Profile of donofsandiego

Avatar Area

Offline United States
Posts: 1400

General Information
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJT-oswDRyOrhrVghT-6ZRw
Steam: 76561198157193379
Nationality:

United States
Game Name: Snaek

Signature

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?..The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and... the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough...We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

Show Latest Posts


Thread: OST sniper need nerf.20 Jan 2022, 04:36 AM Man the interest for this game must be really dying down when people are still responding to threads made three months ago. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Increased RA from nearly squads - Antiblob measure.18 Jan 2022, 07:33 AM Jump back to quoted post17 Jan 2022, 10:12 AMEsxile Always thought Focus Fire off was simply spreading the damage to the entire squad instead of picking one model per one. It let into having squad losing health but no model until each hit 0. I think you're right and I was mistaken. I think that it should roll to hit nearby squads though. It would be a good way to nerf blobs imo. It would probably be too resource intensive to be reasonable to add though. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Making M-42's canister shot more player friendly14 Jan 2022, 17:34 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2022, 17:19 PMVipper There is difference imo... I'm just not seeing what that difference is. Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2022, 17:19 PMVipper ...I would had no issue with Sherman HE coming with ignore vehicles option... Neither would I, but if you want it to be consistent it should also be applied to the ISU in addition to those two. In: Lobby
Thread: Making M-42's canister shot more player friendly14 Jan 2022, 16:43 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2022, 16:04 PMVipper It is quite simple. Canister shot will not fire on it intended target unless one change to free fire. The Sherman HE will fire on intended target unless one set the weapon to fire on vehicles. Doesn't make sense. Your argument is effectively: "well the Sherman comes with vehicle prioritization already turned off so it's fine" as if the USF player can't just turn on vehicle prioritization after the fact. Clearly, if we extrapolate your argument here, the solution is to have M-42 enter the field with vehicle prioritization turned off. That way, M-42 AI shot will "fire on intended target unless one set the weapon to fire on vehicles". If that doesn't make sense to you, that's because it doesn't make sense. The fact is there is no huge difference between the two. If you're advocating for this change to the M-42, you might as well advocate for it to be done to the Sherman as well. In: Lobby
Thread: Increased RA from nearly squads - Antiblob measure.14 Jan 2022, 15:31 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2022, 14:55 PMProtos Angelus Those strategies fall flat in higher skilled games where enemy knows how to implement werfer/stuka into builds. I'm not talking about higher skilled games. I'm talking about the fact that it works at any skill level at all. It shouldn't. It should be the easiest thing in the world to counter with a single MG. But it isn't, and that's stupid. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Increased RA from nearly squads - Antiblob measure.14 Jan 2022, 14:44 PM I personally think that a simpler implementation of an "anti-blob" mechanic is to simply make the "near-miss hit" mechanic work for all weapons. I don't recall the exact name of it, but some weapons like the MG can still roll for a hit against nearby squads after missing the squad its firing at. This should be the case for every weapon in the game. Think about it: you're firing your garand at one squad with three others behind it. You miss one entity. How likely is it that you hit one of the twelve men standing behind that one? Very likely indeed. That's my opinion, anyways. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Increased RA from nearly squads - Antiblob measure.14 Jan 2022, 14:39 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Jan 2022, 00:13 AMaaronmaton IMHO COH2 --an RTS with tactical elements-- should award players who use tactics other than build a massive blob of infantry and attack ground to the enemy base. This is exactly why I prefer CoH and DoW over Starcraft. I played Starcraft and the combat was shallow as a puddle. It's all about how many units you produce over your enemy. Doesn't matter where they stand or which unit they prioritize or even if you keep them alive. The fact that Starcraft style "build and throw away" strategies can be effective in this game does it a huge disservice. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Making M-42's canister shot more player friendly14 Jan 2022, 14:27 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jan 2022, 10:11 AMVipper There is main differences between canister shot and other shells. Vehicles have two options free fire/ignore soft targets and the Canister shot does no damage to armor (contrary to some AI shell that have deflection damage). This quite a simple suggestion so I am not sure why it has receive so much debate. I fail to see how the M-42 shell switch is any different from Sherman shell switch, because like I said multiple times before the Sherman doesn't do deflection damage on its HE shells. If that's the case, you had ought to advocate for this change to both of them. But really it should be all-or-nothing, because changing those two and not the ISU is neither consistent nor intuitive. EDIT: Also I've no idea why you mention that "Vehicles have two options free fire/ignore soft targets", because AT guns have the exact same options. In: Lobby
