Why Relic Needs to Stop Listening to the Community

Those were the days, it was a very casual unbalanced RTS, but god damn it was fun. Alternative crazy balance would be to restore all that to Sov and then make grens great again - remember that patch when G43 grens became godlike? That was hilarious. Modders? please make! Sniper car vs ubergrens would be so fun.

It's only "fun" for a limited amount of time as long as you can patch the game and shake things up every quarter to keep things "interesting and different".

For every tinted rose glass memory of that time, we have the hard numbers of how the player base reacted to those changes.

https://steamcharts.com/app/231430#All

Casual unbalanced RTS don't live long enough if left in that state.

My main complain about balance in general, is that some factions have their entire power located in one unit.

EFA suffers from this much more, then WFA armies. Because WFA armiers were made over the idea, that core of your army is infanty in a first place (like it should be).

Meaning that be it Tommies\Rifles\Volks you always rely on them in first place, supporting them with other tools awaible. Even if we put raw stats aside, there is honestly nothing in all thouse 3 factions which in case of loosing will skyrocket you into insane disadvantage. Well its only arguably OKW stumpios, but because of the healing\repairing locked on them, depending on your tech and its more of a tech problem then unit one.

If we look on EFA armies, its an opposite situation. Whole Ostheer early game based on MG42, whole soviet mid game based on T70. Loosing 1 unit, skyrockets you into disadvantage.

This whole idea is that Ost T1 is arguably effectively usable only with MG42 and whole soviet mid game is concentrated in T70. It backfires in both directions, where one can master usage of such units and make playing against them very frustating, aswell as player who didnt master them will be constantly loosing.

My idea is that, for both ostheer and soviets, power should be evenly spread across units, rather then having concentration of it in one or the other unit.

In regards to how balance should be done, EVERY COMPETITIVE PVP game goes from top to bottom. There's a difference between balancing for your best players and down the line and completely ignoring the noobs input. What "bad" players needs is not balance changes, rather than QOL and ease of use patches which makes their experience with the game better. What you aim for is making the game "easier" while not lowering down the ceil floor.

Trade off between predictability and randomness.

Pro players want predictable behavior and will complain when their T34/85 bounced off of an enemy panther because of a 10% chance of bouncing.

New players want chaos and randomness and thus they enjoy RNG. This helps lower the punishments for mistakes.

Majority of players in CoH 2 are casual players. The vocal competitive minority is responsible for a lot of the changes. Hence you have a lot of RNG removed from the game: engine criticals, deflections, etc.

My main complain about balance in general, is that some factions have their entire power located in one unit.

EFA suffers from this much more, then WFA armies. Because WFA armiers were made over the idea, that core of your army is infanty in a first place (like it should be).

Meaning that be it Tommies\Rifles\Volks you always rely on them in first place, supporting them with other tools awaible. Even if we put raw stats aside, there is honestly nothing in all thouse 3 factions which in case of loosing will skyrocket you into insane disadvantage. Well its only arguably OKW stumpios, but because of the healing\repairing locked on them, depending on your tech and its more of a tech problem then unit one.

If we look on EFA armies, its an opposite situation. Whole Ostheer early game based on MG42, whole soviet mid game based on T70. Loosing 1 unit, skyrockets you into disadvantage.

This whole idea is that Ost T1 is arguably effectively usable only with MG42 and whole soviet mid game is concentrated in T70. It backfires in both directions, where one can master usage of such units and make playing against them very frustating, aswell as player who didnt master them will be constantly loosing.

My idea is that, for both ostheer and soviets, power should be evenly spread across units, rather then having concentration of it in one or the other unit.

CoH2 suffered from certain units dominating other units because they don't have clear separate roles. This I agree; Guards vs. Conscripts vs. Penals. IS-2 vs. T34/85 vs. KV1

But I disagree with some other points. There are indeed different roles in a OST and SU army so why should power be evenly spread across units that are in different roles? You can't win a game with only MG42s and Grenadiers because u need a tank role unit and a engineer role unit too. The reason why the rest of the units like PGs and Ostruppen (in the past) and other infantry are dominated by the more OP units is because their roles were not clearly defined.

I think because P2W DLC, tbh.

New players want chaos and randomness and thus they enjoy RNG. This helps lower the punishments for mistakes.

Majority of players in CoH 2 are casual players. The vocal competitive minority is responsible for a lot of the changes. Hence you have a lot of RNG removed from the game: engine criticals, deflections, etc.

I agree CoH2 suffers from a lack of casual modes or proper mod support.

