Login

russian armor

Revitalizing the COH2 community?

10 Feb 2014, 08:35 AM
#61
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Red Orchestra 2 is hardly dead...

Well, Red Orchestra series for FPS genre is pretty much what CoH series is for RTS genre.

A unique, type of thing with niche community, but that doesn't mean that it is unpopular or 'dead' at all.
10 Feb 2014, 13:36 PM
#62
avatar of Stoffa

Posts: 333

Inverse I'm sure the whole forum and then some know how much you love vcoh, and how much you hate CoH2. Can you give it a rest now? Its getting a little lame mon ami.
10 Feb 2014, 13:41 PM
#63
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971



Wall of text



While I agree with everything you said, I could cope with all these flaws except the commander system.
Get rid of all P2W and redesign that shallow and plain commander system and the game could be fun.

The game tech is TOO fast, and commander poinst are to quickly earned. Infantry battles and early game are meaningless as is too easy to do comebacks and stay alive till the super tanks hit the battlefield.

Balance right now is secondary. We need a new game design and a change of pace ingame.
10 Feb 2014, 15:46 PM
#64
avatar of VonMecha

Posts: 419

I think its too late for a revitalization. Relic chose it's path and it's going to stick with it.

A lot of players stopped playing because, plain and simple, it feels like a watered down version of coh with 2 new features and slightly updated graphics.. los and winter.

It seems like someone forgot the formula that made the original a success, like directors remaking movies with their own vision... aka making them suck.

Does anyone here think coh1 would've been a success if it started with post nerf Panzer elite Vs Brits? I for would never have bought the game.
10 Feb 2014, 16:17 PM
#65
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

Marcus +100

Z3r07 +100
10 Feb 2014, 16:24 PM
#66
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

I think the best way to counter the DLC paywall perception is to diminish the impact of commanders on the outcome of the game. The game needs to be fair, therefore DLC commanders should be an optional purchase but that's not the case now. At least it doesn't feel like it.

In short: add strategic depth to the base game.

My suggestions:
-Add a few more base units/upgrades per faction.
-More buildables like tank traps, bunkers, sandbags, etc.
-Add some gameplay mechanics around blizzards. (see Inevrse thread for suggestions)
10 Feb 2014, 17:47 PM
#67
avatar of PingPing

Posts: 329

I think its too late for a revitalization. Relic chose it's path and it's going to stick with it.

A lot of players stopped playing because, plain and simple, it feels like a watered down version of coh with 2 new features and slightly updated graphics.. los and winter.

It seems like someone forgot the formula that made the original a success, like directors remaking movies with their own vision... aka making them suck.

Does anyone here think coh1 would've been a success if it started with post nerf Panzer elite Vs Brits? I for would never have bought the game.


The original talent isn't there anymore - COH2 is made by those that made OF/TOV - so if you ever wondered to yourself "What would vCOH have been like if the PE/Brit guys made it?" - well take a look at COH2.

Completely agree with your sentiments though.

To make it worse - not only is it a watered down vCOH in many respects - the only differentiators - namely "tru-sight" (mostly a gimmick) and winter (which most want the ability to disable and have summer maps only by the use of veto) - you start realizing there's very little to like about COH2 when comparing to the original.
10 Feb 2014, 18:30 PM
#68
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971


It seems like someone forgot the formula that made the original a success, like directors remaking movies with their own vision... aka making them suck.


The sad thing is that probably every guy playing the closed balance beta is aware of that formula and knows how to fix the game, but Relic doesn't want to listen them.

I've lost the count of how many times I've read about increasing small arms damage, delay tech and improve infantry late game. And ofc, to get rid of these stupid P2W commanders.
10 Feb 2014, 21:20 PM
#69
avatar of Madok

Posts: 101

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2014, 18:30 PMGreeb
...
I've lost the count of how many times I've read about increasing small arms damage, delay tech and improve infantry late game. And ofc, to get rid of these stupid P2W commanders.


All right, fair enough.

Here is the thing though:
Many changes you and many others (including myself) would like to see are major changes.
For example: Altering small arms damage (or generally small arms fights) and would change one of the core concepts of the game.

To implement even some of the proposed changes (in a professional way) is a monumental task. This needs a lot of manpower and thus MONEY.