Thread: Making M-42's canister shot more player friendly14 Jan 2022, 01:44 AM Jump back to quoted post13 Jan 2022, 22:59 PMHannibal The first point you make is not about consistency, but putting basic gameplay mechanics into place. To your point though: it's about putting 'consistency' above everything else and never has been. Consistency helps an awful lot though if there is no intuitive reason that things should be different. A bundle nade being stronger than a normal one? Makes an awful lot of sense intuitively. Elite infantry being better than mainline? A P4H being stronger than a M4A3? Same. The same weapon doing a different amount of damage against similar units (=target tables)? Oof, in my eyes a far stretch in 95% of cases and there must be good balance reasons to do it like that. It is not intuitive that e.g. a 222 is more accurate vs a sniper than vs a normal model. This is pure balance. Anyway, regarding the canister shot: As I tried to say in my first paragraph, it should be considered if an automatic firing mode switch ends up to be more confusing or not. It makes sense though that a shell that is primarily targetet vs infantry also targets infantry, or at least has the chance to do so. We shouldn't forget though that there is no 'target infantry only' button in the games. The canister shot will target tanks if necessary. This is about saving a click for the player. We actually already have a somewhat comparable example: TDs entering the field with and prioritizing vehicles from the start, while all other tanks don't have to. It makes sense intuitively, and saves a click for the plaEr as well. Yet, there are no huge discussions about it apart from some people complaining that they need to get their muscle memory changed. I'm not arguing here over either of the two things that I mentioned as examples for consistency, so there's no need to get defensive about it. But again, you mentioning consistency in your reply, all of the TDs enter the field with vehicle prioritization turned on. Cool. It's consistent and intuitive. Disabling vehicle prioritization when switching to AI shells on the M-42 and the M-42 only? It might be intuitive, but it's not consistent. Someone switches their M-42 to AI rounds and forgets to turn target vehicles off the first time they use it. Big deal. They won't make that mistake again. In fact, if they play USF, they might even be familiar with how the game already treats shells and not even have this issue. Or lets say you turn off vehicle prioritization when you enable AI shells on the M-42 and someone gets used to it (I'm assuming this is a change for new players because most people just learn to press the button that switches prioritization by muscle memory). How about that new player switches to playing USF and gets confused why the Sherman doesnt automatically turn off vehicle prioritization? Literally the same problem just in reverse lmao. Or you change both of them but not the ISU because it can actually damage tanks too. And then inconsistency. OR you just change all of them and I guess the problem goes away at that point... Point is; if you want to mess with this, do it to all of them if you value your intuitiveness and consistency. In: Lobby
Thread: Making M-42's canister shot more player friendly13 Jan 2022, 19:15 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Jan 2022, 15:36 PMHannibal Looks like a very minor issue, however automatically setting the engagement mode to all targets would probably be benefitial. Not sure how well it turns out with other shell switch abilities where the target is not as clearly defined as here. The most important thing is probably to keep it consistent. No to making it a single shot ability though. That would make it somewhat similar to the ZiS barrage in terms of functionality. Regarding the cannister shot in general, I think there could be some range regained with vet, so that spamming them is not oppressive since they need to stay in range of small arms themselves at vet. At vet 1-2, when medium tanks arrive and the usability of the M42 diminishes both regarding tanks as well as against better infantry squads and upcoming elites, it could maybe get a small range buff of +5-10 to reinforce the AI role and make it less vulnerable. I thought this whole board's warcry was "consistency!". Target tables are a no go because interaction between squads becomes inconsistent, faction asymmetry is ok but only when everyone has consistent access to the same tools, and so on. Tell me how consistent it would be for a shell switch changing the target priority on your selected unit? Sure, the M42 won't be doing any damage against tanks with its AI rounds, but neither does the Sherman, and it keeps its prioritization settings anyways. And if you do make those consistent between each other, then the ISU is the odd man out because its AI shells CAN do damage to tanks (at least as far as I remember, unless I'm mixing it up with the KV-2). Hell, though, if I am wrong about the ISU then screw it, disable vehicle prioritization while in AI shells mode for all of them. I don't really see the downside. In: Lobby