USF Weapon Rack Restructure

#1
2 years ago

I'd like to get some feedback about this idea on how to rework the USF access to weapon racks. My goal is to accomplish two ends:

  1. Cut down on bazooka and BAR blobs, thereby promoting higher quality gameplay
  2. Ensure viable USF strategies (i.e. don't OVER nerf USF)

I'll break it down:

First, the Lieutenant and Captain would no longer come out with BAR or bazooka, just their Thompson.

However, buying the Lieutenant would unlock the bazooka rack, while buying the Captain would unlock the BAR rack. Notice I am proposing a swap in the weapons they are currently associated with and will explain why. The Lieutenant's unit options are very much lacking AT, so bazooka's would grant him some capability if that route is chosen. The Captain unlocks AT gun production, so bazooka unlock for him would be somewhat redundant.

Why do I think this is a win/win? USF no longer have to upgrade to weapons by diverging off their tech tree. Axis no longer have to deal with both BAR and bazooka spam - which is a great combination of AI and AT capability. Now, of course a USF player could get both the Lieutenant AND the Captain to unlock both racks, but I think we could all agree that this isn't worth delaying the Major in most cases.

What do you guys think?

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago

    In principle that sounds like a good idea, the logic of unlocking the inverse to what you get with the officer squad also sounds good too.
    I think rolling in some of the unlock cost in to the officer squads would be needed to ensure the unlock cost still exists in some way though.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 701

    The weapon racks are fine.

    Bazooka blobs are entirely overrated and two weapon squads just fucking spit weapons out everywhere after losing a member or two.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 2,963 mod

    Problem is you're not really solving the issue behind the blobs. Which is the absurdly high Received accuracy bonuses riflemen receive as they vet up. Sorting that out will actually take care of the blobs. What you are suggesting while sounding a bit awkward would be a boon since they could then more easily focus on just teching up.

    Meaning rather than solving any sort of problem. You'd only be making it worse with your solution.

  • #5
    2 years ago

    Does blobbing actually work in mid-high skilled games anymore?

    Axis have so many anti-blob units.

    In fact, whenever I see my teammates blobbing I know I'm likely to lose the game as all he's doing is running out, getting pinned, bombed, or crushed, retreating, and constantly reinforcing his useless blob.

  • #6
    2 years ago

    @TheDonOfGhaz
    I don't know because I'm far from mid-high skill. 90% of the games I play are just blob/spam games which has led me to start brainstorming ideas to get rid of it. To me, it has decreased enjoyment I get from playing so I'm just gonna stop for a while since I have limited free time.

    @ImperialDane
    Agreed on sorting out received accuracy bonuses. I still disagree with USF having to go off their tech path to get weapon unlocks and would rather see that cost rolled into the officer unlocks, as @Blitzkitten suggested. An added bonus would be more diversified gameplay, as most players still don't use the Lieutenant.

  • #7
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,573

    All that does is make one of the weapons arrive 2-3 minutes later.
    It changes nothing on the long run and it will not change anything as long as USF relies so heavily on rifles, plus that weapon variety is part of the faction design, trying to limit that equals removing vet5 or trucks from OKW.

  • #8
    2 years ago

    @TheHitman009 said:
    @TheDonOfGhaz
    I don't know because I'm far from mid-high skill. 90% of the games I play are just blob/spam games which has led me to start brainstorming ideas to get rid of it. To me, it has decreased enjoyment I get from playing so I'm just gonna stop for a while since I have limited free time.

    >

    Surely there's your problem then? And! This reveals a HUGE problem with adjusting the game to suit the needs of people who only play at beginner level. This is a very competitive game, and a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to become better players.

    My answer to you would be not to concern yourself with trying to balance issues that only become issues if you aren't very good, but to think about becoming a better overall player. Watch tournament replays, they help a lot.

    If all you want to do is game casually and have fun (which is certainly not a problem) then don't try and change the game for those who take it more seriously.

    Blobbing is easy to counter.

  • #9
    2 years ago

    I actually do watch Dane's Propogandacast every night before I go to sleep and enjoy it very much.

    While I agree that I could improve quite a bit, I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to not post their ideas due to skill level. I actually find it pretty absurd that you would suggest as much when the purpose of a forum is communication and exchange of ideas. You allude to me concerning myself with balance issues, but I purposefully did not post this in balance feedback but rather here because I think it would enhance gameplay.

    Furthermore, consider this - objectively, if you are able.

    If the CoH community only solicits feedback from those who play and enjoy the game as it is, while eliminating dissent from those who would suggest alteration, the game is doomed to remain as it is. Those, like me, who don't particularly enjoy the current gameplay will leave and the community base will only be the smaller base of those with similar views. You'll consistently alienate competing views to the point that you may in the long term hurt the player base. I've seen comments about how "axis-biased" the forums are; I won't speculate on that. I will say that when I began playing CoH I routinely saw 80% search averages for Axis before the British DLC release. It has since gotten much better thankfully. I enjoy playing every faction.

    Consider though, if you were to hypothetically accept the premise that community was in fact biased toward Axis, that it would most likely be due Allied players ideas, feedback, or balance suggestions being ignored due to a more popular Axis-player base opinion. Having been ignored, those players who preferred to play Allies would slowly exit the community, leaving an abundance of Axis players and perpetuating their influence on gameplay decisions.

    This isn't meant to be a literal discussion on forum bias, but rather a point to illustrate the dangers of eliminating dissenting opinion and diversity of thought. I hope those who read will take it to heart.

    To summarize, clearly my idea is not popular and I can both respect your ideas and accept that many players have more experience than I do. However, please do not suggest that other members of this community should not share their own thoughts and opinions - even if you disagree with them.

  • #10
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128
    edited July 2016

    @ImperialDane said:
    Problem is you're not really solving the issue behind the blobs. Which is the absurdly high Received accuracy bonuses riflemen receive as they vet up. Sorting that out will actually take care of the blobs. What you are suggesting while sounding a bit awkward would be a boon since they could then more easily focus on just teching up.

    Meaning rather than solving any sort of problem. You'd only be making it worse with your solution.

    i really dont see how u can think this makes the problem worse? as the OP stated, the US player would have to tech n both directions in order to attain the monster blob, the issue with the US blob is not only the durability of the riflemen, but the weapons that said riflemen can wield.. im sure a lot of players would be happier if their opponent had either zooks OR BARs. also as other members mentioned, they could roll the cost of getting the rack into the cost of teching, so iff anything it would only be a US nerf, in no way would it be a buff since even the cost would be the same.

    imagine u see the US field an LT, now u know, he can only field zooks, until he gets a capt, but again as others said, how often does a US player go LT and Capt? if anything this will promote even further combined arms if only in the teching sense.

    also i think it would force a lot more US players to go LT, it seems most only go Capt for the stuart, or AT guns. also the double teching wold cause a higher MP drain due to the additional non rifle squads on the field, again limiting the blobs..

    but its more than what u say about the riflemen's received accuracy, i think the whole issue with blobs in general need to be resolved. blobs shouldnt work. the game is trying to be realist yet the issue with blobbing has been persistent since the game came out

    @TheDonOfGhaz im sorry bro but no, the majority of players are not actually here to play competitively.. in fact only a small fraction of the players are competitive as u term it. instead the majority are actually here to have fun, considering the large number of random teams, if what u say were correct a lot more people would simply play AT's. also just because blobs CAN be countered does not mean they should be left as they are. also the suggestions being offered here not only corrects blobbing but alleviates the obvious issue players have with the riflemen's strength

    in fact i think ur post smacks of elitism and is therefore detremental to the overall COH2 community, especially this part "If all you want to do is game casually and have fun then don't try and change the game"

    @TheHitman009 i like what u said bro! :)

  • #11
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    Your idea deals with the weapons that blobs use, but not the blobbing itself.

    The problem with trying to deal with the weapons is that, besides not dealing with the actually problem, you may exacerbate game design because you make blobs more powerful while smaller unit groups are less useful...without introducing alternatives for the player. It would be like before OKW had T0 HMGs and simply locking Volks' panzerschreck cost behind T4: the player would just blitz to T4 while pumping out Volks, then instantly upgrade once it's up in base and rock the map.
    If you want to solve it strictly from the weapon racks perspective, a much simpler solution would be to just raise the upgrade cost. I believe prior to current forms, they were both 60 munitions.

    I'm not as experienced with USF as with other factions, but from reading on the matter it seems the problem with USF blobs sounds very similar to Volklsblobbing prior to most recent patch changes.
    There is also a sense from players that certain weapons are not suitable for certain units, ie RIflemen with Bazookas isn't a good idea compared with BARs, and having RETs equipping bazookas. Either this shouldn't be the case, or it should and Relic might as well just relegate certain weapons to certain units via classic upgrade options, which also means ditching Racks in general. As a largely 4v4 player in large maps I've always disliked the notion of needing to return to base to equip while everyone else either can do it in the field, or can build stuff like UKF.

    Anyways back to blobbing: it's more to do with the units, not the weapons they have. Trying to tweak the weapons will only yield limited desired results, while also introducing large risks in unbalance the general faction design.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    ElSlayerElSlayer Posts: 230

    I'd better swapped AA HT and AT gun to balance AT and suppression between Lt. and Cpt. tiers.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    JRJRJRJRJRJRJRJR Posts: 2

    @TheHitman009 said:
    I'd like to get some feedback about this idea on how to rework the USF access to weapon racks. My goal is to accomplish two ends:

    1. Cut down on bazooka and BAR blobs, thereby promoting higher quality gameplay
    2. Ensure viable USF strategies (i.e. don't OVER nerf USF)

    I'll break it down:

    First, the Lieutenant and Captain would no longer come out with BAR or bazooka, just their Thompson.

    However, buying the Lieutenant would unlock the bazooka rack, while buying the Captain would unlock the BAR rack. Notice I am proposing a swap in the weapons they are currently associated with and will explain why. The Lieutenant's unit options are very much lacking AT, so bazooka's would grant him some capability if that route is chosen. The Captain unlocks AT gun production, so bazooka unlock for him would be somewhat redundant.

    Why do I think this is a win/win? USF no longer have to upgrade to weapons by diverging off their tech tree. Axis no longer have to deal with both BAR and bazooka spam - which is a great combination of AI and AT capability. Now, of course a USF player could get both the Lieutenant AND the Captain to unlock both racks, but I think we could all agree that this isn't worth delaying the Major in most cases.

    What do you guys think?

    I believe you should be able to unlock the racks seperately, i believe you should be able to pick the default weapon.

  • #14
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited July 2016

    Regarding weapon racks, hooking them with teching isn't a bad idea, it does at least prevent blobbing in the earlier stages and locks out the strategy of Rifleblobs with weapons to take out vehicles.
    But the problem is that in order to get bazookas you have to tech to a tier you may not want to use.

    I suppose a better compromise is to simply give some of the fuel costs from teching to unlocking weapon racks, so the choice of either rifleblobbing with weapons is not as easy an alternative to trying to go for vehicles or crew weapons. This was precisely the sort of problem OKW had with Volksblob: going vehicles was too hard, and going with AT blobs was too easy, so the opening strategy was almost always the latter as it required less micro, starts immediately, and often works better. I mean instead of saving for 50-60 fuel, you just save 15 while pumping out troops, then upgrading them all when done.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    GenObiGenObi Posts: 1,368
    edited July 2016

    [removed]

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.