At the end the modding team didn’t balance the game.

Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2022, 12:36 PMBasedSecretary

Again with that bullshit.

Take the last patch for ST: they added 1cp to its reqs, some fuel and removed its ability to self repair and throw grens at the same time. I also think they removed like 5 vision. They did NOTHING to the base stats YET you claim it dominated the game BEFORE THE LAST PATCH.

It's absurd, and a placebo. Unless you think allies can get a TD in the 3 extra minutes that OKW players now need more to get it.

Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2022, 12:36 PMBasedSecretary

Again with that bullshit.

Take the last patch for ST: they added 1cp to its reqs, some fuel and removed its ability to self repair and throw grens at the same time. I also think they removed like 5 vision. They did NOTHING to the base stats YET you claim it dominated the game BEFORE THE LAST PATCH.

Jump back to quoted post7 Mar 2022, 08:17 AMApplejack

Unpopular opinion: I enjoyed this game more when Relic balanced the game rather than the community balance team.

That being said however, I would have still rathered the community balance team take over than the game being abandoned like Dawn of War 2.

The community balance patches kept the game fresh but I felt they were without vision and full of compromises which made the game worse. Relic patches felt more of a league of legends styled balancing. Units that were previously unused got buffed leading to a new meta. Units overused got nerfed.

A lot of the community changes felt very Axis favoured too. Removing IL-2 from some popular commanders without adding it to any others nerfed Soviets pretty hard. Meanwhile the replacement change on the elefant was OP as all heck and much better than the one it replaced while the Soviet one was useless. This persisted through an entire patch. No hotfixes to nerf it. Prototype changes happening on Axis before hitting Allies was a huge bummer too. Allied armies had to wait another patch before prototype changes applied to their armies. Like Half-Track healing and Sturmtiger buff.

Some of the innocuous changes seemed to favour Axis more rather than Allies. Like MG squad members branching out for vision. Axis has better MGs so this benefits them more. MG retreat no longer deathlooping is not equal either. MG34/42 and Vickers will teleport to random members instead of having a member having to go pick it up. This makes it hard to chase when its retreating especially when one retreating squad member is ahead of the rest, the MG will teleport to them. Maxim and M2HB though? The one carrying the MG will always run in a very predictable line, very easy to focus fire and block. Speaking of Maxim, its expensive garbage because of the community balance team.

Overall, team games was a lot more fun back then than it is now. I wish Relic would revert all the community balance changes and go back to the last Relic patch.

My form of protest: Don't support any 1v1 content. Don't watch it on Youtube, don't talk about it, don't share it, don't sub to those Youtubers. That's what I do to protest. 1v1s balancing ruined team games. This game doesn't need an esports scene, just balance it to keep it fresh instead of boring as it is now.

Sure the game might have more players now than before but that was because they gave the game away for free a couple times.

Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2022, 03:46 AMy3ivan

basicly removing the unique asymmetrical between factions and basicly made clones of each factions just for the sake of E-sport balance.

classic example of changes i dont agree on are soviet sniper and wehr sniper 2014 vs 2019

instead of putting effort in learning, lets copy and paste it for all factions

Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2022, 12:00 PMKatukov

unrelated, but did the wehr sniper have anything going for it against the sniper teams that the soviets had



it fired faster, but it could hardly take out BOTH sniper models

Jump back to quoted post2 Apr 2022, 14:42 PMDerKuhlmann

I just miss all the synergy that was between factions
Like dropping mg42 to my okw friend that equips it with fallschrimjaegers
Or dropping vickers to my penal friends.

Also a lot was nerfed, like ostheer sniper incindiary shot not taking 6 seconds to fire, so you snipe the retreating squad.

Jump back to quoted post11 Apr 2022, 11:36 AMBizrock

Balance is very map oriented, nowadays almost all maps favors long range engagement, change the Map pool to more medium/short range engagements and will see a lot of topics about how shocks/assaultsomething is op.
A balanced map should have one side of long range, and the other side with short range, something like that

• As you said, more enviroment change. Ideally, the only open areas would be each side's fuels and munis so that they can be covered my a single MG/Bunker to allow the player's economy to run smoothly and invading it becomes a risk factor.
  
