There does not need to be anything in game really.
Relic hiring for diversity instead of merit alone can impact quality of the game in extremely negative way and since they are canada based, which is one of the most obsessed countries on the planet regarding that, I can assure you, they are wasting a lot of time on that bullshit they could have dedicated to improving the game itself.
Ah, so its just right wingers yelling at clouds, I gotcha. |
|
I have no idea why this discussion has devolved into relic's wokeness, there is literally nothing in the game, especially in multiplayer that you can really point to as 'woke.'
Onto the actual discussion, I think COH3 has a solid gameplay core. At first, I was not happy with the changes to match length, and I still am not 100% on board, but it is nice to play matches that don't get dragged 20+ minutes even though one team is obviously out of their skill level.
In terms of the way units interact, I like most all of the changes, but would like to see some slight more lethality for infantry units out of cover against other small arms. I like that tanks take on average 5 hits to kill now, and that light vehicles have far more use in the lategame (especially units like the 8rad and chaffee being good enough to justify purchasing them in the lategame.)
What I think is really holding the game back right now is lack of content, and lack of polish. Lack of content is the number one issue IMO, as people coming over from COH2 have been used to 5 factions each with at least 7 doctrines each and a plethora of maps per gamemode. Having only 2-3 maps per gamemode is a serious flaw in COH3, and one that should be rectified as soon as possible, even if it means adding community maps. COH2 had the same issue early on (anyone remember steppes being the only 4v4 map for 3-4 months?), and it similarly caused a great decrease in playerbase. People are just bored, they feel like they have completely played the game, and are now sitting back and waiting for new stuff.
Polish I believe is also very important, and there are a few bugs in coh3 that are common and do a lot to add to the feeling that COH3 is an unfinished game. Seeing squads walking around with magic guns that float 3 meters behind them, or squads getting stuck when attempting to breach, are common enough occurences that players run into them often, and each time they do it reminds them of the poor state of the game. Common bugs and simple laziness like missing unit icons need to get ironed out sooner than later. |
|
I haven't seen anyone bring it up yet, but IMO the most broken thing currently is the Wehr luftwaffe doctrine. You can drop fallschrimpioneers at the start of the match, to get better positioning. All well and good. But then those pios can build the 2cm flak emplacement immediately, which not only has insane range, but kills light vehicles (including light tanks), murders infantry, and is almost literally impossible to destroy. Dealing damage to it only decrews it, dealing no damage to the emplacement itself. If the enemy has a nearby halftrack or squad (spoiler, they always will), they can recrew the emplacement and keep it at full health.
One of these emplacements can basically shut down an entire section of the map for long enough to rush out a fast P4 or Wirbelwind. In 1v1 its not such an issue since you can go around and go for cutoffs, but on 2v2s and up, this emplacement literally wins games for free. The only counter is to win the opening engagement hard enough that the wehr player cant build one, then keep them off key points until you have tanks so they are not a big issue. |
|
That isn't a thing in either COH1 or COH2. Armor works off of a simple value that is binary, either an incoming shell hits your front armor or rear armor. Angling just makes it more likely for a shell to hit the back half of your tank, IE rear armor. You want to face your targets head on in basically all situations, regardless of tank.
If you want some example of Games where angling is somewhat represented:
War Thunder
Men of War |
|
I really don't get what would be wrong with 'the whole doctrine being carried by one ability.' At the end of the day, commanders are selected based on what they bring to the table. Looking at faction win rates, basically every game mode and faction is balanced (except crazy 4v4s), which means that the most powerful Soviet commanders are not out of the overall strength curve.
In other words, there is no reason to nerf good Soviet doctrines to make weak ones better. Its a stupid argument. Thus, the fix to partisan doctrine would require the doctrine to go to the level of other commanders it competes with, or atleast to be strong enough at a niche to compensate for what it lacks. You can either do this by shoring up the doctrine's weakness (giving it a better lategame), or by making the unique aspects of the doctrine stand out more.
In my opinion, the Partisan doctrine hinges on the idea of superior intelligence and planning. As such, I think all the abilities fit the doctrine very well (except maybe the ATG ambush).I believe mark target + spy network are more than enough of a lategame edge. Stacking more has a risk of making the doctrine OP.
