radio silence change

I see the tacmap as an enlarged version of the minimap, they are one and the same thing. I personally can't indentify shit on the minimap, it lacks clear contrast (compared to other RTS like WC3 or SC2 where I happily use it) so I'm happy with using the tacmap since 2013. Playing like this is kinda hardcoded into my brain whenever I boot CoH2, so when I see you casually suggest adapting another so called playstyle for the only 4th wallbreaking ability in the game, it made me chuckle. WFA Radio Silence was released in 2015 but always remained a sleeper ability up until now.

If I have to invest another rougly 5k hours into the game again to become as comfortable with the minimap (instead of tacmap) then I'd say this is not a worthwhile investment and I'd rather stay away from CoH2.

You could even argue that Minimap/Tacmap are completely indispensable in order to play at the highest level. This assumption could easily be based on pretty much any other RTS where people have actually gotten close to the skill cap. The only reason there's some A-tier players not using Tac-/Minimap in coh2 is that the playerbase has yet to come close to reaching the skil ceiling. So if the playerbase continues to improve at one point everybody will have to completely change up their mechanical play when facing this one commander.

Hang back / retreat / play safe during the 30-60s it's active, then have at least another 5 minutes to play regularly. Similar to strafes or other global buff abilities.

I'm against removing or heavily adjusting a totally unique ability. In my opinion the game should have (had) more psychological warfare abilities, not fewer. It makes the game more exciting when players can choose to use indirect abilities rather than just brute force.

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. But why impose this mentality on the game for one ability? It's the only ability of its kind and completely inconsistent with the rest of coh2s design and RTS design in general. And btw it's actually the most brute force ability in the game. It mostly leads to a giant inf blob overrunning one player.

Also reminder that no one ever used it before it got the movement bonus.

Complete non-argument. There's countless mechanics in coh2 that are meta today but weren't used in their current state for years. (tactical smoke had to be explained on stream by PQ and instantly went from meme to meta, proper sandbag usage took ages to emerge, as did trip wire flares)

My 2 cent about the this topic:

If the huge majority of the high level players who play for money are pissed of by RS then the discussion is already over, isn't it? I mean I support Sander's position here but I dont think it's worth to frighten away the best players this game have because of one dispensable ability, right?

That being said it's one thing to remove the ability and another one to rework this commander so SO can stay potent and interesting.

Sadly there is almost zero feedback from high level players in the rework commander threads. Of course I dont know what is discussed in your discord channels but I certainly miss your posts and feedback here.

Do you have the obligation to post on this stuff because you are an high level player?
Absolutely not. And its completely alright to "just" play the game without posting and thinking about improvements.

But I would really like to encourage you to post in these kind of threads because your feedback is interesting and the threads would matter a lot more.
There are several high level players who contributed big time with making maps.
It would be great if you would turn your anger about RS in suggestions to improve the commander pool.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/107341/smartie-s-commander-reworks-usf
https://www.coh2.org/topic/107343/smartie-s-commander-reworks-okw
https://www.coh2.org/topic/107342/smartie-s-commander-reworks-soviets
https://www.coh2.org/topic/101020/6-changes-to-improve-wehrmacht-commanders-thematically
Feel free to create a UK commander thread!

Thx in advance,
Smartie

Also reminder that no one ever used it before it got the movement bonus.

Because most players don't use the minimap and barely use the tactical map. Specially when most people play teamgames, modes on which the minimap is practically useless as it's too clogged with icons.

It has always been a niche ability that only worked when used by good players against good players. This kind of abilities only becomes relevant and in the focus of the community when metas don't revolve around the strength of specific doctrinal infantry/vehicles.

Example: something simil happened with radio intercept, when it passively let you know the location of mines deployed by the enemy when pressing space bar.



There's a sad reality that some things should NEVER BE META VIABLE outside of trolling games.

Radio silence is one of them. B4, old signal relay, Partisans map hack, goliaths, etc.

NO ONE CARED about radio silence before and it's fine. Because it doesn't provide such a compelling use for the one using it and it's extremely frustrating for the one in the opposite side.

...

Suggestions/feedback have been given directly to the mod team, now and in the past.


