Profile of ZombiFrancis

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2742

General Information


Thread: We need to #believe into community balance team :) :banana:17 Nov 2016, 14:53 PM I was just saying that the TrueSight mechanic is insanely inefficient and from what I understand it made CoH1 unplayable. Or rather, it made CoH1 chug like COH2. Never had issues with CoH1 physics. In fact, my laptop ran COH1 better than my desktop ran CoH2. And I believe it is certain abilities that bug out physics and cause the strange vacuums. I could be mistaken on that though. In: Lobby
Thread: How to fix: OKW17 Nov 2016, 02:23 AM Give 'em a sniper. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Doctrine switching17 Nov 2016, 02:05 AM Because the commanders don't branch and are just linear paths, I would so much prefer to be able to utilize all three bloody commander choices, but have to invest CPs into specific commanders. To get a properly timed late game call-in you'd have to commit all CPs to one commander. Yeah yeah, shocks with guards, etc, but stug Es with smoke with scope. It's the one mod project I never tackled when I still had the free time to invest in CoH2. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: We need to #believe into community balance team :) :banana:16 Nov 2016, 15:09 PM Truesight most likely. It existed in CoH1 but was disabled because it caused intensive performance issues. So when they enabled it for CoH2, it appears those same intensive performance issues didn't disappear on their own nor was it really mitigated by advances in computer power. In: Lobby
Thread: Market ruins13 Nov 2016, 16:32 PM Top games on most maps. What does that even mean? I'm asking out of confusion, not combativeness. Edit: (To contribute more than a question) A lot of the early maps, you know, the ones developed before USF mortar, were actually kind of balanced. As in, a map that favored mortars favored Ostheer and UKF. Now with the USF mortar what used to be a subtle design advantage for Ostheer became an overwhelming weakness. The USF mortar alone completely forced me to rework two maps I'd originally started developing for the contest. In: Lobby
Thread: Market ruins13 Nov 2016, 15:43 PM now with the new patch we have been told the new versions will be updated into the game, but instead, you get the petulant whining. Wait, this is major information, because the track record since 2013 is that maps don't get changed or updated. Maps have routinely been presented at 100% perfect, finished, l2p in the past. Getting a gap in hedgerows has been like pulling teeth. Good news that there's chance for these maps to continue to be developed instead of being frozen in place for official implementation. And people's reactions to the new maps has mostly to do with the overall design, not nuanced balancing of features that are as easy to point out like some people have done. But I've got to say, you can't exactly tout extensive playtesting and feedback while simultaneously declare that game balance is at fault. Playtesting and feedback are explicitly what are supposed to prevent maps from highlighting game imbalances. It's one or the other, you've got to pick one: Either the game is broken for map development, or the playtesting and feedback are insufficient (or even flawed.) In: Lobby
Thread: Market ruins9 Nov 2016, 15:23 PM Ya'll know that most of the maps people actually made for the contest were not city maps? The city maps won because they were the only submissions in their categories, and they got a free pass. Whatever feedback you got and get is great, but people are also frustrated that the other maps didn't even get to compete with the city maps. (And for the record, yes I had my own submission, but no I'm not mad about that. I didn't get the time off to finish the map in time for the hard cutoff time for submissions.) That's kind of the other factor here that I think people are missing when complaining and defending these maps. In: Lobby
Thread: Market ruins8 Nov 2016, 04:19 AM The threat of the PAK is what keeps the t70 and Stuart from being able to run amok with only specialized munitions heavy infantry to counter them. Interestingly enough, in almost every case where PAKs are not viable, teller mines are much more effective. It's a bit of an inverse relationship those two. It's also worth keeping in mind that many maps become much more ATG friendly once medium and heavy crushers hit the field and open things up. Getting there is another story though. But anyway, I disagree that tellers can be considered a reliable counter to t70s/stuarts from a map design standpoint. The reason for this is that their munitions cost precludes heavy usage of panzerfausts or a quick set of panzerschrecks. If the only viable counters require munitions, then the map should/could attempt to reflect that, such as making the munitions points harder to cut off/closer to bases. (FFS if only there were more than three resource points to use...) And for the record, while I'm sure that HelpingHans can consistently utilize panzergrenadiers to counter t70s/stuarts, I'm willing to bet he's just as able to utilize t70s and stuarts against panzergrenadiers. Just sayin'. In: Lobby
Thread: What do you think of RELIC ?7 Nov 2016, 14:57 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Nov 2016, 12:23 PMscratchedpaintjob i voted bad it would need ONE person at relic to be active to solve most of the problems in no time. implement all bug fixes, get some pros together and let them make a balance patch, introduce that patch, wait a month, rinse and repeat. its easy, but someone at relic/sega is not willing to let that happen It's like it's 2013 again. In: Lobby
Thread: Coh2 Balance Feedback Form5 Nov 2016, 15:06 PM They need to have options that actually reflect the current game. It seems this was made many months ago before the last wave of UKF commanders were released and flamethrowers went to Rear Echelon. In: COH2 Balance