Game Speed

CoH is somewhat slow paced and it wouldn't hurt if the speed increases by a notch. After all, the level of strategic decision making becomes more interesting under greater time pressure. That doesn't necessarily mean the average decision will be better, but the number of decisions increases leading to a closer approximation of an optimal balance between the strategic component and the time component of the game.

It would hurt it

Why do we have to change what is one of the best parts of coh?

If you are quoting, make sure you read beyond the first line.
Whether the slow pace of CoH is the game's best feature or not is arbitrary, however, the number of decisions will increase, which seems an interesting and wanted development in competitive play.

The number of decisions in a game will not increase, it will in fact decrease. There are only so many decisions one can make per minute, so if the game is faster, there is less decisions made overall. And faster decisions does not mean better decisions.

The only thing that will increase is the amount of required APM, to dodge a nade here while kiting that M8 there while being aware of that precise countersnipe opportunity. Even at the current speed I'm sure most are never waiting for anything to do beyond the first few minutes.

And a speed increase will change the atmosphere of the game completely, as there will be no time to "feel part of" the game and be aware of the finer details, like kiting that King Tiger turret, watching for a rifle doing that sticky- or grenade-motion, or even dodging artillery or enjoying the tense moment when your AT-gun is reloading for that last shot on the Panther; will it penetrate?

I will explain the mechanism again.
Game speed increases -> number of actions per unit of time per seperate unit increases (for instance: a unit has a higher probability of encountering an engagement) -> APM increases (as you correctedly stated).

Every mouseclick equals a decision, thus the number of decisions increases with the speed of the game. Now, as stated twice before, a NOTCH does not mean these finer details become obsolete. And ofcourse, as also stated before, more decisions do not necessarily increase the effectiveness of them. To take it even further, the average decision will probably even be of a lower quality, making players more sensitive to mistakes, which increases the level of competition due to a greater filtering amongst players.

This is not something that specifies to RTS games alone. The quality of the best decision maker (skill), as opposed to the average decision maker (threshold), increases with the appliance of greater time pressure. This translates to a high extend to professional traders, statesmen, corporate executives etc. etc.

I will explain the mechanism again.
Game speed increases -> number of actions per unit of time per seperate unit increases (for instance: a unit has a higher probability of encountering an engagement) -> APM increases (as you correctedly stated).

Every mouseclick equals a decision, thus the number of decisions increases with the speed of the game. Now, as stated twice before, a NOTCH does not mean these finer details become obsolete. And ofcourse, as also stated before, more decisions do not necessarily increase the effectiveness of them. To take it even further, the average decision will probably even be of a lower quality, making players more sensitive to mistakes, which increases the level of competition due to a greater filtering amongst players.

This is not something that specifies to RTS games alone. The quality of the best decision maker (skill), as opposed to the average decision maker (threshold), increases with the appliance of greater time pressure. This translates to a high extend to professional traders, statesmen, corporate executives etc. etc.

But a mouse click moving a unit slightly back is not an equal decision to say teching. Faster pacing requires less important decisions made to adapt to the opponent's actions due to less time to think, and more minor ones to do more menial(not the optimum word here, not sure what is) tasks.

And I did address the whole post, which was based on the opinion that it would not hurt it to increase the speed. I said it would, and there is no reason to change it.

Whether these decisions are of major or minor importance cannot be deducted from the action itself. For instance: moving an important unit slightly back can save that unit, whereas teching to wm's t2 will be needed regardless, diminishing the decision to "when" rather than "if" and "when".

As stated before, the quality of the average decision will probably decrease, but this leads to an increasing level of competitive play due to increased susceptibility to mistakes leading to a higher skill threshold.

Before, you asked a reason and now you assume an absence of a reason to change the game speed after I already presented a reason on both occasions (this might not be your reason, but A reason). This is why I request(ed) you read the full post before you quote.

Not very important because there will always be that 1 default speed that 99% of people will use every game.

Whether these decisions are of major or minor importance cannot be deducted from the action itself. For instance: moving an important unit slightly back can save that unit, whereas teching to wm's t2 will be needed regardless, diminishing the decision to "when" rather than "if" and "when".

As stated before, the quality of the average decision will probably decrease, but this leads to an increasing level of competitive play due to increased susceptibility to mistakes leading to a higher skill threshold.

Before, you asked a reason and now you assume an absence of a reason to change the game speed after I already presented a reason on both occasions (this might not be your reason, but A reason). This is why I request(ed) you read the full post before you quote.

But, for the most part, moving a unit slightly back will not save it but teching right/wrong at the right/wrong time will often win/lose a game. Faster pace does mean more mistakes, but that is not due to strategy. That is due to the SC2-esque "Whoever is better at clicking fast wins" gameplay. This is why me and so many others prefer coh to sc2.

I did read the whole post, and I did address the whole post. Your stated reasons would hurt the game. I asked why we would change it, since there was no good reason to in your original argument.

The increasing probability of making mistakes leads to an increasing need for players to incorporate strategies as an "instinct", because there is less time to react. This implies more practice, leading to an increasing level of competitive play.

The same holds for a reversal. If the game speed decreases, more time is given to make (correct) decisions. This leads to a lower threshold. Fore instance: dodging artillery and nades becomes easier. Thus, skill levels are getting in closer approximation to eachother. For instance: if you would play a top 10 player at 0,25x speed, your advantage would be greater than theirs, as they are more comfortable playing at higher speeds.

This is a general concept, which applies to almost every decision making situation. If you still think a higher level of competitive play cant be considered a (good) reason, that is your right, I suppose.

SC2 is mot fast paced and Coh is more slow paced game. I think both are good and keep it as it is.

