Honestly, become MUCH more transparent.
Right now, Relic is essentially acting as a mystery box; it's like this:
1. The community asks for stuff
2. Wait a month or two
3. Fix 1/10 things the community asked for
4. 9/10 random stuff
It just feels like there's very little connection between Relic and the community; biggest example being the last two major patches.
First, the community states that Brits are weak (they were), and the AEC was a notable candidate for improvement. Relic then over-buffs the unit, pushes the patch live, and leaves it in "unit eraser" more for about a month.
Now we have the current patch, where the fixes seemed like a good step forward, but didn't address everything. Regardless, the patch came out, broke a ton of stuff, was then partially reverted (before a weekend, no less), and then left (now we're waiting). And all of that could have been avoided with a 'beta test' patch. Release the patches on Thursday in BETA (i.e. that optional DL thing on steam), let people test them, and then review that feedback. If everything is good, release the patch on Monday/Tuesday, leaving 3-4 days to fix anything that slipped through the beta. If things are broken, well then it's just a beta patch. The live version is fine.
Then there's the question of actual game design and changes. Even with relic's weekly stream, it's REALLY hard to figure out what their actual "end-game" goal is. What is OKW supposed to be; a Volks-shrek blobbing faction with powerful late-game tanks? Or is this just a symptom of the current meta overriding the faction's design? Same goes for pretty much every faction (SOV Maxim Spam? USF Dual-upgrade blobs? Etc.). In the ideal world, where perfect balance is a thing, how are these factions SUPPOSED to play?
Then there's the whole "overbuff/overnerf" thing that's going on. What is the intent behind some of the massive stat changes in some patches? I understand that the AEC was overperforming, but were changes to the main gun, cost coax, burst and RoF really needed? That's five changes to fix one problem - that's a lot. On the other hand, the 222 change was done (IMO) correctly; it was weak, so they buffed ONE stat. If its still weak, they can buff a (single) different stat. If its now too strong, they know EXACTLY why it's too strong (HP change too great); only 1 stat needs to be adjusted to get the unit to the right place.
Once we have a good idea of what relic actually wants to do, and what their thinking is behind certain things, we can move forward much more efficiently.
I completely agree with this. We don't need new content, unless that is used to balance the existing factions or to justify dev time to balance existing factions.
We certainly don't need a new game either. The game itself is still pretty damn good it is the faction design and balance that needs attention, as well as (as stated above) the reasoning behind Relic making the decisions they have.
Relic should be able to answer three questions for each faction, unit and commander and preferably openly, so we know what we are dealing with?
1. What was the intent with designing the unit/faction/commander as it currently is?
2. Is the unit/faction/commander effective in the game considering its likely counters?
3. Is the unit/faction/commander balanced compared to others of a similar cost?
I think most brit players wouldn't be unhappy with a moveable mortar instead. If they don't want to mirror SU/Ost mortar there are other possibilities. They could have make all british support weapons slow moving and with a setup time (better protected as long as they are in setup stance with some sandbags as visual effect) but standard range. This would have fitted their concept of british army: good at defence but slow to react.
Dear god yes. I love playing as Brits (have done since CoH) but I hated the faction being designed in such a way that I *need* to build static emplacements instead of having normal units. CoH2 has improved things but not by that much.
Simple solution: All British support teams can be built as normal, but have a 10% movement speed, and accuracy reduction if used normally. They all have a free "dig in" ability that requires time and gives a received accuracy penalty while being deployed, but once dug in they count as green cover and get bonuses similar to that of the infantry sections.
Then you can remove the 17-pounder from their standard loadout and make it doctrine-specific (like the Pak-43).
Just wanted to add my praise of your casts - both the style and how prolific they are.
Please keep up the great work as there aren't many casters I look forward to listening to.
p.s. - due to your repeated mentions of Jasmine tea I decided to try some and was delighted to discover that it was the excellent "Chinese tea" I had enjoyed many a time in Chinese restaurants, so thanks for that.