The reason most top level players don't want to discuss in the forums has been given time and time again. Cause we follow a politic of allowing anyone to provide their own feedback regardless of how poor it is, it feels pointless trying to engage in any kind of discussion when the view points are completely different and you don't receive an answer with the same kind of though and effort behind it.

Even asking the minimum of showing a playercard has been deemed as too elitist and gatekeeping.

Suggestions/feedback have been given directly to the mod team, now and in the past.


The reason most top level players don't want to discuss in the forums has been given time and time again. Cause we follow a politic of allowing anyone to provide their own feedback regardless of how poor it is, it feels pointless trying to engage in any kind of discussion when the view points are completely different and you don't receive an answer with the same kind of though and effort behind it.

Even asking the minimum of showing a playercard has been deemed as too elitist and gatekeeping.

Are sure it is that and not the trolling that goes around?

Are sure it is that and not the trolling that goes around?

I'm sure. Same reason why we have lost so many strategist throughout the years and why there's have always been a different forum/discord/steam group for a smaller group of players to discuss balance changes.

Reddit tends to have a circlejerck/mindhive problem but the voting system at least filters the discussion in one direction, even though the platform itself is not good for prolonged discussion. Not sure how it could be implemented but the forum needs some simil function.

I'm sure. Same reason why we have lost so many strategist throughout the years and why there's have always been a different forum/discord/steam group for a smaller group of players to discuss balance changes.

Reddit tends to have a circlejerck/mindhive problem but the voting system at least filters the discussion in one direction, even though the platform itself is not good for prolonged discussion. Not sure how it could be implemented but the forum needs some simil function.

tbh, the coh2 subreddit is an absolute shithole. Pure echo chamber of scrubs. coh2.org is much better.

Suggestions/feedback have been given directly to the mod team, now and in the past.


The reason most top level players don't want to discuss in the forums has been given time and time again. Cause we follow a politic of allowing anyone to provide their own feedback regardless of how poor it is, it feels pointless trying to engage in any kind of discussion when the view points are completely different and you don't receive an answer with the same kind of though and effort behind it.

Even asking the minimum of showing a playercard has been deemed as too elitist and gatekeeping.

Playercard will just lead to ad hominem. Oh you are rank 500 and im rank 100 so my points are more valid. And i dont see why a rank 2000 4vs4 player cant come up with good points, if they use competitive play and statistics.

About radio silence:
The first step would be to nerf some minor things like cooldown, uptime and cost. Afterwards you can assert if this was enough or if you have to completely change/remove the mechanic itself with the upcoming balance patch.

tbh, the coh2 subreddit is an absolute shithole. Pure echo chamber of scrubs. coh2.org is much better.

That's the problem with the community. I would love to see an hybrid system, keeping the functionalities of the forums while having a voting system that highlights the "hottest" comments in a thread based in votes and timeframe.

Playercard will just lead to ad hominem. Oh you are rank 500 and im rank 100 so my points are more valid. And i dont see why a rank 2000 4vs4 player cant come up with good points, if they use competitive play and statistics.

About radio silence:
The first step would be to nerf some minor things like cooldown, uptime and cost. Afterwards you can assert if this was enough or if you have to completely change/remove the mechanic itself with the upcoming balance patch.

If there's a will, ad hominem can be moderated. It's WAY MORE LIKELY that someone who is high ranked UNDERSTANDS the game that someone who is low ranked. This is not SC2 or CS:GO where you need high levels of physical input in order to perform well.
The same points you bring now has been brought in the past. This "fear" of hurting people's ego and gatekeeping is why you don't have quality discussions been done. You need some kind of filter so you have a more selected discussion been done while keeping it public so people can see. At the same time you give the space in the same forum but another sub section so everyone can discuss freely.

That's the problem with the community. I would love to see an hybrid system, keeping the functionalities of the forums while having a voting system that highlights the "hottest" comments in a thread based in votes and timeframe.



If there's a will, ad hominem can be moderated. It's WAY MORE LIKELY that someone who is high ranked UNDERSTANDS the game that someone who is low ranked. This is not SC2 or CS:GO where you need high levels of physical input in order to perform well.
The same points you bring now has been brought in the past. This "fear" of hurting people's ego and gatekeeping is why you don't have quality discussions been done. You need some kind of filter so you have a more selected discussion been done while keeping it public so people can see. At the same time you give the space in the same forum but another sub section so everyone can discuss freely.