The increasing probability of making mistakes leads to an increasing need for players to incorporate strategies as an "instinct", because there is less time to react. This implies more practice, leading to an increasing level of competitive play.

The same holds for a reversal. If the game speed decreases, more time is given to make (correct) decisions. This leads to a lower threshold. Fore instance: dodging artillery and nades becomes easier. Thus, skill levels are getting in closer approximation to eachother. For instance: if you would play a top 10 player at 0,25x speed, your advantage would be greater than theirs, as they are more comfortable playing at higher speeds.

This is a general concept, which applies to almost every decision making situation. If you still think a higher level of competitive play cant be considered a (good) reason, that is your right, I suppose.

If it slows enough, then yes it becomes stupidly easy. But I would argue that when strategies become instinct it becomes not a game of outsmarting your opponent, but a game of reflex and practice.

Not that those kind of games are bad or not fun, but I prefer the CoH style of gameplay much more.

EDIT: After posting that, I realized it really just comes down to opinion of which is better. But CoH does not need to have a faster pace, as there are many like SC2 and few like CoH.

To each his own, I guess.

To each his own, I guess.

I liked COH1, but it kinda bored the crap out of me. I realized it's the plodding (yet realistic) pace of the game. Then I discovered this script (COH1 only):

bind([[Control+Up]], [[setsimrate(22)]])
bind([[Control+Down]], [[setsimrate(8)]])

to increase the speed for local games to 3 times normal speed. Much more fun, and I can typically win against AI on normal (which is no big deal I'm sure).

The other thing no one is considering is: I can play a complete game in 1/3rd the time other people can, so I play 3 times as many games.

This script doesn't work in COH2 though... hopefully there will soon be an equivalent.

I liked COH1, but it kinda bored the crap out of me. I realized it's the plodding (yet realistic) pace of the game. Then I discovered this script (COH1 only):

bind([[Control+Up]], [[setsimrate(22)]])
bind([[Control+Down]], [[setsimrate(8)]])

to increase the speed for local games to 3 times normal speed. Much more fun, and I can typically win against AI on normal (which is no big deal I'm sure).

The other thing no one is considering is: I can play a complete game in 1/3rd the time other people can, so I play 3 times as many games.

This script doesn't work in COH2 though... hopefully there will soon be an equivalent.

Oops - I lied - the script works fine in COH2 - you simply need to start with the -dev launch option set. Woohoo - superfast! Press Ctrl+Shift+~ paste the script and press return. Press Ctrl+Shift+~ to close console. Now control+Up will go fast and control+down will be normal

APM, Skill Ceiling, Skill Cap.

All useless.

APM is a hard term, for an abstract concept. Yes, APM in games like SC2 usually mean the player can respond to a situation much faster, and considering the variables in starcraft are almost non existing (no randomness), this works.

Then again, I could be a player with 1000 APM, and suck. The point being, its what those actions are directed towards that truly count. In the hands of a pro, high APM is amazing. In the hands of a n00b with parkinons repeatedly clicking commands... not so much.

Skill ceiling and skill caps are inaccurate terms, too, in my opinion. Instead of skill ceiling, they should call it a skill standard, or a curve. As you approach the highest pro levels, your progress slows, but never stops. If, on the other hand, a guy came out of nowhere and completely destroyed the consensus on pro gameplay, then pro players would adapt, and the "skill ceiling" would rise again. If it rises, its not a true ceiling.

WTF does this have to do with CoH?

Well, CoH is a game that depends 60-70% on micro. Yet, the micro is different than the one found in other strategy games, because it depends on environmental factors a LOT more than on numbers. in SC2, true micro superiority only comes into play if two players have similar macro. In CoH, an outnumbered player can wreak havoc if his micro is superior. Positioning plays an incredibly bigger role than in ANY other strategy game.

This means speed is secondary to everything else. you still need speed, and the faster you are, the better, but a player with good situational awareness in CoH, can be a VERY slow clicker and very slow dodger... and still win. He wont need to dodge a grenade that never reached him, because he set up a proper killbox to protect his flank.

TL;DR: CoH is like playing Blues. You don't need to be fast, you just need to have a good feel for the game and its mechanics.

I fear that when speed is increased I my usage of clever tactics with highly mobile units like halftrack infantry, scout cars and light tanks will decrease. Also the best use of terrain and scouting will happen less because I have to concentrate on the important stuff.
This might happen in favor of more straight units and tactics like massed tank assault later or extreme usage of static mixed infantry/artillery lines.

I think this would be a bad thing at least for me. One could argue that these things still happen even at higher game speed. But to be honest I am quite busy with that stuff atm. And I don't consider game length to be an issue. Many games are finished quite fast in the current state cause of fast draining victory points. We could have 10 minute games if game speed is drastically increased which is not what I would prefer. I usually enjoy longer games with more dedication to them over shorter more intense but often one-sided games.

I think a speed between what was in the beta earlier and what is in the beta right now would be ideal.

Clearly, the fact that there are differences of opinion on speed, and the fact that the engine already supports speed changes (see the script I posted) means that speed _should_ be an option. Giving other people the option to play fast does not take away anyone's option to play slow... just like people playing speed chess doesn't stop anyone from using the same equipment to play month-long chess games.

Clearly, the fact that there are differences of opinion on speed, and the fact that the engine already supports speed changes (see the script I posted) means that speed _should_ be an option. Giving other people the option to play fast does not take away anyone's option to play slow... just like people playing speed chess doesn't stop anyone from using the same equipment to play month-long chess games.

Its by all means a possibility to include it as an option, but I don't think it should be a priority.

Also, just because there's a difference of opinion, doesn't mean an option has to be implemented. Almost every single player in the world will give you different accounts as to what their ideal changes to a game would be. You cant please everyone, sometimes standards must be set.

...just food for thought.