Any larger company has someone who's job essentially consists of asking some questions before they grant any budget. Any CFO or midlevel account worth his or her salt will ask:
  • How much money do think you will need?
  • What will our company earn and what is the timeframe ?
  • How likely is success/failure?
  • Why should we be doing this? .. the least important question by a mile


I'd be in a tight spot to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions if I was working at relic.
COH2 sold reasonably well. They've said they are 'happy with the sales numbers', but I doubt they were blown away by the revenue or if they even made their original estimates.

So why exactly should more money be put into CoH2?






EDIT:
I don't want to demonize 'bean counters' as the killers of all creativity. Many a promising company failed miserably because managers chose to ignore these stark but necessary questions.
10 Feb 2014, 22:04 PM
#70
avatar of herr anfsim

Posts: 247

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2014, 21:20 PMMadok


All right, fair enough.

Here is the thing though:
Many changes you and many others (including myself) would like to see are major changes.
For example: Altering small arms damage (or generally small arms fights) and would change one of the core concepts of the game.

To implement even some of the proposed changes (in a professional way) is a monumental task. This needs a lot of manpower and thus MONEY.

Any larger company has someone who's job essentially consists of asking some questions before they grant any budget. Any CFO or midlevel account worth his or her salt will ask:
  • How much money do think you will need?
  • What will our company earn and what is the timeframe ?
  • How likely is success/failure?
  • Why should we be doing this? .. the least important question by a mile


I'd be in a tight spot to come up with satisfactory answers to those questions if I was working at relic.
COH2 sold reasonably well. They've said they are 'happy with the sales numbers', but I doubt they were blown away by the revenue or if they even made their original estimates.

So why exactly should more money be put into CoH2?






EDIT:
I don't want to demonize 'bean counters' as the killers of all creativity. Many a promising company failed miserably because managers chose to ignore these stark but necessary questions.


I agree that the flaws of this game, or what some of us regard as flaws anywas, are so fundamental that fixing them would probably be too expensive. Thats why I dont understand why they designed the game this way in the first place. I mean, they used resources trying to reinvent elements of the game that worked great in vCOH, like infantrycombat, introducing changes noone seemed to ask for, ultimately releasing the game in an unfinished state do to lack of time and resources. Its mindblowing that noone at Relic asked the questions during development:"what do we gain from reinventing these aspects of the game, and what other parts of the game will suffer?".

They fixed what wasnt broken, while not introducing that much new stuff. Thus they somehow managed to develope a game that a lot of casuals and reviewers criticize for adding to little, and a lot of fans criticize for ruining what made the original great.
14 Feb 2014, 00:14 AM
#71
avatar of herpderpsherbert

Posts: 13

I'll just mention that the Steam Store page for CoH2 has Pay2Win and DLC whoring among the most popular tags associated with this title. So regardless of the arguments against P2W, the fact remains that a super majority of gamers on Steam view the commanders as Pay 2 Win. You will not be able to get a bigger player base as long as that persists.

Might even be too late at this point. :/
14 Feb 2014, 15:12 PM
#72
avatar of Multispec

Posts: 36

I haven't bought the game, participated in beta.
Here is the two reasons:
1) Beta was for me vastly unstable (often CTDs / Just plain freezing the game). Despite my computer specs should be able to run it according to official notes and some tests through sites whose names I have long forgotten. and I have no faith in relic to have fixed that.

2) Paid DLC commanders!
I can't stress this enough, if you have to do DLC in a competetive MP game make it SKINS AND SKINS ONLY. I am not going to support paid DLC commanders in anyway! I might not be a good player that can participate in top level tournaments but when I lose I want to feel outplayed on skill and not sit around wondering if I could have won if only I invested in "Soviet Industry" or W/E that commander is called to counter "Tiger Ace" or some shit like that.

Game is dead from a competetive standpoint for reason 2 alone and while I am not competing myself that is just bad, even you ban those DLC commanders from tournaments it is impossible to practice on the "ladder" despite its non existence because you will meet them there.

So yeah, "Pay 2 Win" is a more than fair tag on the Steam forums.
16 Feb 2014, 23:06 PM
#73
avatar of DocRockwell

Posts: 60

Lets face it, the issue isn't with the community, its with the game.

Business models and all that aside, the development team is just second rate. Period. How many patches have mortar/artillery bulletins been bugged for (they have opposite effect and decrease accuracy)? Its things like this that are clear evidence that these changes weren't tested ONCE before release, which is absolutely pathetic. Bugs are such low priority that patch after patch this has been ignored. I'd wager that this bug is a simple matter of a -ve sign too.

