You underestimate how subjective presentation is. You're saying CoH2 looks good to this day but the complaints people have about CoH3 are extremely similar to what people were saying about CoH2. Bad contrasts, cartoony, ugly UI. People have an extremely strong bias towards what they are used to.
Edit: And you were saying that conparing the technical state of the games comes down to preference. That's what I was referring to mostly. CoH3 has good playability. The game just works. It may not be very good atm but at least it's not dysfunctional like CoH2.
Most people agree that graphics are a direct downgrade from Coh3, presentation/artstyle is subjective yes, but when majority of the players say the game looks poop - it is poop by consumer base.
And please show me where Coh2 had bad contrast, cartoony graphics. UI was okayish, it fit the style of the game but could have been improved (especially the minimap)
And to your other point: Coh2 was never dysfunctional, frustrating to play in the beginning? Yes, it was messy.
Coh3 on the other hand is littered with bugs, unfinished animations, bad UI (even in main menu). It is in a playable state but Relic does not deserve any praise for "a AAA game that barely works after launch and multiple patches". They provided the players the bare minimum with very small replayability
I hope the “elite” LOLOL. Can live with killing the franchise. Numbers don’t lie and COH3 playerbase isn’t recovering or increasing. It’s steadily dropping off. Numbers don’t lie. You can’t spin it anyway to make it look good. Since release the coh3 playerbase has been going down.
Its not balance or TTK that drives people away.
Its relics over focusing on broken campaign, missing core convenience features, bad map variety and map balance and relics own denial of who actually plays their games and survey mentioning clown people is a testament to that.
Relic is gone.
Hope for a good RTS coming from them is gone.
I'm actually glad DoW series died before this, because if they kept going, Blood Ravens would have new chapter master - Gaysexius Genderfluidus Doublesoul, weilding a mighty power dildo or some shit.
Relic as we knew it is dead and gone, just like Blizzard after Activision took over.
In your original post you seem to support that low TTK is good and High TTK is bad which is a oversimplification.
For instance in COH2 IS had (relatively) high TTK could kill a enemy model at first contact with the first volley. That was actually pretty bad and thus changed.
I mentioned before TTK might be off in COH3 but that it a more complicated issue than just TTK.
One should create weapon profiles that encourage relative positioning and avoid certain weapon combination.
In the future if you want to debate/argue. You can’t just say something then ignore my rebuttal lol. High TTK is bad. There is obviously a sweet spot and there shouldn’t be super Low TTK. But it depends on the situation. A 6 model Thompson squad should have pretty low TTK on any squad it gets close to. It makes sense.
CoH2 has design issues no doubt about that. Doesn't change the fact that the whole series is very micro intensive. The whole point of the cover system is that the player has to order the squad behind to take cover behind the tractor and not 3 meters next to it. That you need to place that grenade yourself down to the centimeter instead of just clicking the 'throw a grenade' button and it is resolved automatically. That doesn't mean it becomes LOL or any other game, but that's just the way any CoH has been designed from the get go. Therefore, this grenade should also matter. It should not decide about the game, but about the battle between those two squads. As you said, a good strategy game is about decision making. If this grenade doesn't have an impact on the battle, there is no point in the ability, especially no point in having the player control it to the finest position of the throw. If that's not the case, just automate it and let the player focus on the grander scheme of things.
There's a lot of grey areas to the exact outcome obviously, which cannot be properly discussed without having an example. I personally also had the feeling - at least by watching the tournaments - that Coh3 is not punishing enough, that the decision to flanking and other movements doesn't matter enough. CoH2 hasn't hit the sweet spot either, but CoH3 probably doesn't as well.
The context is this
"People like higher TTK because people don’t like being punished. Higher TTK makes it easier for everyone to be “good” or have a better chance at winning games. Because it removes catastrophes. People not paying attention and losing squads. People think higher TTK some how makes the game more tactical. Even though I don’t know how you can argue that at all? Because it removes a key element form an RTS. Timing, and positioning power. I’m not saying you don’t understand because you seem to like lower TTK. But for everyone else. If you ambush a squad with a CQB unit you should reap the rewards of forcing that unit to retreat/wipe. Not they casually soft retreat to another squad and win the engagement. That is the problem with high TTK. There’s no more OH FUCK moments. When a shock troop shows up out of nowhere. Or a PGREN is on your retreat path. On top of they dramatically reduced squad wipes on retreat. With the whole retreating buffs rework. It may not be intentional. But it seems it’s geared to make things “easier” for everyone. Which is fine. But shortens the ceiling of gameplay. "
As an example is will bring up COH2 commandos on release. They where a CQB that could ambush other units and their TTK has extremely low . They offered lots of "OH F... moments". Where they good for the game?
I think we can agree that they where not.
A game like COH should be played at two levels a tactical one (like using cover and grenades) and a strategical where a player has strategical options and has to make decision that effect the game long term.
Coh1 had such decision, in Coh2 two most of those decision where watered down and in Coh3 I an attempt to go back to such decisions and that imo is a good thing.
High TTK is bad. There is obviously a sweet spot and there shouldn’t be super Low TTK. But it depends on the situation. A 6 model Thompson squad should have pretty low TTK on any squad it gets close to. It makes sense.
Low TTK is also bad. (See commandos example above).
A squad with SMG should be able to be cost efficient at close range fights but that necessarily translates to it is should be a "wipe machine".
Else faction with long range unit that did not have such "wipe machines" would be in a constant disadvantage and certain map would favor specific faction. So no it does not make sense.
As for Thompson I am not familiar with their DPS curve in COH3 but in COH2 they should not have pretty low TTK compared to other SMG since they are already much better at mid ranges.
The idea that High TTK is bad and low TTK is good is an oversimplification.
As an example is will bring up COH2 commandos on release. They where a CQB that could ambush other units and their TTK has extremely low . They offered lots of "OH F... moments". Where they good for the game?
I think we can agree that they where not.
A game like COH should be played at two levels a tactical one (like using cover and grenades) and a strategical where a player has strategical options and has to make decision that effect the game long term.
Coh1 had such decision, in Coh2 two most of those decision where watered down and in Coh3 I an attempt to go back to such decisions and that imo is a good thing.
Look, no one argued for an extreme stance. Squads should neither evaporate within a second like they do in MoW nor should a normal shoot out last half the game.
Dirtyfinisher criticized that CoH3 is too forgiving, mostly because the TTK is too high (which is obviously a personal preference). I share that opinion. As I stated in the opening post, I haven't played CoH3 after launch, but trying to watch tournament games the game just looks super boring. Regularly cutting into retreat paths of low health squads is not being rewarded by a squad wipe. There's very few moments were the viewer sees a turn in gameplay, a move that one player took high risk for and either got rewarded or punished for, because the higher TTK reduces risk and reward. Tournaments being boring to watch has other reasons as well, this is just one of many. Still, for me it's not much fun to watch players slug it out for ages, with the main difference that player1 killed 20 more models than player2 and therefore gained an MP advantage over the last 15 minutes of the game which long term leads to victory in the next 15 minutes. There's no spectacle in there, no moment that would figuratively speaking take you to the edge of your seat. If I see a fight in CoH2 and player1 flanks into the retreat path, there is tension. Will the flanking squad be spotted and player2 see the danger in time? If not, can he somehow reduce the damage by smoking the retreat path, sending a vehicle to deal with the squad (even cheesy model pushing)? Do the retreating squads have enough health to make it through, will he be lucky or unlucky? Yes, this leads to some RNG wins and losses, but as a viewer it is ultimately fun to watch.
In CoH3 there is nothing. The flanking squad will probably not wipe anything anyway. Will the flanking squad be spotted in time? Maybe yes, maybe no, probably doesn't matter an awful lot either. Can player1 deal with the new situation? The deployed smoke maybe saves a model. Is that good? Probably, but nothing game changing either. Do the retreating squads have enough health? 95% of times: Yes.
I don't want to watch that. CoH3 needs interesting tournaments to draw in new players, because the Steam rating sure as hell won't. Maybe I am in the minority with my assessment, but still I wanted to phrase it. If I am not, then CoH3 is in even more trouble.
Look, no one argued for an extreme stance. Squads should neither evaporate within a second like they do in MoW nor should a normal shoot out last half the game...
(to me it seem that dirtyfinisher is suggesting that SMG unit should be wipe machines)
And that has been my point all along. "High TTK bad low TTK good" logic does not really work.
As for spectacle, an RTS game should watched in two levels. One tactical on how good a player is using units and a strategical one, like chess, where a player is using strategy and has to adapt (his build order, his teching, his commander choices in the situation at hand, including his map control, the map, opponent strategy and so on...). Else you get a stale meta that at leas to me is also boring.
Is COH3 on a good spot? certainly not but imo COH2 is not either since most choices have been watered downed/removed from players and most tech/option are available to them and the same commander are used over and over again.
For me having COH3 take the same direction that COH2 did would be a mistake.
In the future if you want to debate/argue, you can’t just presen something as "quote" when I have never said anything remotely relevant.
"If you don’t like that strategy. It doesn’t mean it should be nerfed.
For instance I never posted that I don't like the tactic of "Anticipating their retreat, along with forcing a retreat" or that is should be nerfed.
Low TTK is also bad. (See commandos example above).
A squad with SMG should be able to be cost efficient at close range fights but that necessarily translates to it is should be a "wipe machine".
Else faction with long range unit that did not have such "wipe machines" would be in a constant disadvantage and certain map would favor specific faction. So no it does not make sense.
As for Thompson I am not familiar with their DPS curve in COH3 but in COH2 they should not have pretty low TTK compared to other SMG since they are already much better at mid ranges.
The idea that High TTK is bad and low TTK is good is an oversimplification.
“RTS games should have "strategies" in them and not just "micro". Player should be reward/penalized for their decision making and not just for their reflex. “ You said this. Which I followed by saying. Sacrificing map control in exchange for ideal positioning to wipe units is a strategy. Not “cheesy” like you said. Micro is involved by so is the decision to take that approach during the game?
I don’t have the patience to argue with you LOLOL. Yes SMG squads and CQB units should trade efficiently close quarters. But at the same time if that unit ends up on your retreat path and your retreating a very low health squad with 1-2 models. There should be a good chance that the CQB unit wipes that squad. You are being punished for having your retreat path not protected. Know your surroundings. That’s why I said TTK is too high in my opinion. Low health squads with 1-2 models retreat through double BAR rifles sometimes 2 squads of double BAR rifles and live. Like Hannibal said. It creates boring gameplay.
“RTS games should have "strategies" in them and not just "micro". Player should be reward/penalized for their decision making and not just for their reflex. “ You said this. Which I followed by saying. Sacrificing map control in exchange for ideal positioning to wipe units is a strategy. Not “cheesy” like you said. Micro is involved by so is the decision to take that approach during the game?
I don’t have the patience to argue with you LOLOL. Yes SMG squads and CQB units should trade efficiently close quarters. But at the same time if that unit ends up on your retreat path and your retreating a very low health squad with 1-2 models. There should be a good chance that the CQB unit wipes that squad. You are being punished for having your retreat path not protected. Know your surroundings. That’s why I said TTK is too high in my opinion. Low health squads with 1-2 models retreat through double BAR rifles sometimes 2 squads of double BAR rifles and live. Like Hannibal said. It creates boring gameplay.
Yes we agree that low health/entity squad that retreat thru enemy units should have a high probability of being wiped.
I still stand by what I have already posted:
"The idea that High TTK is bad and low TTK is good, is an oversimplification."
I think you guys are close to the agreement, much more closer than the arguments you try to respond to. My assumption is that both are fine, most people playing the game will accept either: slightly more powerful retreat bonuses with less wipes, or less protection during retreat and more wipes. Even for the tournament, it is small potatoes, I don't have a strong preference to this.
And while you are arguing about balance changes are TTK design tweaks, the house is on fire. People leaving because the game sucks, audio-visual component unsatisfactory, no map variety, limited units/battlegroups, awkward tank ranges, no leaver/rager punishments, bad matchmaking, bugs on mines/support weapons/everything, missing features.
The discussion on the best iteration of DPS/TTK/Retreat is not productive at this stage of the game
The problem for CoH3 is that players apparently decide that the strengths of the game are not worth it. Yes, CoH2 got similar critiques, some rightfully, some as you say because it is new and not what everyone is used to, but the extend seems to be different. All the critique did not stop players from playing, at least not as quickly as for CoH3. Like it or not, but despite a bad release as well, CoH2 had something going for it that CoH3 can't replicate. It might be presentation, sound, whatever.
Having a smoothly running game is great, but doesn't help if the game itself is boring. There's people loving CoH3 in its current form. The overall majority however doesn't, and that's why we see a huge drop in player numbers and the efflux is still not stopped. CoH3 has lost players compared to last week, probably another 200 on average (just estimating), which comes down to ~10% of the player base.
Relic partially focused on the casual gamers, but those will not rebuild the game. They either had their fun or didn't, but moved on either way. They're not going to buy a game with 40-55% positive reviews on Steam. Relic has to rebuild it from their main, die hard audience. Which is not what they have been aiming for, and worries me if CoH3 will get the support that it needs to make it a good game.
You're just making bold claims here as to why people stop playing CoH3, that the game is not good fundamentally or targeted the wrong audience etc etc.
Nearly every single person I have spoken to and myself included stopped playing CoH3 because the map-pool is horrible and I mean HORRIBLE in 3v3 and esp. the most popular mode 4v4. Imagine you play CoH2 4v4 but only on Hamburg and Lorch Assault all day every day, even the most diehard CoH fan can endure this only for so long.
It's that and axis queue times that kill the MP experience currently. It sucks but both issues can be fixed with ease down the line
You're just making bold claims here as to why people stop playing CoH3, that the game is not good fundamentally or targeted the wrong audience etc etc.
Nearly every single person I have spoken to and myself included stopped playing CoH3 because the map-pool is horrible and I mean HORRIBLE in 3v3 and esp. the most popular mode 4v4. Imagine you play CoH2 4v4 but only on Hamburg and Lorch Assault all day every day, even the most diehard CoH fan can endure this only for so long.
It's that and axis queue times that kill the MP experience currently. It sucks but both issues can be fixed with ease down the line
I really don't know how to respond to that.
Me saying that there is a variety of reasons why players drop out of CoH3 is bold but you saying "it's exactly these two reasons" isn't?
C'mon Aera, you know that's nonsense as well.
Most people agree that graphics are a direct downgrade from Coh3, presentation/artstyle is subjective yes, but when majority of the players say the game looks poop - it is poop by consumer base.
And please show me where Coh2 had bad contrast, cartoony graphics. UI was okayish, it fit the style of the game but could have been improved (especially the minimap)
And to your other point: Coh2 was never dysfunctional, frustrating to play in the beginning? Yes, it was messy.
Coh3 on the other hand is littered with bugs, unfinished animations, bad UI (even in main menu). It is in a playable state but Relic does not deserve any praise for "a AAA game that barely works after launch and multiple patches". They provided the players the bare minimum with very small replayability
I'm just saying plenty of people made those complaints back in the day. I'm not debating which CoH looks the most cartoony. There' sa general pattern of new games being called cartoony and I think it has to do with the fact that all games look at least somewhat cartoony and that fact stands out more when the graphics are novel.
Agree to disagree on playability I guess. To me early stage CoH2 and CoH3 are not even close in this regard due to performance and gimmicky gameplay.
I really don't know how to respond to that.
Me saying that there is a variety of reasons why players drop out of CoH3 is bold but you saying "it's exactly these two reasons" isn't?
C'mon Aera, you know that's nonsense as well.
Well the two things he mentioned are obviously big factors. Your points are more speculative.
When I say CoH3 is in a better state than CoH2 was early on I'm thinking of how many steps are necessary to make this a good game. And I think CoH3 is far ahead of CoH2 in this regard.
I don't think you can conclude much from the playernumbers. CoH1 multiplayer scene was larger than CoH2. The initial steam playernumbers are almost completely irrelevant here because a very large portion of that is campaign players. Also the reason people are staying away from the game is super important. If the game becomes good some of the hardcore people will come back eventually and there will be a very slow influx of new players. I don't think there was much growth potential in the first place with relic's marketing approach. Barely anyone even perceives CoH as a MP game.
All these debates we're having are soooo similar to CoH2's realease. Yes, there is a chance this time the game doesn't make it, and a lot of you guys will end up quitting and never bothering with CoH3 just like the COH1 boomers do to this day. And that's fine. But still, odds are CoH3 becomes good and establishes its own playerbase.
Just weighing on the TTK thing, i think the combat TTK is overall decent to fine, but the retreat TTK is awful, i think its whats causing most of the awkward engagements.
One comment on multiplayer limitation, atm Relic haven't yet implemented the ranked multiplayer. We're just playing the friendly multiplayer automatch where there is no ladder, they added one off-site so we can compare the size of our d*ck between us, but that's courtesy from them.
The map pool is poor yes but anyone can already build their own map and play it on skirmish. Relic could dedicate more time and resource on map creation, yes, but they don't have he manpower because they are fully dedicated to the console release (30th of may). So they probably going to pick up the most appreciated maps from content creators and added them to the pool alongside with 1 or 2 maps of their own.
We're all blaming on Relic here but honestly I don't think the idea to release Coh3 on console was one of their prime idea. Sega is more likely to have push it as an obligation and thus making Coh3 on PC unfinished from multiplayer standpoint.
They probably have little expectation of building a multiplayer community on console so their focus is single player experience with a pad on a TV. And then once Console is release going back to finish the multiplayer layer on PC version.
Again understand their prime objective was selling the game, not retention. They did it, we almost all have bought it even if we don't play with it right now, they got the money. After the 30th of may, thing is probably going to change: multiplayer attraction to consolidate player retentions, selling DLC etc...
Just weighing on the TTK thing, i think the combat TTK is overall decent to fine, but the retreat TTK is awful, i think its whats causing most of the awkward engagements.
I do agree that TTK does feel very good for both, vehicles and infantry(tho some SMG ones could either take less dmg or dish out a bit more), but what's the issue you see with retreat one? Too durable? Too fragile?.
but what's the issue you see with retreat one? Too durable? Too fragile?.
Too durable for sure. Retreating units in CoH2 had a -50% received accuracy modifier as we all know. Helpful against small arms but irrelevant vs most tanks and well-timed grenades
In CoH3, Relic replaced this with -50% received damage, which leads to these immersion breaking scenarios where squads can eat a nuclear explosion to the face
Too durable for sure. Retreating units in CoH2 had a -50% received accuracy modifier as we all know. Helpful against small arms but irrelevant vs most tanks and well-timed grenades
In CoH3, Relic replaced this with -50% received damage, which leads to these immersion breaking scenarios where squads can eat a nuclear explosion to the face
CoH2 was something like -60% rec acc.
CoH3 is -40% rec acc and -20? 30? % rec dmg.
Basically, easier to wipe using small arms, harder to wipe using explosives, which feels like its much more due to overall TTK being lower and infantry itself having non universal health values.
Well the two things he mentioned are obviously big factors. Your points are more speculative.
When I say CoH3 is in a better state than CoH2 was early on I'm thinking of how many steps are necessary to make this a good game. And I think CoH3 is far ahead of CoH2 in this regard.
I don't think you can conclude much from the playernumbers. CoH1 multiplayer scene was larger than CoH2. The initial steam playernumbers are almost completely irrelevant here because a very large portion of that is campaign players. Also the reason people are staying away from the game is super important. If the game becomes good some of the hardcore people will come back eventually and there will be a very slow influx of new players. I don't think there was much growth potential in the first place with relic's marketing approach. Barely anyone even perceives CoH as a MP game.
All these debates we're having are soooo similar to CoH2's realease. Yes, there is a chance this time the game doesn't make it, and a lot of you guys will end up quitting and never bothering with CoH3 just like the COH1 boomers do to this day. And that's fine. But still, odds are CoH3 becomes good and establishes its own playerbase.
The exact reasons why players stopped playing CoH3 were never my main point, at least not in the part of the discussion when Aerafield quoted me. Whatever the reason is, CoH3 does not manage to retain players.
And the player numbers do matter. I guess we don't need to argue about MP, but they matter even for SP. I'd rather buy a single player game that has thousands of players months to years after launch than one that died quickly, because this game is apparently replayable and has a lot of content to offer, while I have to assume that the one that dies has not. It might still be a strong story and worth it, but if that's not written in the reviews, why should I buy it? The safer bet is to buy different game.
That's why it also doesn't matter if the drop has partially occured due to campaign players leaving. Your argument just proves my point: Relic has failed to keep the SP people and casuals engaged. This was the whole purpose of their Italy campaign.
Currently, a potential buyer of CoH3 sees bad reviews and even worse recent reviews, a hard drop in player numbers and low current player numbers. Unless he knows that this is the game for him, there's not much reason to buy it. But those people you don't have to convince anyway, Relic is losing out on the crowd. Relic and Sega see this, and it will hurt their business down the line and influence their decision making on CoH3.
Which is also why I concluded that they will probably need to rebuild it from their hardcore fan base - the others are gone anyway. The game becoming good eventually is unfortunately no guarantee that it will survive long term and rebuild a community. It might happen, yes, but there's also plenty of good games that just took too long to patch and are now dead. We don't know what will happen with CoH3.
Which is also why I concluded that they will probably need to rebuild it from their hardcore fan base - the others are gone anyway.
Something tells me they do not give a shit about us and expect genderfluid gen-z zoomers to be interested in a dying genre in historical settings they know nothing about nor are interested in.
I would love to just shit talk or talk out of my ass here, but that last survey questions are extremely telling.
They didn't even had "gaming" listed on their hobby list, they give no fuck about gamers. We're drones for them who supposedly swallow every shit they throw at as, because we're "hardcore fans" and there is no need to appease us.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
