Why don't you take part in tournaments?

1. There's too big difference between noobs and pros in my opinion, that's how game is designed. It's not spamcrap or league of loosers where half of the community can win a tournament.

People actually think this is true? CoH is an easy game to get top tier, compared to sc2. The moment you start comparing the paid, sponsored and full-time players in games such as dota or starcraft to coh2 'pros' it becomes abundantly clear that the skill gap is incredibly large. Builds in CoH are simple, the micro and macro required is pitiful and timing is almost non-existent. Even when you compare CoH2 to its predecessor I see players that were average at best in CoH1 get into SNF.

What changed? Well, the gap between the mid-tier and 'pros' probably just got smaller. This obviously has a multitude of reasons, such as poor game design, old pros leaving, p2win, bad balance and a lower skill cap, most of which are related to each other.

There's a reason most players in coh1 and coh2 play skirmish, campaign, 3v3, 4v4 and to a lesser extent 2v2. The game is simply more casual, also meaning it's easier to be considered 'good'.

I agree with the rest of your points though.

I dont think i have ever seen a post of you basilone in that you dont criticize coh2. It gets really annoying tbh. Just stop comparing a small niche game like coh2 with a blizzard title that has 100 times more players and a huge e-sport scene. Compare it with Wargame, Men of War or Planetary Annihilation.

I wasn't criticizing the game at all. Having a low skill ceiling doesn't make a game bad in my books because I enjoy BF4, Red Orchestra, Insurgency, and DayZ, all of which you can be a pretty good player after just a few days. That said, I liked CoH1 because for me personally it had the perfect balance between being semi competitive and semi casual- experience, skills (micro) and understanding of the meta game and mechanics gave you a pretty sizable advantage, though you didn't need to play the game like it was your full time job to be high level. Unfortunately CoH2 has a much a lower skill ceiling and so it is much less appealing (for me, at least). That by itself does not make CoH2 a bad game, but considering it was one of the reasons I enjoyed the original so much, it is why the game is a major disappointment to me.

PS: The skill ceiling in Wargame is exponentially higher than both CoH games imo, that game is very underrated in the competitive RTS scene.

People actually think this is true? CoH is an easy game to get top tier, compared to sc2. The moment you start comparing the paid, sponsored and full-time players in games such as dota or starcraft to coh2 'pros' it becomes abundantly clear that the skill gap is incredibly large. Builds in CoH are simple, the micro and macro required is pitiful and timing is almost non-existent. Even when you compare CoH2 to its predecessor I see players that were average at best in CoH1 get into SNF.

What changed? Well, the gap between the mid-tier and 'pros' probably just got smaller. This obviously has a multitude of reasons, such as poor game design, old pros leaving, p2win, bad balance and a lower skill cap, most of which are related to each other.

There's a reason most players in coh1 and coh2 play skirmish, campaign, 3v3, 4v4 and to a lesser extent 2v2. The game is simply more casual, also meaning it's easier to be considered 'good'.

Perfect, couldn't have possibly said it better.

Why I don't participate:

- Early engagements are too RNG dependent.
- Too much spam, mostly because a few units are a lot more viable/reliable than the others.
- Lack of strategy. In most games, both players just rush a vehicle.
- Input lag.
- Terrible pathfinding on vehicles.
- The ladder is repulsive. To compete in a tournament you have to prepare for it by playing ladder games and/or against a partner. The problem is that the ladder is filled with unbalanced p2w commanders banned from tournaments. Playing against these is both not fun and a waste of time since you'll never meet them in tournaments.
- Skill is not rewarded enough. Poor micro is fine since you can spam cons/grens all game into tanks. Why would I spend time getting ready for a tournament if I could struggle against a player who just A-moves groups of units around the map?

What could make me participate:

- Fix the input lag.
- Improve pathfinding.
- Add more strategic depth to the game. Don't force me to rush tanks every game. Let me do something different (global upgrades would be great).
- Make the game less RNG dependent. I'm not saying there shouldn't be RNG, but there should be ways for players to tip the balance in their favor with superior micro. An example is how rifle/volk combat worked in vCoH, but you could come up with something else.

The last two points will also make the game more interesting to watch, which will increase the amount of viewers on streams/the amount of streamers and casters, which will in turn encourage more players to participate. The game will gain more exposure and more people will want to be part of the fun. A lot of players just want to see their game casted!


Also, OBS mode, obviously.

+1 Twister couldn't have said it better.

Studies.

PS: The skill ceiling in Wargame is exponentially higher than both CoH games imo, that game is very underrated in the competitive RTS scene.

yeah basilone ia agree, wargame is underrated but im pretty sure the skill ceiling is way lower than in CoH2. Im not 100% sure because i only played it against a friend who is pretty damn good so i got my ass handed to me in most of our games, however most of the Pro games i witnessed werent really impressive (micro wise) compared to CoH top games. Imo the problem with wargame is that the gameplay itself tends to be extremely static while the deck system and the unit variety is absolutely great and it definitely offers more strategic depth than both coh and coh2.

back to topic: Maybe relic should take a look at the way Eugen System organises Wargame tourneys ? I remember a wargame world cup organised by the developer itself. (correct me if im wrong)

Well before I play tournaments I would have to start playing the game again....

1. I have a negligible chance of winning. It isn't worth the several hour time investment to lose games. I would get more satisfaction out of just playing an automatch game.

2. Non-building green cover still has seemingly negligible effects for the infantry in it. Until green cover is useful I don't know if I would come back to the game. Everyone pretends this is a very tactical game which it won't really feel like until cover matters. When I purchased the game I was hoping it was more like an RTS version of Brothers in Arms Earned in Blood. That is a game that required actual suppression and flanking - finding cover that gave you a sight line into the enemy's cover while they are suppressed. Characters were highly survivable in cover and it took actual work to get kills. Characters not in cover are quickly gunned down.

3. More importantly, 1v1 just isn't a fun game type (for me) and I won't be motivated to play until the map pool is improved. 1v1 maps are generally too big and there really aren't good ways to establish a front line, so tactical game play doesn't form and the rounds are mainly run and gun through the entire game. There are a couple of adequately sized maps that I can enjoy playing on but the bad outweighs the good here.

4. I would be more motivated to play in a 2v2 tournament. The 2v2 maps are appropriately sized for the number of competitors. Front lines are established and the game play has a more tactical feeling and can be enjoyable. For this to happen though I would have to A) start playing again and B) find a regular partner that could be somewhat competitive with me.

-Not well implemented. I want there to be a button in multiplier options that says "join the tournament" and I can play the qualifiers on my own time perhaps. Then when players reach final 3-4 tiers we can have set times that I can show up for.

Thanks for the input everyone and keep it coming.

Why i don't play in tourneys ( also why i don't play 1v1's almost at all).

1. Input lag
Not fun to micro, impossible to dodge grenades.

2. Optimization
To play game at my highest i would need 60+ FPS at least, i barely have 30 in coh2. Not including blizzards.

3. Units balance
For example: best ostheer build is lmg 42 gren spam into p4, soviet sniper spam into shocks/guards. It's often better to have one type of unit than combined. It makes game lacking strategical depth. No global upgrade is big one too.

4. No coh1 dynamics that makes game so fun
Covers are not important like they used to be in coh 1. Supression is gone, it's either pin or nothing. Budings balance: they used to be too strong, now it's useless to keep your unit in bulding, cause they die so fast. MG flanking mechanic is gone.

5. Randomness
One shotting full squads by mortars, mines, nades.

6. Some units/abilities
Sniper in scout car, uncounterable until upgunned scout car comes. Blitzkrieg makes axis tanks F1's. Ramming.

7. Maps
Lot of maps in 1v1 pool are actually too big for 1v1, like: minsk pocket, pripyat.

8. No features supporting tourneys
No observation mode, rewinding replays.

9. Graphics, interface
While coh2 graphic may be more detailed ( fire, snow ), it's really harder to read. Coh2 is all about realism, but it doesn't really works so well. It lacks comic elements, that coh1 had, which made game easier to read. Interface is worse at all than in coh 1, for example unit description takes too much space. There is no option "scale interface". It's sometimes hard to read texts when playing on high resolution. All this makes game less approachable and less streaming friendly. Imo that is reason why coh2 tourneys have less viewers than coh1.

