Call to action - Let's Be Awesome Together

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

We rarely have a problem with people like you that can actually articulate the things that they dislike about the game and then back them up with evidence. Too many people in this community just cry incessantly about anything they can and then lash out against anyone who tries to have a serious discussion with them. Sure I don't always agree with your perspective but I can at least respect the fact that you take the time to make sure it is well thought-out, you can admit when you're wrong (which 99% of people around here cannot do), and you can sound somewhat intelligent.

@Basoline:

1) I have never claimed to be some great CoH 2 player. Sure I consider myself to be pretty good, but I don't think I'm top 10. Hell I'm probably barely top 25 if I'm being honest (and perhaps even lower than that, who knows). Please stop putting words into my mouth, it makes you sound dumb. Thanks.

2) I've debated different points of view in plenty of threads before to the point of just being sick of it. At times I enjoy debates with people like Inverse/Twister/Tommy (and perhaps a few others) because they can actually carry on a decent discussion. You on the other hand just regurgitate (often in a wrong manner) the things you see them saying. You haven't played the game in how long? And you think you have some semblance of an idea of the state of the game/metagame? Just the fact that you think Con/Gren spam or rushing for T3 tanks is still a thing shows how wrong you are. Sure those strats work sometimes on some maps, but the dominance of those strats has been dead for 3+ months.

3) You're the perfect example of what Noun was talking about with toxicity. You relentlessly follow me (and I'm sure others) into every thread and then start arguments for the sake of what...? You don't give good constructive criticism and you just attack people all day. It's tired bro, give it up. Like I said before, we as a community don't have to be sheep - we should speak out in a constructive manner in order to facilitate and push for good changes to the game but what you do is just plain toxic and annoying.

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 :/

I agree with most of your points- but America only had 11 base units(oops, 12), and Russia has 14.

Conversely, I think wehrmacht had 16(not including goliaths if you want to count those as well), versus the ostheer 14, as well as 2 separate upgrades for the half-track.

Of Course America had a whole lot more global upgrades, but Wehrmacht did have about 12 different fuel upgrades themselves, they were just all in vet. I won't miss that mechanic, but I will miss the different ways that wehr could focus its tech.

There do seem to be more viable openings in this game than in coh1 though, partly having to do with different opening tiers for Russia, but of course, some of this comes from the diversity of commanders, and these openings tend to lock in a player's trajectory and make him fairly predictable.

One of the reasons there are less options though, is because of the way resources work. In coh1, you could go all in with tier 1 and maybe tier 2, because theoretically, if you could keep your opponent off his fuel, you weren't going to be seeing any medium vehicles. In this game, you might stall your teching for a minute if you have kept both fuels, but any longer than that and you could lose a game because your opponent still pulled out a t34(obviously that's with the exception of maps where ostheer can entirely starve the opponent of resources in full).

I definitely think this should be reworked some, putting more fuel and munis into the actual fuel and muni points, and less into the regular points, or just reinstate the old resource system, popcap, manpower, and all.

And yeah, where are the global upgrades? I really hope Duffy abandons his stance on these - though I understand that the implementation will probably be a shake-up of doctrinal abilities.

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.

There was a mind game behind the early game teching, Kolaris gave one example (delayed infantry upgrades against someone preparing for M8). Also situations like WM player has big T1 so BARs probably isn't the best idea, but I may need some infantry upgrade anyways because without it he can move for my cutoff and I won't be able to do anything about it. Also back teching for a sniper at the appropriate time without making it too obvious what you are doing. Tech path wasn't just flipping a coin because if you didn't make the correct choice it could come back and haunt you in a few minutes.

What I meant was, in CoH2 the early game has a lot less rock paper scissors because there isn't much of an early game. Like I said there is less time to exploit the weaknesses of his infantry composition when tanks are coming so quickly. For example even if the M8 did not beat the Pak on the field you could still use it in other areas of the map. But if you don't get a T70 out in optimal time then P4 shows up like 30 seconds later and kills it immediately. If guy is spamming vetted grens in CoH1 you have a decent window of time where snipers shift the advantage back in your favor, but if you try a similar approach in CoH2 you have the FHT arriving at almost the same time, or a Ostwind just a couple of minutes later. You don't have the sufficient amount of time to punish a poor early game player.

edit: So a longer early game and global upgrades are both equally important, because having more options in the early game is pointless when the early game is practically over once you get your first 5 units on the field.

My post was mainly directed at A_E. He's being championed for stating he hasn't read 90% of the criticism in this thread because he doesn't care; I think that's silly and a terrible outlook to have.

As for your point, outsmarted is a bad word for Basilone to use, because you can "outsmart" someone in a million different ways. Running at an infantry squad to fake throwing a grenade and getting him to run out of cover is outsmarting. So is delaying BARs so your opponent builds a Pak first out of T2 instead of a Gren. So is starting to throw and then cancelling a grenade around a Puma to make your opponent think you have sticky bombs. There are a million ways to outsmart your opponent in any game.

CoH2 has all that stuff, and that's great. What it doesn't have is diversity.

@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.

I am glad to see my post is part of that 10% you have read . Nonetheless, skill level and validity of opinions are correlated, as this validity expresses itself in the gameplay of a respective player. The insight of a player struggling to get past level 10 is not equal to the insight of a top tier player.

As for myself, I like to think I was decent on CoH1, but not special enough to think other people should watch me play. I hope you will cherish the same thought about yourself someday.

...

Maybe you like Inverse and Tommy more since they have youtube channels, fair enough. But I've done more elaborating in my own words in just this one thread, than you have in all your posts directed at me. I also have more in depth gameplay constructive criticism topics than you, go figure. In reality you are the one that started following me around with the same old "you aren't good at coh2" "another nostalgic vcoh fanboy" "you don't even play the game" etc. etc. etc. because I wasn't even aware you existed before then.


PS: You attack me for not knowing the meta game because of what I said about the Conscripts/Grens/tanks thing, even after I specifically said that was a reiteration of something Twister said in another thread. But you do enjoy debating with Twister. The ignorance is strong with this one.

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. ´

CoH was never a really micro-intensive game. The hardest thing to micro was the bike/jeep and maybe the sniper.

But that aside, I don't think RNG and nades being easier to dodge are real problems for the game. They are easy to fix if needed.

A bigger problem is the core design, the way a match plays out. From what I saw lately, you have a slow paced early game, a really really short mid game and then you hit the stage of the game where tanks slowly start taking over the field. This is hard to fix and this is why I personally don't like the game in its current state.

I loved CoH1 because it had a really interesting early game. You had a lot of different options, the early game was fast paced and with a good early game you were able to make a lot of different decisions for mid game, that had A LOT of impact on the game.
Late game units only hit the field if you gained an advantage in mid game or if both players played towards it. Otherwise it was a real gamble whether you survive the stage of the game where you were waiting for your late game unit or not. It was a mindgame through and through.

This "tactical mindgame" was at least as important and using your units well. If you understood how this part of the game worked out and you actually managed to apply this ingame, you were already better than the average player. There were players that reached high level with having very low apm numbers and that only mastered the basics of microing and macroing units. This does not mean the game had a low skill-ceiling, it meant that the strategical and tactical aspects of the game were ridiuclously hard to understand and even harder to master.

If I compare that to CoH2 I personally feel this "mindgame" has a lot less impact. There are a lot of reasons to it, most obviously the basically non-existend mid game, the whole ressource mechanics and to some extend the slow-paced early game which does not allow you to gain a big advantage or build up a favourable position for your game plan. There are more, and I am not nearly able to list them all.

However, I just have this feeling that everytime I play this game, I lack options and ways to outplay my opponent. I win most of my games just by having better unit preservation (using cover better, dodging nades better, etc.).


I would love to have a healthy and constructive discussion about the game, but after all it becomes quickly frustrating (for both sides) if players start arguing for the sake of arguing. On top of that it feels pointless if the Relic members responsible for this are not taking part in this discussion.

First Paragraph.

and have read my reply to Kolaris?

What I meant was, in CoH2 the early game has a lot less rock paper scissors because there isn't much of an early game. Like I said there is less time to exploit the weaknesses of his infantry composition when tanks are coming so quickly. For example even if the M8 did not beat the Pak on the field you could still use it in other areas of the map. But if you don't get a T70 out in optimal time then P4 shows up like 30 seconds later and kills it immediately. If guy is spamming vetted grens in CoH1 you have a decent window of time where snipers shift the advantage back in your favor, but if you try a similar approach in CoH2 you have the FHT arriving at almost the same time, or a Ostwind just a couple of minutes later. You don't have the sufficient amount of time to punish a poor early game player.

edit: So a longer early game and global upgrades are both equally important, because having more options in the early game is pointless when the early game is practically over once you get your first 5 units on the field.

I really don't like any kind of rock paper scissors approach to any game, because it requires a lot of guess work then tactics and strategy. I'm not saying vCoH is, but just comparing the game to rock, paper, scissors is a bad way to go things and makes it seems like you lack creativity with tactics or strategy. I like my games where there are hard counters, soft counters, or the medium therefore there would be many different ways to defeat your foe depending on how you use them.

Like your example with snipers, a vet 3 grenadier costs the same as a vet 0 grenadier. Snipers are really effective against the Germans regardless of vet. If snipers are the only counter you have against vet 2 grenadiers then this game really is a rock, paper, scissors and I found that to be a flaw. Thankfully, there are other counters like grenades, flamethrowers, quick Sherman.

I also agree that this game needs a longer early game but having global upgrades is not the only way to diversify game play. How bout more different kind of light vehicles? I made this suggestion a while ago, there are many other better suggestions then global upgrades that could make this game great. It just seems like you're trying to make this game just like vCoH.

It just seems like you're trying to make this game just like vCoH.

Before you can make a better game you have to make the game just as good. There's nothing wrong with copying vCoH's success and then improving from there. Don't fix what isn't broken.

There are a handful of things CoH2 did right, but they're lost amidst all the things it tried to do differently and ended up doing wrong.

Everybody should take a deep breath and relax. I've been following this thread some while and I feel that people fail to read and understand what others write. Just because the case is so close to you and important doesn't mean you should get heated up and read ”opponents” post in rage-mode.

It seems to me that some of the players don't see (or don't want to see) that you and your ”opponent”, pro-coh2 and vcoh elitist, are on the same side. We all want CoH2 to be a good game and a great successor to CoH, don't we? And reading the thread you can draw a conclusion that it really is the case. But only if you read it without taking a side, defensive-mode, nitpicking etc. I mean seriously, how many times people who currently dislike the game or some aspect of it have to say that they want CoH2 to be great, until someone believes them?

You say you want constructive criticism, well people have given plenty of it. Even Basilone. Still some manage to snipe single things out of his comments and blow it out of proportion and debate about silly things. All this while absolutely ignoring comments of Kolaris or Tommy. Or the comments about Relics behaviour and lying...

Now then, some think that I exposed myself being a ”vCoH fanboy” – I am. But I enjoy playing CoH2, at least to some extend. Still I can see the reasons why majority of the veterans have left. There's no smoke without fire. I hope Relic can win it like Charlie Sheen but I have my doubts.

Everybody should take a deep breath and relax. I've been following this thread some while and I feel that people fail to read and understand what others write. Just because the case is so close to you and important doesn't mean you should get heated up and read ”opponents” post in rage-mode.

It seems to me that some of the players don't see (or don't want to see) that you and your ”opponent”, pro-coh2 and vcoh elitist, are on the same side. We all want CoH2 to be a good game and a great successor to CoH, don't we? And reading the thread you can draw a conclusion that it really is the case. But only if you read it without taking a side, defensive-mode, nitpicking etc. I mean seriously, how many times people who currently dislike the game or some aspect of it have to say that they want CoH2 to be great, until someone believes them?

You say you want constructive criticism, well people have given plenty of it. Even Basilone. Still some manage to snipe single things out of his comments and blow it out of proportion and debate about silly things. All this while absolutely ignoring comments of Kolaris or Tommy. Or the comments about Relics behaviour and lying...

Now then, some think that I exposed myself being a ”vCoH fanboy” – I am. But I enjoy playing CoH2, at least to some extend. Still I can see the reasons why majority of the veterans have left. There's no smoke without fire. I hope Relic can win it like Charlie Sheen but I have my doubts.

Word.

Snip

+1

Snip V2

+1 Couldn't have said it better myself

Some guys are just D-bags and you can't change their personalities... simply put. I'm not even that good and I've been raged at before by some "nobody"... Any game PERIOD... in this day and age is going to have troublemakers. Would it be nice to have a pleasant experience every single game, of course, but is that realistic... of course not. That's why this long winded post is pointless. It borders on being naïve. I can't blame Noun for trying though... it's just sadly a mute point. You can lead a horse to water...but... you know.

@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.

Watch all those videos again . You will see that metagame changes happen way faster in coh2 and even some staples have been obtained already . The reason for that is that while Coh2 might be in its infancy in real time both in the development and the metagame evolution due to the collective experience that has been gained in the course of over 7 years from coh1 , therefore time is more "effective" . There is no groundbreaking event such as circlestrafing or even using vet which if i remember correctly were big things in vcoh when they happened . Sure there will be changes but when we look at this game in the future 3 yrs from now , assuming that no new commanders or units have been released you wont see radical differences in the way the game is played .

So when you say Coh2 is in its infancy you are dead wrong in all aspects . In "coh1 years" coh2 is at least 2 and a half years old . I guess the theory of relativity can be applied even in RTS's .


Also riddle me this CoH2 "defenders" how come if we criticizers are the vocal minority Coh2 has less players than coh1 presteam , if coh2 was as good as some ppl make it to be, it should have double its numbers , after all there was a massive accumulation of ppl over the past of the last 7 yrs and from all those ppl only a tiny fraction plays the game on multiplayer .

You say you want constructive criticism, well people have given plenty of it. Even Basilone. Still some manage to snipe single things out of his comments and blow it out of proportion and debate about silly things. All this while absolutely ignoring comments of Kolaris or Tommy.

ram1 this is the oldest trick on the book of debating cheapshots , it serves to move the focus of the debate away from the area one of the participants is lacking in and its done mostly by ppl who want to win the debate rather than prove a point . Watch any talkshow where politicians are present and you ll know .

Today I discovered that there is a replaycontrols_hide command in -dev mode, which I have been asking about privately since May of 2013 to no response. Can we have a toggle button for this please? It would be a huge help to casters. That box (and italics text above it) takes up way too much screen space over the game window and is not necessary. Right now casters have to make a special overlay to hide the replay progress bar to prevent spoiling the length of the game. A simple toggle button for this command, which is already in the game, would be a great help.

Other really great toggle buttons in replays would include:

UI_TerritoryHide
game_hideui

Giving us these 3 toggle buttons in the replay UI would make life about a million times easier for content creators. You want us to be awesome, help us out pls.

Smash Brothers, like CoH2, wasn't designed to be competitive, and isn't really a good competitive game. That doesn't mean people can't enjoy playing it competitively, or watching it competitively. But it will never be a successful game from a competitive perspective because it does not attract the type of person who enjoys competitive games. Those people will play SC2, or Dota 2, or CS, or any number of games that cater to their interests more.

You going to be picking up a GC controller some time soon then?

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/smash-bros/446516-liquid-smash-brothers-melee

But if you don't get a T70 out in optimal time then P4 shows up like 30 seconds later and kills it immediately.

This is true for a lot of units. There are a handful of units that are useful throughout the game, but most need to be edged in at the right time* or they're completely worthless.

T70 is one of the most obvious examples. 55 fuel vs 85 fuel for T-34: The 30 fuel difference is nearly meaningless on the game's timeline, especially if you factor in that any initiative lost waiting the couple of extra minutes for the T-34 can be potentially completely reversed into you winning the game (or at least you'll be able to hold vs. the inevitable PzIV-led offense). Considering that the T70 is completely shut down by every grenadier with a faust and that Relic removed its only redeeming feature - squishing infantry - it's a fair to call it useless. Also, Their main gun is also weak that the german doesn't even need bother with driving his light vehicles out of the way. Finally, as others have mention already, it doesn't scale past the first enemy tank (which comes out maybe 3-5 minutes later) so why ever bother building it?

German T4 is equally useless. They cost too much and they have no target on the battlefield. Yes, the BBaer has some good lulz-potential shooting at Paks, but 3 PzIV cost as much and are better at being present on the battlefield. The Panther is just entirely useless, because it has no targets and going T4 for the Rocket Launcher is being decadent at best, gibbing infantry can be done cheaper and more effective with less investment.

* and we all know that in any battle that deserves the name, they'll never be 'on time'.

And then there is the issue with the Paks. I really want to like them and they've gotten better but the fundamental issue with them is still that they factually are two units, themselves + a babysitter and they require an extra bunch of micro to not die to the first angry stare by the enemy. Consequently a lot of involvement required. Considering I can just shove another Panzer on A-Move into the opponents rear area for great dillema, the only real reason to ever build a Pak is if you're low on fuel. Like a dumb german skipping T3 and then complaining why Relic has the audacity to allow 5 T-34 to take out his single Panther. But I disgrees: Pak: micro-hell. Tanks: Can defend vs. armor on autopilot while my attention is elsewhere, while simulatenously being able to pressure the offensive. For something that passive, a Pak needs to Pak a bigger punch imo. What would also help a great deal is if tanks couldn't drive around like they own the damn place, in general there is only one thing a tank fears: other tanks. And that explains most of the gameplay we see even at high level.

There are a lot of 'sloppy' units (in the sense that their potential impact they can have on the battlefield hasn't been balanced properly vs. their effectivity) in the game and I think if Relic would take the time to straighten those out, we could play a game that is overall more stategically diverse and exciting to play. Don't even need new bunkers or sandsacks.

Sorry to necro an old thread, but I just couldn't help myself. It was interesting to read the comments in here after 2 years and the people we lost along the way. Interesting to see how far we have come.

too long didnt read all your nerd posts from 2014, i just love tha game and encourage the hard work that went into company of heroes and all its iterations