this is a toxic attitude. This is a really selfish attitude to have. Punishing leavers and afkers could make the game significantly better for the entire playerbase. first, i am not asking for people to be in games they do not want to be. secondly, these punishments would have to be uniformily applied for consistency. thirdly, these punishment features would have ot be couple with a robust and effective report system so relic can ban the people who troll games and/or racist, jerks, etc. lastly, relic should lower the surrender threshold to 2-1 and 3-1
This, +1000, especially lowering the surrender requirement
Because leaving is a bad way to deal with idiots in team games in my opinion, surrendering is much better, but sadly doesn't work well enough right now.
you can't prevent me from leaving the game. i can kill the process (which will look like a drop, not someone leaving) or pull the plug on my computer in the worst case.
And why cant you treat system crashes and disconnets the same way as leaves? It is your problem when your computer/system/connection is unstable not your teammates. Why? Because you're the only one who can take care of it and repair it.
And sth about fun in teamgames: I have played lots of teamgames lately and I can say that:
1. I left the game only once, just because i really had to go and turn off the computer, I would take the punishment for that one no matter what it was as it was coused on my end.
2. All games that were not fun were those with leavers or no surrender kids. That means the only reason that can make you leave is some other guy leaving, if you don't want to be a pain in the ass just don't leave first. |
Machine gun penetration came after infantry armour was removed. On March 25th, Received Accuracy replaced Infantry Armour on all units except Shock Troops (who literally do have armour plates on them, if you look closely). One month later on April 24th, Machine Guns were given higher armour penetration values over regular weapons. MG Penetration never had any effect on Infantry Armour except Shock Troops and for a brief time, Obersoldaten and Jaeger Light Infantry, who still had armour values by mistake.
I know it, still this is a good idea to buff those underperforming MGs, and also MGs are only the one example, others are tanks, ptrs, 222, basically all weapons with more than 1 penetration value have hard time killing infantry because of that. If it was intended then well, blobs were intended too, if it wasn't thought of maybe it's sth to change. |
I agree with most points but not with the RNG part. Firstly, in my opinion, rng is what makes that game so interesting and fun to play, a game with no rng (like starcraft) is boring and there is nothing you have to react to. Here in coh2 you cannot do everything ideally because sometimes rng will screw your plan, then you have to REACT, and ADAPT the strategy. Reaction to unwanted events is the soil of the game, and tactics adaptation (not after watching buildings shadows in soviet base but as true reaction to things that happen on the field in your area of vision) is what makes some players better than the others. And I say: let it stay, don't make the game boring with build plans from the very beginning to ending of the game decided long before it.
That's one thing, mostly subjective stuff, now the objective part:
If you want the game to be more competitive you shouldn't decrease the probability of random events but increase it! Seems werid? Maybe, but it is true, you can prove it mathematicly. I don't want to make you sleep so I'll just try to explain that:
Imagine when abandon vehicle happens once on 10 000 vehicles you kill. What do you do? You ignore it. Still it can happen in SNF finals for example, and the better player loses the game, that is in fact unfair.
Now lets imagine that it happens once on every 2 vehicles you kill. No it's not mad. Then you would be prepared for it, it becomes a feature that every player can use to his own advantage. You just know that it can happen and wait a little longer with you TD to kill the wreck, what's more then it is more constant so it happens few times every match to both of the players: that is fair in fact.
The last possibility is that it happens once per for example 100 times that the vehicle is NOT abandoned. What then? Then you would be mad and you will be able to lose a game because the enemy distroyed the tank in first iteration with no ability to kill the wreck, and you thought that is should be abandoned as it usually is and wanted to take it back and repair it.
As you can see the closer the probability of event is to 1/2 the better it is for competitivness of the game and right now those probabilities are far from it, what is the real reason that makes you so upset about it. As an example the infantry gameplay is usually close to that: lots of iteration of high probability event(shot hits ot misses), that's why it actually feels quite constant and reliable (at least much more than abandoning vehicles)
Sadly i cannot write tldr as I can't explain it shorter, just read the post if you want to know what's in it. |
I still don't understand why they decided to change armour into received accurancy on all units but shocks. It rewards blobbing so much. I mean their calculations are true only when the unit is shot by gun with 1 penetration. But if it was armour all HMGs apart from maxim (maxim too but very little) would benefit from their penetration, I mean thar DShK, .50 cal and MG42 are underperforming right now because of that (they have penetration they cannot use against infantry) and that is the true reason why we can see all the blob play from all factions right now. |
Just stop whining, performance issues were a real problem of the game and caused player base to shrink so right now:
1. The game will be smoother
2. If you don't want smoother game (or you run on constant 60fps) you can now make it look better which is also nice
3. We will probably see less crashes, if not because of heap->stack transition of some variables, then because of less performance issues. That means there will be less leavers (as some leaves were coused by a bluescreen for example)
4. You will not need such a good rig to play so we will have more players, and that means shorter waiting for a match.
5. They also said they improved pathing, anybody knows how to test it? I do not but it was sth I heared whining from the very beginning of the game and I can feel (by for example seeing more and more su-85 on the field, those had the biggest problems back then) that it is improving from one patch to another.
Summing up this patch is really good and was definitely needed.
I can even say it was more important than ballancing because I'll tell you the sad true: that game will never be ballanced in the way most people want it to be. Not to say the gameplay is more and more shallow from one ballance patch to another as usually ballancing means substituting asymetrical ballance with symetrical one... |
I like that patch more than any ballance patch they could make. Ballance patches are quite frequent while optimisation patch is sth we're waiting for since lounch. Fps is better by about 10% right now. Taking into consideration what they wrote in the patchnotes it should be even better (and i mean much much better) on cpu-bottlenecked rigs but sadly I cannot test it as all my computers are gpu-bottlenecked in coh2.
Btw, for ppl using HDDs: I recommend defragmenting the partition you have coh2 installed on before testing the changes as every patch (including this one) will radically slow down your loading time if you do not and you may think it's the foult of patch. |
as soon as tanks come in, penals have pretty much no use. You can try and use a satchel with a button.. though besides the difficulty of getting in an ideal situation like that.. button no longer immobilizes tanks so the satchel will miss.
It's like saying that obers are UP because they cannot harm tanks... |
Shrecked pathfinders are also good but only after vet that gives them cloaking, the germans never expect a rocket out of nowhere. |
Think of it otherwise: no other faction gets solid mobile AT that cheap. Im excluding su-85 as it lacks penetration and is even more disadvantaged by blitz ability due to lack of turret. |
I like the unit as it is and I would not change anything in it. Of course it could use armour buff but then it would have to be priced on panther level and that will take all the AT firepower the us have so it's much better as it is. You just need a critical mass of 2 in 1v1. In games with more players you just need to spam it, seriously jackson spam + p47 is a valid usa tactic in 3v3 and 4v4 and it almost always works (if there are at least 2 soviets in the team). Both german factions rely on heavy armour so denaying it by producing jacksons to the popcap and even further is the solution as long as you keep them together.
And its vet is well designed, it is bouild for the canon not manuverability, it's cheap enough to replace in a second if you loose one of 4-5 you have and if you want your vet to get ap rounds you can just jum out of it and get the crew to the new one. |