Explore GameReplays...

Company of Heroes

[Finals] game3 final

Langres (2)
Langres (2)
Game 1 of 3
5
1220
Game 2 of 3
16
1375
Game 3 of 3
currently viewing...
#1SiberianPlatoon  Feb 7 2011, 19:41 PM -
...
#2SodR  Feb 7 2011, 21:29 PM -
Gratz.
#3Kolaris  Feb 8 2011, 08:03 AM -
Replays: 48 Game:
What happens to the KT felt like an analogy to WM in the rest of the tourny.

You finally get to the good stuff, and then it still breaks down.
#4CallMeSarge  Feb 8 2011, 09:37 AM -
Here are the live casts from the finals: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index...howtopic=741237
#5Cabooter  Feb 8 2011, 10:32 AM -
Yeah I don't really saw what happened to the KT. Please spoiler what happened.

Anyway, you had a very nice 'expert' early game DevM. smile.gif
#6CharlesDarwin  Feb 8 2011, 12:11 PM -
Replays: 220 Game:
QUOTE
What happens to the KT felt like an analogy to WM in the rest of the tourny.

You finally get to the good stuff, and then it still breaks down.


I agree on that observation, Kolaris. The problem is, it can lead to the wrong conclusions. We balanced Knights Cross excellenently, they are great. The problem is, that US still has too much of a lead in the early/medium stages of the game. We somewhat made that situation worse, by increasing (although rightfully) the strength of US mid game, namely: Greyhound. The problem is, that US rilfes gain a lot of veterancy very easily, even now, because supply yard 1 gives you something in the order of 20% upped experience from mid game on. WM has received no equivalent buff back in 2.4-2.6 whenever that rifle buff came. We should also not deceive ourselves, the popularity of infantery doctrine is foremost owed to the fact, that rifles earn vet with their mines. All in all the disadvantage WM is through teching needs to be ameliorated, because the new meta game is in fact an old one, where many tech paths should be possible. Curently tech is still too "expensive", but by expensive I am not referring to the cost of each tier, I am referring to how fast US rifles gain vet. This was not at all the same in old v-coh times. The vet bonuses for US screwed up balance long time ago. There were just previously additional imbalances introduced on the WM side "to compensate", which is ofc a screw logic. The logic should be to make tech paths feasible for both factions and not to compensate through adding more imbalances. So the game plans of each faction should be individually addressed and obstacles removed.
Sadly what I say is about fixing the foundation of the factions and that requires far more than just "a patch". It requires people to iteratively test and refine it, something that cant be done when patch maker and tester are not living at the same location, i.e. when it is not Relic doing it on their own.
#7rollems  Feb 8 2011, 22:07 PM -
^^ Shit i thought i nailed you tongue.gif , all good was just messing with you biggrin.gif
#8a k k o z e n `  Feb 9 2011, 07:21 AM -
Replays: 6 Game:
QUOTE
^^ Shit i thought i nailed you tongue.gif , all good was just messing with you biggrin.gif


biggrin.gif maybe next time mate...
#9Decepticus  Feb 11 2011, 18:14 PM -
Replays: 2 Game:
I wonder why Seb didn't go T3 instead of T2. DevM had BARs and not even enough fuel for Supply Yard. Coukd have been a different and more fun game.
#102nzen  Feb 13 2011, 08:10 AM -
Replays: 15 Game:
I love how 12azor speaks! Always entertaining. I believe that Siberian played a great tourney here, especially that final round.

Ggs and wp to both.

CD, can i ask you something about your observation (US army advantage) : In that case ( your opinion explained clear fully ), how come did you lose some games in tourney when you were playing as US of course, if regarding to you US has a great advantage.
This post has been edited by 2nzen: Feb 13 2011, 08:12 AM
Reply to Comment