Why Relic Needs to Stop Listening to the Community

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.

Look at Men of War, his numbers are unchanged from the start. Because it's a niche game. Company of Heroes is also a pretty niche game. His numbers are plus or minus on the same level as at the start, but there are a lot more Chinese players in the game right now. So people left, due to simplification and removal of mechanics. In their place, bring people who like simplified mechanics more.

Personally, I love older versions of the game without simplified mechanics and castration of the game. Yes, it was unbalanced, although this is a controversial statement, even now with all the simplifications and castrations, the balance wars do not subside. But the older versions are definitely funnier and more interesting.

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.

ehhhh personally the period after UKF release was super miserable for me and probably my least favorite period of coh2, the completely broken bugs and how ridiculously op some of the UKF stuff was made the game a 1 sided mess.

Imo there many different issues so I will focus on RNG in this post:

The game is based on RNG for instance every time a rifles there is RNG role. This imo is a good thing since infatry fight are not "predetermined".

On the other hand a plane crash could originally wipe everything it landed on. On average the casualties from a plane might be low but the effect was devastating. If for instance a plane crashed on an army once every 10 and killed 20 entities on average a place would kill 2 entities per crush but because it happened in a single game the effect where actually devastating. This was a "bad" random event and imo it good that it has been removed.

Finally when it comes to TD the increases on chance to "hit and penetrate" are also bad because the remove both the chance to hit and and the hit to penetrate mechanism.

In sort RNG is positive aspect under certain conditions.

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%.



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.

You are right that I didn't play at launch. I started playing 2015? 2016? Something like that. I also agree that you balance around 1v1 but that doesn't mean that it's a 1v1 game. As I've said. 2v2+ modes are much more fun and as such are played more. That's all you need to state that it's a team based game. While I agree with 90% of what you have said you are having a different perspective. While I cannot claim what was at launch and how things behaved (I do know about monetization and such) regarding factions, I can claim that the game now feels much more balanced for teamgames than it was 3 years ago.

I am not quite sure what you mean by that "wouldn't leave factions with 80,90 screwing modes...". What period? I don't quite follow, sorry.

About 2v2. It's quite similar to 1v1 but still much more fun and dynamic than 1v1. You don't have to play a specific meta build because your partner can patch holes in it but still you only have one partner so it's "kinda" necessary to follow the trend. 3v3+ is where the fun really begins, and even though an elefant/JT/ISU can kill any sort of tank plays on lane-y maps like redball (ISU more vs infantry since at long range it has "only" 200 penetration), it's still engaging and challenging to play vs them. Sure, lost plenty of games vs vetted sturm shooting over hedges and/or out of sight range when you try to push (spotting scopes from ally provides vision for it), and jagdtiger shooting down Jacksons that tried to scare away the sturm... they were still fun challenging games even though a lot of people would screech "JT OP, nerf Sturm, spotting scopes OP" and whatnot.
Point is. As much as the game is being balanced around 1v1, as you have said is the simplest one, it's still not a team based game. I can not accept that a WW2 themed with 5 factions and plenty of units to combine it's all about cutoff and holding behind sandbags. Heck, I've always advocated that people stop complaining about balance because considering how hard it is to balance something that has more parameters than there are unofficial sex workers in Prague. Considering all that, the game is in an excellent state of balance. Few units require minuscule tweaks (nerf one thing, buff another) but nothing that would stand out. One thing I would argue is that one should balance for 2v2 since it combines the best of both worlds. It's not as chaotic as 4v4 and not as dull as 1v1.

EDIT: What I mean is. I think that COH2 by itself has had more problems in the company/development that they just said "fu** it" and went for 1v1 since 3v3 modes are performance-wise... absolutely dreadful. Still, at it's core, no matter how much 1v1 mode is more optimized or whatnot, Company Of Heroes franchise is a team based franchise.

I also agree that you balance around 1v1 but that doesn't mean that it's a 1v1 game. As I've said. 2v2+ modes are much more fun and as such are played more. [...] One thing I would argue is that one should balance for 2v2 since it combines the best of both worlds. It's not as chaotic as 4v4 and not as dull as 1v1. [...]

Considering the amount of Commanders and units that are only useful in 2v2+, it's clear that in COH2, team games are important. The synergy between players is complex, interesting and fun, supporting the "comeback" potential of COH2 matches.

In my view the best mode is 2v2, striking a balance between the strict tactical gameplay of 1v1 and the diversity of 3v3/4v4.


That is not to say the game is in a bad spot right now. The balance is admirable in all game modes and could have been a lot worse considering the alternatives.

Why Balancing Is Ruining CoH2 & Why Relic Needs to Stop Listening to the Community

Context: coming in to CoH2 after 5/4 years and overall a lot of the game has lost its interesting and fun designs over the years due to community balance patches. Relic needs to stop listening to the community so much, and especially letting the community make design changes to the game. I think the original faction designs of OKW, USF, and UKF were much more fun when they originally were released than their toned down "balanced" versions today. I still love the game btw, CoH2 is amazing.

Not everything needs to be "balanced!" For crying out loud, don't jeopardize the game design of Company of Heroes that makes the game fun. As a game designer, I cannot help but to say that some things can and should be OP for the sake of fun-ness and interesting play, as long as there is a counter.

Take the Stuka Dive Bomb, yes it is OP, but it has a counter to it; move away from the obvious noise.

Here is an example of what happens everyday in the forum, just today regarding the Stuka Dive Bomb:



You get comments like these always: this thing is OP nerf it and make it like this other ability. This unit doesn't have snares like everything else, give it a snare too. With this attitude and the lack of community understanding of what makes CoH fun, results in Volksgrenadiers losing their Shreks and getting fausts cuz "balance."

Let me quote Breaking Brad, game designer at Relic:



That is the part of the design! Do you really want every single call-in ability to be the same? The Stuka
is the only call-in that has an extremely loud and obvious noise

OKW's 66% Fuel and munitions scarcity and their OP veterancy is what made the faction so interesting!

Another one: OKW losing its 66% FU penalty. That made the faction interesting and fun! It's overpowered Veterancy bonuses made up for its lack of fuel and munitions! But because the community cries balance all the time, Relic gives in and removes the parts of the factions that make you feel like a BADASS in favor of making every faction identical, flavorless, and balanced.

Game design isn't about making every design fair and balanced, its about giving players the feeling of being awesome and a badass.

As I read through the changelog I read a bunch of "to make it more in line with similar units from other factions..." That is precisely what makes the game stale and boring.

CoH2 is asymmetrical, the whole POINT of factions is that they are supposed to be wildly different.

Removing smoke grenades from Rifles? Really? Their design was to be versatile, hence they can snare, have LMGs, and have bazookas. You might as well give infantry sections snares. I once read an argument that because Riflemen have smoke grenades, all other base infantry need smokes. NO, this is not a mirror game, this is asymetrical. Its precisely these statements, especially when they are heard by Relic, that ruins the game.

Giving OKW a OST Tiger, LeFH artillery, MG34 starting, nerfed vet 4 + 5, same fuel income. Why are we sharing units between factions again? Soviet snipers are 1 man now!?

Soviet snipers were badass precisely because they had 2. You might as well play mirror matches. Dare I repeat again, the point of the Soviet sniper having 2 men is not because it makes the sniper balanced, its because it makes the player feel like his army is bigger and mightier like SOVIET RUSSIA and being a COMRADE.

Solution: Relic stops listening to every request from community. Community needs to stop complaining about balance changes, understand that fun-ness is more important than balance. Also greenlighting community made mods into the live game is a good way to ruin the original design

Last thing, 5 man grenadiers? The whole point of Wehrmacht's small unit count was to contrast from Soviet Russia's huge army size *facepalm* In my opinion, Miragefla has introduced a lot of terrible changes to the game along with others responsible for community mod balance changes.

I thought this was just a necro of a topic from 2013 so I'm just gonna be frank here, welcome back after your 4/5 hiatus from the game, however I don't think are relevant or in a good position to speak about what should be done or if what was done was good or bad, even tho you are a developer of a game you did not wish to share the name of with us, due to the simple fact of lacking experience with the game these past 4/5 years as you yourself have said.

So bashing what the community has done is entirely uncalled for and downright low for an ex-pillar of said community if I'm honest. Many of the changes were good, just because you think asymmetrical design and balance is good doesn't make it so for the rest of the people and as a great example I will give the Brits which are still underplayed and underperforming after numerous design changes and balance patches, not to mention not 1 but 2 game implementations.

Simply put, I'm all for asymmetrical design and balance, however not when the core tools are not present there and are hurting the Army more than helping the overall game. The British lacking a non-doctrinal non-fuel costing mobile mortar team is still a problem and including it in a couple of doctrine is more of a bandaid solution than anything else really as one example.

I also agree with you on the fact that too much emphasis is being put on a few top level people that are more or less used for marketing and PR for the game to make more money and thus balance is centered around them and not the bigger part of the community who are mostly compromised of casual players that just want to have fun after work or school in order to relax.

