Storm in a tea cup. Given the current and future level of support available to CoH2 it doesn't make sense to target minor issues like this.
This will alter the early game for a bit but eventually adjustments will be made to smooth out the balance. But at that point, what has been achieved? Two factions have the option to spawn their infantry in a slightly different place, meanwhile we've lost the flexibility offered by multiple spawn locations. Now whether this is a net gain is obviously not something we all agree on, but the cost of this is the time and resources put into implementing and balancing the change which could have been better spent on easier or more pressing fixes.
A better solution would be to address some of the shortcomings of the current spawn system. This could be achieved by allowing units to be given repair/build tasks while they're still outside the battle area, or putting a clear indicator on the unit shield to show that the unit isn't on the field yet and making a clear indicator when they do come online.
If you follow the link to the official post there are many more changes listed than in the OP of this thread.
Overall I think it's a good patch. I especially like the reduction in grenade range for suppressed units, buffs to underused units (t34, 57mm, Major, .50cal), cheaper Ostheer t4, firefly changes (dat long range snare) and removal of free zooks on captain.
I like the intent with the penal changes but I'm concerned they will be too good on close-range maps. I'm also worried about balance/power creep as most factions have basically received across-the-board buffs while OKW mostly received nerfs.
The only change I really don't agree with is the OKW Shrek changes. They needed a decrease to vet gain and possibly some far-accuracy nerf or side tech. Removing them entirely doesn't seem like a step forward and reduces the options OKW has in the mid game.
Before we get too upset about this patch to keep in mind this is a big patch and it will take a long time for the meta to settle once it's released.
If you compare the changes in the genre (or gaming in general) between 2006-2016 as opposed to 1996-2006 then it's clear the pace of innovation has slowed. I can see a few reasons for this:
1: RTS is a mature genre so many of the obvious or easy innovations have already occurred. Likewise players have more of a firm expectation of what and RTS should be.
2: Technology isn't changing as quickly as before - or more accurately, consumers and devs aren't pushing for change. Thus opportunities to use new tech in innovative ways are slower to come. Developing or experimenting with new tech is more expensive and makes it harder to get sales because the number of people who can run your game is reduced.
3: Consumers expect higher production values which means games are more expensive to produce. Gaming has become more dominated by big publishers, who like most big businesses prefer safer, lower-risk investments. Why would a publisher take a risk establishing a new IP or developing a new engine when they can just release another installment of an established franchise which is guaranteed to make money?
4: Gaming is much more universal and casual players represent the bulk of the customer base. As in any medium casual consumers have less discerning taste, are drawn in more by flashy features and marketing rather than deep gameplay, and quickly move on to the latest new thing after the hype surrounding a game has died down.
As people have mentioned the differences in repair speeds are an issue.
A fairly significant one that often gets overlooked. Compare say the Sherman and t34. Both are unremarkable in their performance but the sherman's quick repairs mean it's always around when you need it, whereas the t34 spends more time being repaired than it does fighting, taking engis away from critical mine/demo taskings. Then look at Ostheer, where slow repairs was originally a way of balancing their superior vehicles. Now though, their vehicles don't enjoy the same superiority but still take ages to repair.
If anything I think the original factions are better designed. Newer factions feel like a mish-mash of gimmicky units thrown together and labelled a faction without much thought put in to the actual relationship between units.
Luchs doesn't come too too early. It has a small window of opportunity that slams shut once Su76,T70,stuart or AEC arrive.
The threat of the Luchs does limit your options as SU and Brits on some maps. In open maps without good spots for mines or AT nade ambushes it means a t1 start basically has to involve guards (which limits you to only one or two decent doctrines). Compare that to OKW,USF or Ostheer which have much easier access to non-doctrinal soft AT. Overall though it's fine.
The major ability has a tiny range for a recon ability, and it forces you to turn off your FRP to use. It's one of several useless abilities the major possesses.
I think rifle nades are OP, particularly against MGs, but they're also the only thing keeping Grens relevant. Grens struggle enough against LMG infantry as it is, nerfing rifle grenades would need a buff elsewhere to give Grens any chance.
Aside from their effectiveness against MGs, my main issue with riflenades is how much safer they are than hand grenades. Of course they're easy to dodge in small engagements but as the battle develops becoming more chaotic and spread out, sooner or later they'll start getting wipes. While this is also kinda true for hand grenades, they at least have an element of risk in that you have to close with the enemy.
Seeking player feedback is always important but I'm not a huge fan of community-led balance because it is hard for those in control to remain impartial. First, they all have their own preconceived notions of how the game should be, and their own experience with the game will never be truly representative of what the play base as a whole experiences.
Second is the issue of elitism. As in most communities competitive 1v1 players are the most vocal with their complaints. That game mode is important but team players have the right to demand an enjoyable time in those game modes also. There is also the risk of arguments over balance devolving into pissing contest over who has more rank. Truth be told pro 1v1 players usually do know more about the game, but nonetheless their experiences reflect a minority of the player base.
Third is the tendency for bandwagoning over certain issues. Anyone who's browsed these forums for a while will have seen how certain gameplay issues become a hot topic, tons of threads made on them, everyone complaining that they're the worst thing ever. It usually starts with one reputable player complaining, then everyone else jumps on board because that's just how internet forums work. So the problem with this is that a community dev team would be more susceptible to disproportionate responses to minor issues.
So I think the best system is one where you have a dev team that listens to player feedback but is able to step back from the game and make more impartial decisions. Having a few community members to act as a kind of liaison who collate issues and propose possible solutions is good, but final say should rest with someone who isn't so attached to the game.
As for maps though, community maps are great and I support more of that.
The wheeled-MG system is a definite disadvantage because it makes it awkward to do slight moves backward, works unpredictably (sometimes fast sometimes slow) and leaves the squad very vulnerable to wipes one retreat because it doesn't teleport to another squad member when the carrier dies.
It isn't a balance issue though, the Maxim is good enough to warrant some kind of drawback. It would be nice if it wasn't so clunky and inconsistent though.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