10. Pay to win commanders
Not really need to describe, it completely hurts competitive play.
Plus most commanders really look like same guy with another moustaches or hat.


What should relic do?

Despite obvious things like lag, optimization, you really need to bring back that flanking-cover-supression dynamics. Imo that really makes coh great game and make it stand out from games like starcraft. It's matter of balancing small arms damage output, balancing covers and buildings, mg supression, grenades damage.

SC2 and Leauge have lots of new people winning because the esports scene is that big, not because the games are too easy. CoH2 strategy is easy mode compared to coh1 and even coh1 had a low skill ceiling compared to SC2. Top tier and high players lose to random people all the time, but SC2 players in diamond-GM probably never ever lose to someone in silver or gold.

Then again, in sc2 you can win/lose with just a buildorder.. sc2 has very little micro.. if you fail on a strategic level your micro wont save you. BW has 10x higher skill ceiling than sc2.. in bw you could be behind in strategy but make up for it with godly micro.. not so much in sc2.

This year we're looking at how we're handling tournaments going forward

Still looking for dem torunaments.

I would play if there were casual brackets or tournaments.

I just can't see myself making it through one qualifying against some of the players I've watched because they capitalize on mistakes and know the build orders and maps a lot better than I ever will.

A 2v2 tournament would be nice, though I don't have someone I could count on in my timezone.

will any chances be made to balance from this thread?

probably not ;_;

This year we're looking at how we're handling tournaments going forward and want to know how to get more of you to take part in them. So I'd like to know, why don't you participate in Company of Heroes 2 tournaments?

This is about competing, not watching. Also if you do take part in tournaments we don't need to hear from you saying that you do unless there has in the past been something that prevented you from taking part that you can talk about.

Ideally keep your answer simple. Short answers.

Examples:
- Busy on the weekends
- Don't want to lose in the first round
- Don't like CoH2's balance
- School
- Don't play multiplayer
- I only play 4v4

Also what would get you to take part in a future tournament? What could we (at Relic) do?

Same thing, keep your answers as brief and to the point as possible.

Examples:
- Have a 4v4 tournament.
- Improve balance
- Have the tournament during a weekday
- Help me get better at the game


Thanks to everyone who takes part. Finding out how to maximize the community's engagement with CoH2 tournaments is a big goal for us.

I would, if they were in my timezone. I am Australian and as someone posting before me said, tournaments regularly occur in the middle of the night. This is inconvenient, and impossible during university semesters.

will any chances be made to balance from this thread?

probably not ;_;

This isn't a balance thread. We are working closer with the community than at any time previous in our history and have been running a balance beta with a number of players from every skill level.

Taking part in that would be helpful to us and allow you to get a sense of where balance is going in the game.

I suppose no one wants to waste time trying to be competitive in a game with P2W.

All strategy this game can have goes down to the drain when your opponent can buy units and abilities that you don't have.

small arms fire Damage is too low, game decided often on one-shot mortars or one-shot mines.

I might eventually. I don't have a lot of time to play, with 2 kids. I love the game and at rank ~3000 i'd like to think I'm not awful, but I'm sure i'd be stomped by even the least skillful tournament attendees. I watch tournaments though and would love to see more!

Edit: a tournament for lower ranked players would certainly attract me.

yeah basilone ia agree, wargame is underrated but im pretty sure the skill ceiling is way lower than in CoH2. Im not 100% sure because i only played it against a friend who is pretty damn good so i got my ass handed to me in most of our games, however most of the Pro games i witnessed werent really impressive (micro wise) compared to CoH top games. Imo the problem with wargame is that the gameplay itself tends to be extremely static while the deck system and the unit variety is absolutely great and it definitely offers more strategic depth than both coh and coh2.

back to topic: Maybe relic should take a look at the way Eugen System organises Wargame tourneys ? I remember a wargame world cup organised by the developer itself. (correct me if im wrong)

My perspective on Wargame is that it's very hard to *learn but comparatively simple to *master, the opposite of a game like StarCraft. To be clear though, I prefer Wargame to StarCraft.