... long post ...
i see and understnad what your trying to say but then you mar a perfectly valid point by going off into assumption land.
Why WFA is the best thing to happen to COH 2
28 Jun 2014, 13:11 PM
#21
Posts: 3293
i see and understnad what your trying to say but then you mar a perfectly valid point by going off into assumption land.
Failure is always an option. 
It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!)
Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. 
To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! 
and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
28 Jun 2014, 13:24 PM
#22
5 
Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12
Nice video. My biggest concern is blobbing. You mention that there are "blob-control units", but I don't think the existence or non-existence of these units is what is causing all the blobbing. IMO it's the forward retreat points. OKW have a no-brainer forward retreat point on their trucks, and USF can retreat to officers. This IMO is what is creating these blobby static frontline wars that have very little to do with flanking.
IMO forward retreat points suck and I wouldn't shed a tear if they were removed from the game. Either that or make them incredibly expensive, so that players that use them to create a campy defensive game are risking a much smaller fighting force.
Forward retreat points were a blob-inducing mechanic with Brits in COH1, and they are doing the same to WFA in COH2. You can't get behind the lines and flank a guy if his whole army is halfway up the map.
IMO forward retreat points suck and I wouldn't shed a tear if they were removed from the game. Either that or make them incredibly expensive, so that players that use them to create a campy defensive game are risking a much smaller fighting force.
Forward retreat points were a blob-inducing mechanic with Brits in COH1, and they are doing the same to WFA in COH2. You can't get behind the lines and flank a guy if his whole army is halfway up the map.
28 Jun 2014, 17:53 PM
#23
14 
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
Nice video. My biggest concern is blobbing. You mention that there are "blob-control units", but I don't think the existence or non-existence of these units is what is causing all the blobbing. IMO it's the forward retreat points. OKW have a no-brainer forward retreat point on their trucks, and USF can retreat to officers. This IMO is what is creating these blobby static frontline wars that have very little to do with flanking.
IMO forward retreat points suck and I wouldn't shed a tear if they were removed from the game. Either that or make them incredibly expensive, so that players that use them to create a campy defensive game are risking a much smaller fighting force.
Forward retreat points were a blob-inducing mechanic with Brits in COH1, and they are doing the same to WFA in COH2. You can't get behind the lines and flank a guy if his whole army is halfway up the map.
Surely, what made the Commonwealth blob, was the speed bonus for non-Recon infantry with officers, and the vet aura which Britz officers acquired from their troops?
With the WFA USA, at least, I may be wrong, but I don't think the US infantry faction is much different from the Britz, vis a vis Officer/troops vet aura (sadly).
28 Jun 2014, 17:57 PM
#24
Posts: 3293
i thought it was the oposite atleast from what i read that the officer gains vet from other units not they get vet from him.
Failure is always an option. It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!) Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
28 Jun 2014, 18:03 PM
#25
14 Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
i thought it was the oposite atleast from what i read that the officer gains vet from other units not they get vet from him.
I apologise, WiFiDi, if I have it the wrong way round: but the point remains essentially the same:
viz: troops and officers blob to gain veterancy for officers. FWIW, this is where I differ from Ami, who says retreat points encourage blobbing, whereas I think it is vet aura which encourages blobbing
28 Jun 2014, 18:32 PM
#26
Posts: 220
I agree with the OP.
I played CoH 2 at launch then abandoned it as it was going downhill. Then picked it up again when the March deployment patch that overhauled infantry combat was released. Later came the April vehicular combat overhaul patch and oh boy the game is improving a lot.
I alpha tested WF a bit, only 26 hours, and I got to say that the released OKW has nothing to do with the alpha version of it and it's for the better. Relic did listen to the testers feedback.
Thus Relic is listening, now if only they would give a long look at the Red Army in CoH 2. It has glaring design issues and needs to be re-design to stop the cheese builds.
Ostheer is wonderfully designed, USA Armed forces too (They just need a Heavy tank, Pershing or Jumbo Sherman). OKW has some little design issues but is very viable. The Red Army is just not viable without abusing cheese tactics. No amount of balancing will fix a faulty design, it justs makes the soviets UP or OP on a patch to patch basis.
Do that and CoH 2 will be perfect.
