Even more than that, I'd think that if you truly cared about COH 2 and its future that you'd put effort forth in trying to improve the game instead of just beating the same dead horse on the forums all the time. Relic is working extremely closely with the community to improve the game for everyone (casual players and competitive players alike).
I think that's where we'd disagree immensely. Inverse and others have been in close contact with Relic and put in a lot of time behind the scenes trying to improve CoH2's future, and they aren't seeing the results. Their frustration is natural.
CoH2 is well below vCoH's player marks before the move to Steam. Certainly more people own vCoH, and CoH2 is doing "better" at the same point in its lifespan, but that's inevitable with the success of its predecessor.
What we can tell is that CoH2 isn't growing. Maybe that has changed since someone showed me the data a couple months back, but CoH2 has been getting an amazing amount of bad press that goes well beyond the competitive "vocal minority" community.
Opening up Pandora's box with regards to...the Puma, or the idea of buffing T4?
I don't think that any T1 changes are simple. Rifles and Jeep are buffed, if you nerf WM at the same time you run into the same "double buff" that got us into this situation to begin with.
I take it you're of the opinion of reverting the Rifle/Jeep in favor of Volks reinforce nerf?
Ciez can you elaborate on what has changed? I admit I haven't played CoH2 since the last beta, but I have followed its updates closely. I haven't seen anything that would change the fundamental gameplay flaws that turned me off from CoH2 in the first place.
And we got P2W DLC thrown in, so in a classic Relic turnaround the balance may have improved (outside the DLC anyway) but the overall game has gotten worse, from my perspective.
That's because Relic pretty much disabled them for CoH2. I'd love to mod CoH2 but you just can't.
I understand they have plans for Steam Workshop integration, which is great, but disabling mods in the interim doesn't make any sense to me.
T4 cost was reverted because I think that's the wrong way to make T4 more attractive. It helped if you wanted to go T4, but first we have to make you actually want to go T4. As long as T3 gets the job done sooner and cheaper (any amount cheaper) it will continue to be more attractive. So we go back to vanilla and try to approach this from another angle.
Right now there's a ton of role overlap between T3 and T4. Mass StuGs do the job of Panthers, Mass Vet StuGs do the job of PIVs, Pumas do the job of Ostwinds, and Nebels are a lot better than Stukas for a lot cheaper.
We have to break up some of that overlap through little nerfs to T3 where they do the job of T4 units. You see some of that above - weaker StuG MG which gives the PIV back some of its anti-infantry edge. Nebel made slower to emphasize the mobility of the Stuka. Small T4 buffs can come with it but we haven't talked about those enough yet.
I think that Inspired Assault and Zeal have really good synergy - Inspired Assault causes you to lose men faster, which kicks Zeal in sooner, which negates a lot of IA's penalties and gives you insane offensive bonuses.
That's part of why I'm unsure about reducing IA's penalty, it removes quit a bit of that synergy. I agree with you about the threat of Snipers being a threat to Zeal, but that doesn't have much to do with IA being unattractive imo.
Honestly I think the #1 reason IA isn't used is because it's on the wrong side of the tree. Even in its current form I think it's a good ability, but you don't usually unlock it until after you have a KT, and the KT usually decides the game.
If you feel IA needs more work (outside the obvious fix), I think there are 3 obvious ways to take it.
1. Lower the penalties, making it an offensive analogue of FtFL where it's a good idea to use it every time you can spare the munitions
2. Lower the munitions cost, distancing it from FtFL and making it something you want to use every time you can stomach the drawback of its penalties
3. Tweak or add to its bonuses. Your idea about Heroic crits would go in here, help make it attractive to units other than Schreck Grens.
Basically, do we want its drawback to be its cost or its penalties? Do we want it to be a mirror of FtFL or something different?
- Puma burst bug eliminated (effectiveness should be the same overall but more consistent)
- Casualties no longer reveal Snipers
- Snipers no longer fire twice rapidly when reloading their weapon
- Inspired Assault now properly applies bonuses and penalties to MG42s and Mortars
- Inspired Assault no longer applies bonuses or penalties to Paks, Nebels, Medics, or Repair Bunker Pioneers
- Reduced HT and StuG MG42 Suppression by 50%
- Increased StuG and StuH Pop Cap from 4 to 6
- Reduced the speed of the Nebelwerfer from 2.75 to 2
- Removed a 5% chance Pumas would kill infantry at high health
- Reverted costs of Escalate to Battle Phase (T4) and Panzer Command to vanilla values
- Reverted For the Fatherland to vanilla values
- Reverted Inspired Assault to vanilla values
If we want to follow up these slight T3 nerfs with T4 buffs, I think KCH Vet to 3 (from 4) and meeting the StuG/HT MG42s in the middle would be good places to start.
the repeated assurances that DLC would in no way affect gameplay (this is probably the most infuriating, since it was an outright lie, but it's hard to blame community managers for that when they likely had no idea it was a lie themselves)
I thought we heard it from dev team leaders, either Quinn Duffy or Stefan Haines. Maybe I was wrong.
But either way I understand what happened. Relic had an understanding with THQ, a plan for their business model, and THQ had said "we won't make you do this". And then they move over to Sega who says "we just paid $25 Million so you could move in with us or you'd be on the street. Of course you'll do P2W DLC"
I agree, but Noun is a community manager not a member of the dev team. Is Noun going to fix a problem in the game, or a problem in the community?
I agree Rifles aren't getting as much Vet as they used to.
You think the issue is Volks (/heavy T1 Strats), rather than Vet 2 Grens? Or do you just think increasing the XP of Volks is the best way to help Rifles get Vet, regardless of whether Volks are the problem?
I think I see where you're going with that, because it's a penalty to heavy T1 strats later in the game.
I'll have to think about it more, but I'd love to hear more opinions on Rifle vet, where the issue is coming from, and the best way to fix it (if you feel it needs addressing).