and their tanks must flee at the sight of a single panzerschreck. So, the only option is to avoid playing multiplayer (which happens) or switch to axis with which is easier to play and win at low skill games (which happens too)

Soviets being the most powerful faction in 1vs1 and 2vs2?? Yes, I can believe that. What I don't believe is that they managed to do that without abusing stupid strats like no-teching and wait for call-ins, spamming B4s, or sniper starts.

Well it seems that in your fantasy world balance is perfect and everyone who loses a game is because he got outplayed, and stupid units like ISU152, JT, Obers, King Tigers, etc, doesn't mean anything in the outcome of a game.

By the way, in team games is perfectly possible for a player to blob mercilessly and still not losing cap power.



This.

The game doesn't need to accommodate to two different audiences as Hames points out tho. The balance is of in a lot of ways, axis and allies, all have poor strats and broken units that need fixed. the su-76 still has yet to be fixed, the bug where tanks go forward instead of backwards still needs fixed.

I mean, we are still playing a really broken game that has all of the mechanics of a good Coh game, but has yet to be fixed nor balanced for new players and returning players. We paid a lot of money for a game we expect to get enjoyment out of not l2p garbage that both sides are dealing with. instead we are dealing with games that feel cheated, as if the player is always wrong or you are always at fault for a broken unit simply not being good enough to counter the opposing one. The balance needs fixed NOW or we will loose COH and (whats left of) the community.
PAGES (17)down
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
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

209 users are online: 1 member and 208 guests
capiqua
6 posts in the last 24h
100 posts in the last week
508 posts in the last month
Registered members: 36471
Welcome our newest member, Almendarezi
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM