PCGamer CoH2 hands-on

One more thing i dont think bulletins are so bad if only combined with commanders they will provide variety to the metagame , especialy with the cold mechanic , the truesight and blizzards shaping the game perhaps we ll see a lot more strategic play that will respond not only to your opponent but to the environment as well .

It's been clear for a while, I think, that there are going to be gameplay-altering unlocks that come with hours played or with money. There we have it officially.

Chances are, DLC will include intelligence bulletins like +5% Panzerschreck accuracy, +10% cold endurance, or whatever. Also doctrinal abilities if we're really unlucky. This is a sad consequence of the current business reality of games publishing.

It's been clear for a while, I think, that there are going to be gameplay-altering unlocks that come with hours played or with money. There we have it officially.

Chances are, DLC will include intelligence bulletins like +5% Panzerschreck accuracy, +10% cold endurance, or whatever. Also doctrinal abilities if we're really unlucky. This is a sad consequence of the current business reality of games publishing.

What are you talking about? What official source? That was PCGamer, not Relic. Anything they write about for now is still a WIP, unless the game has gone gold for retail already (which, since Beta hasn't even started, I doubt).Yes, they might have said 10% extra bonus cover, but we simply DONT KNOW the inner working of CoH2, 10% might indeed be very slight(it may not stop at 100%, depending on how they calculate their cover system).

Sure, this could be mean bad things, but at this point in time, it's all speculation. So take of your tinfoil hats for now.

Unfortunately I'm not seeing these intel bulletins working out too well, probably the least desirable aspect of Coh2 that I've heard. If there really is to be something like 10% extra bonus damage resistance in cover, then that's a no-brainer upgrade. Anything that flatly boosts a fundamental mechanic is always going to be a no brainer, and the only way these things are gonna work out competetively long term is if the intel bulletins are heavily nuanced; rather than 10% bonus cover, make it 5% extra damage when flanking behind grenadiers (for example).

The problem is, the dev in the interview claims that a worse player with all the upgrades will still be beaten by a naturally better player who just bought the game. OK, fair point- but what about when two equally skilled players face off? What if one player has a really powerful combination of upgrades that work in synergy, lets say 10% bonus to cover, 10% bonus to rifle reload and 10% bonus to stationary accuracy. You now have one player who, even in a mirror match, is gonna backhand his opponent into next week with flatly superior units simply due to the money he's spent or the time he's spent playing.

The one way that they could bring this back from the brink is by disabling such things in automatch. For basic matches, comp stomps and so on (which in turn is the majority of players anyway) then let em knock themselves out with all kinds of crazy upgrades and stuff, fine tuned to their liking. But 1v1 laddering shouldn't be about out of game customization imo.

I'm fine with customisation as long as all the options are available from day 1 and none of them are behind a pay wall.

What are you talking about? What official source? That was PCGamer, not Relic. Anything they write about for now is still a WIP, unless the game has gone gold for retail already (which, since Beta hasn't even started, I doubt).Yes, they might have said 10% extra bonus cover, but we simply DONT KNOW the inner working of CoH2, 10% might indeed be very slight(it may not stop at 100%, depending on how they calculate their cover system).

Sure, this could be mean bad things, but at this point in time, it's all speculation. So take of your tinfoil hats for now.

Okay, I have to admit this isn't an official source, but it's a mainstream media article. While I know they do get things wrong at times, this doesn't seem to be the case. And an actual official source (Steam distribution page) does mention XP and in-game currency.

Also, while CoH2 gameplay mechanics are still subject to change due to ongoing balancing, DLC plans should be approved by now. That happens quite some time in advance.

Whether 10% cover bonus is very slight or not doesn't even particularly matter to me. I just dislike the general idea of non-cosmetic effects being purchasable. Extra skins, voices, whatever, that's great. Gameplay effects, not so much. But I am at least hopeful that they will do it well - and by well I mean actually managing to keep the effects slight so that they do not really matter.

Then again, on the business side, there's going to be pressure of making purchasable things good in an attempt to lure the more competitive players into buying it. Again, I can claim no knowledge of how Relic, THQ and Sega work(ed), but I do know similar things have happened at other companies. In fact I speculate that the Tales of Valor units were initially more powerful partially due to business pressure. Recall the more deadly T17, the high-damage MG-equipped G-Wagen, and the dirt-cheap, super-agile Roos.

Customization is cool if

A) they are balanced, and there aren't intel bulletins that are "no-brainers" and gives a player using them a huge advantage over a player not using them.

B) in custom match mode all can be enabled, so everything is available to players in tournaments.

I like the idea of hyper situational bulletins that would improve some (very) certain tactics and not strategy in general.

"Relic are still fine-tuning the frequency of blizzards."

is Blizzard fine tuning the frequency of Relics?



