|
This shows though that the game is absolutely bottlenecked by the graphics card, CPU changes don't seem to do anything.
But the game already looks very pretty on second highest settings. Even my 4 year old medium rig can handle it decently, |
Nobody knows but you know many companies that upgrade their game after so many years just to let them die the months after?
Coh2 could be the Coh3 everyone is hoping for.
There are even companies out there that publish a game and then let it die in the months after.
CoH2 probably does not generate a huge amount of revenue, which is also supported by the fact that officially no one at Relic is responsible for the whole CoH franchise anymore (plus having transferred patches to the community in a first step). Furthermore, people on the balance team apparently also have no information about long term commitment by Relic, otherwise otherwise I assume we'd know it somehow. The 64 bit version is likely due to Microsoft wanting to make their game pass more attractive. Obviously no one knows what the future will exactly bring, but chances are high that after 7 years there will be no major support for almost any game out there. It is already surprising that Relic provided patches for so long, even if they heavily reduced their involvement.
And the CoH3 everyone is hoping for is more than just a couple of stat changes, we'd need some actual coding for that plus modding and workshop support, all of which we are unlikely to get. |
Ah I play wargame, must be where I got the idea from.
Why is it too late to change now?
Because reworking all of this would take a shit load of balance tweaking plus factions have different howitzer types (UKF and USF only in one commander, the rest only have static ones). The units have been balanced in their current role within their faction (that is, the StuKa for example is meant to be a wipe machine because OKW is built to need it more than a rocket suppression platform). Throwing that overboard will not only lead to reworking "just" the rocket arty and howitzers, but probably larger parts of the all factions and especially late game units as well.
We don't know if Relic will support the game further after this one balance patch, meaning we'd have a 99% chance that a lot is broken in the first implementation and then there will be no hotfix afterwards.
...
The Burratino would like to have a word with you. |
|
I think that is an issue with the current meta and the use of the USF jeep and potentially the UC of UKF.
I am not sure if the 251 and 222 in themselves are in perfect balance (meaning both are equally viable choices), but the 222 does not feel too strong. |
That is rather irrelevant imo. It has been argued that M36 has to OP vs everything else USF will collapse and that did not seem to be the case.
I dough that, the dozer upgraded Sherman, the Eas8 and M10 all can deal with PzIV.
In addition I saw many Axis vehicles being lost to ATG than to USF vehicles.
Yes, these are all doctrinal units to counter a stock one. No one can tell me that this is good game design.
However we've had plenty Jackson threads already and I don't want to derail here, so I'd rather go back to meta discussion here and move the a Jackson debate to an old or new thread. |
I am also not sure if my memory is already heavily biased, but I had the feeling that the heavy meta had a bit more variance to it. One reason probably is because at least 3-4 factions are playable even when the new crutch unit is a heavy tank. Also the time to get the heavy was at least 15-20 minutes, which allowed some variability in the game beforehand. Especially OST has a lot of Tiger doctrines, and OKW T2 in general makes for interesting pull and push gameplay. OKW though was basically deleted from the tourney.
At the moment we got two factions with what felt like only one commander each and the exact same build order every game.
The USF dependence on the M36 has been repeated again and again but in these games the M36 was not used so much. Yet USF managed to deal with enemy armor.
I think this is due to the Ostheer doctrine though. Ost is always pushed towards a medium because their spike from the 222 came quite long ago and Allies have the dominating LV on the field. Osttruppen kind of add into that by slowly losing their advantage in the mid game, plus the 76mm is a decent choice vs the P4.
As soon as the Ostheer player got a Panther out, USF was usually forced into a Jackson.
I think most complaints about the Jackson come from 2v2+ where heavy armor is more prominent and gameplay more static.
On the other hand, USF had almost only one commander to counter Osttruppen spam. Strip away the 76mm if USF wants to play any other commander and you will see Jacksons again. |
|
This is very nice.
However, I hope that they fully plan on at least two patches. The way AE phrased it made it sound like a major rework targeting core issues of the factions. Obviously there will be strong need for readjustments afterwards, no chance that the changes all hit the nail on the head first try. |
Grenadiers are cheap to reinforce? compared to what?
He is clearly talking about Osttruppen |
No need to be so upset because someone disagreed with your point mate.
Oh so you don't play ranking game to rank up? I can assume this may be the case while you're aroud the 2000 rank but is it relevant for the discussion? I'm sorry but you're the one to prove that people playing ranking games aren't interested in... ranking up.
I was actually referring to your statement saying that you rank up by playing vs lower ranked players and not vs higher ranked players. Provide data or at least reasoning on that.
Regarding the rest: Ranking is one motivational factor and I never said otherwise even if you insinuate that. Still this is a game and people play games for fun. Dismissing that as nonexistant would be at least just as naive. Check some Twitch streams and you'll see that even high rank players often play just for fun.
You also hopefully do realize that there is no casual mode in CoH2, so your only "choice" is to play ranked even if you just play for having a nice evening.
Some people are skilled in english and only skilled in that language thus forbid the use of other languages in their place. Does it mean they aren't skilled in english, or not more skilled in english than a polyglote?
If you provid someone a way to rig the game by allowing banning maps as they wish, you'll just rig the skill's evaluation system. It is not anymore about who's the skilled player on the game, but who's the skilled player on the rigged game.
If you're only skilled in English and your competitor is skilled in English + 3 other languages, why should you competitor not just veto English in the competition and win?
As for your last argument, 4vs4 ranking is base on single player, not team. It doesn't matter what you, as a single person, prefers. It matter what will be the best way for your random team to win, assuming you can be match with lower level players whos are not sharing your vast skillset.
This data is from overall 1,2 million games and we see some maps played 4-6x as often. There seems to be a general consensus that some maps are "better" or at least liked more than others, and as I explained above I don't think this comes down to what you can grind the best. It comes down to that people apparently like that camp/arty fest through all skill levels, because this is why they enjoy 4v4. |
Not making sense to you isn't either an argument.
Fully agree, no idea what your point with this is though.
Ranking objective isn't playing fun games or on good maps but winning games and ranking up and artillery+super heavy on lane map or chock point maps are the best way to do it today on 4vs4. Almost all player on ranking matches are ranking up beating lower "skilled" players, not better "skilled" players, which invalide the question of artillery being used by both side, you win because you're better at using those tools until you face better players using them, until you get better etc... the classic learn and re-try.
That ranking up argument is an assumption, at least I do not know of any data how the ranked matches actually turn out to be matched. If you have any, please provide it.
Open maps or funniest map are opening too much uncertainty for a strategic ranking play, firstly because they involve more skills than the Arty/super heavy combo. "New" mechanisms like flanking, poking left to hit right, different BOs, different commanders etc... You can't just rush and sit on chock point while you build you arty behind. Super-heavy are much less relevant because more easily overcomed by their counters.
Too much to learn while you can just ban some maps and ensure only Arty/SuperHeavy are the relevant tools and skill you need to win games and rank up.
In the first paragraph you state that rank is determined by skill. Second paragraph you contradict yourself by stating that you rank up by just rushing to the choke points and actually learning and knowing the game, having different strategies ready at hand actually were a bad thing? Good/skilled players should be even more interested in keeping things variable because they are the ones that can pull off and deal with surprises better than any other. Following your logic the top ranks are actually the least skilled, because they apparently like arty heavy maps? What?
It should be super easy then for any really skilled player to just veto Hamburg, force all the "rush choke point and build arty" noobs to play on different maps and get the top place themselves? How come this does not happen? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
