Competitive Play

-drop shotting in CoD

Please.. Don't call this CoD - Call of Duty died with MW1 (eventhough MW1 was pretty good and funny)

It's kind of hard to tell - aside from not being able to talk about the alpha, a lot of the stuff like the cold mechanics are likely up in the air. My impression is that CoH 2 is still going to have quite a bit of randomness and fairly low micro requirements for high level play, both of which are always going to limit the game competitively but both of which are also a big draw for players who aren't so great, because they make the game more exciting and because they let people compete at a fairly high level without high APM. So far, in terms of what has been talked about, mirror matches make things much friendlier for competitive players, and True Sight lets people with sweet micro hide their units better, but aside from that it seems like it's going to be pretty similar to CoH.

That's not to say Inverse isn't partially right when he says the biggest issues were lack of marketing and the size of the player base. Even though you and others in this thread are 100% right about the skill ceiling and so on, and even though CoH will never be like SC2 when it comes to competition, CoH could've done so much better just on what it had.

Russians vs Wehrmacht gameplay feels like vcoh. No brits mechanics, is already big improvement for ladder, especially in team games.

I remember Quinn Duffy being asked on improving replays system. He said they'd love to do that, but they may have not enough time. Now when they have 3 more months, it's likely multiplayer will be improved a lot.

Yes they have lots of time now and community / players are ofc waiting some quite big improvements to game, hope one of them is good replay system.

Talking about a skill ceiling for coh is wrong imo. Over the past years, I think every final of a tourney showed a higher level of skill than the previous one and I think we still havn't reached a top yet. It's just that the amount of reward you get for practicing a lot is really low compared to the hours you have invest for it at this point. Now it would be worth it if it meant you'd win a $1000+ tourney or not, but that's not the case.

Also, CoH is not about amp/cmp, so it's useless to compare it with SC in that way. Top tier CoH is about reading your opponent, counting enemy's resource income, and effective (counter)field play. For this, 50 cmp is often enough.

I think CoH2 has some interesting aspects for esport and I think it's too early to say anything useful about it, but what Tommy mentioned + True Sight and the ability to use it in your advantage will play its role.

I'd agree we would see better gameplay if there were professional CoH players.

That's one of the good things about coh, it doesn't have the executional requirements of SC2 but it still has plenty of the mind games aspect which is the main point about playing against a person.

I really hate the term skill ceiling. The only time I ever see it used is in relation to video games and forum users using the term to justify their reasons for playing a game, picking a character/ faction etc. It bugs me as much as "takes no skill to play."

I don't think I fully understand everything which the term 'skill ceiling' encompasses. If it's micro management skills well I do agree there is a point where you do hit the 'ceiling'. In my experience for Company of Heroes it does not take long to reach a point where you hold the skills required to play well. Tasks such as performing grenade dodges, solid flanks, correct unit positioning, good arty placement, use of cover and reversing vechiles approriately are performed by all, whether it be a low or high level of play. You can acquire these skills relatively easily, however consistantly performing with these skills throughout a game, especially in an intense high level game is where the difference lies.

Skill in Company of Heroes is not hard to acquire, consistancy is.

If skill also encompasses decision making well there is no ceiling cap. You are always learning. I feel I am maybe in the top 300 players for CoH and have pretty much hit the ceiling in terms of micro. In terms of decision making though there is always room for improvement. After every game I play, win or loss, I generally reflect on the decisions I made in the game and see what is good or bad. Decision making can never have a skill ceiling I feel.

Deciding which engagements are good and tech choices always have a best choice, luck and randomness can sometimes overthrow this, although not by much. Company of Heroes though has so many soft counters I feel it is easier to compensate for a error in comparison to other RTS games which can be much more punishing due to harder counter systems.

I don't think I fully understand everything which the term 'skill ceiling' encompasses. If it's micro management skills well I do agree there is a point where you do hit the 'ceiling'. In my experience for Company of Heroes it does not take long to reach a point where you hold the skills required to play well. Tasks such as performing grenade dodges, solid flanks, correct unit positioning, good arty placement, use of cover and reversing vechiles approriately are performed by all, whether it be a low or high level of play. You can acquire these skills relatively easily, however consistantly performing with these skills throughout a game, especially in an intense high level game is where the difference lies.

Skill in Company of Heroes is not hard to acquire, consistancy is.

If skill also encompasses decision making well there is no ceiling cap. You are always learning. I feel I am maybe in the top 300 players for CoH and have pretty much hit the ceiling in terms of micro. In terms of decision making though there is always room for improvement. After every game I play, win or loss, I generally reflect on the decisions I made in the game and see what is good or bad. Decision making can never have a skill ceiling I feel.

Deciding which engagements are good and tech choices always have a best choice, luck and randomness can sometimes overthrow this, although not by much. Company of Heroes though has so many soft counters I feel it is easier to compensate for a error in comparison to other RTS games which can be much more punishing due to harder counter systems.

I'm not talking about individuals hitting "perfection" or anything like that. Everyone at the top is at a similar level. There is no room anymore in CoH for someone to come in an utterly defeat everyone playing currently purely with ridiculous micro or anything like that. Even if everyone is slowly getting a little bit better, and that's not undisputed, that doesn't mean there can't be a practical skill ceiling.

I don't think I fully understand everything which the term 'skill ceiling' encompasses. If it's micro management skills well I do agree there is a point where you do hit the 'ceiling'. In my experience for Company of Heroes it does not take long to reach a point where you hold the skills required to play well. Tasks such as performing grenade dodges, solid flanks, correct unit positioning, good arty placement, use of cover and reversing vechiles approriately are performed by all, whether it be a low or high level of play. You can acquire these skills relatively easily, however consistantly performing with these skills throughout a game, especially in an intense high level game is where the difference lies.

