The negative user reviews are infuriating

Making both 3vs3 and 4vs4 was a mistake. There will not be a playerbase for both queues, neither the map pool. Just... unsatisfactory matchmaking and map pool.

Yes, drop 3v3 and let the folks who enjoy small gamemodes filter into 1v1 and 2v2.

Here is an old but interesting article about the most common misconceptions,

https://kotaku.com/10-big-myths-about-games-debunked-by-the-people-who-ma-1737839268

The premise of the article is interesting, but yeah, its Kotaku. It's a stretch to even call the people who write for them 'Games Journalists' and i don't say that lightly, its an extremely low bar these days.

Classic Kotaku 'quality'. Making up "misconceptions" that only idiots seriously claim, then declaring them as common to fake some novelty to the news and supporting all of this by a shitty text.

As ex-dev(designer to be specific), yeah, and its missing largest misconception ever since steam chart exists.

Daily concurrency =! active players.
Daily concurrency is just that, how many players logged into the game at specific day and how was the peak.
Real metric of player activity is being measured at weekly and monthly retention, because only and exclusively the most hardcore of players play the exact same game on a daily basis.

Daily concurrency dropoff in 2 months post release is normal, anything higher then 90% is "ded gaem", anything between 90 and 70% is regular drop and if daily concurrency retains more then 30% after two months, its jackpot only a handful of games can show.

Bigger indicator then daily peaks is how many players come online during time when new content patches are deployed, because both hardcore and casual, less frequently playing players want to check them out within first couple of days of release and even that is not always true, hence MAU chart, which we have no access to what so ever is the only accurate one for estimating active playerbase.

As ex-dev(designer to be specific), yeah, and its missing largest misconception ever since steam chart exists.
...

Good post!

As ex-dev(designer to be specific), yeah, and its missing largest misconception ever since steam chart exists.

Daily concurrency =! active players.
Daily concurrency is just that, how many players logged into the game at specific day and how was the peak.
Real metric of player activity is being measured at weekly and monthly retention, because only and exclusively the most hardcore of players play the exact same game on a daily basis.

Daily concurrency dropoff in 2 months post release is normal, anything higher then 90% is "ded gaem", anything between 90 and 70% is regular drop and if daily concurrency retains more then 30% after two months, its jackpot only a handful of games can show.

Bigger indicator then daily peaks is how many players come online during time when new content patches are deployed, because both hardcore and casual, less frequently playing players want to check them out within first couple of days of release and even that is not always true, hence MAU chart, which we have no access to what so ever is the only accurate one for estimating active playerbase.

Yes, I definitely agree.

In lack of other metrics, we have no other option than to take concurrent player numbers as our proxy for CoH3's health. Which is a fair assessment, bad games drop down more quickly and heavily than good ones.

Many of the issues you mention should also be partially corrected for by the comparison to CoH2 that I did, assuming both games have a similar audience and similar design, which they do. With all the caveats, CoH3 appears to be doing worse than CoH2 at launch, and CoH2's launch has been described as pretty bad overall.

This concerns me for CoH3, especially because Relic does not signal well enough what needs to be prioritized.

As ex-dev(designer to be specific), yeah, and its missing largest misconception ever since steam chart exists.

Daily concurrency =! active players.
Daily concurrency is just that, how many players logged into the game at specific day and how was the peak.
Real metric of player activity is being measured at weekly and monthly retention, because only and exclusively the most hardcore of players play the exact same game on a daily basis.

Daily concurrency dropoff in 2 months post release is normal, anything higher then 90% is "ded gaem", anything between 90 and 70% is regular drop and if daily concurrency retains more then 30% after two months, its jackpot only a handful of games can show.

Bigger indicator then daily peaks is how many players come online during time when new content patches are deployed, because both hardcore and casual, less frequently playing players want to check them out within first couple of days of release and even that is not always true, hence MAU chart, which we have no access to what so ever is the only accurate one for estimating active playerbase.

None of your post means jack shit to someone who is currently in queue looking for a game. This game is dead. No matter how you spin it or try to cope. It is dead. Relic failed. Again. As predicted.

Matching current Coh2 numbers is NOT a success. You are all left to garbage match making again. Coh3 is just a Coh2 turd with some water sprinkled on it to make it seem fresh.