Thus, the obvious fix appears to be with the partisans themselves. They need to bring something to the equation to make up for the lack of elite infantry in the doctrine. Currently, after the initial call in, partisans fall off hard, as they have terrible received accuracy and reinforce cost (thus bleeding hard when fighting German squads that have high DPS). I think an interesting change would be to allow a way for partisans to reinfiltrate. Maybe add a 'tunnel' that partisans can build in friendly territory, which allows them to move around the map faster. It should be fairly easy to find and destroy for the opponent to make it fair. As an easier and less insane fix, I think partisan reinforce cost could be changed to be based on a full 5 man squad, rather than the starting 4 man squad (210/(2*5) = 21) |
Why did you even come up with the idea that the Black Prince is needed? On the example of CoH2, we clearly see that the Soviets and the United States are based on tank destroyers. Their heavy tanks (namely, the tank, not the ISU-152) are practically not used. As we know, Britain will have an Archer who can perfectly fulfill the role of the Tiger destroyer. Asymmetric balance.
Because why shouldn't the Brits have a heavy lategame tank that can frontally engage the Germans? It doesn't have to be the Black Prince, but more options allow for more varied playstyles on all sides. In 1v1s, that kind of asymetric balance works. But in teamgames, even to this day, we can see that balancing a game where one side only has to micro a small number of units vs. another side having to micro more individually weaker units makes for an imbalance.
In addition, it is quite silly to me that Axis factions always seem to need to have the heaviest units in the lategame. Hell, in COH3 the 'light and aggressive Africa Corps' looks like it gets a stock Tiger just to appease certain aspects of the Axis playerbase. Seems boring to me to want to go with the same old design yet again in COH3, especially when this weird idea of German lategame superiority isn't even authentic. |
|
Authentic is a matter of opinion. Some people might think just having units that fought (regardless of numbers) in the war as all equally viable units for an authentic experience. I personally think COH is already pretty far off the mark when it tries to represent units like Infrared searchlights or Comets as core components of factions. To me, that is about the same level of sin as seeing the Black Prince as a doctrinal unit.
But at the end of the day, units are just skins. The stats we see in game rarely align with what said units were capable of in real life (IE having tanks like the Sherman having worse armor than a P4, or Comets having more armor than Panthers.) If it would make the community happier to see something like a Churchill with a HV 6lber with the same stats as this 'Black Prince,' then that is what Relic should probably go for if they believe the British need a heavy tank capable of slugging it out with other heavies. But removing the Black Prince should not mean that the British faction loses out on having a heavy tank that can fight toe to toe with Tigers or the like. |
|
Penals are fine in 1v1s. They just suck in larger game modes, to the point of becoming an active detriment.
My issue with them (that will likely never get fixed), is how they act like riflemen, but without the snare or anti-infantry upgrades. They are so expensive that you do not want to engage outside of green cover or be bled past the 5 minute mark, and don't really fill any important niche in the soviet lineup. They don't even get sandbags. Why should you ever build penals when you can go for conscripts and supplement with guards for PTRS anyways?
Awesome voicelines though. |
How about a fun tourney with a 100% abandon chance mod.
I'd watch that
Speaking purely theoretically, I actually think 100% abandonment chance would be far superior to whatever low % chance it is in COH2 right now (though obviously I would rather it be 0%).
If a mechanic was consistent, it can be planned around. If a mechanic occurs only rarely, especially when said mechanic also can represent a HUGE resource shift from one side to the other, it is broken. This is why plane crashes were nerfed, because they rarely happened (maybe 1 ever 10 games), and had the potential to instantly lose a player the game. |
Great list. Agree on most of it. One thing I don't personally feel the same way about is grenade dodging, but I've seen umtiple people mention it. To me the bar that appears is almost too obvious, although it is probably a placeholder anyways.
I think what he meant is that the actual animation of the grenade being thrown is almost impossible to catch, in part because of the farther out zoom, and in part because of the animations being very subdued compared to those in coh2 (which were very obvious, with long and animated windups.) In addition, I'm just not a fan of denoting something that used to be immersive (seeing a grenade being thrown and hearing the troops callout) with a simple UI bar. COH to me has always been great because of how alive the battlefield feels; that you don't feel like you are playing with toys on a map, but living soldiers.
I do however, disagree with his point about the audible warnings for grenades. No-one can spend 100% of their time watching engagements, and the grenade callouts make for good gameplay and user feedback. |
comm_ash ★
CcArtS03
comm_ash
Relic Entertainment