"Relic know that many players enjoyed facing off with friends against the AI. Tight maps with plenty of choke points have been created for those that love a good ‘comp stomp’."

cool. my favourite way to play is against a friend with us each having an AI ally and in this case tight maps are the most fun.

Yes, it's good for Relic to realize that there are different types of players and make the game accordingly. There are those who want to ladder up on balanced maps, there are those who want to have 4 hour long games, and there are those who want to play passively while they build 20 tanks to crush the AI with. These all generally require different maps.

I kinda have a feeling that i would have liked a new patch for the old game and tons of new players better than an entirely new game. With a few modifications the "old" game would have been even more epic. But i might be surprised since CoH2 also seems to have a bunch of cool stuff, we shall see.

Right now I see CoH2 as like a cake analogy. CoH was a delicious cake to start with and there was loads of it. In an attempt to add more to this delicious cake, it was covered in icing and sprinkles. That tasted strange at first but hey, the cake underneath is still great.

CoH2 is another cake made by the same people, but they forgot that it was the cake that made it delicious and not the icing, so this time the cake is mostly one giant block of icing covered with sprinkles and edible bits of paper and all the other shit that's just there to look nice. For most people it looks like an even more delicious cake from a distance, but for everyone who sampled the original they know its no comparison.

What a shame the original cake is getting a little stale by now.

Thread should have been closed after this post.. bang on the money

Think of how many potential strategies each of those different bulletins spawns - true, more variety is never a bad thing but the fun from playing (and watching) the original for me came from being able to see people using certain recognisable strategies and then trying to counter them (and often failing spectacularly). I'm not opposed to lots of strategies and innovative ways to play but I think they're adding too much complication to the game now. There was no problem with strategies in the original and so why it has been 'fixed' is beyond me.
EDIT: I'll stretch to staghound spam

I really deep down hope half of these ideas were just clutching-at-straws attempts in order to generate interest and sell a product to stop the demise of THQ and now that Sega have stepped in, they can take extra time and make a game worth playing for the 300+ hours I've spent playing the original. I would be happy if they came out and said that - 'give us 6 more months!'

But it'll fall on deaf ears. So, whatever, Bring on Company of Heroes 3: where before each match there's 3 cups and under one cup is a ball, if you guess it right your men get a 76% boost to invisibility and you take 96% less shit from dickheads through chat.

Am I the only one confused by the term "intel bulletins"?

Intel Bulletins would be fine, IMHO, as long as they also apply penalties, and there's not HUNDREDS of them. Just a few bulletins to add a little flavor to your army. So, say you get a 10% cover bonus, would you still take it if it means your troops are 10% slower (more defensive, less mobile army). Maybe you could have an Intel bulletin that improves your unit's resistance to Blizzards, but making you more vulnerable to flamers. Who knows.

Whether 10% cover bonus is very slight or not doesn't even particularly matter to me. I just dislike the general idea of non-cosmetic effects being purchasable.

I agree, but no official source has stated whether Intel bulletins can be purchased, as far as i know. They will have DLC's, and having purchasable Commanders and Intel Bulletins are a possibility, but we have no idea how they will be implemented, if at all.

We know skins will be in there for sure, and we have, repeatedly, been told there is no pay-to-win schemes. Deceiving their community is NOT a wise thing, and I doubt this is the case.

Imagine +10 accuracy for Volks. It's not OP, but you'd have to change your play just to deal with them, i.e no 1v1 rifles vs volks.

In CoHO, I recall noticing the stacks of upgrades players would put on rifles, for instance, and was able to come up with plan B. Good thing about CoH is that there usually is a plan B available....

COME ON GUYS LETS GO BURN RELIC TO THE GROUND BECAUSE THIS GAME MECHANIC WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT IS GAmE BREAKING!!!!
ASLK;.DFHSA9DGOJAKSDFJK;9J[1O11J{!!~!":LJDFS0OPADFPOWQ!!!!!11111oneoneonwwonwonownaslkdsaodf

Well, yes? Because all that we know about it is that the longer you play, the more little bonuses you'll have to choose from, and that's a bad idea no matter how you implement it?

I like it. Brings an rpg element to CoH and allows for more customization...

fair comment, but I'm concerned that this game isn't an RPG. it's a tactical RTS. So why is time/money/effort going into adding fancy gameplay mechanics when they aren't needed.

You don't make something memorable by glueing bells and whistles and shit to it (unless its a Brazilian drum track)

"fair game design is an idealistic notion. We do live in a real world which is not fair. Or it is? " - Overlord - WoT Dev

I feel the observation sums up the reality . Sincerly, i don't see any harm in monetizing the game for a sustained support . There will always be work-around for everything, so i would not be overtly concerned about the intel bulletins .