But who says the majority of players want a chaotic imbalanced experience that is supposedly "fun"?
I can not prove the opposite, but given how average player numbers right now are higher than at launch (https://steamcharts.com/app/231430#All) without too much marketing effort from Relic I'd take a wild guess that the majority of players likes the current approach that gives them a fair experience more, which in turn makes the game fun for them.

I agree CoH2 suffers from a lack of casual modes or proper mod support.

But who says the majority of players want a chaotic imbalanced experience that is supposedly "fun"?
I can not prove the opposite, but given how average player numbers right now are higher than at launch (https://steamcharts.com/app/231430#All) without too much marketing effort from Relic I'd take a wild guess that the majority of players likes the current approach that gives them a fair experience more, which in turn makes the game fun for them.

Why is there such a high playerbase still? Is it the patches, is it the community, is the esports? Or is it the sudden influx of Chinese?

How can you be sure

There's a noticeable difference in peak players versus player average patterns in the game's early life, indicating player retention was rather low. Nowadays there's a smaller difference between peak and average, indicating higher player retention. The exact stats and reasons are unknown of course, but if I had to guess it's partly because in general people find the multiplayer much more enjoyable now. The online balance is the only thing that has really changed since then.

Or it could just be the Chinese.

Hmm you're not wrong but you're not right. Yes this game has lost some of its asymmetry over the years and it's a bit of a shame, but that's because the balance devs and modders don't have the same power as the original coders and designers of course, so in balancing things unfortunately sometimes that means straight up removal or swapping etc.

That said the game is much much more active than the times you're remembering, the strategies and tactics are now far deeper, and the matchups for the most part more interesting (razor edge elite tourney meta notwithstanding).

Yeah we lost some of the flavour of the original cheesy design but it's for the better for the most part.

There's a huge difference in peak players versus player average patterns between the game's early life, indicating player retention was rather low. Nowadays there's a much smaller difference between peak and average, indicating higher player retention. The exact stats and reasons are unknown of course, but if I had to guess it's partly because in general people find the multiplayer much more enjoyable now.

I agree with the retention being much higher than at launch. I remember an article in bug.hr many years ago when it launched (gaming/tech magazine). Basically they gave it a 90% rating with the biggest downfall being something in the lines of < horrible optimization, horrible performance, crashes >. They did praise the gameplay/systems in place and the overall feel of the game, thus the high score. Quality of life changes have improved the game.

Regarding the influx. One may never know unless some random hackerman hacks into the space-time and extracts the sql table regarding the nationality of players.




About the "was not designed to be played as a team game RTS". I am pretty pretty sure COH2 was designed around teamgames and not 1v1s. You could say that because only one faction existed on each side that it was for 1v1s... however, the abundance of commanders and the fact that the DLCs were a given (unless the game was a big flop), says otherwise. I am pretty pretty sure, 90% or so that Relic released 2 factions at launch on purpose and had plans to milk more money from DLCs focused around other factions. Why give out 3 or more factions when you can repackage them and sell at a later date, thus higher profits. USF, Brits being 2 factions that cater to a specific audience (Americans and Brits) of casual players. OKW was marketed as "elite super units but expensive". Who doesn't like the sound of that? I too wouldn't launch all the factions at once, that was clever marketing. WFA was released about 1y after the original game. You take into consideration that the first 6 months are about polishing the game once it hits many more systems (more known bugs), you can easily see how the next 6 months are about preparing to release the other factions. British were the icing on the cake probably and were only conceptually realized at base game launch.

I just don't see how this game can be anything but 2v2+. 1v1 competitive? Sure. It takes skill and doesn't favour control groups 1-9 but it's still mostly a competitive mode. You win or you lose. You and you alone. Nobody to blame.
Games function as a source of entertainment and if some people decided to not pursue other more valuable skills at producing new goods, can extract money from it (entertainment is the biggest business)... good for them. Doesn't mean it's not a team game oriented RTS.

1v1 is mostly for diehard fans that lurk around this forum and post either complete and utter BS or constructive well-made arguments, nothing in between like the steam forum which has everything (My God.... everything).

Does Relic need to stop listening to the community? No. Community plays the game.
Relic needs to take into consideration some arguments (if they even read them here) and decide if that suits their vision of the game.
Axis biased people will always ask for pak howi nerf or jackson nerf or whatever.
Ally biased people will ask for Panther, stuka, nerferwerfer and heavy tank nerfs. A normal circle of life on the forums. Everyone knows who is ally biased and who is axis biased. Those people should not be excluded, of course, since they are part of the community but should be taken with a bigger grain of salt. There were plenty of wonderful ideas being written here that could contribute to a more fun game (that's what we all want), not a more predictable game (that's what pro players want). So again, no. The community needs to be heard.

Well I am in no way asking for that era to come back.....

Yeah but I do have fond memories from how hilarious that was if you weren't the USF player. Kubel definitely needs something idk how to buff it.

snip

OP brought up the OKW fuel switching. I bet any old time team game player remembers the legend of the 5 minute Windustry t34 and OKW p4.

But I disagree with some other points. There are indeed different roles in a OST and SU army so why should power be evenly spread across units that are in different roles?

You didnt get me. Here I give you an excample. T70 is holding soviet mid game from collapsing. Why, lets say, soviets cant have their T4 cons grade, be cut in half (p1 sats boosts, p2 7men or vise versa) and part of it unlocked upon T3 build. In this case T70 could be well deserved be tonned down, in return of other cons earlier buffs.

Same with Grenadiers. They could become more self sufficient against tommies and rifles (not stronger then them, but just to pose at least some considarable threat) and in return MG42 could lose some of its suppression. MG42+Grens combo would be just as strong as before, but balance of power of this combination would be evenly spread across both units.

I'm not sure about P2W tbh, since we past that state. P2W commanders were on release, but speaking of them, lets bring ost since it abusing commanders the most now.

This situation came to be, again because in ost early game 99% of the job is done by the MG42, which means that skips of T1 are just a normal practice since in general, what you get in return is less then what you get by skipping it and using commander call-ins.

Also I want to add that, in all honestly there are no oldfation OP stuff, like lets say landmatters and emplacement commanders which went into a tourney being objectively broken and overpowered.

Even osttroopens and VSL they are not batshit broken or OP, and winning game just because they are picked, but more like because they are hands down better then your stock options.

Those were the days, it was a very casual unbalanced RTS, but god damn it was fun. Alternative crazy balance would be to restore all that to Sov and then make grens great again - remember that patch when G43 grens became godlike? That was hilarious. Modders? please make! Sniper car vs ubergrens would be so fun.

Hahahahahaha.

The new guys never got to see that, or witnessed raging when your gren squad got wiped by a 120mm across the map

snip

That's just a fallacy. The whole reason people play CoH2 and not other RTS is because they are fine with certain aspects of RNG.

It's the huge swinging effects which have no proper player input or form of counter that most "top" players and most of the playerbase are annoyed off.

New players may initially like the randomness and chaos of certain elements of RNG ("every plane crash tells a story, Quinn Duffy trademark) but those are the kind of players who are not gonna keep playing the game in the long run after the novelty wears off.

You are confusing the kind of gamer that plays an RTS with one who likes "party like games" or a casual FPS.

There's different degrees of agreement in which elements are fine or borderline stupid, hence the competitive mod for tournaments. But those elements are still in the base game.

IMO, i think the effects are fine but they just need tweaking. Ex: main gun destroy threshold been lowered to 10/20% instead of 25%.

About the "was not designed to be played as a team game RTS". I am pretty pretty sure COH2 was designed around teamgames and not 1v1s.

I completely disagree. The games follows the same principles and design behind COH1 and share the same problems they had for teamgames as well. I'm someone who plays 2v2 and i'll say that you balance around 1v1, cause if you can't barely comprehend and do your job trying to balance on that small case, how the hell you expect to do balance in modes which way more variables. You walk before you try to run and jump. I'm not saying you ignore the issues that arise in team games at all (ISU/ELE/Artillery) it's just that most things are solved if you can properly balance the game well for 1v1. You just need to fix the exceptions and not try to force every single doctrinal unit to work for every game mode (Super heavy TDs on 1v1 and heavies on teamgames).

(I would like to make a small clarification that IMO 2v2 still follows many of the same principles behind 1v1 and that things go wild on 3v3+).

From your comment i deduce you didn't play the game back in 2013, the beta or are ignorant behind the decisions and comments the developers made nor how fragile Relic and THQ (extint) situation was and how it was later acquired by SEGA.

Most people who haven't been from the beginning assume too many things about Relic plans for the future. The game was barely able to release at all for starters. Sure, there had might there been some ideas floating around bringing new factions or commanders to the game but nothing was definite. Hell, the whole supply system and monetization arrive much later. Reminder that we have the heavy amount of EFA commanders due to them not knowing really what direction they wanted to go and were testing waters of how much BS they could pass off.
For those who were in the beta group post launch, they would know that some features that were been tested as commanders for EFA went to be push for WFA and beyond.


Ask anyone who started playing since release back in 2013 if the game was thought and design around team games. IF they had any proper "support" for those modes or if they ever end up releasing features which are key for any game which goes into team games territory.

Hell lets look at maps released and design. There is a reason Relic tested custom points which rewarded other things than resources because the whole concept of dynamic economy changes doesn't apply in those modes cause the concept of cut off is practically null.

How about integrating people who were mostly team game based players to the "secret"/private balance testing group or applying changes based on team games only. You can see at the change log that the word "team games" only started to appear like 2/3 years ago.

Just like "Smash" at it's core is a party game that can be played as a competitive fighting game, COH2 is a 1v1/2v2 base game that can be played as 3v3/4v4.

A team based game wouldn't leave factions with 80/90% WR screwing the modes for months without hotfixing it.

I almost think you want the game to be more like Halo Wars (a game that I loved) type of assymetrical design and balance, but it's just two completely different games and this is how it should be

No, I think WFA and UKF release or even Alpha was super duper fun because everything was so OP and memorable. It came fresh out of the designers in its raw form and hadn't made it through crybaby yet. Everything in USF was great, everything, except maybe vehicle crews. The same thing for OKW and the Kubel MG made for very interesting gameplay.

Sws trucks lol.

Good old memories when you heard the put-put-put of commandos firing and you know 2 or 3 squads are being wiped somewhere.

Yes the commandos were OP but they were expensive, costed a lot of pop, had no AT, and could get killed pretty easy chased by a light vehicle.

Jagdtiger in Lienne Forest behind that giant building in the middle or behind the forest was so freaking OP but OKW took forever to get to the fuel needed and had to sacrifice all of early and mid game to get a JT that gets stunned when shot.

Yes the JT was OP but your resources were so low.

Tbh your tank being stunned when shot is a bad design trap of giving things weaknesses, makes players rage in the receiving end.

...

Even RE's made you feel like badass, check this out: I still have some recordings of WFA release

Rear Echelons wiped the dust off with a sturmpio in that video ^

Kubel + Suppression actually gave the unit a pretty well defined role that made it important for every build

This whole post is absurd.

I like the bug/exploit fixes the mod team has went for over the years. Much appreciated work. but personally i definitely also miss the old faction designs and dont really care for the balance decisions that have been made for the most part.

I think competitive COh2 would benefit and be elevated by having a competitive tournament mod/build where the game would be more "competitively" minded and balanced in terms of cheese strats, and abusive mechanics/faction combos, etc. The mod could be designed by a committe of the "pros" , guys that know about the meta, and all the individual units and mechanics, and what not, kinda like the current build of the game is designed.


BUT: base version would then retain the casual flavors that actually makes it fun, while still being 'balanced' around "EVERYTHING IS OP SO NOTHING IS OP" to create exciting games of historically inspired WW2 nonsense with cool mechanics, squad combat, and details.. something the series is really known for, is it not? The game was never known for balance or competitive anything. but ofc there are competitive players and a vocal competitive scene. So why not use the open modding tools to cater to everyone FULLY. You could POTENTIALLY have a proper esports scene. and a casual scene that likes watching their blobs get ambushed and demo charged and watching their T34s immobilize Elefants.



ofc,it would be seperated from the base game,which is a real issue. but lets be real; OG COH is dominated by casuals and team game players and people who play mods and single player, the "sweaty" or competitive demographic is so incredibly laughably small, but vocal nonetheless...its really a casual game, and a casual series overall, and has never been seriously designed or marketed as an actual esport or competitive game, so, to me its like...Why balance or design it as such, ESPECIALLY NOW?? It only makes for a weirdly designed game that simply doesnt fully satisfy either type of player.

To me; base COH should commit to the casuals and design for them. Design a fun game... Cool skins. Fun gameplay. Fun maps. No game ends the same way type shit. Then have competitive side; where we can still watch Luvnest and Jesulin go at it for 5 maps... but on balanced maps and balanced unit rulesets and design.


But I think we havent seen this because it would split an already smallish and honestly already currently divided playerbase, and the top players probably would find it difficult to practice properly,...i think? Maybe they dont wanna change how things have been done for almost 2 decades at this point going back to Coh1?

Dont know actually....but im sure the idea has come up before but I wonder why we havent made a significant move towards it. Alot of successful esports have different rulesets compared to automatch and COH is probably the only one that i've heard of that has automatch ruleset as the the competitive ruleset and I think thats holding it back as a competitive game and as a casual one, overall.

Fun is very subjective thing. Playing UKF on release was fun because whole game felt like it was a meme video, but I hardly doubt that players who was subjected to my fun had a great time.

Die hard 1v1 esports guys can play what ever they want, but you shouldn't forget that if only one side is having fun other side would just leave. You know, having mini gun Sherman or 100000 damage zis guns because of the FHQ was also fun.

Also ask how much fun ppl get, when they got rammed+il2 bombed, yes it's fun for the one who is doing it.

And if casual player is not playing fully for memes or he don't care if he win or lose, in other words have at least small competitive nature in him, all he would get from this is negative motions and frustration.

Coh2 actually never was objective fun for everybody, all its fun was in abusing broken or overpowered units, which means that game itself its mechanics and gameplay never were the source of fun in a first place.

At least now it's closer to the proper RTS, where both sides can have fun not just one.

I think most people are making good points here.

I disagree with you, NorthWeapon, on your conclusion, that Relic shouldn't have any community input on balance.

I would prefer if members of the balance team weren't just volunteering, but actual paid, part-time employees. I'm a sucker for labour rights, but that's not what this website is for. Having community members with a voice on balance is important for having realistic and desired changes. But those community members shouldn't be top 50 automatch players. They should be map designers, they should be casters, they should be active community members at several tiers of automatch. they should be anyone who wants to respond to a call for balance perspectives. I want a balance team that asks for and looks at the opinions of everyone, not just what someone who is paid to make games thinks. I don't think those people have enough time to play their games to the degree that many of the fans do.

With regards to actual balance in this game, I think this quote from Mirage from page 3 says it best:

Faction Flavour Should Be done Without Compromising Core Aspects

Having no core tools for core systems such as reliable suppression - Kubels will never cut is as MGs late game to counter blobs - should not be the case. All factions in their core should at least have the basic tools to counter either large infantry assault, defensive positions, and/or heavier armoured vehicles.

Can't always be done due to lack of assets, but the core tools should be there.

I'd expand this to the opposite as well, where flavour shouldn't negate a core aspect. Classic example of this was Obersoldaten ignoring Retreat modifiers. When I was playing USF back in 2014-2016 I was so frustrated that I would lose games to OKW that were in an even dead-heat until the late game, when OKW's veterancy design eventually made them better than my riflemen. When we had traded evenly, both losing a combat squad, both losing a light vehicle (or not), see-sawing on VPs, it was fun and engaging. But once those squads got their fourth and fifth level of vet and my squads were stuck on triple vet with 2x BARs, it felt like the OKW player was being rewarded more for their preservation of units and that would snowball into more lost manpower, less map control, etc. on my end.

Every faction should have access to reliable suppression, mobile indirect fire, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines (either split mines like Ost or dual-purpose like Sov). There are a bunch of other things that are too numerous to mention here but y'all get the idea I hope.

I'll admit, the balance changes can be daunting especially when I'm playing less 1v1s or even team games regularly. But I would rather have balance changes and "revamps" every 4-6 months (that also fix bugs!) than leave the game in broken and bugged states. Who knows what would happen if we were still playing the game we were in mid-2017. I think it would've died. Maybe not completely, but it would be a steady hemorrhaging of playercount.

On this idea:

I think competitive COh2 would benefit and be elevated by having a competitive tournament mod/build where the game would be more "competitively" minded and balanced in terms of cheese strats, and abusive mechanics/faction combos, etc. The mod could be designed by a committe of the "pros" , guys that know about the meta, and all the individual units and mechanics, and what not, kinda like the current build of the game is designed.

But I think we havent seen this because it would split an already smallish and honestly already currently divided playerbase, and the top players probably would find it difficult to practice properly,...i think? Maybe they dont wanna change how things have been done for almost 2 decades at this point going back to Coh1?

obligatory shoutout to Wuff for making the Tourney Mode mod and for AE/MasterLeague for promoting its use.

I think this is a great idea. I would love to be able to play against random people in a more competitive setting. I'm not sure about balance changes, but I like what Wuff's mod has done and kept it relatively barebones, but eliminating some of most egregious non-competitive elements. I'd also be for replacing OKW base defenses with MG emplacements so OKW can be base rushed.

I think the way to implement this would be to have temporary leagues with fresh leaderboards. There would be global leaderboards like we have now, but just use that same ELO system in a separate leaderboard and search system (that is saved online so people can always go back and look at their stats or other players' stats) in a league that lasts 4-12 weeks using the hyper-competitive mod.