I don't believe that I'm lying when I say that most competitive RTS players are over at Starcraft and will never be on this "E-sports" ready title as much as people want, same with Team Fortress 2 which remains a casual game with an extremely small competitive scene that is also currently failing, badly.

Lastly, I don't think I need to also remind you that those same "comrades" you're rooting for with the meme in your post were part of the regime that raped, pillaged and then enslaved half of Europe and Asia for around 50 years and caused the deaths of probably 100+ million people at this point, ruined many economies and destroyed thousands of lives and families as well.

But I guess my words will be lost on a privileged "game developer" and ex-caster that doesn't know what these people went through.

I also agree with you on the fact that too much emphasis is being put on a few top level people that are more or less used for marketing and PR for the game to make more money and thus balance is centered around them and not the bigger part of the community who are mostly compromised of casual players that just want to have fun after work or school in order to relax.

So you claim to speak for the majority? On the basis of what?

Also, this has been said a million times, but you can't balance around suboptimal play. It's logically impossible. You can try to make to game most fun for casuals but you can't balance it for them.

i need to agree with GiaA. You cant balance around a rank 1000ish player who only blobs straight into machineguns.

I also hate when peaple say the community balance team has only dumbt down factions.


It has addad a lot of fun commders and abilities we woudnt have, peaple forget that the current units woudnt even had existed in the first place. They didnt remove that much but added so much more (Jäger command, commisar at overwatch, you name it)

This basically improved the variety of units for casual players!!! It also created some balance issues which will hopefully be adressed in the future.

But Balance is for competive play, so weaker players should instead just enjoy the fun units and abilities they added into the game, instead of crying over broken designs that were no fun playing against even on low level (Sim city i look at you!!)

Hi All,

I'm new here however been lurking for a while currently have 300 hrs on record and maybe sitting just under average in rank atm..

Anyways here my 2 cents as a new play to the game -

Overall the game is in a good state imo after dedicating over 3000 hrs in Dota the RNG while there is not game breaking cause ultimately if you outplay your opponent RNG does not matter too much. However I can see this being a problem at the time where the skill gap is negligible where RNG would then carry more weight.

If COH2 released in the state it is in now, I honestly think we would be sitting on 30-50,000 average users a day, the game is fun, frantic and challenging. What stops this from gaining popularity happening is now for the most part is most people on multiplayer are well established for the game so any new player venturing in is gonna have a rough go of it. Only now after I took a month break am I now starting to realise how this game should be played.

However while the last patch has now made the game stale/predictable in ways I'm not too sure if every other patch before hand eventually lead to same outcome but if it did then just how things go in gaming once the meta is mastered.

Point I'm trying to make is whoever is in charge of balancing etc, for the most part they have the right ideas. I know this would never happen due to how old the game is however ideally when you want a patch a game you want it in 3's


1st Patch - the big one with all the changes. (this patch only lasts a week)
2nd Patch - tweaking things that are OP or being abused/preferred/meta being samey than other counterparts
3rd patch - final tweak albeit small.

Other games are taking this approach and while this maybe too old in the tooth to have the time and resources ideally something like that is what you want.

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy your stay and keep up with quality posts like this.

the 3 step patch might be a good idea, if it wasn't for the fact that every time you change one thing in this game you create half dozen of bugs, so doing 3 patches in a short period will turn the game inside out

...

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy your stay and keep up with quality posts like this.

Indeed.

You are right that I didn't play at launch. I started playing 2015? 2016? Something like that. I also agree that you balance around 1v1 but that doesn't mean that it's a 1v1 game. As I've said. 2v2+ modes are much more fun and as such are played more. That's all you need to state that it's a team based game. While I agree with 90% of what you have said you are having a different perspective. While I cannot claim what was at launch and how things behaved (I do know about monetization and such) regarding factions, I can claim that the game now feels much more balanced for teamgames than it was 3 years ago.

Again. It's the same as i mentioned before. Any Super Smash game is considered by it's own head developer a party game. It doesn't mean it doesn't work as a competitive fighting game.
I'm saying that the game has design problems on team games because it's design first on a 1v1 basis and then it's scaled upwards to work up to 4v4 and not the other way round.

The whole reason the team game state is in a whole better state, is thanks to people like Sturmpanther who have a way much more important presence for those modes,been part of the group who takes decisions/give input on balance.

Guess when those things started to happen? Around March 2017, when the first batch of community tested balance patches started to happen.