In 6 months or a year, there may be more players. But will it be the number of players there could have been if this release was not a complete joke?

None of your post means jack shit to someone who is currently in queue looking for a game. This game is dead. No matter how you spin it or try to cope. It is dead. Relic failed. Again. As predicted.

Matching current Coh2 numbers is NOT a success. You are all left to garbage match making again. Coh3 is just a Coh2 turd with some water sprinkled on it to make it seem fresh.

In 6 months or a year, there may be more players. But will it be the number of players there could have been if this release was not a complete joke?

Play allies for instant ques.
It was the same in CoH1 as well as in CoH2.
Axis is more popular and there are no mirror matches, put two and two together and you'll see why you wait 5+ minutes for a game.

Play allies for instant ques.
It was the same in CoH1 as well as in CoH2.
Axis is more popular and there are no mirror matches, put two and two together and you'll see why you wait 5+ minutes for a game.

Nice try. I will give you points for this feeble attempt at countering my argument. Once again the hard copers are clinging to the past. But But muh Coh1 and muh Coh2 was bad too....


Less players = Longer Queues and Garbage Matchups.

Relic sucks balls. Check Mate. Mic Drop. Game Over.

Play allies for instant ques.

Yep

Nice try. I will give you points for this feeble attempt at countering my argument. Once again the hard copers are clinging to the past. But But muh Coh1 and muh Coh2 was bad too....


Less players = Longer Queues and Garbage Matchups.

Relic sucks balls. Check Mate. Mic Drop. Game Over.

It really does not matter if there are 100 or 100000 players online, when vast majority picks one side over another, you WILL wait regardless how you cope with it if you refuse to pick the underpopulated side.

Its like this since WoW battlegrounds.

It really does not matter if there are 100 or 100000 players online, when vast majority picks one side over another, you WILL wait regardless how you cope with it if you refuse to pick the underpopulated side.

Its like this since WoW battlegrounds.

I had two games in my CoH2 4vs4 history where the Allies players managed to sneak into the Axis matchmaking.

Good memories.

But this issue is not unique to CoH. It has some solutions, such as incentivizing players to queue up as the "lower" popularity role or side. CoH has nothing special to give as far as rewards go now, but if going by CoH2: it should give supply coins or whatever currency CoH3 is going to have. Whatever the threshold is for the "imbalance", it simply activates the queue-up incentives.

Relic just needs to modernize and adopt so many features/tricks/tools that are standard in gaming today, and they do make a difference when deployed.

+ I would welcome a "All Factions" queue-up. At some point you just want to play the game, late nights 4vs4, and then all factions go. Needs some tuning in the XP/Rankings to allow me to queue up as both Rank 10 USF and Rank 20 UKF for different MMR tiers, but it is all doable. This issue isn't going to solve itself out: the faster you deploy these features - the better the experience going to be.

The previous two COH games informed the user while you were waiting in queue how many people were matchmaking to play Allies vs matching to play Axis. I wish they would bring back this indicator because I'm sure there are many people like me that don't have a strong preference and would voluntarily switch if they knew what was actually happening. Also, yes, put a random faction option.

The previous two COH games informed the user while you were waiting in queue how many people were matchmaking to play Allies vs matching to play Axis. I wish they would bring back this indicator because I'm sure there are many people like me that don't have a strong preference and would voluntarily switch if they knew what was actually happening. Also, yes, put a random faction option.

CoH1 did not, not before it landed on steam on maintenance mode at least, CoH2 did not for years after release.

Yeah, but they both have it currently and COH3 would also benefit from it for the same reason.

CoH1 did not, not before it landed on steam on maintenance mode at least, CoH2 did not for years after release.

who cares, it's 2023 and with two games already behind us (not counting CoH O), this should be a stock feature

who cares, it's 2023 and with two games already behind us (not counting CoH O), this should be a stock feature

It will be when the multiplayer layer is release. Coh3 is a single player game with some extra multiplayer content atm. Relic stated it before launch.

It will be when the multiplayer layer is release. Coh3 is a single player game with some extra multiplayer content atm. Relic stated it before launch.

I dont know how to break it to ya bud, but it does not say shit anywhere on the Steam page for Coh3 that it will be wet swamp ass for multiplayer and its focus is single player.

To go back to the OP, you know what is infuriating? Watching relic crap out a turd and watching people who I thought were intelligent eat it whole and beg for more.

Hey Putin, let the nukes fly baby there is no one left on this planet worth saving. Just a bunch of candy ass schill mongs getting passed around like a hoor in heat.





C'mon that was pretty funny. Lets see what next week brings.

It will be when the multiplayer layer is release. Coh3 is a single player game with some extra multiplayer content atm. Relic stated it before launch.

Really? I never got that message. I only started really paying attention maybe two weeks before release and never got that impression.

Really? I never got that message. I only started really paying attention maybe two weeks before release and never got that impression.

I've never been watching their stream but I caught the information around multiplayer test period. They said they would be doing what they're actually doing.

If you look at the big picture, 90% of the player base is solo players that do the campaign and stop playing once done. They are the targeted audience at the moment. From a financial perspective Relic needs to hook them up so they later buy each extension full price when they come out.

Multiplayer is a niche area of the game. It's important for us multiplayer gamers but we're not generating enough revenue to pay for the development of the game. We serve as marketing for Relic, so new players don't feel they are buying a dead game, so there is a community and some events that keep the game alive.

Just look at the numbers, we bought the same game as solo players and we're playing the game on daily base since 2 months unlike solo players who already left it and the result of it isn't more revenue for Relic. More sale = more revenue, there is no way a cosmetic shop can generate the same amount of money AT THE MOMENT unless going the forbidden pay-to-win way. So it is understandable that from a financial perspective Relic focus in on selling the game, not building a multiplayer community

So Relic, as they said, will release the multiplayer layers later, probably after/around Console Release.

So now the other question is do we need all those multiplayer things right now? Imo we don't need all of them at the moment seeing how the game is imbalanced.
1- Do we need a proper ladder? Only to see people just abusing the shit out everything imbalanced they can to get on top? Imo no.
2- Do we need replays? Yes and somehow we have it already but on that point I agree with everyone here, that should have been a day1 feature.
3- Do we need cosmetics and badges? Imo no, those are insensitive to play multiplayer and their finality would probably be degraded by the fact the game isn't balanced (see 1-).

Until we don't have a correct multiplayer balance, talking about ladders and other stuff is pointless because balance is the core element of multiplayer.

Here's the thing though - you can say that was Relic's strategy, and the pre-release material will definitely support that. Question really is, was it a good strategy? Most people here are operating in a relative bubble in that most people they'll be interacting with regarding this game are, or have been, diehard Company of Heroes fans. The 90% of players who don't touch multiplayer may as well be some mythical lost tribe - they are so far from here that people treat them almost as an elemental force. But I happen to know a few casual RTS players, the kind who Relic's pre-release marketing was designed for and, indeed, drew in somewhat. I made sure not to colour their opinions so I'd get something of a litmus test as to how the game is being perceived outside of our little bubble.

In short? It's not good. Banking on single player is one thing, but the way Relic did it has almost irrepairably harmed public perception of the series. When you combine pie-in-the-sky pre-release media that hypes a dynamic, exciting and replayable campaign and then launch with a boring slog with absent or barely-functional features that took centre stage in advertising, the result is that the people who weren't lured in day one were treated to the aftermath of an abject failure of a launch. These people don't expect much from a single-player RTS - a functional scripted campaign with a bland, bargain-bin novel story is enough for most. Promising the world and then delivering less than the bare minimum expected has lead to the point where this fabled 90% just straight-up don't care about the game. The fact that some these things have been fixed isn't going to bring that section of the paying public back. Relying on single-player casuals to fund the future of this game was a gamble that Relic lost - user reviews are on the downswing again and player population will continue to shrink as well.

Most of this, I think, also comes down to Relic's approach post-release. Most of the glaringly-visible issues with the game that surface-level players care about are still there (bad UI, etc.), and moreover their tone has been smarmy. Darktide provides a good comparison here - Fatshark issued a straight-up apology for the state of the game and have been working pretty hard to fix the core complaints, to some success, as Darktide's review scores are climbing. Relic's announcement comes off more as boilerplate corporate bullshit where everything's fine and the game launched great and thank you all for your VALUABLE CRITICISMS, etc. It's a huge joke and don't think the paying public at large don't see it that way. Most people don't have the attachment to the series people here do - they're more than willing to laugh at it, and take their money elsewhere.