Login

russian armor

Strategy in Company of Heroes 2

PAGES (9)down
5 Feb 2014, 20:15 PM
#141
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

@Basilone
And you got 100$ worth of content.
Half of this content were skins.
Your fault for not reading up on what you spend money on.
5 Feb 2014, 20:31 PM
#142
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Feb 2014, 20:05 PMNoun

Talking about how you see the game, how you enjoy it (or don't) is super useful feedback for us.


A lot has been said within this thread alone, but the discussions end up being somewhat circular.

It would be useful if you guys shared some of your considerations for the future.
Eg: "No, there won't be Japs." or "Yes, we are considering adding some strategic elements to blizzards."
5 Feb 2014, 20:36 PM
#143
avatar of VonMecha

Posts: 419

Lol I dont think they will ever say "NO, there wont be Japs" for obvious reasons
5 Feb 2014, 20:57 PM
#144
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

Lol I dont think they will ever say "NO, there wont be Japs" for obvious reasons


Yes, that was meant to be ridiculous.

Point is, they could acknowledge some of the topics that fly past here more regularly like they did Inverse' OP.

Here's a more serious list:
-Blizzards lacking strategic depth,
-Cover system being almost useless,
-Lack of depth in player choice regarding global upgrades,
-Ease of amassing heavy tanks,
-Awkward German S-mines,
-Ram having too much of an impact on game outcome yet RNG dependent,
-Resource system (is it too forgiving?).

5 Feb 2014, 21:01 PM
#145
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Jan 2014, 19:38 PMNoun
The issue with infantry skins is that those units are very small relative to the game. We had to do a lot of colour work to make sure that they're visible against the ground, so that you're not always losing your infantry units.

Which of course bumps up against the realistic point of most uniforms which is to decrease visibility during a battle.

At this point we don't feel that infantry skins is viable, though we may figure out a way to do it without in the future.


Blows my mind You really needed feedback to understand why coh2 has lack of depth, or to even understand that it lacks it.. just a tip, dont design your game for only casuals because casuals will jump ship after 1 month.. its the die hards who keeps your game running and popular (and the coming sequels) and the die hards need a game with depth.

Just an exemple, i showed coh2 to many of my friends during the freeweekend.. they really liked the game, but they are casuals.. they played for a weekend and went on to the next game.
5 Feb 2014, 21:07 PM
#146
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Feb 2014, 21:01 PMspajn


Blows my mind You really needed feedback to understand why coh2 has lack of depth, or to even understand that it lacks it.. just a tip, dont design your game for only casuals because casuals will jump ship after 1 month.. its the die hards who keeps your game running and popular (and the coming sequels) and the die hards need a game with depth.

Just an example, i showed coh2 to many of my friends during the free weekend. they really liked the game, but they are casuals.. they played for a weekend and went on to the next game.


Being rude won't make your point heard better, probably the opposite.

Noun it would be helpful to us if on larger threads you could leave a message occasionally saying something like: "Thanks for the feedback, the balance team is considering it." Thanks for your other responses.

Other than that the early point in the OP about strategic depth is well made and I agree. Global upgrades allowed very interesting game play that simple unit build orders struggles to capture.
5 Feb 2014, 21:23 PM
#147
avatar of Smaug

Posts: 366


Noun it would be helpful to us if on larger threads you could leave a message occasionally saying something like: "Thanks for the feedback, the balance team is considering it." Thanks for your other responses.
.


This is just fail.

Ive seen multiple posts of him saying that our feedback is important to them and they take our rants/suggestions seriously. Just being on this thread and replying to inverse's posts and considering them highly valuable gives me, atleast, the impression that they want to make coh2 a better game that the competitive and casual community both will want to play.
5 Feb 2014, 21:48 PM
#148
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927



Being rude won't make your point heard better, probably the opposite.

Noun it would be helpful to us if on larger threads you could leave a message occasionally saying something like: "Thanks for the feedback, the balance team is considering it." Thanks for your other responses.

Other than that the early point in the OP about strategic depth is well made and I agree. Global upgrades allowed very interesting game play that simple unit build orders struggles to capture.


Being rude shouldnt matter as im their costumer and they are a business, as long as what im saying holds true.

I have never seen this community relationship with developer as an charity from the dev side but its business in the long term. Atleast i hope Noun and Relic realise that.

** Edit:

Come to think of it, the only company that really treats its fans as costumers is Cloud Imperium, and look 38 MILLION dollars in crowd funding... I cant understand why hardly any other developer sees it that way. Instead they think when they are listening to the community they do it because they are good and kindhearted people but their focus should lie with the "casual" players. There is a community to build here and money to be earned.. but they fail to see it.
5 Feb 2014, 22:18 PM
#150
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

I pity the fool who can only post in meme pictures
5 Feb 2014, 23:33 PM
#152
avatar of Marcus2389
Developer Relic Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 4559 | Subs: 2

Akosi, no meme here.
6 Feb 2014, 00:23 AM
#153
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

@Basilone
And you got 100$ worth of content.
Half of this content were skins.
Your fault for not reading up on what you spend money on.