Cheers.
I played CoH 2 at launch then abandoned it as it was going downhill. Then picked it up again when the March deployment patch that overhauled infantry combat was released. Later came the April vehicular combat overhaul patch and oh boy the game is improving a lot.
I alpha tested WF a bit, only 26 hours, and I got to say that the released OKW has nothing to do with the alpha version of it and it's for the better. Relic did listen to the testers feedback.
Thus Relic is listening, now if only they would give a long look at the Red Army in CoH 2. It has glaring design issues and needs to be re-design to stop the cheese builds.
Ostheer is wonderfully designed, USA Armed forces too (They just need a Heavy tank, Pershing or Jumbo Sherman). OKW has some little design issues but is very viable. The Red Army is just not viable without abusing cheese tactics. No amount of balancing will fix a faulty design, it justs makes the soviets UP or OP on a patch to patch basis.
Do that and CoH 2 will be perfect.
Cheers.
"Apprécier les circonstances dans chaque cas particulier, tel est donc le rôle essentiel du chef. Du fait qu'il les connaît, qu'il les mesure, qu'il les exploite, il est vainqueur ; du fait qu'il les ignore, qu'il les juge mal, qu'il les néglige, il est vaincu."
Le Fil de l'épée, Charles de Gaulle.
Le Fil de l'épée, Charles de Gaulle.
28 Jun 2014, 18:38 PM
#27
Posts: 934
Nice video. My biggest concern is blobbing. You mention that there are "blob-control units", but I don't think the existence or non-existence of these units is what is causing all the blobbing. IMO it's the forward retreat points. OKW have a no-brainer forward retreat point on their trucks, and USF can retreat to officers. This IMO is what is creating these blobby static frontline wars that have very little to do with flanking.
IMO forward retreat points suck and I wouldn't shed a tear if they were removed from the game. Either that or make them incredibly expensive, so that players that use them to create a campy defensive game are risking a much smaller fighting force.
Forward retreat points were a blob-inducing mechanic with Brits in COH1, and they are doing the same to WFA in COH2. You can't get behind the lines and flank a guy if his whole army is halfway up the map.
Disagree completely.
The WFA expansion does not promote blobbing with forward retreat points. Veterancy aura abilities such as that in CoH1 brits and lack of suppression are the culprits, both which do not exsit in CoH2. Forward retreat points provide a new strategic option, with an element of a risk and reward that is great for both players and casters!
I have found when I am in a duel forward base engagement with USF and OKW hitting 12 CP's in 15 minutes means there is some hard hitting constant action going on in the map. One side will eventually have to fall back though. The rest of the map can not be ignored unless they have full control of your cut off point, which in that case they probably lost the game prior to that due to some other error.
Forward retreat points are extremely vulerable as much as they are strong for the reasons including:
- Ambushes on a known forward retreat point can result in certain squad kills. Pop Fallschimjaegars on the medic truck/major forward point after a low health rifle squad retreat or quick vechile rush.
- Indirect fire may need to only hit a single unit model to obtain a squad kill. Remember when you defensively versing a forward retreat position all your indirect fire units can be more safe and accurate.
- Heavy blobbing from a known position is easier to defend against, hence the you can more confidently ninja cap other regions of the map. You can count your opponents squads and map positioning more effectively.
I played a game the other day as USF where I relocated my forward ambulance/major multiple times across the south east-west of Langres to avoid walking stuka fire, infantry rushes and tank raids. The atmosphere it creates uniquie, intense and eventually I made the mistake of not relocating after my opponent discovered my forward retreat point and he thankfully capitalized on it with 2-3 vet3 squad kills.
You do not have to flank it to win the game. You can chip away at it, pressure other sections of the map and flank when they are weak! Recon and map awareness must be perceived differently to effectively shut down this style of play. Forward base blobbing can be punished. The intense fighting at forward base positions can only last so long before one side makes a critical error or one lands a major damage hit. Both which are great for casting and playing.
Oh and good video Ciez. I agree.
28 Jun 2014, 18:46 PM
#28
Posts: 187
Nice video. I'd like to see one on how you think the old armies could be improved using ideas from the new, i agree that the new factions are fun but the old ones right now see extremely boring, constant soviet cheese strats and little variation for Ostheer.
Regarding blobbing it happens and while there might be units to help prevent this 2v2 right now is a maxim rifleman blob the majority of games I've been in. Partly i feel this is due to USA's infantry just having riflemen except for a few doc units, you get riflemen then you unlock more tiers which give you an almost incidental unit, its a bit samey.
Ignoring that always nice to see more vids
Regarding blobbing it happens and while there might be units to help prevent this 2v2 right now is a maxim rifleman blob the majority of games I've been in. Partly i feel this is due to USA's infantry just having riflemen except for a few doc units, you get riflemen then you unlock more tiers which give you an almost incidental unit, its a bit samey.
Ignoring that always nice to see more vids
28 Jun 2014, 18:48 PM
#29
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
Disagree completely.
The WFA expansion does not promote blobbing with forward retreat points. Veterancy aura abilities such as that in CoH1 brits and lack of suppression are the culprits, both which do not exsit in CoH2. Forward retreat points provide a new strategic option, with an element of a risk and reward that is great for both players and casters!
I have found when I am in a duel forward base engagement with USF and OKW hitting 12 CP's in 15 minutes means there is some hard hitting constant action going on in the map. One side will eventually have to fall back though. The rest of the map can not be ignored unless they have full control of your cut off point, which in that case they probably lost the game prior to that due to some other error.
Forward retreat points are extremely vulerable as much as they are strong for the reasons including:
- Ambushes on a known forward retreat point can result in certain squad kills. Pop Fallschimjaegars on the medic truck/major forward point after a low health rifle squad retreat or quick vechile rush.
- Indirect fire may need to only hit a single unit model to obtain a squad kill. Remember when you defensively versing a forward retreat position all your indirect fire units can be more safe and accurate.
- Heavy blobbing from a known position is easier to defend against, hence the you can more confidently ninja cap other regions of the map. You can count your opponents squads and map positioning more effectively.
I played a game the other day as USF where I relocated my forward ambulance/major multiple times across the south east-west of Langres to avoid walking stuka fire, infantry rushes and tank raids. The atmosphere it creates uniquie, intense and eventually I made the mistake of not relocating after my opponent discovered my forward retreat point and he thankfully capitalized on it with 2-3 vet3 squad kills.
You do not have to flank it to win the game. You can chip away at it, pressure other sections of the map and flank when they are weak! Recon and map awareness must be perceived differently to effectively shut down this style of play. Forward base blobbing can be punished. The intense fighting at forward base positions can only last so long before one side makes a critical error or one lands a major damage hit. Both which are great for casting and playing.
Oh and good video Ciez. I agree.
This, and the fact that capping around his fwd position will eventually force him to split his forces, unless he wants to only have 1/4 of all map resources. You can also go for an arty or heavy mortar ability to counter a fwd retreat point as well. I noticed 120s/light artillery howis do well in accomplishing this.
29 Jun 2014, 09:56 AM
#30
Posts: 829
Incredible.
Relic is listening to community because the community went 'up in the arms' over how VCOH2 was designed etc.
And sorry to say, even tho you attempt to portray yourself as some sort of hero in the video, how WFA or COH2 turnded out to be is not thanx to you, at all.
Its thanks to people who were "toxic community" as you liked to call them. The people who criticized the way how COH2 has no strategic depth; voiced they concerns at obvious buffing up of DLC commanders on release that were constantly breaking balance; ' gave hard time to Noun and developers to change pretty much the entire way the COH2 plays and feels.
If you go through the threads you will find that game resembles what, for example Inverse and others were toxic about, (in my eyes that was conctructive criticism, tho I may not have agreed with everybody and everything that was said and suggested)
'turning point' was period when certain casters left, and Nouns 'toxic letter' got community really 'toxic' Not when you rage quit game and told Relic how they need to change
During each of these crucial moment is COH2's metamorphosis you were staunch defender of Relic and the way COH2 was. (if I remember correctly, and I think I do)
I don't understand how you can be so cynical to try and take credit now.
If you wanna be respected, maybe have a look at Ami, like someone already mentioned, he is very enthusiastic but isn't afraid to voice his displeasure when things aren't going well.
Thats my opinion anyway, good luck with your youtube channel. Please don't be full monty fanboy, critique is good when its necessary
29 Jun 2014, 10:08 AM
#31
Posts: 987
I dont think the vid is a "glass half full" kind of thing.
Its false, and essentially negative, to demonize people with a different opi ion, based on a superficial attitude that, "because I use hyperbole to hype the product", you are somehow being positive. You arent.
Ive said this before, and it is a common problem in all testing/alpha environments. The job of participants is not to fawn on the developers, pat them on the back, be their "friends" etc. It is to test the living hell out of the design, without mercy, and to be as critical as possible and justified, inorder to provude the Devs with a counterpoint and necessary awareness of potential problems with the product. Devs are paid to do their jobs. Its the companies onus to motivate their employees. Testers are there to strain the system to its limits and challenge the Devs on what they have overlooked.
Everyone involved with Alpha, testing, and the game, overall, loves it and wants to see it work. Discounting them as "negative" is superficial, and ignores that core shared quality. They love the game just as much as you do. Never forget, or discount that, nor do them the injustice of presenting them as if they did not.
+1, so well put.
If no-one criticized, nothing would be changed. Ever.
Let's keep it constructive
29 Jun 2014, 12:39 PM
#32
Posts: 627
You know, calling people "negative" doesn't make them wrong, and it's an absolutely misnomer.
These things that you say Relic fixed are specifically because of these so-called "negative people" giving critical feedback.
And frankly when I tested the game in, what was it, April 2013? I didn't feel listened to. A lot of the problems and solutions that we testers discussed back then went on months and months after launch only for Relic to finally decide "You know what, we probably shouldn't have ignored everything our testers told us" and start to fix the issues, and a lot of the solutions that were introduced, even very recently, are solutions that got tossed around a year ago.
And that's where my personal criticism for Relic's development of CoH2 comes from. Just a lot of blatantly stupid stuff that slipped through testing after all of us told them about it. I didn't test WFA so, if your video is anything to go by, that ethos did change.
But even in WFA we can still see some very apparent mechanical problems that are supposed to be fixed, and some design faults which are pretty obvious.
And, tbfh, "How many other developers listen to their community like this?", well, I've played very few games where developers ignore their community's feedback. It's just a bad idea. Even for poorly developed games like PlanetSide 2, the developers are very concerned with community feedback, and for far bigger games like DotA2, the community is very active in providing feedback. It's not unique to Relic at all.
But generally, I think your attitude of "We need to be positive" is exactly what wrecks the whole idea of community feedback. It turns the dynamic of discussion from the merits of the points of someone's criticism, into a discussion about how that person shouldn't be so critical in the first place because "Relic listens to us". Yeah, obviously, there's a lot of people that are just assholes about it and spend their time insulting Relic, but nobody listens to them anyways so if that's who your video was geared towards, it was superfluous.
Other than that I will say that I broadly agree. I jumped ship quite a while back, came back, jumped ship again, then came back for WFA and I'm still very much enjoying it despite a lot of the bullshit in the game.
These things that you say Relic fixed are specifically because of these so-called "negative people" giving critical feedback.
And frankly when I tested the game in, what was it, April 2013? I didn't feel listened to. A lot of the problems and solutions that we testers discussed back then went on months and months after launch only for Relic to finally decide "You know what, we probably shouldn't have ignored everything our testers told us" and start to fix the issues, and a lot of the solutions that were introduced, even very recently, are solutions that got tossed around a year ago.
And that's where my personal criticism for Relic's development of CoH2 comes from. Just a lot of blatantly stupid stuff that slipped through testing after all of us told them about it. I didn't test WFA so, if your video is anything to go by, that ethos did change.
But even in WFA we can still see some very apparent mechanical problems that are supposed to be fixed, and some design faults which are pretty obvious.
And, tbfh, "How many other developers listen to their community like this?", well, I've played very few games where developers ignore their community's feedback. It's just a bad idea. Even for poorly developed games like PlanetSide 2, the developers are very concerned with community feedback, and for far bigger games like DotA2, the community is very active in providing feedback. It's not unique to Relic at all.
But generally, I think your attitude of "We need to be positive" is exactly what wrecks the whole idea of community feedback. It turns the dynamic of discussion from the merits of the points of someone's criticism, into a discussion about how that person shouldn't be so critical in the first place because "Relic listens to us". Yeah, obviously, there's a lot of people that are just assholes about it and spend their time insulting Relic, but nobody listens to them anyways so if that's who your video was geared towards, it was superfluous.
Other than that I will say that I broadly agree. I jumped ship quite a while back, came back, jumped ship again, then came back for WFA and I'm still very much enjoying it despite a lot of the bullshit in the game.
29 Jun 2014, 13:46 PM
#33
Posts: 393
No offence, but the video was poor support for the rather bold claim "Why WFA is the best thing to happen to COH 2".
The biggest point you made is how Relic listened to the testers. This doesn't change that Relic has proven that they are incompetent when it comes to game design, going all the way back to OF (I believe it's still the same team). A few examples are the completely horrible state the game was in at launch, p2win commanders and more recently the fact that the OKW mechanics had to be completely redesigned.
Why are you so convinced of this? You didn't mention any reasons other than that they have new units and the vCoH2 factions felt slightly restrictive.
You say that people should play the game more and explore the meta game. Of course new factions are going to bring new units and new tech trees. This says nothing about their worth to the CoH2's gameplay. vCoH2 had the same with the soviets. You said earlier in the video that Ostheer had a boring tech tree, and I would partially agree. But this isn't due to the faction design alone.
The CoH2 OH is very similar to the CoH1 Wehrmacht, yet in CoH1 you have so much more variety in T1 builds, tech choices and the way your doctrinal pick affects this. Almost every single OH player goes 4-ish grens + 1 MG -> T2 -> P4 and/or tiger. The reason why? Many of the other choices are simply not viable in the current meta. I won't go off on a tangent on how all the different wehr builds worked in CoH, but believe me, there was a whole lot more variety.
You're comparing a brand new meta of the WFA where everyone has no idea what they're doing with the one of a game that has been developing for more than a year now. How can you say every option is as viable now as it will be in a year from now? How do you know that these new factions you praise so much will not feel as restrictive once players get better and the meta evolves?
The biggest point you made is how Relic listened to the testers. This doesn't change that Relic has proven that they are incompetent when it comes to game design, going all the way back to OF (I believe it's still the same team). A few examples are the completely horrible state the game was in at launch, p2win commanders and more recently the fact that the OKW mechanics had to be completely redesigned.
* The design of the new armies is amazing.
Why are you so convinced of this? You didn't mention any reasons other than that they have new units and the vCoH2 factions felt slightly restrictive.
* The depth of the new armies far surpasses Ostheer and arguably Soviet.
You say that people should play the game more and explore the meta game. Of course new factions are going to bring new units and new tech trees. This says nothing about their worth to the CoH2's gameplay. vCoH2 had the same with the soviets. You said earlier in the video that Ostheer had a boring tech tree, and I would partially agree. But this isn't due to the faction design alone.
The CoH2 OH is very similar to the CoH1 Wehrmacht, yet in CoH1 you have so much more variety in T1 builds, tech choices and the way your doctrinal pick affects this. Almost every single OH player goes 4-ish grens + 1 MG -> T2 -> P4 and/or tiger. The reason why? Many of the other choices are simply not viable in the current meta. I won't go off on a tangent on how all the different wehr builds worked in CoH, but believe me, there was a whole lot more variety.
You're comparing a brand new meta of the WFA where everyone has no idea what they're doing with the one of a game that has been developing for more than a year now. How can you say every option is as viable now as it will be in a year from now? How do you know that these new factions you praise so much will not feel as restrictive once players get better and the meta evolves?
sig by tricky 
29 Jun 2014, 14:05 PM
#34
Posts: 336
+1
It almost feels like Ciez is being payed by Relic to state those ungrounded claims, as everyone that has been around since CoH1 realizes that they've made the exact same mistakes again, effectively creating a tedious faction again.
It almost feels like Ciez is being payed by Relic to state those ungrounded claims, as everyone that has been around since CoH1 realizes that they've made the exact same mistakes again, effectively creating a tedious faction again.
There Used To Be Great Nullist Quotes Here.
29 Jun 2014, 14:22 PM
#35
Posts: 1534 | Subs: 1
Nice video. My biggest concern is blobbing. You mention that there are "blob-control units", but I don't think the existence or non-existence of these units is what is causing all the blobbing. IMO it's the forward retreat points. OKW have a no-brainer forward retreat point on their trucks, and USF can retreat to officers. This IMO is what is creating these blobby static frontline wars that have very little to do with flanking.
IMO forward retreat points suck and I wouldn't shed a tear if they were removed from the game. Either that or make them incredibly expensive, so that players that use them to create a campy defensive game are risking a much smaller fighting force.
Forward retreat points were a blob-inducing mechanic with Brits in COH1, and they are doing the same to WFA in COH2. You can't get behind the lines and flank a guy if his whole army is halfway up the map.
I completely agree.
I've witnessed 10ish minutes of play of the OKW player just reinforcing and healing at their truck while the other player just pointlessly pounds away, It is boring to play and boring to watch.
I do have my issues with the WFA and I don't think I will ever accept that OKW trucks are a good design choice for COH2.
However I still am positive that these armies with some tweaks can be great fun.
29 Jun 2014, 16:09 PM
#36
Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4
Gonna take this chance to try and clear some things up, I think some people mis-understood me or I failed to get my point across in a few areas.
The reason I think that WFA is such a good thing for coh2 is not that the game itself is perfect but rather the change that I've witnessed in the way that Relic handles their interactions with the community. I said that I had talked with old community members about how Relic did not listen to them at the launch of Coh 2, not to bad mouth them or try and insult them - on the contrary, I'm very glad that they made such efforts to improve CoH 2 and I was sad that Relic did not listen to their feedback. Additionally when I first became involved with the beta this was definitely the case - and was a major reason Industry/Elite Troops were released in their broken state. The testers gave Relic feedback, but it was ignored and we all know what happened. However, this time around Relic REALLY did listen to our feedback and it looks like something that they're willing to do in the long-run for this game.
I don't think I ever claimed to be some sort of hero in the video, and if I came across that way it was certainly not my intention. The entire private and public alpha did a great job testing and providing valuable feedback (at least I assume it was valuable because I saw numerous ideas from numerous different people being implemented by Relic, all of which improved the game). There were plenty of people that played alpha more and provided more feedback than myself.
Also (@Cyridius and maybe others) I never said that we as a community need to basically suck up to Relic or anything like that and I've never felt that way. I believe that I've been one of the most critical alpha/beta testers in multiple aspects of the game (from balance to design to maps etc etc) - hence why I mentioned that I hated WFA when I first got my hands on it and talking about how close I came to quitting and jumping ship. I wrote numerous harsh essays directly to the dev team basically saying that the entire initial design of OKW was complete shit. I'm simply trying to impress upon the community the importance of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. There are, in my opinion, way too many posts that are essentially "LOL this game sux Relic" or "Stupid [insert faction here] fanboi l2p [insert unit here] is totally balanced." That sort of thing only harms the community and doesn't help Relic at all. I just wanted to show how willing Relic is to listen, provided people provide them with legitimate criticisms.
Finally @Baba, you need to re-watch the video and get the timeline correct. I was extremely critical of Relic's design decisions during the WFA alpha (which I started playing in early April). Actually your post is just too long and too wrong to respond to in this sort paragraph so yeah, if you want to talk please make sure you actually understand what I was talking about before making such a long, and completely ignorant post. I think you'll see, upon further analysis, that I've come to essentially agree with a lot of what the older community members(Inverse most specifically since he actually provided constructive feedback) were saying about CoH 2 at release, and in the video I say that early CoH 2 was, admittedly, not very good(both balance-wise and design wise). But to be fair, we've come a LONG way from the game being in that state.
Other than that thanks for the feedback guys - I do appreciate both the positive and negative feedback and will take it to heart going forward with any other videos that I decide to make.
The reason I think that WFA is such a good thing for coh2 is not that the game itself is perfect but rather the change that I've witnessed in the way that Relic handles their interactions with the community. I said that I had talked with old community members about how Relic did not listen to them at the launch of Coh 2, not to bad mouth them or try and insult them - on the contrary, I'm very glad that they made such efforts to improve CoH 2 and I was sad that Relic did not listen to their feedback. Additionally when I first became involved with the beta this was definitely the case - and was a major reason Industry/Elite Troops were released in their broken state. The testers gave Relic feedback, but it was ignored and we all know what happened. However, this time around Relic REALLY did listen to our feedback and it looks like something that they're willing to do in the long-run for this game.
I don't think I ever claimed to be some sort of hero in the video, and if I came across that way it was certainly not my intention. The entire private and public alpha did a great job testing and providing valuable feedback (at least I assume it was valuable because I saw numerous ideas from numerous different people being implemented by Relic, all of which improved the game). There were plenty of people that played alpha more and provided more feedback than myself.
Also (@Cyridius and maybe others) I never said that we as a community need to basically suck up to Relic or anything like that and I've never felt that way. I believe that I've been one of the most critical alpha/beta testers in multiple aspects of the game (from balance to design to maps etc etc) - hence why I mentioned that I hated WFA when I first got my hands on it and talking about how close I came to quitting and jumping ship. I wrote numerous harsh essays directly to the dev team basically saying that the entire initial design of OKW was complete shit. I'm simply trying to impress upon the community the importance of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. There are, in my opinion, way too many posts that are essentially "LOL this game sux Relic" or "Stupid [insert faction here] fanboi l2p [insert unit here] is totally balanced." That sort of thing only harms the community and doesn't help Relic at all. I just wanted to show how willing Relic is to listen, provided people provide them with legitimate criticisms.
Finally @Baba, you need to re-watch the video and get the timeline correct. I was extremely critical of Relic's design decisions during the WFA alpha (which I started playing in early April). Actually your post is just too long and too wrong to respond to in this sort paragraph so yeah, if you want to talk please make sure you actually understand what I was talking about before making such a long, and completely ignorant post. I think you'll see, upon further analysis, that I've come to essentially agree with a lot of what the older community members(Inverse most specifically since he actually provided constructive feedback) were saying about CoH 2 at release, and in the video I say that early CoH 2 was, admittedly, not very good(both balance-wise and design wise). But to be fair, we've come a LONG way from the game being in that state.
Other than that thanks for the feedback guys - I do appreciate both the positive and negative feedback and will take it to heart going forward with any other videos that I decide to make.
30 Jun 2014, 05:27 AM
#37
5 Posts: 1157 | Subs: 2
Disagree completely.
The WFA expansion does not promote blobbing with forward retreat points. Veterancy aura abilities such as that in CoH1 brits and lack of suppression are the culprits, both which do not exsit in CoH2. Forward retreat points provide a new strategic option, with an element of a risk and reward that is great for both players and casters!
I have found when I am in a duel forward base engagement with USF and OKW hitting 12 CP's in 15 minutes means there is some hard hitting constant action going on in the map. One side will eventually have to fall back though. The rest of the map can not be ignored unless they have full control of your cut off point, which in that case they probably lost the game prior to that due to some other error.
Forward retreat points are extremely vulerable as much as they are strong for the reasons including:
- Ambushes on a known forward retreat point can result in certain squad kills. Pop Fallschimjaegars on the medic truck/major forward point after a low health rifle squad retreat or quick vechile rush.
- Indirect fire may need to only hit a single unit model to obtain a squad kill. Remember when you defensively versing a forward retreat position all your indirect fire units can be more safe and accurate.
- Heavy blobbing from a known position is easier to defend against, hence the you can more confidently ninja cap other regions of the map. You can count your opponents squads and map positioning more effectively.
I played a game the other day as USF where I relocated my forward ambulance/major multiple times across the south east-west of Langres to avoid walking stuka fire, infantry rushes and tank raids. The atmosphere it creates uniquie, intense and eventually I made the mistake of not relocating after my opponent discovered my forward retreat point and he thankfully capitalized on it with 2-3 vet3 squad kills.
You do not have to flank it to win the game. You can chip away at it, pressure other sections of the map and flank when they are weak! Recon and map awareness must be perceived differently to effectively shut down this style of play. Forward base blobbing can be punished. The intense fighting at forward base positions can only last so long before one side makes a critical error or one lands a major damage hit. Both which are great for casting and playing.
