A comprehensive theory about where Relic is going...

Mud...we heard it!

I think Relic HAS actually figured out who their bread & butter is: 4v4 players.

All the new commanders have great synergies that work very, very well in team games (ie., Luftwaffe/Tiger Ace or SovInd and any Soviet doc with SMGs) and if you play 4v4, you might find stuff like NKVD and Partisans useful as support commanders. I can't talk about them, but the ones in the beta have similar, even more powerful synergies.

Mud will slow the game down. This helps the casual base play 4v4 without getting too frustrated at their inability to multitask and micro.

I think the next thing they will do is try to get someone to livecast "competitive" 3v3 and 4v4s...No one does this of course, but I really think that's where they want to head with commanders that are rather similar to MOBA heroes. That kind of teamwork and synergy in a large-scale RTS could be quite interesting actually from a competitive point of view.

Now I know you can make a thousand arguments why 3v3 and 4v4 are not competitive...But if you stop seeing "competitive play" as only about micro and positioning but also about commanders and their abilities as in MOBAs, you can see how it might theoretically work.
But as we all know 3v3 and 4v4s are essentially spam fests...How do you reconcile the beauty of COH combined arms and maneuvering with what these games are? The answer is, you don't, not if you're Relic and want to make money selling commanders, you move the ärena of competition out of the micro-realm and into the macro-commander-realm.

And at the same time you half-hardheartedly try to maintain some sort of balance in 1v1 for your remaining core fans, most of which you realize have already abandoned the game anyway for its perceived lack of depth. They are right - 1v1 has no depth. But with enough interesting commanders, team games do, though only at a strategic, commander level. Those games also happen to be fun to watch (if you agree that mass tank blobs, huge artillery explosions, and that sort of thing are fun to watch.)

Sums up why I don't play anymore.

Mass tank wars - fun to watch one time round, not the second. And also, if you want mass tank battles, I'll give you a game you should play - world of tanks. Otherwise, it really should stay out of COH2 as much as possible.

wow, before you crying and making complaints and now you're optimistic. did relic hit you on the head or did noun put something in your drink

wow, before you crying and making complaints and now you're optimistic. did relic hit you on the head or did noun put something in your drink

You're mistaking optimism for an attempt at objective analysis/speculation.

Maybe I should have reframed the post as "this is what might work." We have no evidence that Relic has that long-term a plan, but they are investing a LOT in this game.

Personally, such a situation is not something I would look forward to.

wow, before you crying and making complaints and now you're optimistic. did relic hit you on the head or did noun put something in your drink

probably should put this here.


also I wouldn't call this comprehensive.

I back this theory. Would explain why patch after patch we don't see the balance fixes we want. Instead we get news of more commanders.

I think you're reading into this a little too much. Relic doesn't seem interested in cultivating any sort of competition. They're just going where they perceive the largest portion of their audience is, and that's 3v3/4v4 compstomping. Which is very short-sighted IMO.

This isn't a new thing really, Relic stated before DoW2's release that they were focusing on 3v3. They did backpedal from that a bit, but I mean the game didn't even ship with a 2v2 game mode...

Mud...we heard it!

This helps the casual base play 4v4 without getting too frustrated at their inability to multitask and micro.

How can you say such insanities , are you a kid ? People play 4vs4 because they like it, not because of any lack micromanagement. 4vs4 games with friends are a blast ! 4vs4 mode is a lot more difficult to play because it's team based, so you have to deal with others ! And often they disagree only because they are your friends . So if you want a excellent 1vs1 game where only intellect power matter, give chess a try you will love it. But for 3vs3 or 4vs4, i rather pick the COH family of game.

I really liked 4v4s in vCOH, those were classy games that only ended up in massive spams because that was how the game's teching structure logically had to play out...Mass Axis armor vs mass M10 and airborne blobs with Callis and Stukas trying to take out the opponent's infantry.

The early game, almost nonexistent in COH2 1v1, is totally nonexistent in 4v4...So they are just less interesting, and the maps are boring as well.

I can see how it might be fun for teams though...That's kinda why I made the post. I've always appreciated both modes of playing, but I still see the problems...

There's nothing wrong with team games, per se. I personally enjoy team games in RTS games more than 1v1 games, but they are never as balanced.

If they were going to focus on team games thats fine, but then they should have empowered the entire team synergy, which isn't so.

CoH's design is not inherently well balanced for team games (unlike say, Age of Empires II). The resource flow and unit conservation just escalates into spammage.

It's a shame too, because for some strange reason vCoH gained quite a popularity for team games near the end of its functional lifetime.

A huge argument against your theory is that Relic is refusing to fix input lag (/lag in general): The biggest downside of anything bigger than 1v1s. A developer which focuses on those gamemodes should actually try to make them playable.

Btw: Team games are nowhere near as bad as people claim them to be.

Im usually not a 3v3,4v4 player but these modes have improved significantly compared to vCoH. Saying that they are not competitive is odd.

With adjusted maps (-> ressources) 4v4 could easily be the perfect gamemode

If you think team synergies are fun try to face multiple Elite vetted Lefh 18's and laugh

To be honest that sounds like one of the unscariest strategies to face

I realized the other day that I actually enjoyed the amount of commanders and what they bring to teamgame synergy. To pick the commander that works best with the map, that works best with your playstyle, to complement your teammate best and ofc to counter the opponents strats and commanders. I really enjoy teamgames because of the depth they do bring. The linear commandertrees were a step back, but in coh1 we had 3 doctrines to go. Here we can put together alot more combinations and fun synergies, some just to have a blast and see what happens. I enjoy watching casters play 1v1s and watching 1v1 games being casted by great casters. But I really do think that teamgames should be covered more.

Now, I don't play "PvP" at all really because I'm a complete chicken. However it does give me a different view on it all which mixes into my own feelings about it and why I don't do it.

Most RTS games, to my knowledge at least, are focused around the 1v1 concept while very few of them seem to focus more on team modes. When you look at other genres that are popular these days, MOBA's, FPS and to some extent even MMO's most of them are based in a somewhat casual environment where you end up playing with your buddies for giggles and whatnot. (I am well aware that there are still some 1v1 scene within FPS but I'm looking at the majority here)

To take the example of the MOBA's, I have known of several people who don't really find the games themselves all that good but they become alright because you end up playing with your friends.
Team games tend to take away some of the "Ladder anxiety" for lack of a better word for it. Because you're not going in there alone like you would in a 1v1. If you got into a multiplayer that is 1v1 based and get your ass handed to you again and again and you don't quite know why, it can be quite frustrating and depending on the person, it will either make them turn away from the game completely or try to find out how to get better.

If you enter as a team, you have other people who can help you out with how you play and work together.

Of course, you're all welcome to just tell me to "amg stfu nub" and I'll agree with you on that, I have little experience with the CoH2 multiplayer beyond comp-stomps currently. But one of my points here is that I think it might be a good idea for Relic to actually look into what can be done with team games to draw in some more people, which of course might give problems with balancing 1v1 and the team ones but yeah, there you go.

Unfortunately for teamplay, balance is built on 1v1, as is the games MP design.

Its probably true that it would have been better to reverse that paradigm in CoH2, because 1v1 balance tends to complicate itself immeasurably ehen younadd more players, whereas in reverse, if balance was 4v4 oriented, 1v1 would be merely a simplification and pairing down of that.

As balance currently stands however,teamgames are just a balance exploit fest.

The issue with this game is that balance is built for 1vs1 players, but sales are expected by 4vs4 players and comstompers.

Pleasing both is impossible.

I don't think your even close to the mark. yes plenty of the commander have good synergy in team games but that is just good commander design if anything.

They are working on fixing input lag it just takes time.

I think where they are going is more content of all kinds, some paid and some free. As long as there are people to support the game I think relic will support the game too. They are trying to build a game that serves both the consumer and company that makes it for the long term. They want the game to have an e-sports future in 1v1

This isn't something that has been done this way before, most other games that try and do this have subscriptions or are free to play. Relic tried free to play it didn't work and we all know that subscription model wouldn't work either. In 5 years this game is going to have so much more depth and features, and will still be support by the devs, then any other RTS on the market if there are enough players to support the game to get there.

So many of you think relic is just trying a cash grab, but the fact that no new commanders are being released with the next patch shows they aren't.

Yes they have made plenty of mistakes and will continue to make them, a lot of that has to do with making a game and business model that has never been done before in rts, or really anywhere else in videogames. This makes it new and sometimes new things don't work and sometimes they do, but going back to the old model of business isn't going to give you anything new and it it doesn't work long term for the consumer or dev. consumers want more content and the devs need more cash flow and neither can happen in the old model and still be supported long term

I think this game has the potential to have a really great future if enough people stick around to see it.

(and yes mud tech sounds like winter tech in that it could just make the game slower. However one thing that mud tech shouldn't affect is visibility as much. This just gives map makers more tools to make cooler maps, hopefully they use it to make them fun to play as well instead of just cool looking. only time will tell)

From a buisness perspective, which is what it's all about, why should relic/sega not focus on 3v3 or 4v4? Besides some "elitists", who want "competition" and ongoing entertainment for paying 50$ once, there is no actual point against that model. For example LoL and DotA focus on 5v5 why would you do the exact opposite if you are slightly sane?