• Bringing back the manpower points, since they can act as a leverage against campers by cutting them not only supply, but men as well. Thus you accomplish two things, remove campers from the game and also make keeping every area count for the wider picture since that if you don't, you will lose your ability to replenish troops.
  
• Remove the maps with single chokepoints that players so freely choose to camp on. It's not only an idiotic gamble, it's also a huge drain on the normal flow of gameplay. I almost feel orgasmic when an enemy chokes my cutoff and then I go Close the Pocket on his meager forces comprising of MGs and Mortars only. That's stupid.
  
  

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2022, 15:18 PMnigo

+10000000

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2022, 21:41 PMGrim

yeah I hope they start afresh in regards to a balance team for CoH3.

Jump back to quoted post7 Mar 2022, 08:17 AMApplejack

My form of protest: Don't support any 1v1 content. Don't watch it on Youtube, don't talk about it, don't share it, don't sub to those Youtubers. That's what I do to protest. 1v1s balancing ruined team games. This game doesn't need an esports scene, just balance it to keep it fresh instead of boring as it is now.

The accepted wisdom is that MOBAs badly hurt the RTS competitive scene with their accessibility, team-based play, etc. Was there anything StarCraft 2 could have done to retain its initial momentum?

Ryan Schutter, Designer: Let me preface my answer to this by saying I was not a developer on StarCraft 2 at the time. I was just a player, modder, and fan in a totally different career so this is from my perspective outside of Blizzard and the StarCraft 2 team.

Besides the popularity of MOBAs, the rise of the free-to-play model came about at the same time. I think both had an impact on the perception of StarCraft 2 and its success at the time. But I think that was where the real harm was done, the perception, not the reality. I think StarCraft 2 remained fairly consistent overall, and that MOBAs actually really did a lot not just attracting RTS players, or existing players in general, but also bringing in new players who had not played too many competitive video games at all.

StarCraft 2 continued to chug along with a huge playerbase, and tons of support from Blizzard. As you mentioned, perhaps momentum was impacted, but I think StarCraft 2, and in particular the feeling of mechanical skill requirement hanging over its competitive multiplayer, and the mentality that hardcore 1v1 ladder was the "correct" way to play the game, was always going to have less broad appeal than something like a MOBA. The "ladder anxiety" people feel playing the game is very real as well, and I think playing a team game relieves a lot of that pressure regardless of whether it is a MOBA or something else.

I think if back then StarCraft 2 had something like its Co-op Missions mode that it has now, or perhaps something even more robust, it would have gone a long way to feel like a more welcoming and accessible game. I believe that could have had a real impact, but we'll never know for sure. At the end of the day I think if StarCraft 2 was not the game that it is, there would be a huge hole in competitive games in general. I think a competitive 1v1 game like StarCraft 2 has its own kind of players and following, and I am so proud of what the game is for that community.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2022, 22:59 PMSturmtigerCobra

I hear you. The trouble is a vocal minority (usual competitive players) gets more attention.
This happens to the detriment of CoHs financial success and casuals leaving the game.

Hardcore 1vs1 players simply do not make RTS financially successful. In short, casual/average players make the RTS money.

CoH teamplay is far superior to Starcraft 2.
SC 2 devs have been pretty transparent in interviews about their mistakes to focus solely on 1vs1. The info is out there for those who do the research.
Personally, I enjoy 1vs1 tournaments but I also recognize it's kinda a dying dinosaur outside Starcraft.

Silver lining?
A wise man said; an error does not become a mistake until one refuse to correct it. With that in mind, perhaps there is still hope for CoH3.

StarCraft 2's Rollercoaster Decade, As Remembered By Its Developers;
https://www.usgamer.net/articles/starcraft-2-anniversary-interview-blizzard