You sir are incorrect. It advertised "21 new camos" which is only 7-8 camos, having the same camo and heavier tank is NOT a different camo. Also, it said we would get however many "new commanders" which in fact turned out to be nothing new at all but stuff we already owned and then shuffled around differently. It would be like if you bought a BF4 map pack but it was maps included in the core game but with the objectives placed in different locations. Now the store actually shows you exactly what content it comes with, but that was not always the case.

On top of that the game constantly fluctuates between 20 and 70 fps (while also stuttering really bad) on a GPU that is superior to what is recommended, playing at only 1280x720 and low-medium settings. So no, I did not get what I paid for.
6 Feb 2014, 00:40 AM
#154
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

It said it will be 5 commanders on release and 5 more bit later.
You got 5 commanders on release and first 5 that were released.

But without further arguing DCE value, ALL DCEs are never worth the money.
You get small advantage on the release of the game at best, which is what DCEs got with commanders that no one could buy at the start.

I have no idea why people who are not complete fanboys of the game would ever want a friggin collectors edition in the first place on a game that is not F2P mmo, which are by default pay to win.
6 Feb 2014, 07:13 AM
#155
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Feb 2014, 20:05 PMNoun
I don't know how useful talk of numbers is in a thread about how much people enjoy the game. It seems off-topic and there's a lot of people working with incomplete knowledge of the situation.

We're happy with the sales figures, and with the number of people playing. There's nearly 5,000 playing right now on a Wednesday afternoon.

Inverse's feedback is really valuable because he knows what he's talking about, and he's not going into speculation on things that he doesn't. He's not saying that the game is failing sales wise, just that it fails on a level of strategy, which is useful for us to hear and is something we can use to improve.

When SEGA releases it's next sales figures we're happy you'll get to see what numbers we've got. Until then we can't say anything specific.

Talking about how you see the game, how you enjoy it (or don't) is super useful feedback for us.


I guess you are talking about me since I am the only one that mentioned the numbers.

Your text to link here...
Page 6

There you go, sold 380,000 copies in 6 days. Didn't you get a memo from Sega on first quarter financial report?

Relic must be happy with sales, happy with number of players. Great, how about making your customers happy too, then?
9 Feb 2014, 18:18 PM
#156
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971


Relic must be happy with sales, happy with number of players. Great, how about making your customers happy too, then?


Agree.
Seeing your aggressive DLC policy it seems like the game has been a wreck and SEGA wants his investment back asap.

Only niche videogames like Train Simulator have that humongous quantity of overpriced and unasked DLC.

It's hard to believe the game is the success you claim when so many people is pissed off about it and when hardcore fans of the franchise leave every day.
9 Feb 2014, 22:07 PM
#157
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951

* shrugs *

I bought the DCE to support relic and was screwed-over.

Sorry, that's how I felt and still feel about it.

As for the rest of the game... I think Relic can do it. They need to tweak the early game to allow a mid-game to develop and it's achievable.

Right now I'm able to play a less tank-heavy game in a way I wasn't able to upon release. It's still heavy armour reliant in the end but will be interesting to see if that diminishes.

The fact that non-heavy armour call-in DLC commanders ever get used should tell Relic something.
9 Feb 2014, 22:27 PM
#158
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971


The fact that non-heavy armour call-in DLC commanders ever get used should tell Relic something.


Because this game is not punishing enough in the early game.
It's easy to make comebacks, so the game usually lasts till the lategame with its uber-tanks.
For that, infantry-based commanders doesn't have a punch and everyone relies in the heavy armor call-in's.
10 Feb 2014, 01:27 AM
#159
avatar of wayward516

Posts: 229


Wasn't ment to post that. I enjoy both SC2 and CoH2, but primarily CoH2 because its a way simpler game. (In my opinion)



I feel that COH2 has more complex rules and mechanics, but it asks you to interact with them at a slower and more deliberate pace than SC2. Also, COH2 forces you to think ahead more than SC2, at least imvho.
6 Jan 2016, 00:47 AM
#160
avatar of Sedghammer

Posts: 179

I know this is reviving a necro-thread, but it needs to be brought up now that other features have been worked on and the "roadmap" is further along.

I think that non-linear tech choices are the obvious next step for balance design for COH2. What are everyone's thoughts a year on and has your perspective changed?
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

788 users are online: 788 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM