Goodbye

Are we talking about all DLC? Because this argument seems to be focused more around the Tiger Ace, which from what I've seen in the higher level games that I've watched over the last few weeks, has actually been more of a hindrance with the massive resource drain it causes (Edit: At least in 1v1/2v2's). Which means that if you can dance around the Tiger, harassing points and trading on MP the opponent is going to be able to keep up with the MP drain.

As for other Commanders that provide a significant "I bought this and win" advantage", no others have been brought to my attention.

Jesus. Just because I made one comment about the tiger ace, people are jumping on that as my reason for losing interest. Please stay on topic. My gripe is not about the balance issues particular to one commander, but rather how paid commanders as a whole upset game balance between those-who-bought-the-game and those-who-buy-every-fucking-dlc. The game is not fair. Even if I had spared no expense, my enjoyment would be diluted, knowing that I had in-game advantages which have little to do with my skill and knowledge of the game mechanics and its units.

My gripe is not about the balance issues particular to one commander, but rather how paid commanders as a whole upset game balance between those-who-bought-the-game and those-who-buy-every-fucking-dlc.

On this point, I agree with you 100%. But this topic has been beaten to death in other threads. So much so that I would hasten to say that Relic is fully aware of the discontent over the issue. Whether they can alleviate it or not remains to be seen, as ofc there are many mitigating factors.

I still got hope for CoH3. I don't think I'll buy it new, but yeah, lessons.

Sorry to see you go - you had the coolest username

In a world filled with casual, dumbed-down trash, you're going to let your bunghole get poked and prodded by little nitpicks so that you stop supporting one of the few cerebral, tactical games on the market? Also, the game is freaking sixty bucks. Implying that only those "well off" can afford to make it sixty four is just silly. They're not going to sit around and expand the game and add new content based upon a tiny little trickle of post-release purchases. They have to have financial incentive to continue adding content to the game. Computer programmers are not free. You'd prefer they just issue a few bug fixes/patches then abandon it I guess. Yet you'd have no problem with a much more expensive expansion pack like those made for CoH1, even though commanders are, in essence, miniature, more frequent expansions which are priced marginally accordingly. The only distinction is that it's not opt-in. Which is perfectly reasonable as segregating those who own the commanders would lead to matchmaking problems. These guys are doing honest, awesome work and are getting nothing but shit for it because PC gamers apparently are zealous ideologues. You're going to bring about your own extinction.

Most games are released in their final state, sans fixes and improvements. CoH2 is an ongoing experience with new abilities, units, and aspects added intermittently. It is expected that those who love the game will purchase the once-a-month-or-two commanders for chump change if they see the new abilities as worthwhile.

Think of it more like a subscription fee of 4 bucks every month or two. For a game released in a stagnant state, this would be unacceptable. But keep in mind that programmers are working each month to add new facets and aspects to the game. Suddenly, you see that a subscription is perfectly reasonable, even necessary. Yet it's not even forced upon you with CoH2. It's optional. You evaluate the features you think are worthwhile on your own terms.

Basically, the argument against commanders MUST be that they should not exist period, that no new units should be added to the game, that no new abilities should be added to the game. Because asking for such things at absolutely no cost is illogical and economically untenable. And there's not much precedent for this, in this genre.

So that being the case, basically, people are riled up and angry that a game is evolving and getting new content. How irrational is that?

At any given time a few thousand people seem to be playing the game. L4D2 or some other AAA title will have 50,000+. If you think Relic are making a killing off of a few measly commanders, you are sorely mistaken I suspect.

All I'm trying to say Is that the game's been out for almost a year now, Surely you'd just move on and play something you actually enjoy.

I played 200+ games

I played yesterday and I am playing right now, where did you get that I don't enjoy the game?

There is difference between wanting something to be better and not liking it.

Surely by now you have to start wondering if you read what I wrote or did you just concluded what you wanted to read?

i will miss your avatar that makes me think fondly of a much better game- jagged alliance 2

i will miss your avatar that makes me think fondly of a much better game- jagged alliance 2

Same

Well, thanks everybody. Except, of course, those of you who have chosen to attack my opinions, which I am entitled to. It might have been different, if the game were sold as a subscription service. Alas, it was not. (and I would not have been likely to buy in if it were)...
And as much as I'd like to poke holes in a few of those arguments up there... I hardly see the point anymore.

The takeaway here is that Pay To Play can be perceived as P2W.

That may be an error in judgement on the customer's part but the fact remains that the comparison is a bit of a gray area where it is sometimes valid, sometimes not.

Relic deserves some credit for the recent slowdown in commander releases and their attempts at achieving balance but those efforts may go unnoticed by the potential customers reading bad reviews riddled with P2W.

Well, thanks everybody. Except, of course, those of you who have chosen to attack my opinions, which I am entitled to. It might have been different, if the game were sold as a subscription service. Alas, it was not. (and I would not have been likely to buy in if it were)...
And as much as I'd like to poke holes in a few of those arguments up there... I hardly see the point anymore.

u still here ?

u still here ?

Its always like that.

IQUIT thread and they keep playing for following months/years.

Its called attention whoring.

Its always like that.

IQUIT thread and they keep playing for following months/years.

Its called attention whoring.

i dont understand english

In a world filled with casual, dumbed-down trash, you're going to let your bunghole get poked and prodded by little nitpicks so that you stop supporting one of the few cerebral, tactical games on the market? Also, the game is freaking sixty bucks. Implying that only those "well off" can afford to make it sixty four is just silly. They're not going to sit around and expand the game and add new content based upon a tiny little trickle of post-release purchases. They have to have financial incentive to continue adding content to the game. Computer programmers are not free. You'd prefer they just issue a few bug fixes/patches then abandon it I guess. Yet you'd have no problem with a much more expensive expansion pack like those made for CoH1, even though commanders are, in essence, miniature, more frequent expansions which are priced marginally accordingly. The only distinction is that it's not opt-in. Which is perfectly reasonable as segregating those who own the commanders would lead to matchmaking problems. These guys are doing honest, awesome work and are getting nothing but shit for it because PC gamers apparently are zealous ideologues. You're going to bring about your own extinction.

Most games are released in their final state, sans fixes and improvements. CoH2 is an ongoing experience with new abilities, units, and aspects added intermittently. It is expected that those who love the game will purchase the once-a-month-or-two commanders for chump change if they see the new abilities as worthwhile.

Think of it more like a subscription fee of 4 bucks every month or two. For a game released in a stagnant state, this would be unacceptable. But keep in mind that programmers are working each month to add new facets and aspects to the game. Suddenly, you see that a subscription is perfectly reasonable, even necessary. Yet it's not even forced upon you with CoH2. It's optional. You evaluate the features you think are worthwhile on your own terms.

Basically, the argument against commanders MUST be that they should not exist period, that no new units should be added to the game, that no new abilities should be added to the game. Because asking for such things at absolutely no cost is illogical and economically untenable. And there's not much precedent for this, in this genre.

So that being the case, basically, people are riled up and angry that a game is evolving and getting new content. How irrational is that?

At any given time a few thousand people seem to be playing the game. L4D2 or some other AAA title will have 50,000+. If you think Relic are making a killing off of a few measly commanders, you are sorely mistaken I suspect.

+1. Good post.

And moving forward with your argument, I am under the impression (perhaps unfairly) that some members jumped ship before the big patch before Xmas, which transformed the early game, and they do not realise how it changed things. There is still a problem (IMO) with the mid-game, which several have pointed out and which needs to be expanded,before massive transition into tanks/arty. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I am reasonably confident that Relic are regrouping on this aspect.

I do think that some of the Commanders can now be rejigged to accommodate that objective,free or not. As many have pointed out, some Commanders are simply not worth using, and there are some basic concepts which should stay outside the Commander system.. e.g. tank traps The free Soviet Commander which Relic last released- Advanced Warfare - was a reasonably good model of how to progress without destabilising the game.

Accordingly, I remain confident now that 'Goodbyes' belong in Jurassic Park.

With regards l2p ~~~ that means BUYING THE COMMANDER and testing it out!

That's not really true, sure you can get a better understanding of the fine points by using it yourself but to argue the only way to learn to counter a doctrine is by using said doctrine yourself is a little silly. If that was the case then your argument would hold more water but as is it seems a bit flimsy.

That's beside the point, which is that people who pay for commanders get a broader range of strategic choices, and those who don't are at a disadvantage because we are unable to test the meta for its strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of abilities - like in CoH1 - is vastly preferential, because you are able to anticipate which avenue your opponent might go down - impossible with a growing base of premium commanders.

Not really, everyone is still only allowed 3 commanders, and there are more than enough viable free commanders to deal w/ the paid commanders. While it might give a slight edge, I never feel like it more than made up for the mistakes that I may have made in teching, micro, tactical decision making etc...People just always want something to blame their losses on, and p2w has a nice label that everyone accepts as being unfair. All your really doing is hindering yourself from improving. If your shortcomings are always the fault of the game design how do you ever expect to learn and improve? Sorry but unless you are in the top 5% of players...you could have always played better to win, and even the top 5% still acknowledge when/what they could have done to win. I'm really tired of all the faction imbalance QQ'ing.

Attention, you want it.

If you're going to leave, leave. If you want to discuss Relic and CoH 2 start a different thread.

Not really, everyone is still only allowed 3 commanders, and there are more than enough viable free commanders to deal w/ the paid commanders. While it might give a slight edge, I never feel like it more than made up for the mistakes that I may have made in teching, micro, tactical decision making etc...People just always want something to blame their losses on, and p2w has a nice label that everyone accepts as being unfair. All your really doing is hindering yourself from improving. If your shortcomings are always the fault of the game design how do you ever expect to learn and improve? Sorry but unless you are in the top 5% of players...you could have always played better to win, and even the top 5% still acknowledge when/what they could have done to win. I'm really tired of all the faction imbalance QQ'ing.

Having a good K/D with a ACW-R in BF3 was not pay to win. It was a pretty good gun but only slightly out performed most others and even then it was still inferior to a few stock guns such as the M16A3. Having the alternative to use a ACW-R doesn't mean very much in a game about shooting people. However having the option to use more units/abilities/tactics in a STRATEGY game is pretty unfair. That would be the equivalent of something like sprint ability or knife attacks in BF3 being locked behind a expansion pack, that would be pay-to-win.

Even if they were all perfectly balanced (which will never happen btw) it is not fair if you paid to have more available choices than your opponent in a game genre that is based around making decisions. Even if by some miracle they do manage to eventually get the balance spot on in the end, they already have I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to release doctrines that aren't remotely balanced for weeks or even months in the case of the Tiger Ace. You might say "well its going to be fixed eventually" but I say look at the large volume of people that have uninstalled because of it and even some of the people that are still playing today either stopped playing for a while or had a terrible experience for months because of this business model.

Just because both players only get 3 doesn't make it fair either. You might have the same number of possible doctrine choices per game, but there are a ton of variables that will give the advantage to the guy rocking the DLC commanders. He has the potential for a stronger combination of 3, he has a wider variety of niche role units that can be fielded, and its also pretty likely that several players out there excel using one strategy repeatedly but are not very well rounded players. For example look at Vesat and CrazyTiger in CoH1. Every single game they spammed Volks with blitz nades and then Pumas. When they tried other playstyles they were only average players, but they were fairly successful doing the same thing over and over again. Now just imagine people like that in CoH2, that aren't very well rounded players, but they do excel at using one cookie cutter strat repeatedly. Except now there is a chance that the cookie cutter strat is only possible through paid DLC. How is that not pay-to-win? If you win a higher amount of games because you paid, its p2w.

Having a good K/D with a ACW-R in BF3 was not pay to win. It was a pretty good gun but only slightly out performed most others and even then it was still inferior to a few stock guns such as the M16A3. Having the alternative to use a ACW-R doesn't mean very much in a game about shooting people. However having the option to use more units/abilities/tactics in a STRATEGY game is pretty unfair. That would be the equivalent of something like sprint ability or knife attacks in BF3 being locked behind a expansion pack, that would be pay-to-win.

Even if they were all perfectly balanced (which will never happen btw) it is not fair if you paid to have more available choices than your opponent in a game genre that is based around making decisions. Even if by some miracle they do manage to eventually get the balance spot on in the end, they already have I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to release doctrines that aren't remotely balanced for weeks or even months in the case of the Tiger Ace. You might say "well its going to be fixed eventually" but I say look at the large volume of people that have uninstalled because of it and even some of the people that are still playing today either stopped playing for a while or had a terrible experience for months because of this business model.

Just because both players only get 3 doesn't make it fair either. You might have the same number of possible doctrine choices per game, but there are a ton of variables that will give the advantage to the guy rocking the DLC commanders. He has the potential for a stronger combination of 3, he has a wider variety of niche role units that can be fielded, and its also pretty likely that several players out there excel using one strategy repeatedly but are not very well rounded players. For example look at Vesat and CrazyTiger in CoH1. Every single game they spammed Volks with blitz nades and then Pumas. When they tried other playstyles they were only average players, but they were fairly successful doing the same thing over and over again. Now just imagine people like that in CoH2, that aren't very well rounded players, but they do excel at using one cookie cutter strat repeatedly. Except now there is a chance that the cookie cutter strat is only possible through paid DLC. How is that not pay-to-win? If you win a higher amount of games because you paid, its p2w.

If you want to sound off- and make a real point, Basilone- then let us read your peroration against Ubisoft I may be doing you a disservice- though I doubt it - but I do not recall you condemning Ubisoft for closing the servers which hosted the best patch to date for CoH1.

Unless and until I do read that from you and your ilk, I tend to see attacks on CoH2 from your ilk as feeble asides,since you seem to possess neither the intellect, nor the business acumen to identify what really scorched CoH1.

And honestly, unless and until the good ole boys get stuck in for real against Ubisoft for their attempted hijacking of the servers, I would rather you all shut the f** up about CoH2.

You good ole boys owe a signal debt of honour to Sega/Relic for rescuing CoH1 in whatever devastated form it arrived,particularly given Sega/Relic took on the original dev team to rescue vCoH.

But like I say, unless and until I am satisfied you brats can stop jerking off for no good reason, then FOFF to SC2 or wherever your lowly pleasure lies, and return when you can identify what really counts.

I assume you were rejected by Quantico? No surprise there then.

snip

I never condemned Ubisoft for taking down the servers. I may have said they were the ones to pull the plug, but in the end it wasn't their responsibility to provide those servers. The bankruptcy was obviously THQs fault and its Smoking Gun's fault that the steam version was in such a terrible state for so long. I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion though. On topic, the P2W commanders isn't just a 'good ole boy' complaint, most of the everyday CoH2 streamers feel the same way. And with over 300hrs in CoH2 (I'd wager thats more hours than you have) I'm not exactly jumping to conclusions when I criticize something about the game.

PS: I'm assuming you are talking about OCS, but I'm not even a college grad yet so I don't know where you got that idea from. Theres no point talking about intelligence over the internet, thats like saying "my dad could totally beat up ur dad" because as far as I know you could have dropped out of school at 17, and for all you know I could be studying pre med right now.