|
Unfortunately a lot of that flavor is impossible to achieve without the complex target tables that were unique to COH. The jeep/biking doing extra damage vs snipers was a prime example, one of the other most important ones was elite armor units taking extra flame damage, making flamers actually more powerful late game or against the OF factions. Bikes and jeeps got avoidance bonuses vs. AT guns making them useful for scouting too.
|
|
Yeah, I agree, that's what the original post is about. Soviets are harder to play and the tiering system is as awkward as a trailer-trash girl from Kentucky in a five-star restaurant in Paris.
The argument for balancing for the highest skill set is that that balance should trickle down just fine. I just disagree that it is totally balanced even at the 1v1 top 10% level, so fix that first then look at other issues that could make it more balanced for casual players, particularly the 3v3 and 4v4 map resource levels and placement.
|
|
I tend to agree with AvNY. If your game is balanced only for 1v1, that should be the only automatch mode available. I think sadly Relic's credibility has been really damaged for a lot of casuals. But judging by the win/loss ratios of the top 100 or so, even 1v1 isn't perfect so arguably that should be fixed first.
2v2 and up tended to be better in COH1 because rifles were better. One guy went bars, the other went WSC. That synergy extended into 3v3 and 4v4 making those modes playable. In 2v2 in COH2 a conscript/sniper combo doesn't pack quite the same punch. I have seen some creative uses of aggressive Maxim usage backing scout cars/snipers but this combo is easily countered by T2 vehicles but can be very powerful.
What does seem to work is super aggressive conscript spam and building rushing all across the map, but again, if early and total map control isn't established, that strat falls apart as soon as Panzergrens and vehicles hit the field.
|
|
LMGs just don't have any equivalent on the Soviet side and what there is is doctrinal (Guards rifles).
LMGs are a one-time upgrade that scales really well over time and cause a veterancy gap.
In my other thread I proposed that the best solution, given that the conscript scales so poorly, is an upgradeable suppress ability. Basically, conscripts need bars. I don't think they need the damage of bars, but they really need to be able to counter LMG grens (and Panzergrens) with suppression. I'd rather they took away the doctrinal options of SMGs and gave the whole damn faction suppression TBH. SMGs + suppression would just be OP.
|
|
I was on the fence on this one, but by and large the current mechanic is just annoying as hell eventually.
I just played a game where I couldn't seem to stop myself from getting constantly naded because I was a little overzealous with the smooshing. As the PzIVs were both vet 2 at that point, I didn't really care, but it just prolonged the game. Smoosh, get naded, repair, rinse, repeat.
However, it might be fairer if light vehicles (M3s, halftracks, T70s, ACs) always got engine damage. If you're using a light and fast vehicle that badly, you should be punished for it with engine damage. Tanks, it's just freakin' annoying, and as all Axis armor is only subpar at killing infantry (Brumm and Ost excepted), it would be nice if we could use tanks the way they're supposed to be used - infantry killing steamrollers! Why do Soviets get to have all the crushing fun?
But yeah, reward quick micro when you stumble on a squad - animation should have to finish. Given that TrueSight makes this happen a lot more frequently than in COH, it's really only fair.
|
|
Volsky, I might need to buy you flowers. You've done a great job backing up what I'm trying to explain my other thread.
Should we get into how much harder it is to spot a rifle nade being readied vs. a Molotov throw? No, probably not....That way madness lies. But that also has a lot to do with the vetting problem you wise folk are discussing.
|
Why is that bad design? Broodwar, which if we exclude the boring-ass MOBAs had perhaps the most entertaining RTS gameplay ever at a high level, had TONS of units that behaved that way. Siege tanks, science vessels, defilers, high templar all had extremely strong AOE or spells that could wreck your day.
And I disagree that this didn't exist in vCoH. Snipers, PE armored cars, vet 2 grens, the fast m8, the fast puma all completely negated everything you had on the field until you countered them.
I manage to win plenty of soviet 1v1 games with t1 t2 t3, AT guns and t34s with snipers is perfectly viable.
Well, to some extent I don't mind it - everyone loves saving for the Tiger and it's satisfying when it hits the field. But what we have here is a faction that seems to rely on that mechanic much more.
Yeah, COH had a few - PE and Brits had the worst ones, but let's not get into Brits! I do disagree on the M8 though, its shock value only lasted past the first engagement, then it spent the rest of the game sniping infantry in corners. A great unit but not the same "escape from the slippery slope" mechanic I'm talking about.
And yeah past a certain skill level I think the balance is actually pretty good. But the design of Soviets means you need above average micro to beat someone with average micro, and you'll still need to pull a rabbit out of your hat to put in the final blow (usually a commander item). Whereas I think many Ostheer players don't even feel they NEED their commander abilities and they're kind of like icing on the cake. A Tiger is great, but enough 3 PZiVs will do fine as well. Contrast that to Soviets who will just not win with any combination of T-34s and SU-85s once enough LMGs have been upgraded and shrek-wielding panzergrens are on the field.
|
|
Well, your OP is back.
I was hoping to have more discussion about whether Soviets are actually designed badly or not to be honest. I'm just so aggravated. Every game as Soviets, I think I'm losing, and getting frustrated and then cometh the uber unit. I just played a long Minsk game were I thought we were screwed by the LMG spam so of course I pop the KV-8. We claw our way back into the game vs triple Tigers with 5 SU-85s, an IS-2 and my two shock squads, one with with vet 3, which are unkillable.
And that was one of the major points I was trying to make in the original thread: it's bad design when a faction is only winning games because of its super units. Elite units in COH just did not totally alter outcomes the same way KV-8s, ISU-152s, shock squads and so on do in COH2. The only unit that comes close is the Calliope.
I hate the way the thing plays compared to US in COH1. I hate the SU-85. On a map where you have to take a right angle to get to safety while moving backward (Semoisky being the worst offender)? You're screwed if something comes rushing out of the fog of war. I so badly miss the M10, airborne, and AT guns with army-piercing, which was just a much more fun and satisfying way to play late game vs Axis armor.
The lynchpin of the entire army is one unit - that stupid SU-85. Maybe not in 1v1 (though I have seen plenty of long "pro" level games where the Soviet player eventually has to give up on AT guns/T-34s and build SU-85s) but certainly in any other mode. And that to me is poor design.
|
That describes vCOH very well too.
No, not exactly. In COH preventing rifle flanks was a real art, requiring lots of bike micro, mine laying, and wire. So the Wehr players had just as high a CPM requiment as the US in my experience. |
|
@Nullist - Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about in my radical proposal post. I know no one bothered to get through it to the actual proposal, where I said AT guns should be in T3, T3 should be cheaper, and both tanks in T4.
@Immortal - I think you're just taking the more positive perspective on what I just said. Soviet specialist units are more powerful, generally, but the drawback is you need above average micro to use them, whereas just having a good army composition is 80% of the battle as Ostheer, thus the perception that Ostheer is easier to play. Multitasking comes into play as well, as Soviet you will need to play more of a harassing game, have units separated from one another, not visible on the same screen. Ostheer players meanwhile usually have units closer and supporting one another. So even with good players, you will quite often see a conscript squad or two lost, and often early during a game when forces are most spread out, whereas Ostheer units generally are totally lost later to arty/snipers, T70s wiping out low-health units, and so on. |
United States
0
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