I am not quite sure what you mean by that "wouldn't leave factions with 80,90 screwing modes...". What period? I don't quite follow, sorry.

The whole reason Axis have the mantra of "ez" modo for the bigger team game modes, is due to release state and OKW. UKF just pushed that thing upside down.

Let's say that outside of top 50/100 arranged teams, it was simple to easy and forgiving to play as Axis back in the days. You needed too much cheese and coordination to fight back. Things like Assault Support (strafe run + Opel Blitz) broke 3v3+.

Fast forward and small balance changes made things much fair until WFA release. It made things even worst. Because while USF 1v1 was dominating, it was the complete opposite for 2v2 with OKW. It was much braindead easier to play than OH, while mostly auto winning if you ever make it pass the 20 min mark. USF was a bad faction for 3v3+ (or at least for 95% of the playerbase due to micro constraints) which left the team games state in it's worst state ever.

Things changed up when at mid 2015 UKF was released. Suddenly it was the complete opposite and the whole excuse "it's not imbalanced, it's just that more people like Axis) flipped around. Stupid broken offmap and units which benefit from the teamgame environment made Allies EZ.

snip.

It's fine that you prefer "x" style of gameplay. What you are describing about "scale" feels way more what other titles like Steel Division tries to accomplish rather than COH.

I think a lot of ppl are overthinking idea of assymentrical balance and fun. You can look at insanly popular Age of Empires, which is old RTS from 1999 and it still has insane player base.

The main rule of a any successful RTS is when its fair for everybody, even if its assymentrical.

Steel division failed blantly because of this back in the day. Game was fun, but stupidly imbalanced towards air and some of the divisions.

Its just not fun when you have to be beaten for 10 minutes and later on you get a shotgun to shoot in the crotch the guy who beat you up earlier. At best it would be fun mixed with frustration, and worst just frustaration even if you've won.

Balance of coh2 right now shifting towards overall more fair environment, and it means some standatization and less flavor, let it be.

many words

Thanks for the detailed reply. I was under the assumption that the community balanced in the past year only. Time flies I guess.

I dunno, man. I just like my vehicle crits. Having an enemy tank round land next to your tank but miss it? Tracks could get thrown. Roll onto a mine? Damaged transmission. Balance wise, I think the game is in a good state now even if I disagree with the majority of the changes. I just like playing against the AI with unlimited heavy tanks and random vehicle crits. Makes things interesting, imo.

Ah well, we can't all get what we want. :/

So you claim to speak for the majority? On the basis of what?

Also, this has been said a million times, but you can't balance around suboptimal play. It's logically impossible. You can try to make to game most fun for casuals but you can't balance it for them.

And where do I claim that I speak for the majority of the community exactly?

My basis is my own experience and also what the Steam community is also showing, this was the case for both CoHs, not just this one and in general almost all RTS games.

They're just not meant for competitive game, especially CoH where there's a lot of RNG and unknowns going on, there is no such thing in Starcraft for example where everything is extremely predictable and set in stone, there's pretty much no variables in terms of maps, units, abilities and so forth.

And fair enough about balance but at the very least what you said fun is what games are supposed to bring you.

There are just too many things geared towards the 1% which is just dragging the game down for everyone else.

I mean you just can't make me believe that from the like what, around 10,000 people playing this game daily that most of them are playing competitive ranked 1v1 or 2v2 matches.

If so this game would probably be featured at E-sports regularly then like Starcraft is.

I think a lot of ppl are overthinking idea of assymentrical balance and fun. You can look at insanly popular Age of Empires, which is old RTS from 1999 and it still has insane player base.

The main rule of a any successful RTS is when its fair for everybody, even if its assymentrical.

Steel division failed blantly because of this back in the day. Game was fun, but stupidly imbalanced towards air and some of the divisions.

Its just not fun when you have to be beaten for 10 minutes and later on you get a shotgun to shoot in the crotch the guy who beat you up earlier. At best it would be fun mixed with frustration, and worst just frustaration even if you've won.

Balance of coh2 right now shifting towards overall more fair environment, and it means some standatization and less flavor, let it be.

I think it's time to make a separate mode a long time ago: call "E-sport" whatever you like. In which everything is completely removed so that it would be an absolutely sterile game. No RNG, no falling weapons or abandoned tanks, no blizzards or anything like that, no critical damage. Because people complain about it and want to remove it all. I am fine with all these factors and I want to play the game as it was originally built.

I think it's time to make a separate mode a long time ago: call "E-sport" whatever you like. In which everything is completely removed so that it would be an absolutely sterile game. No RNG, no falling weapons or abandoned tanks, no blizzards or anything like that, no critical damage. Because people complain about it and want to remove it all. I am fine with all these factors and I want to play the game as it was originally built.

Why you jump into this in a first place I dont get it. Its either "full no RNG e-sport" or "fun". As I was saying, playing with broken stuff isnt fun. Game can be fun and balanced at the same time, if for someone "fun" means playing with broken stuff, then its a bad model to follow in a first place.

And regarding RNG, there was a topic about it. RNG can follow two models, one being poker like predictable and readable RNG, and one can be pure dise rolling without any player efford involved.

For excample lets say we could have squad dropping weapons at any point during the fight or we can have it dropping only after half-squad is dead. First one being a dise roll, second one being a proper and balanced RNG.

In other words when RNG and mechanics done right, nothing stops it from existing alongside competitiveness.

On a side note I've also liked blizzards and deep snow/mud mechanics, but they were put in the game without proper thinking.

Look at Men of War, his numbers are unchanged from the start. Because it's a niche game. Company of Heroes is also a pretty niche game. His numbers are plus or minus on the same level as at the start, but there are a lot more Chinese players in the game right now. So people left, due to simplification and removal of mechanics. In their place, bring people who like simplified mechanics more.

Personally, I love older versions of the game without simplified mechanics and castration of the game. Yes, it was unbalanced, although this is a controversial statement, even now with all the simplifications and castrations, the balance wars do not subside. But the older versions are definitely funnier and more interesting.

I like the choice of words, CoH2 has been castrated.

Just because certain players vocalized their anger at losing, and the recent changes reflect these players not everyone else.

There are different players in CoH2:

* Mr. Kick-Butt: All he cares about is that he wins the game. If he loses then this is excuse for flaming on a new thread (Probably one of the most vocal in forum. He plays OST only and he must win always otherwise the game is unbalanced. He will flame if his Elefant got rammed and IL-2 bombed or if his army got Stuka Dive Bombed. I know there are many players who aren't like this and don't mind losing to meme abilities, like myself. Along with many others, idt I have ever complained about my ambulance + major getting Stuka'd because I know I abuse my own fair share of meme abilities. Most of the players always complaining about some other faction being OP fall into this category because they lost with their main faction. If he lost to OKW late game, then CoH 2 sucks and OKW is OP... have you ever considered that OKW is SUPPOSED to be better late game!? And that not everyone plays your main faction, you don't need to always win, and perhaps you just need to learn to play instead of blaming the faction.)

* Mr. Genre: This player will get upset if the game does not behave like other RTS games of this genre (you need to watch out for these players because they don't have COH2's uniqueness in mind. A lot of these may have already left early on though and nonexistant)

* Mr. MinMax: Generally the competitive players who attempt to exploit mechanics and stats and aware of all the stats of the game (Cruzz is a good example, Fortune, and many competitive esports players. I think I fall in here too as a meme ability abuser, sandbag ghoster etc.)

* Mr. Designer: These players want the game to be a different game and their opinions are based on this different version of the game they have in their heads (For Relic, these guys are not worth listening to too much as they have a different game in their mind, but sometimes consider their ideas... end of convo. I think these guys are responsible for changing CoH2 so much as they have a different more competitive castrated version of the game in their heads. They are thinking Starcraft-esque games that don't have much RNG and casual meme abilities. From the comments you are getting in this thread, I am 100% sure that there are folks here who totally did not like Relic's design direction for CoH2 during release, WFA release, and UKF release. They have a different game in their head and want to change the game to what they have in their head. And there are players who appreciate and love Relic's designs and want to play what Relic's idea of a game is --- and these guys are the majority of players in CoH2 that unfortunately are not very vocal. They are playing skirmish or the quiet players you don't see flaming on the forum always. Most players playing CoH2 don't complain about the game, neither are they super eager for balance patches. Like myself, I've always been more eager for content patches that added new commanders)

* Mr. History: Wehraboos, and history fans and players who really like the WW2 scene and weapons. They will get upset at things like unit scale and penetration of tanks which don't match reality. (You get a lot of these in CoH2. That's why realism mod is pretty popular)

* Mr. Bubble-boy: Upset at the game because of some one single bad experience like his Ober squad getting killed by a skill plane. (Also a lot of these in the forum. REMOVE SKILL PLANES! ... okay... what about the vast majority of players who don't mind skill planes killing half of his army every once in 200 games? Funniest moments ever were when this happened. You can owe a lot of COH2.ORG trending hot list to skill planes and demo charges)