Oh and good video Ciez. I agree.
Well said, and I agree completely. The suppression tools in coh2 are much greater than in vcoh and the fact is if your opponent tries to blob heavily the entire game, you can outcap the flanks, and punish mass retreats with arty, mortars, and pressure from high dps units like the mentioned falls. Forward retreat points are great, and add a tactical element to the game that I feel deserves to be explored before writing off.
I've had great fun playing both with and against OKW and a really aggressive forward retreat point. Its tactical benefit is also a risk in that it is much more easily pressured, and I love the tug of war that goes on at the HQ.
2 Jul 2014, 01:48 AM
#38
Posts: 126
I commend ciez on taking the controversial side of relic. Although it felt as though he is a little too cozy with the devs to objectively be taken seriously. I have to admit seeing relic go down the same terrible path again really sucks. Movable hq and alternate retreat mechanics completely broke coh1 and trying to ram a bad concept down our throats for a second time is just insane. It's like the same incompetent asshole that made the Brits some how made the dev team again?....
Alternate retreat is a nice option to have but it breaks the game. The scale of the maps are just too small for it to work. Vehicles that crush cover at the start of the match also break map balance and design. Cover is too important at the early game to have it taken away so easily. Tier zero infantry also broke the game just like the Brits, pe and soviets did too. P2w commanders had taken away much of relics credibility too.
I think wfa has broken the game and now it is a shit show just like when the Brits and pe came into vcoh. Relic could have made 4 factions with the same core teching designs and then used commanders to deviate tactical options. With out a stable core design you cannot grow the game in a healthy way. It is a mess and they sold out to the call duty attention span demographic. Short reinforce points means people with short attention spans will enjoy the game more. However it was not like the original reinforce time were that long in the first place there was no need to shorten them.
Relic did not listen to anybody. The shit design concept they refuse to throw away from OF is proof. The crap concept was the brainchild of somebody they cannot get rid of from the company. Most like somebody higher up who is protecting his job by trying to make it seem as though the idea works when it does not. Not a good sign of things too come.
Alternate retreat is a nice option to have but it breaks the game. The scale of the maps are just too small for it to work. Vehicles that crush cover at the start of the match also break map balance and design. Cover is too important at the early game to have it taken away so easily. Tier zero infantry also broke the game just like the Brits, pe and soviets did too. P2w commanders had taken away much of relics credibility too.
I think wfa has broken the game and now it is a shit show just like when the Brits and pe came into vcoh. Relic could have made 4 factions with the same core teching designs and then used commanders to deviate tactical options. With out a stable core design you cannot grow the game in a healthy way. It is a mess and they sold out to the call duty attention span demographic. Short reinforce points means people with short attention spans will enjoy the game more. However it was not like the original reinforce time were that long in the first place there was no need to shorten them.
Relic did not listen to anybody. The shit design concept they refuse to throw away from OF is proof. The crap concept was the brainchild of somebody they cannot get rid of from the company. Most like somebody higher up who is protecting his job by trying to make it seem as though the idea works when it does not. Not a good sign of things too come.
2 Jul 2014, 02:00 AM
#39
Posts: 419
I disagree, the brit trucks were hard to kill with inf other then shrek or flamer spam, and the brits had retardedly strong defensive emplacements with long range. to top off 6 man squads that were tougher then enemy starting inf.And then most of their units were wtf kill machines, putting all that in the middle of the map at the beginning of the game was breaking too many coh rules. Oberkommand is way different as in the trucks are easy to kill, and fairly hard to defend if you overextend, especially with bazooka spammers. Small squads, easy to kill squads, no defensive emplacements other than the flak, which as in pe's case was/is more useful to the allies then the axis, the dynamic is totally different.
2 Jul 2014, 03:44 AM
#40
1 Posts: 927
At first i was so angry when i learned why got the "new brits" in coh2 but OKW is nowhere near the killing machines and steelfortress of Brits. But still its kinda worrying Relic actually went with a design thats so near Brits when Brits was By far the most hated faction to vcoh.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
60 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
131 | ||
 |
|
|
70 | ||
 |
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
975 users are online:
975 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49106
Welcome our newest member, nohuvin
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, nohuvin
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM