Call to action - Let's Be Awesome Together

Sure any game will always have its better bunch of players, but the difference between these 'pros' and the average above-average player is incredibly smaller now. Look at Aimstrong for example, he had like a 98% win rate in automatch. And the other top players (Seb, DevM, Symbiosis, aljaz, Guderian, etc) were pretty close behind. Unless they got unlucky, they won almost every single game that wasn't against one of the top 10 players in the world. The people that are considered great now win 70-85% of their games against the general population, which isn't entirely their fault since the lower skill ceiling works both ways, but it just goes to show that the level of competition is a bit pale.


Those words aren't even mine, its more or less the same thing Twister (previous SNF winner) said just a few days ago. So if one of the top players feels the same way, its not really a personal l2p issue. I'm not sure what is the unit to spam these days since I haven't played 1v1 lately, but the lack of teching options and doctrine counter picking mechanic does make it a lot more difficult to outsmart a one dimensional player like that and instead you rely more on him making micro mistakes, which is pretty iffy since CoH isn't a very micro intensive game to begin with.

Show Spoiler

There is a counter to everything, be it commander selection, standard units or playstyle.

If a player is struggling with con / gren spam then once again that is their problem not the games, regardless of their skill level.

I think VonIvan summed up the COH2 pretty well for me.

I join 2v2 match, get VonIvan and JarminRock (i think) and someone who managed 9 kills entire game rounds of the match.

As Ivan expertly put it 'MVgame'

NDA withstanding, all I'll say is that I'm psyched for this game, very psyched. So much so that I don't give a fuck what the majority of naysayers such as Inverse harp on about in this thread, and haven't read 90% of it. CoH1 had no depth to its meta game at a similar stage in its life cycle but it slowly revealed itself much in the same way CoH2 is now, and it's stupid to me that a vocal minority are being absolutists incapable of giving it the time it needs to mature.

Relic are a small but dedicated dev team, you should give more time to a company that nearly got liquidated last year. They're doing wonders with patching CoH2, turning it from a sloppy mess into a blossoming competitive RTS. As incredibly varied and entertaining play in the recent Reddit 1v1 tournament has shown. The meta game is constantly changing even within the current patch, and there's a hell of a lot of change coming, as leaked patch notes have shown.

A fun game is slowly becoming a great game, and a worthy sequel. The great thing is the vocal portion of the CoH1 community that haven't given CoH2 enough of a chance are going to be rusty, and their premature opinions on its failure in its first year of release, will become a lot less relevant when they're revealed to be thoroughly mediocre CoH2 players. Then hopefully they'll spend less time whining about its short-comings, and more time playing.

-1 ^^

This post sums up your hopes for the future rather than the current state of CoH2.
Bankruptcy is no excuse for continuously ignoring the signals of CoH1 top tier players, who on the contrary of your statement, would still be top tier players if they would actually play the game, as shown by some of the early tournaments.

Additionally, you are not exactly known for your CoH insight, revealed in your analysis of the "meta game" of both CoH1 and CoH2. Quite frankly, you are possibly the worst player to ever stream a CoH game, so it would suit you to take players such as Inverse serious with respect to their opinions of the current CoH2 gameplay, as they share your hopes for the future.

Please guys don't make it personal and keep this on topic (which is what Noun wrote in the first post). If you have something to say to each other please use PMs.

Additionally, you are not exactly known for your CoH insight, revealed in your analysis of the "meta game" of both CoH1 and CoH2. Quite frankly, you are possibly the worst player to ever stream a CoH game, so it would suit you to take players such as Inverse serious with respect to their opinions of the current CoH2 gameplay, as they share your hopes for the future.

Everything wrong with this community in a paragraph: a lack of courtesy, snobbery and an exaggerated sense of an established hierarchy in the community. Thanks for the lesson Riddler.

just pay off pewdiepie to play multiplayer, instant literal millions of new purchases

@spajn and @ciez

How was Basilone complaining about new players?

I would rather take the word of someone that has spent 1000's of hours in a game he loves and being a high level player over that of someone who knows nothing of the original game.

How is SC2 a harder game and why would the top players there be better than anyone that plays COH? and saying that who give a f*ck its got nothing to do with coh2 being a game that people can spam and have pretty good success, in coh if you played against a top player you would have lost in a few minutes.

I played against barton in a 2v2 and it took him like 30 mins to put me away and Im pretty bad at the game bro.. if you dont know Barton is probably the best COH2 player around atm

If you like COH why are you 2 guy complaining about the original players and casters who made the community great, came up with strategies and supported the games growtht?

If you cant get it into your thick head that these guys are disappointed about how bad of a game coh2 is and how much misinformation was given pre and during launch then I have no idea how to help you.

Ill spell it out to you - COH2 is only a company of heroes game by name, if it was called something else it would have so much less attention put on it.

Is it fun at times? Sure. Is it a sequel to what I'd consider the best made RTS of all time, no it doesn't come close.

I don't think people cannot get it into their heads that a minority of people are disappointed with COH2, this was made clear months ago and should be respected and accepted and vice versa for people who like COH2.

Some excellent feedback has been given in the past (see inverses post) but is relic going to do a massive 180 and change its core design for COH2? Not likely.

The problem I see now is that the criticism is becoming less and less constructive nor bringing anything new, it is just the same regurgitated arguments happening over and over, like a broken record with no positive effect for either party.

So is this repetitive behaviour good for anyone?

I would like to believe Relic have gathered the good feedback about the core issues and have it as reference for the future.

This thread:

"Lets make the community better!"

"This game sucks, it's no vcoh, therefor it sucks. Now make all the changes that I want and then it will have an awesome community."

"relic sucks cuz they don't get the community"

"I like the game, I think it's fun, I'd like there be more events for the regular Joe's out there"

"That's cause your dumb and not a pro."

"The game is getting better"

"The game can never be better, much suckage, such shallow meta"

"wait... weren't we talking about the community"

"We are the community and we all hate the game"

"I'm here and I like the game?"

"Doesn't matter it sucks relic has to listen to me"

"Whatever, Bro"

EDIT: I'm looking through the other threads on the site and seeing how great this community can be. Genuine ideas about the metagame, balance issues, people talking about different strategies, how they liked using this commander or that commander, or how they don't like the commanders etc. Enjoying some vid of a kid screaming like a girl (hilarious btw). Fun stuff like that makes the community great, and all Noun was asking is to be more aware, I think, and just enjoy creating and consuming content (streams, casts, art, whatever) and try not to bring eachother down for childish reasons.

That is all.

WilliG pretty much summed up these forums every thread nicely
And people here are surprised that their toxic threads are being locked down on official forums.

I mean, come on! Keep the bile go and coh2.org will be as rotten as blizzards wow forum.

There is a counter to everything, be it commander selection, standard units or playstyle.

If a player is struggling with con / gren spam then once again that is their problem not the games, regardless of their skill level.

Every unit has a counter but its not that black and white.

A) You don't always have the best doctrine to choose from to counter scenario X because you first have to be lucky enough just to have it in your loadout when you need it.

B) Lack of hard hitting global upgrades= less ways to outsmart opponent. Making the right choice between BARs, WSC, M8, or whatever else was extremely important. So was making the right choice between heavy T2 with vet, fast T3 for Pumas, big T1, and so on.

C) Tech pace makes certain back teching playstyles less viable. If someone goes for the cheesy one dimensional a-move strategy, your time window to expose the weakness in his infantry unit composition is really short because tanks come so much faster.

snip

Like Kolaris said, the 'competition' are not equally skilled players. If the top 50 players had lower W/L rates because they lose almost exclusively to other top 50 players, great! But thats not the case here. If this new blood rises to the top because they really are that talented, fantastic. But in reality its a combination of the games lacking strategic depth making it easier to master, and the exodus of a lot of really good players (which is cause-effect, but nonetheless makes it even less competitive as the net result). And you are right somewhat that the game does take skill, but the gap between mid and high level players is a lot smaller.

But no matter how many well elaborated points are made by the critical crowd, in the end it doesn't matter because Ciez refuses to believe anything other than he is a great player in a game that is really hard to master. You never even try to debate our reasoning, you only attack us on the basis that we aren't actively playing the game anymore.

Its starting to look like relics forums, not a good sign.

Its starting to look like relics forums, not a good sign.

To me that sounds like an improvement and I doubt its what you meant to say.

On relic forums the QQ is almost exclusively about certain units.
Here the bitching is about everything possible, soon we'll see QQ about relic devs parents most likely.

-1 ^^

This post sums up your hopes for the future rather than the current state of CoH2.
Bankruptcy is no excuse for continuously ignoring the signals of CoH1 top tier players, who on the contrary of your statement, would still be top tier players if they would actually play the game, as shown by some of the early tournaments.

Additionally, you are not exactly known for your CoH insight, revealed in your analysis of the "meta game" of both CoH1 and CoH2. Quite frankly, you are possibly the worst player to ever stream a CoH game, so it would suit you to take players such as Inverse serious with respect to their opinions of the current CoH2 gameplay, as they share your hopes for the future.

"Yeah, know your place A_E; KNOW. UR. PLACE!

Also, TFN suck arse non natives lol."

Seems to me, you are simply trying to start some rage within the community.

@The_Riddler: Meh I'm a thoroughly average player with distinctly average rankings in both games, I pertain to be nothing more or less. Someone's skill level shouldn't hamper or improve the validity of their opinion, or their insight into the game, for which I have a decent amount - probably more than most.

My insight in the meta at this stage in CoH1's life cycle comes from watching allegedly HoF replays from 2006/2007 on GR, and discovering them to be mostly T1 spam into tanks. It takes a while for a game to mature, and the player base to adapt when its has as much depth as CoH1/2 has.

Also I'm only the worst player to stream, as we've yet to see you play.

Every unit has a counter but its not that black and white.

B) Lack of hard hitting global upgrades= less ways to outsmart opponent. Making the right choice between BARs, WSC, M8, or whatever else was extremely important. So was making the right choice between heavy T2 with vet, fast T3 for Pumas, big T1, and so on.

You really think choosing a tech is a way of outsmarting your opponent? That's so ridiculous, they are investments and you either win with that investment or you don't. You either choose to kite your way to victory with the m8 or BAR your way into enemy lines. You're not outsmarting them you are just investing into a tech order and it only pays off if you have good micro and if you use them wisely. That's not "outsmarting" in the sense I see like baiting the opponent into a mine or an excellent flanking attack.

I would like to see upgrades or different build orders as a way to have more diversity in game play, but to say that purchasing global upgrades is a way to "outsmart" your opponent is complete fallacy.

But in reality its a combination of the games lacking strategic depth making it easier to master

The strategic depth in Company of Heroes is already really simple. I see Company of Heroes as a tactical game, what really matters is your judgement and your micro. If you want to know why Company of Heroes 2 has a smaller skill gap between newcomers and excellent players, it's not because of the "strategic depth" it's because that squads die a lot slower to small arms, grenades are easier to dodge, and the impacts of RNG. It has nothing to do with strategic depth.

In another post you complained about players only able to win with conscript spam or grenadier spam, that has nothing to do with strategic depth, that is because of an imbalance issue and Relic only needs to buff the other units to fix it. There could be hundreds of way to play this game yet you only see that one tactic because it's the only tactic that works at the time, hence it's a balance issue.

You got it all wrong.

So when you intentionally delay your BARs to get your opponent to think you're going M8, forcing him out of a heavy T1 and into a faster T2, that isn't outsmarting him?

So when you intentionally delay your BARs to get your opponent to think you're going M8, forcing him out of a heavy T1 and into a faster T2, that isn't outsmarting him?

How many AT gun shots does it take to kill an M8. 3? How accurate are the Panzershrecks? How long does it take to get a T3 building up? A lot longer than the time it takes to get a M8! At high level games T2 doesn't finish off the M8 it only holds them off, deny them from a certain area. What really takes them out are mines or bad micro mistakes. It still doesn't change the fact that it's all about the tactical decisions you make on the field. Barbwire a bunch of areas so you can spend less manpower on t1 units, mess up a well executed BAR flank with a mine. Global Upgrades are investment, the M8 is an investment you lose one it's a major setback you kill over a dozen infantry you're in the lead, get it?

If you go heavy T1 and suffer almost no losses against an American attack would you have enough MP for an AT gun anyways? I don't see your scenario as outsmarting, it just seems like the opponent over invested into the next tier. If the opponent has hundreds of other decisions what makes him think M8 would be the only threat he face? or is there only two different kind of builds, BARs or M8s? If that's so, that's not much strategic depth to me.

Company of Heroes is indeed a simple game strategically, yet it's still more complex than CoH2. If you look at it from a pure numbers perspective, there are the same number of base units available in both games (4 per tier, there's actually one more in CoH2 I believe because of Conscripts in T0, but there's also one more tech building for Americans in vCoH, so it essentially evens out). Yet there are only 3 fuel-based upgrades in CoH2 (the 3 Conscript upgrades for Soviets, none for Ostheer aside from tier upgrades, which I'm not counting because Wehrmacht has them as well). There are only 3 in the entire base game! In comparison, there are 20 fuel-based upgrades in vCoH (8 for Americans, 12 for Wehrmacht). That's just objectively more options for a strategic player.

CoH2 narrows the gap when you include commanders, but you're still limited to three a game (just like in vCoH) and you still have the problem of players having to pay extra money just for access to all of the strategic options. Ultimately, vCoH just gives a player more options. In a strategy game, more options is rarely a bad thing.

The argument that CoH2 is new and immature and will grow is obviously valid. New strategies will emerge, the metagame will shift, everything that happens to all RTS games will happen to CoH2. But the shifts are going to be smaller, because there are simply less options. You're not going to see the huge shifts from tech rushes with no upgrades (vCoH 1.7) to low-tech high-upgrade gameplay (2.301 T2 Terror, Piospam, rifle upgrade spam) and everything in between (T1-T2-T3, fast vet 2 into T3, etc.). In order for that to happen, the base game needs to be able to facilitate it, and right now it does not. Instead, you're going to see shifts in unit compositions, and which units are built more than others. That provides variety, of course, but on a much smaller scale.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I have an open mind, I want CoH2 to be great. That's why I post my opinions, and that's why I'm critical of the game. Because I think it has great potential, but it also has a lot of issues that are holding it back. I don't understand the hate against people who are simply pointing this out. The game needs improvements above and beyond balance; pretending it doesn't is counter-productive.

It's strange that the people defending the game are so much angrier than those stating their issues with it :/

To Inverse.

If you didn't understand my post, I never said I am content with the few tech options, I said that I would like to have more different builds to diversify gameplay so there would be less repetitiveness in multiplayer. More different ways to play is always better.

What I was arguing against is what Basilone believed that global upgrades is a way to outsmart your opponent he believes that he is superbly brilliant for investing in BARs a few minutes later than he should, to which I said "you did not outsmart him you just invested into it a little later."

I also agree that CoH2 has less options to play and only diversifying game play with commanders is a bad way to go, but I never argued against that.

It's strange that the people defending the game are so much angrier than those stating their issues with it :/

Wrong, the people who are arguing against the game are just as angry, and I wasn't angry at all when I made my post. The way I see it's the people who are criticizing the game who are the angriest.

Even if they are angrier that doesn't mean anything, really. Sometimes it is what some people say that makes others angry.