A comprehensive theory about where Relic is going...

I always thought that the majority of CoH players never played automatch, and they played mainly campaign mission, AI battles or skirmishes against friends in custom games.

On that basis, I think Relic should differenciate Automach vs players and Automatch vs AI/Custom Game loadouts, like they do with ToW.

That way competitive automatch would be free of unbalanced commanders and units while the majority of players can still purchase new content for custom and AI battles.

We should try to build a formal post where we would share our ideas to improve the game. Our goals would be to increase competitiveness while keeping Relic revenue stream, all that within the spirit of the COH family.

First we need prioritizes a topic list, with a maximum of around 15 key subjects. Then we share our ideas around those one. After a period of time we make a consensus on each the subject. We then send it to the devs with the name of everyone who are supporting those ideas.

This game can be improved and the community must help to do it. We can do it !

Good idea, in theory, but unfortunately we are more likely to tear each others throats out, between Sov/Ost fanbois, 1v1/2v2+ fanbois, haters and lovers, trolls, pros, nubs, stat nerds and "feels" guys...

Nullist, you are well know, why don't you start the topics list ? Your also got nice writing skills. (As you see, english is not my main language, it's french)

We must stop doing the game's eulogy and start to focus on what could be done realistically to improve it the way we want.

Relic want money, we want a good game and the changes needed are not that big. So we can do it.

We can do it !!

Voltar, thank you for your praise, and your sentiment.

But I can't. I guarantee you that if I start compiling a list, in good faith with other members who want a better game, I will get attacked by so many of the resident haters and people I've managed to butthurt here, that it would be a hindrance to everyone who actually wants to contribute to the project.

I cant do it. I have too many enemies. The haters would tear it to bits with me doing it, not because the content wouldnt be good and contributed by well meaning members, but because they want to get at me, personally.

I'll support anyone else who tries this noble task however, with full force.
You have my word on that.
Hopefully someone will step up and start the ball rolling.

And also, if its any consolation, have faith in the balance team we have.
Imo, they are doing a very good job and have been very good at cutting through forum bullshit and hysteria, time and time again, to the real changes that need to be made.

Your posts in particular have made me think differently of the importance of team-format in Coh2, and in RTS overall. I think there is a lot to be said for that, and for providing for 2v2+, where, you quite possibly are right, the actual majority of players are residing. It struck me one day when I was reading on of your posts that balance is currently actually implemented backwards. It would be easier to balance from 4v4 downwards, than it is from 1v1 upwards, for many reasons. But I've been playing Relic games for so long (since early DoW2) that I kind of got stuck into thinking of 1v1 as the balance prerogative, when infact, it would probably make more sense to balance in the opposite direction, since 1v1 balance gets multiplied in teamgames, whereas teamgame balance gets simplified in 1v1.

Ive been wanting to thank you for that moment of insight. And as I said sometime before, if/when I ever get into team-games, Id be honored and pleased to team with you, if you would have me on your team.

Tell your suggestions to me Nullist (and everybody else), I'm the marketing guy. Unlike other marketeers, I want the best for the community without milking them of a dime. Trough sheer willpower of the community and back up of everybody wanting to improve coh2, I'm sure we can make this game better. I'll try to put everybodies ideas in workable language. Give me a list of grievances and I'll try to make something of it

I always thought that the majority of CoH players never played automatch, and they played mainly campaign mission, AI battles or skirmishes against friends in custom games.

On that basis, I think Relic should differenciate Automach vs players and Automatch vs AI/Custom Game loadouts, like they do with ToW.

That way competitive automatch would be free of unbalanced commanders and units while the majority of players can still purchase new content for custom and AI battles.

I once suggested something similar: Where certain commanders wouldn't be included in ranked automatch, but all could be used in Custom Games and other non-ranked gamemodes.

Like I said about competitive players: They are pickier about everything. A casual player most likely won't mind if their commanders aren't available in Automatch, because they mostly play custom games in annihilate. They won't feel a change. This is true for many other things and features in the game.

As far as microtransactions go, Inverse is right on the money, I think: DLC's are not the problem in and of itself, but rather, the execution of them. An RTS also doesn't lend itself for microtransactions as well as other genres (at least based on what they have done so far).

With CoH2, it is particularly hard, because you have to make sure those DLC's don't fracture the community. A game like Battlefield can segregate their community because it is that big.

As far as skins go, a game like DoTA2 and LoL thrive because they work much better: They can make a flaming sword for your Champion and completely change the visual effects of their powers for pretty fun stuff. In CoH2, you are buying a camo pattern for a tank that will likely get destroyed many times. In DoTA, the focus is on a few champions, all of whom get a chance to shine in the battlefield. It simply works better for them.

This is a very humble opinion of mine, since I am sure they thought this up with numbers, but I don't think Sega/Relic made the right choice by making skins a microtransaction. It's like including Starcraft 2 skins for marine sin flaming armor: They are small, and die very fast. Very little value there.

What i propose is not only to give our insights to the Devs but to give them something, another tool to show to theirs corporate administrators. They need money and time to make the changes we want. Those admins make the big decisions and they make it with all kind metrics.

Skin thoughts : They could sell special skins for vet 3 units fitting with the set already sold. Ex: « Look at that mighty black fanged panther ! »

An actually good idea just came to me: how about unit skins tied to ladder tanking? hehehe

"Skin of Shame": Pink skin earned by a 20 losing streak.

@Von Kluge, Ill PM you a bit I wrote about DLC Commander and possible DLC Bulletin options. Its probably not what Volt meant about a compiled change list, but it may be some feedback Relif can do with as they please, and take some pressure off balance if they adopt some element of it into their DLC plans.

Skins are not attractive for me. I have no problem with skins per se, but not for an RTS.

I would rather spend those $10.00 in a Relic sponsored tournament entry, which gives participants a special badge or medal or whatever and the winners, on top of prize money, a special faceplate in the game (pro bragging rights).

I would also rather pay some money to support map packs made exclusively by the community and structured in a way which doesn't divide the community. The money being split between the Devs and the Mappers themselves. Counter Strike did this to good success with operation bravo.