They have room on the payroll for people to post on forums all day, but they can't even do their due diligence as programmers.
16 Feb 2014, 23:14 PM
#74
avatar of Von Kluge
Patrion 14

Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2

Tell me how easy it is to balance a game that is out for less than a year. This is a very demanding game on all aspects. Tell me how a company that was on the verge of bancrupcy months before a game launch is supposed to rush things even more? Tell me how easy it is for all the wanted changes to be implemented? There's not going to be one magic patch that solves everything you know. I'm glad they're taking their time to come up with something decent rahter than hotfixes everytime I start the game.

I'm not trying to act like a Relic fanboy, but please consider this and give them some TIME.
16 Feb 2014, 23:15 PM
#75
avatar of DocRockwell

Posts: 60

I just read a rumor that they're nerfing the German scout car--a unit already so weak that its only role is to troll noob opponents. If this is true, the dev team has their heads so far up their asses that they have no clue where they're going.
16 Feb 2014, 23:20 PM
#76
avatar of The Dave

Posts: 396

Tell me how easy it is to balance a game that is out for less than a year. This is a very demanding game on all aspects. Tell me how a company that was on the verge of bancrupcy months before a game launch is supposed to rush things even more? Tell me how easy it is for all the wanted changes to be implemented? There's not going to be one magic patch that solves everything you know. I'm glad they're taking their time to come up with something decent rahter than hotfixes everytime I start the game.

I'm not trying to act like a Relic fanboy, but please consider this and give them some TIME.


Why are you neglecting to even acknowledge that the main reason the game blows is because of the awful DLC initiatives that are asking us for MORE money while also asking us to "patiently wait" while they fix their game?

That's the point. It's one thing to have balance issues and be working towards correcting those. Hell you could have glaring balance issues and not even attempt to address them after some time, cut your losses, and peace out. But, to ask us for more money, in some instances in order to win, when your game is in this state of disarray is shameful.
16 Feb 2014, 23:23 PM
#77
avatar of DocRockwell

Posts: 60

Tell me how easy it is to balance a game that is out for less than a year. This is a very demanding game on all aspects. Tell me how a company that was on the verge of bancrupcy months before a game launch is supposed to rush things even more? Tell me how easy it is for all the wanted changes to be implemented? There's not going to be one magic patch that solves everything you know. I'm glad they're taking their time to come up with something decent rahter than hotfixes everytime I start the game.

I'm not trying to act like a Relic fanboy, but please consider this and give them some TIME.


Here are a couple thoughts....
-Test changes before releasing them (outrageous, I know)
-stop adding new content that completely disrupts the balance of the game
-make incremental changes instead of their preferred method of making multitudes of drastic changes only to have to revert them
-focus resources on actually fixing problems instead of pumping out DLC like the gravy train is about to leave the station for good

Some people are ever apologetic for these slackers and incompetents. The game has been out for the better part of a year and it still plays like a beta build. Perhaps they were on the brink of bankruptcy because they're not very good at their jobs. Given the current state of affairs that doesn't seem like a far fetched reason.
16 Feb 2014, 23:24 PM
#78
avatar of Von Kluge
Patrion 14

Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2

I don't neglect a single thing about the DLC situation. I just didn't bring it up because it's apparant enough. Hell do you think I like buying DLC? I payed enough for the game in pre order, did I want to see an abundance of stuff being thrown at me for a couple of months? Nope.

The game is more than DLC alone and there are enough threads here to prove that, core mechanics you know?
16 Feb 2014, 23:29 PM
#79
avatar of DocRockwell

Posts: 60

And as for "how easy it is"... I'm just a consumer of video games, not a developer, but considering that this is the only game I've played that is constantly blighted with these recurring problems, I'd say its not difficult for a professional company who has their shit together.
16 Feb 2014, 23:31 PM
#80
avatar of DocRockwell

Posts: 60

I don't neglect a single thing about the DLC situation. I just didn't bring it up because it's apparant enough. Hell do you think I like buying DLC? I payed enough for the game in pre order, did I want to see an abundance of stuff being thrown at me for a couple of months? Nope.

The game is more than DLC alone and there are enough threads here to prove that, core mechanics you know?


I'm glad you agree. I don't think coddling the dev team is doing the game or the community any good though. Let Relic make the excuses, we're the customers and should be keeping them honest.
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

368 users are online: 368 guests
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49432
Welcome our newest member, weekprophecy
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM