I have to ask a question. Are you playing this game or just numbers? Because entering the game now you can see a typical picture of a blob that walks and melts everything around.
I play high level teamgames where good players usually know how to punish blobs, so they are not really an issue. Still, blobs can always be effective. Lowering TTK would not weaken them though, it would just make them even stronger, because it would make using cover against them less effective. |
The more deadly the weapon less time one has to react and use cover/other advantage so the game becomes more arcade and less strategic.
Ah yes, nothing more strategic than heavy cover versus heavy cover fights lasting up to literal minutes or infantry charging over open ground and barely taking any damage. It is not the other way around, fast TTK forces people to carefully plan their manoeuvres and positioning to either maximise the use of cover or to minimalize the damage on approach. If TTK was low, you could just blob and straight up overrun everything. |
And no, the USF base was not explained
Are you serious? The fact that you apparently missed it doesn't mean that it wasn't. I explained in one of the feedback threads at the time that Relic looked at the mod together with its creator Sneakeye and that they both agreed it was not feasible to implement it into the live game. You can go look it up.
Lastly, I would expect for things to be put up for discussion BEFORE they are actually implemented, not after, with the simple excuse being a high ranking 1v1 replay.
You got to discuss 99% of changes before implementation. You're just blowing this way out of proportion. And please read, this was definitely not decided based on one single 1v1 replay? Where did you even get that from? I said that many (high level) 1v1 players expressed their concerns about Jaeger Infantry, and that the power level of this commander was definitely being questioned by the broader 1v1 scene, just via several different channels other than this public forum. In response to someone here saying this change "came out of nowhere".
Also before I forget, you will not explain why not just this patch but others before it as well had a big window between it's last beta/mod preview update and time of release with having new changes as well. The excuse for this one was that Relic wanted to push the update through, so what about the rest?
Because I think it should be dead obvious that there's always been a long period between the final public iteration of a balance mod and building the actual patch, and that in the meantime inevitably some additional changes get thought of and added or scrapped? Drop the tin foil hat, there is no conspiracy of willingly keeping out the public or whatever. The fact that there have been extensive public tests for every single patch over the past like 3-4 years prove that. It's purely practical. Most if not all games' dev teams that work with public tests do this, and it has simply been amplified a bit here because patching used to take a lot longer than it does for most regular games for several (hopefully obvious) reasons. Otherwise patches would end up in an endless preview loops. |
but for this sprint/snare combo that everyone is talking about, the change does nothing.
The change is meant to give the opponent the opportunity to screen their vehicles with infantry, enabling them to detect camouflaged Grens before coming into faust range.
What I'm requesting is the community dev team instead of doing what Sander said about not elaborating on decisions regarding the balance and design of the game that they are making like good little politicians be made more public and transparent.
That's not what I said at all. I spend half my free time elaborating things on the forums. Others try as well. I said we can't elaborate or respond to everything. It's not a full time job.
And again, it's also you who is missing or ignoring things, because I've explained before why Relic didn't want the USF base and why the Sturmtiger definitely does not need a mobile B4 redesign.
People here questioned the Gren camo change. I elaborated the thoughts behind the change and I've communicated that the team has noticed this feedback and will be having another look at it. I don't know how much more transparent you'd like me to be here. |
And no reason was given for either of those ideas. I also wonder why for example no feedback was gathered for the Grenadier camo change before the official patch release if you claim that "a ton of community feedback and suggestions" had made it in this and past updates.
We are not full time devs. We don't have the time to answer or elaborate on every single suggestion or piece of feedback. Sometimes things get absorbed, sometimes they are considered, sometimes we respond, sometimes not. We can't do it all, this is not a full time job. What you are asking for (responding to every single suggestion and explaining every single decision) is totally unreasonable.
Have you also considered that perhaps you've missed things yourself?
I have explained on this forum before why the USF base was rejected.
Oh so the blame is being shifted over to Relic now who wanted a crashing update be released to the public instead of the internal test version being released instead to see if the issue was fixed or not and then being forced to do a roll back in the live one.
I see, all makes sense now.
That is not at all what I said. The build crashed, i.e. Relic's patch program (I have no idea about the specifics) kept crashing trying to update the beta build. That didn't have anything to do with the stability of the beta or changes themselves, only with their patch program. It is totally unrelated to the performance issues that the final patch caused in the live game, except that perhaps it would've been discovered earlier if the V4 of the beta had able to be deployed. |
The elefant could stablize a fight vs these tanks and in my humble opinion its being nerfed unnecessarily.
It still can, now it will just require the effort of combined arms like everything else in this game. And the commander will no longer be so versatile that it can be (more than) double as popular as the second next most popular commander in 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 ( https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1619827200/4v4/wermacht?statsSource=all). There's no other commander in the game that's even close to being this overpopular. It definitely deserved to get nerfed if we want to promote a more health commander diversity, which was the goal of this patch. |
3. Yes and their "selection" process is very thoughtful, so much so that ideas like the previously mentioned USF Base redesign that would be a huge QOL change for everybody, at least the test of how a longer ranged Sturmtiger might perform to make it an actually useful unit instead of a meme since again, that's what the testing phase of an update should do, and for example a 25 pounder howitzer emplacement for the UKF to expand their doctrinal choices instead of only being limited to the Royal Artillery Regiment and mortar ones
Funny you should mention these, because the USF base was proposed to Relic (up to two times now) but they rejected it and the 25 pounder emplacement was discussed for this patch internally but rejected. So 2 out of your 3 examples of community ideas were at least considered. But not everything can make it into the game. There is a ton of community feedback and suggestions that did make it into this patch and every patch before it.
and then they go silent for at least a few weeks before the release of an update, which has happened multiple times now as I said previously, and get new versions of the patch only for internal testing which include changes not mentioned to the larger community and of course end up like a few days ago, with a rollback.
You're projecting. It was not our choice to skip a V4 of the preview mod. The build just kept crashing at the time and Relic decided that at that point it would be more productive to stop trying to get it to work and instead focus their limited time on starting the implementation of the actual patch. |
And that's why I'm against having 20m reveal radius on grens and JCS. I'm pretty sure all other camo infantry units and perhaps even vehicles have it around 4m (except 251 mobile outpost, I know that one). Replacing the faust with a shorter range at grenade would be a more coherent and visually represented change imo if camo faust is the problem.
I'm not really a fan of it either, though it was a decision made for the 1v1 crowd which I don't really get involved in (other than making sure changes won't affect teamgames too much) because I never play that mode. Although it seems to me that any solution is going to be inconsistent. Ambush camo upgrade suddenly replacing their Faust with a lower range version doesn't make much sense either and that would also be an exception because it gives nothing special to PGrens and HMGs etc. And replacing entire abilities like others have suggested seems way too harsh of a nerf for the commander.
The concerns from players here have been noted though so we're having another look at it. |
COH 2 was a rush job because THQ was going out of business and they had no time to create special rules, it had nothing to do with learning "lessons" from COH 1.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would they invent an entire new system for infantry and vehicle durability and damage if they had no time, when they could've just copied over vCoH's system? CoH2's durability and damage model is a well thought out and intricate system (although it has its flaws) that was deliberately made simpler and more coherent compared to vCoH, and definitely not some hand me down version they rushed out. Creating a more coherent and simplified system was absolutely (and obviously) a lesson they learned, and they must have made it a priority in their development of CoH2 to improve upon because of how complete it is. Invisible and incoherent rules are bad for gameplay because no one except for a few diehards will be able to learn them and it creates a mess for the average player. |
Very sorry to hear that, although understandable.
Thanks for all the effort and the amazing content over the past year! |