Well we have already seen top player that even play in tournaments lack basic knowledge of the game mechanics because basically you do not need to know the mechanics of how things work and know the end result is enough.

That's the problem with the community. I would love to see an hybrid system, keeping the functionalities of the forums while having a voting system that highlights the "hottest" comments in a thread based in votes and timeframe.



If there's a will, ad hominem can be moderated. It's WAY MORE LIKELY that someone who is high ranked UNDERSTANDS the game that someone who is low ranked. This is not SC2 or CS:GO where you need high levels of physical input in order to perform well.
The same points you bring now has been brought in the past. This "fear" of hurting people's ego and gatekeeping is why you don't have quality discussions been done. You need some kind of filter so you have a more selected discussion been done while keeping it public so people can see. At the same time you give the space in the same forum but another sub section so everyone can discuss freely.

You could do the same AskHistorians does on Reddit. Create a solid rule set for discussions and ban/purge everyone who doesnt follow these rules.

There may be a correlation between rank and game knowledge, but there is no causality. Its not like high rank=good balance suggestion, lower rank=worse suggestion, lowest rank=trash suggestion. So its completely worthless to sort people by rank.

I'm sure. Same reason why we have lost so many strategist throughout the years and why there's have always been a different forum/discord/steam group for a smaller group of players to discuss balance changes.

Reddit tends to have a circlejerck/mindhive problem but the voting system at least filters the discussion in one direction, even though the platform itself is not good for prolonged discussion. Not sure how it could be implemented but the forum needs some simil function.

Voting systems invariably cause circlejerks. I don't think implementing anything like that will be a positive change at all.

In any case; consensus doesn't necessarily form around the "Correct" opinion.

That's the problem with the community. I would love to see an hybrid system, keeping the functionalities of the forums while having a voting system that highlights the "hottest" comments in a thread based in votes and timeframe.



If there's a will, ad hominem can be moderated. It's WAY MORE LIKELY that someone who is high ranked UNDERSTANDS the game that someone who is low ranked. This is not SC2 or CS:GO where you need high levels of physical input in order to perform well.
The same points you bring now has been brought in the past. This "fear" of hurting people's ego and gatekeeping is why you don't have quality discussions been done. You need some kind of filter so you have a more selected discussion been done while keeping it public so people can see. At the same time you give the space in the same forum but another sub section so everyone can discuss freely.

A "good" player knows how to play the game, and use information within the framework of a match. It doesn't necessarily mean they're more capable of balancing the game, unfortunately.

You could do the same AskHistorians does on Reddit. Create a solid rule set for discussions and ban/purge everyone who doesnt follow these rules.

There may be a correlation between rank and game knowledge, but there is no causality. Its not like high rank=good balance suggestion, lower rank=worse suggestion, lowest rank=trash suggestion. So its completely worthless to sort people by rank.

+1000

Sadly this "show me your player card" argument still comes up.
Maybe they should read what the legendary Milan manager Arrigo Sacci said when journalists asked him if he could coach although he was no good player:
You don't have to be a horse to be a jockey."

+1000

Sadly this "show me your player card" argument still comes up.
Maybe they should read what the legendary Milan manager Arrigo Sacci said when journalists asked him if he could coach although he was no good player:
You don't have to be a horse to be a jockey."

A "good" player knows how to play the game, and use information within the framework of a match. It doesn't necessarily mean they're more capable of balancing the game, unfortunately.

It's not about balancing the game but providing quality feedback. It's more likely that the high ranked player knows WHY he is losing and what's good and bad during a meta vs the really low ranked players who is still struggling to use the basic units.
It's all about reducing the amount of "white noise".

Going by that analogy, do you want to discuss football team strategy with the drunk guy in the bar or the ex professional player.
Execution, knowledge and analysis are all different skill sets. But if i have to pick a sample size of people to discuss a topic with, i'll rather have the highest % of having decent feedback if we are been pragmatic.

You could do the same AskHistorians does on Reddit. Create a solid rule set for discussions and ban/purge everyone who doesnt follow these rules.