Skill in Company of Heroes is not hard to acquire, consistancy is.

If skill also encompasses decision making well there is no ceiling cap. You are always learning. I feel I am maybe in the top 300 players for CoH and have pretty much hit the ceiling in terms of micro. In terms of decision making though there is always room for improvement. After every game I play, win or loss, I generally reflect on the decisions I made in the game and see what is good or bad. Decision making can never have a skill ceiling I feel.

Deciding which engagements are good and tech choices always have a best choice, luck and randomness can sometimes overthrow this, although not by much. Company of Heroes though has so many soft counters I feel it is easier to compensate for a error in comparison to other RTS games which can be much more punishing due to harder counter systems.

Basically it means not enough skills (or refinement of skills)are there to put a gap between the increasingly better levels of players. You're level 16 in auto but if you make some small mistake(s) you can still lose to someone that is level 13-14, because level 16s aren't that much better than level 13s-14s tbh. Yeah we might have slightly better knowledge of the meta game and be a little more consistent, but a level 13-14 can still compete with 90% of the players in automatch if they aren't making lots of errors.

If someone in SC2 gold/platinum league played against a master, they'll get anally raped more often than not because there is a steeper meta learning curve, more advanced tactics to master, more speed required, etc.

But I prefer CoH the way it is, we all think we want this to be an esport because some people think they can compete, but the truth is you are not going to be any match for someone that has no other career/schooling and dedicates 6 hours of the day every day to practicing a game that can provide them with a sustainable income. Do I want CoH to be really popular? Yeah. Can it be an esport? Maybe. Can anyone on this site compete at that level of play with their current lifestyle. Nope.

Basilone, you're right and you're wrong.

You're right that I don't want CoH 2 to be an esport in the sense that people better than me can just wipe the floor with me, like they can in SC2. I like how I can be pretty great at CoH just by being smart because the APM requirement is so low.

But you're wrong because SC2 gets around this problem by having a TON of players and an AMAZING automatch system, so if I automatch, I'll get matched up against someone at my skill level. Thus it doesn't matter that a master will destroy me even when I'm in Platinum, because I won't get matched up against masters. I'll be matched up against other Platinum players.

So maybe the best world would be one where people like me who will only ever be so good at CoH 2 get matched up against other people like me, and people who can get even better at CoH 2 have the opportunity to use those skills to win. That's not the game we're getting, I think, but it could be, given some gameplay changes (and a massive player base and amazing automatching).

Yeah I know that platinum vs master would probably never be allowed by the sc2 matchmaking system, but if they arranged a custom game the platinum player would still get rolled because the other guy has a lot better multitasking and game knowledge.

If the platinum guy is given time to prepare it could be a close series. If he believes he can body that guy he can do well, if he's given up just because his opponent is in masters league then he's already lost before he's hit the start game button. The platinum player might be better at dealing with a high pressure situation in a bo3 format. League positions are a terrible way of determining a player's ability.

I've seen it time and time before where talented, lazy players get bopped by players who work hard to get better when the time arises.

Seriously a high ranking on a ladder doesn't give you a licence to automatically body people.

If the platinum guy is given time to prepare it could be a close series. If he believes he can body that guy he can do well, if he's given up just because his opponent is in masters league then he's already lost before he's hit the start game button. The platinum player might be better at dealing with a high pressure situation in a bo3 format. League positions are a terrible way of determining a player's ability.

I've seen it time and time before where talented, lazy players get bopped by players who work hard to get better when the time arises.

Seriously a high ranking on a ladder doesn't give you a licence to automatically body people.

The distance between the absolute worst CoH player (in 1v1 auto) and the absolute best is, compared to the distance between SC players, not particularly large.

The reason it's bigger in SC2 is because people have careers based on the game. The current CoH meta would probably not be even close to what it currently is if people were able to play 6-8 hours a day.

the reason it's bigger in SC2 is simply because there are way more players, at least 10x more.

The reason it's bigger in SC2 is because people have careers based on the game. The current CoH meta would probably not be even close to what it currently is if people were able to play 6-8 hours a day.

More people are able to make it a career because it's big, not vice versa.

I have never played starcraft , can anyone explain to me how it differs from coh or generals ?

the quick and dirty is that gameplay wise it's got more similarities with Generals (look at who the lead designer is for both games) but I believe that where SC2 really shines is it's large player base and quality of life features such as ease of sharing maps, a very feature filled replay viewer not to mention very low wait times for auto matches and very few networking issues.

OFC, but the reason SC2 have such a high skill ceiling is because people can devote time to it as a career (and hobby if they want to), the reason they can do that is because SC2 got a bigger audience etc.

That's all true, except I would argue that SC2 rewards playing for 6-8 hours a day quite heavily because it has a lot of depth and is micro/macro focused. I don't think that practicing CoH for 8 hours a day is going to translate to massively outplaying people that perhaps do a quarter of that. There's simply not enough in CoH to justify that amount of time investment. Hence, as I've been saying, a skill ceiling.

That's all true, except I would argue that SC2 rewards playing for 6-8 hours a day quite heavily because it has a lot of depth and is micro/macro focused.

SC2 is definitely more micro focused than Coh, however I definitely wouldn't claim that it has more depth. Moreover, whether SC2 has more macro is debatable, seeing as sc2 completely lacks many of the tactical and environmental elements Coh incorporates.

On the whole, though, this conversation is rather pointless. If coh2 has a big player-base, it'll be a big e-sport. If not, it won't. Also, for anyone arguing that Coh has a very limiting skill ceiling: How come, despite being 6-7 years old, the top seeds always end up in the semis/finals, no matter the tournament?