Profile of Hannibal

pro players are tiny by the numbers though.

thats too bad. eek sports homogeneity is killing creativity. very narrow definition of balance.

we need more vonivans playing and less hulks crying about coh mechanics.

Not my point.
The point was that Katitof's claim of abandon having next to no influence is false.

every bits count. removing more possibilites and desire for controllable outcomes is bad outlook for coh3.

im sure if sega offered $1m prize money, and the top 20 players decide not to play because of abandon mgc rng, the next ladder down will still provide the same entertainment and viewership satisfaction.

it is just too narrow definition. too elitist to think randomness is poor quality, poor effort, aggression should always be 1 dimensional rewards, no risks.

i can throw back that football is the biggest sports in the world, messi 3 years salary crushes all pro-chess players in the world combined many times over. messi has spatial and physical intelligence and still trains as hard in his 30s like his 20s. hulk can continue sulking at coh mechanics /shrug.

Well you can have this opinion for sure. I don't though. I don't mind much if I lose or win a game, but I want a fair chance. I don't want to play a 30-60 min game to have it decided by a weird coin toss at the end, because then nothing of what I did mattered. It has nothing to do with elitism
And your football analogy is completely misplaced.

hopefully we see more audience and general players influence the flow and choices too.

abandon makes for better view ship imo. more viewers more sponsors and rewards

i skimped through the last few tourney, same ish meta, same ish build order to exploit the same few maps and we got a familiar flow

tightrope 2v2 >>>>> elite tourneys these days imo

Abandon would not have changed anything of that, because it is so rare that people would not alter their play style and grand strategy for the possibility of it to happen. Yet, it is often enough that maybe a couple of games would have (unfairly) worked out differently.

It's at an very odd place. Too frequent to just ignore it and treat it as a "glitch"-like occurance that you have to live with from time to time, but too rare to incorporate it into the strategy by any means.

It is truly astonishing how much crap you can pull out of your ass on this one...
Please, stop embarrassing yourself with "knowledge" you've just invented.
I fucking WORKED in the industry, publisher doesn't own SHIT other then rights to publish the game. Even if publisher owns the developer company, its company who owns its IPs, unless they have originated from publisher itself and let me assure you on this one - SEGA did not invented CoH and neither did THQ.

But you do realize that laws are not the same in every country and that IPs can actually be - you know - "sold"?

the thing is, why focused so much on the losing position? if we are to believe abandon can happen to anyone from winning or losing position. it is a fair logic in the game

Nope. It is just too rare to even out. Chances are you won't even see one single abandon in a game. Having two abandons in a single game happen is even less likely, and then again one abandon per player (plus, the abandons should be roughly equal. An abandoned Kubel vs Comet is quite shitty).

Bounces and misses of shots happen so frequently that they at least have a decent chance to even out, but abandons practically cannot. Especially since you do not have any influence over an abandon, while you do have some influence over accuracy and penetration.

I am not sure of OP's suggestions. I would like Soviets to somehow reflect the more offensive nature, on the other hand I really don't like adding yet another "normal" infantry unit into the Soviet rooster. Shock troops and the PPSH upgrade are meant to reflect the SMG production, I think it is better to reuse these options instead of creating more overlap between units/upgrades.

Regarding Vipper's suggestion to the tech/infantry rework:
I think there will be a general issue of Soviets having two "weak" infantry squads, which creates more overlap for standard play.

However a quick and not yet really thought through idea was to take it a bit further and shuffle the Soviet roster around a bit more.

- Soviet tech is now linear
- T0: as is
- T1: Maxim, M3, Sniper
- T2: ZiS, M5, mortar
- T3: Penals, T70, Su76
- T4: as is

It would 100% cause some major tech cost reshuffles. Also I assume Penals would be weak at that spot, so they could probably be buffed and cost increased to ~340, but designed as real elite long range infantry without having to find a weird balance now between the early game and late game. It would (obviously) also mean that ALL Soviet builds are now based on Conscripts which could take a lot of diversity from the faction for 1v1 at least (in team games almost nobody plays T1 anyway from my experience). T2 would probably need to go up in costs, T3 could go down a little. M5 would come a little earlier which would fit it's power level. I have not thought of potential squad upgrades yet since this is - as I said - just a quick idea for the time being.