If you're doing any replays or live games, I personally want commentary. NorthWeapon, whilst the videos are taken on a good PC and the tactics are sound, doesn't do commentary on his live games and that puts me off. The more you have to say, the better.
I agree completely. I enjoy watching casts on Youtube and by "cast" I mean gameplay with commentary. A cast is different from just posting the recording of a match.
I really enjoy Magpie842 because he combines humour with tactical commentary that really helps to keep the casts interesting and fresh, without being disrespectful to the players he was commentating on.
There was one caster that I managed to watch for a few minutes before shutting down the video and never watching again. He spoke loudly and quickly, was disrespectful of the players and when something vaguely amusing happened he said "lololololololol!"
Sorry but no. Hearing someone say "lol" is bad enough, but that is just wrong. Either actually laugh or don't bother.
The lack of indirect fire, especially mobile indirect fire is a huge issue for the Brits and seriously limits their capacity to deal with entrenched enemies.
(I'm talking non-doctrinal by the way).
Ostheer have the mortar team and the Panzerwerfer.
Soviets have the mortar, Zis AT guns, SU-76 and the Katyusha.
U.S. have the M8 Motor Carriage and the Pack Howitzer
OKW have the Le.IG and the Walking Stuka.
What to the Brits have? Rubbish base arty that is slow, inaccurate and requires a close-range grenade toss by a suicidal infantry unit.
A fixed mortar emplacement that can't be used for assaults and just becomes a population sink.
The secondary fire mode on the Bofors (an even bigger population sink fixed emplacement) that is short range only?
Ah, gotcha. Sorry Don't I remember you from the relicnews forums? CoH1 era? Lots of good Brit suggestions?
Indeed you do - and likewise I remember your welcome injections of common sense there.
I stopped playing CoH2 for a long time and only started again once they announced the new iteration of the British Forces (what can I say - I enjoy playing as Brits in games
Because there are maps for multiple game modes (that dont add sectors depending on players) so people would get he pitchforks because pacing is slower in higher player games (alao true for 4v4 btw... doesnt have 4 times the ressources)
My point being that there must be some equation that will enable team games to be balanced.
For example, if 1v1 is considered the Holy Grail of resource income and pacing, then modify these on larger maps (or ones with more players) to get as close to that as possible.
1v1 map = 'A' number of sectors which translates into a maximum of 'B' resources per minute and a typical army size of 'C' units (or 'D' units average units per sector)
Do the same calculation for other maps and modes and you will see where the disparity is and potentially be able to modify income to cater for it.
Sorry but this idea is appalling.
I don't have to be a jet fighter pilot to know that taxiing my plane into combat is a stupid idea.
As someone who plays the game, thinks logically and follows discussions on forums like this one, I should be just as entitled to an opinion as someone who lives and breathes the game.
Equally, the opinion of someone who is in the top twenty players should never automatically over-rule someone who isn't.
Base the discussion on the quality of the post and the arguments presented therein, nothing more.
If you need to start flashing your player card to add validity to your argument then it can't be that strong in the first place.
I would just like to applaud dpfarce for a well constricted and rational post.
People need to take the vitriol and personal attacks out of the thread and deal with the specific arguments being made for and against.
Regarding the idea of balancing team games, this may be rather simplistic but isn't this issue pretty much down to resource income?
Leaving aside the synergy between different factions on the same team (which would apply to both sides) the resource income is determined mostly by the number of sectors owned by that team isn't it?
So logically on a 2v2 map you will get more income than on a 1v1 and on a 3v3 you will get more than a 2v2?
Why can't you just then reduce the income per sector (including reducing cache benefits) depending upon the number of players?
2 players = 100%
4 players = 75%
6 players = 50%
8 players = 25%
Isn't the Sexton Canadian? Unless I imagined it I'm sure the voice sounded vaguely Canadian.
I don't object to having more British commanders, but I would imagine that if you want different voice acting for it, that would be an issue.