There may be a correlation between rank and game knowledge, but there is no causality. Its not like high rank=good balance suggestion, lower rank=worse suggestion, lowest rank=trash suggestion. So its completely worthless to sort people by rank.

This has been discussed. Too late for this forum unless many users poke red/black/oranges and ask for a change to be applied.

There's no correlation but it's a matter of been pragmatic. Would you rather pick 100 persons from the top200 to provide feedback or the top4000.

At the end of the day rank is only a simple filter to know what kind of gameplay experience the user has. Same as which faction or mode he plays.

Well we have already seen top player that even play in tournaments lack basic knowledge of the game mechanics because basically you do not need to know the mechanics of how things work and know the end result is enough.

Still the feedback they can provide is infinitely more useful. They don't need to know the solution to the problem, rather than identifying or presenting it.

....
Still the feedback they can provide is infinitely more useful. They don't need to know the solution to the problem, rather than identifying or presenting it.

I seriously doubt that, since most of the feedback by players including top one has to do with meta units and abilities.

People who make MODs can provide a extremely useful feedback and identify issue easier. Each approach is better at certain areas and none is completely superior to other.

It's not about balancing the game but providing quality feedback. It's more likely that the high ranked player knows WHY he is losing and what's good and bad during a meta vs the really low ranked players who is still struggling to use the basic units.
It's all about reducing the amount of "white noise".

Going by that analogy, do you want to discuss football team strategy with the drunk guy in the bar or the ex professional player.
Execution, knowledge and analysis are all different skill sets. But if i have to pick a sample size of people to discuss a topic with, i'll rather have the highest % of having decent feedback if we are been pragmatic.



This has been discussed. Too late for this forum unless many users poke red/black/oranges and ask for a change to be applied.

There's no correlation but it's a matter of been pragmatic. Would you rather pick 100 persons from the top200 to provide feedback or the top4000.

At the end of the day rank is only a simple filter to know what kind of gameplay experience the user has. Same as which faction or mode he plays.



Still the feedback they can provide is infinitely more useful. They don't need to know the solution to the problem, rather than identifying or presenting it.

Here's the thing, I wouldnt want to talk Football Team Strategy with a Footballer either, I'd want to talk to the Coach/manager. It's the same as a professional player; They're good at playing, but not necessarily strategy (Or in the case of a videogame: Balance).

EDIT: Though, of course, what the "good" players have to say regarding which units/strategies are strong is another matter. This is useful information, but it takes other minds to parse that into an useful set of changes to be made for the game.

I seriously doubt that, since most of the feedback by players including top one has to do with meta units and abilities.

People who make MODs can provide a extremely useful feedback and identify issue easier. Each approach is better at certain areas and none is completely superior to other.

Absolutely, but that's the extreme minority. People can have different opinions about what is the best solution/approach but i don't think anyone can discuss that people like Sanders or MrSmith know about the game.

I think at this point we are only discussing about the existence of exceptions rather than the sheer effectiveness of a generalisation.

Here's the thing, I wouldnt want to talk Football Team Strategy with a Footballer either, I'd want to talk to the Coach/manager. It's the same as a professional player; They're good at playing, but not necessarily strategy (Or in the case of a videogame: Balance).

EDIT: Though, of course, what the "good" players have to say regarding which units/strategies are strong is another matter. This is useful information, but it takes other minds to parse that into an useful set of changes to be made for the game.

Guess what the big majority of coach manager were before becoming one? I'm sure in the last 50 years only 1 or 2 at most DT winning the World Cup have not been ex football players before.


I'll say people are starting to confuse knowing HOW TO BALANCE vs providing feedback.

I would say COH2 is one of the few if not maybe the only competitive PvP game which takes so much into consideration the feedback from so many different sources and levels. Probable a sign of lacking a lead game designer.

Before abandoning this thread as the discussion seems to be going circular i'll repeat what i tried to explain before.


Someone asked why don't we have more top players providing feedback or commenting in the forum.

I answered to that and i'll repeat that it's not worth the effort to do so unless you curate it so much that only a reduced number of people can comment and discuss in a topic.

Which is why there had always existed private channels of communication to do so or they opt to do it in their own channels (twitch, youtube)