RELIC: how about an update_news_something

The vast majority of vCoH players didn't play multiplayer. They played campaign or skirmish. Even back a few years ago when vCoH would hit 10k-12k players consistently, only a few hundred of those were ever automatching or in ranked games, and 1000-2000 more in basic matches. The rest were all skirmish and campaign.

We don't have access to that sort of information for CoH2, but I would be surprised if it changed all that much.

You guys need to tone it down some.

Noun came to the forums, he said what information he could, he read your posts. No need to get all verbally assaultive. Its not like he alone makes all decisions with the game. You shouldnt be angry with him for things you don't like or need improvements.

I don't think the problem is Noun came and posted. The problem is that he posted some usual PR fluff even though there are clearly major issues with the game/patches etc. Constantly saying "We value your feedback, we value the community, or thank you for your support, etc" is insulting to the players. When horrible bugs continue to persist/created, when major issues are not discussed, when communication is sorely lacking, it is mockery that Relic throws some PR BS into your face.

I know this isn't the official forums, but even at the official forums, the frequency of posts is lacking.

Patching is likely a very expensive exercise for Relic, which is why they have stuck to large releases and only hotfixed major bugs.

If that's the case then why they are released with so many problems, news bugs, new balance problems, with so many ninja changes and wrong information. In every single patch.

If u said "Patching is likely a very expensive exercise" for CoH1 when Relic used their own downloader and everything, then i would believe it.
But not for this game that runs trough Steam, not when i heard many times from many different dev's from others games that now patching is very very easy when it goes trough Steam. Starting from dayz standalone developer Dean Hall, who said that numerous times.

Patching is definitely easier through Steam, but I doubt Valve lets Relic use their bandwidth for free. There's also the question of quality control. CoH2 is, at its core, still running on an engine from 2006, and development practices change a lot in 8 years.

As I said above, it's impossible to know for sure the impact of balance changes until they're released to the community at large. Test servers can only help so much, because they provide a very small sample size. And furthermore, the initial, knee-jerk reaction to a patch is very often incorrect.

And on the question of bugs, do you really think a company releases an update with bugs on purpose? It's nearly impossible to write bug-free software, especially in a project as large and complex as a modern game. It's unavoidable.

most people aren't very good at the game.

You have no right to make statements like this...

Most players here obviously care about this game. I understand you have good intentions. But, steer clear of this kind of commenting.

It backfires on you

It's just truth though. It's true of every single game in existence. Most people who play aren't very good. I don't doubt that they care about the game and want it to improve, but games like this are extremely complicated, and it's difficult to have intelligent conversations about something as complex as balance without an intimate understanding of how the game is best played.

Ever notice that I never post about balance? Because I'm fucking awful at CoH2. I can look at a change and probably write something that sounds semi-intelligent, but at the end of the day, are you more likely to listen to me or to someone like Jesulin? The answer is obvious.

The vast majority of vCoH players didn't play multiplayer. They played campaign or skirmish. Even back a few years ago when vCoH would hit 10k-12k players consistently, only a few hundred of those were ever automatching or in ranked games, and 1000-2000 more in basic matches. The rest were all skirmish and campaign.

We don't have access to that sort of information for CoH2, but I would be surprised if it changed all that much.

Skirmish is a very different thing from the campaign though. Skirmishes often entail team matches in multiplayer maps. But that's good information to know, nonetheless.

You have no right to make statements like this...

Most players here obviously care about this game. I understand you have good intentions. But, steer clear of this kind of commenting.
It backfires on you

Inverse may lack tact and unfortunately that diminishes the ideas that he tries to get across. Let's put it this way:

All advice is not equal.

It's seem to me that Relic don't trust the community enough.
Doing NDA and the way official communications are made are hurting the game more than it help it.

I suggest they reverse that way of thinking by doing things a lot more openly :

-Setup a beta server with just the automatch option available that would be easily accessible within the official game.

-That full stats on games, players, factions & e.t.c should be public for that server.

-This should be the place where they try brand new units and commanders or newly rebalanced units and commanders.

-Balance's iterations should be pushed as fast as new things come out, but pushed without obvious bugs. Focus is on design and gameplay.

-Performance optimization's iteration should be pushed more slowly and only when the code is rather solid. Focus is on UI and game performances.

-Interaction with players on the beta server should be 2-ways and on a daily basic is possible. Devs reports should be made on an weekly basis if possible.

-Experimental new units could be given to serious players to test within the beta environment as well as new stuff, example: a new grenade or a special way of firing...

-Message from the beta server could be broadcast on the live one to bring more players when special focus is needed.

- A special forum area to discuss the beta activities would be setup and moderated to keep the focus. It should also be accessible from the beta UI.

I sure other people have more ideas around that concept that could be added. Please vocalize them.

Conclusions:
With that, the community feeling should be broader more embracing, like a big family working and playing toward the same goal : Having fun a making a great game. Relic's income should and will increase as that goal become closer.

Comments ?

With that, the community feeling should be broader more embracing, like a big family working and playing toward the same goal : Having fun a making a great game.

This kind of thing would be nice but very expensive for Relic.

Relic's income should and will increase as that goal become closer.

This is the biggest assumption on these forums. I have strong doubts this is the case when the vast majority of the playerbase plays the campaign and skirmish missions.

Good suggestions voltardark!!!

I already see dead end for this conversation. I will say then that the game still has many bugs then why Relic doesn't put more effort to fix them, and pathfinding went downhill since vCoh and even UI is sometimes unresponsive. And all that affect gameplay. And you will probably say that Relic's effort are currently on something else.
I mean, what does relic do now? They are putting all their effort on making a new DLC for a game. And usually im fine with that, but not when the game has many issues and problems and u guys are saying that ur doing what u can to fix these things, but the fact that your resources are on making a new campaign is telling me that is a just a lie.

This kind of thing would be nice but very expensive for Relic.



This is the biggest assumption on these forums. I have strong doubts this is the case when the vast majority of the playerbase plays the campaign and skirmish missions.

Setting up a server in 2014 is virtual, not physical, you don't need new computers to do it.
The load balance should be the same as the players would split between the servers.

The coding is rather easy as the UI is the same, only some options are disable.

I know a tad at what i'm saying since it's within my field of expertise... a working adaptation could be done in a few weeks or so by any good game programmers. It's rather the corporate administrators/structure that would slow the process... (games of power).

If the game become well optimized and balanced, it would sell better as it's the same mechanic that is at work within the others mode of play.

Also new ideas, maps and AI scripts could be tested on the beta server thus helping in that matter also.

The COH2 concept is excellent at is core, it only need more tuning to fully realize it's true potential.

Thanks

You still need physical servers to run virtual machines...

The problem is, people are reactionary, and most people aren't very good at the game. I'll give you an example from CoH1. When the most recent patch came out, people thought PE were overpowered against Americans. That lasted for a whole year, until Aimstrong came along and showed people how the matchup should be played. Now it's an Americans-favoured matchup, all because one guy figured out a better way to play the game.

In most cases, you can't evaluate balance changes within a week, especially not on beta servers with a limited number of players. You need to let your community have some time with the game before you can really say for sure what the state of the game is.

100% agree with basically everything youve said.

Setting up a server in 2014 is virtual, not physical, you don't need new computers to do it.
The load balance should be the same as the players would split between the servers.

The coding is rather easy as the UI is the same, only some options are disable.

I know a tad at what i'm saying since it's within my field of expertise... a working adaptation could be done in a few weeks or so by any good game programmers. It's rather the corporate administrators/structure that would slow the process... (games of power).

Thanks

I didn't mean the actual servers costing much. Rather, the team and the infrastructure supporting the beta servers as you describe them, would have to be much larger than what they currently employ.

If the game become well optimized and balanced, it would sell better as it's the same mechanic that is at work within the others mode of play.
[..]
The COH2 concept is excellent at is core, it only need more tuning to fully realize it's true potential.

Again, this is an assumption. I would like it to be true, mind you, but I doubt it is. Balance and optimization don't translate into sales as clearly as you might expect.

The problem is, people are reactionary, and most people aren't very good at the game. I'll give you an example from CoH1. When the most recent patch came out, people thought PE were overpowered against Americans. That lasted for a whole year, until Aimstrong came along and showed people how the matchup should be played. Now it's an Americans-favoured matchup, all because one guy figured out a better way to play the game.

In most cases, you can't evaluate balance changes within a week, especially not on beta servers with a limited number of players. You need to let your community have some time with the game before you can really say for sure what the state of the game is.

Now if you're Valve, and you own your distribution platform, and you have 8 million monthly players, you can make changes you know are probably extreme, because you will get a ton of information back really quickly and you can react to it in a timely manner. That's exactly what happened with the recent gold bounty changes in Dota 2. They did something that was probably extreme, and they gradually toned it down until they hit a point they were happy with.

Relic doesn't have that luxury, unfortunately. First of all, their game isn't run on servers, so they don't have access to the same quality of information that Valve does for Dota 2. Also, they have far less players, and therefore far less games being played with which they can judge their changes. Finally, they don't own their distribution platform. Patching is likely a very expensive exercise for Relic, which is why they have stuck to large releases and only hotfixed major bugs.

Honestly, I think it's hard to argue against Valve's iterative approach being better than Relic's, but at the same time, the balance team likely doesn't have much say in how frequently they get to patch their game. And without a large quantity of hard data to go off, you can't really make informed decisions in a short period of time anyways.

And what? I'm sorry but here we're not talking about bugs and balance itself but the way Relic runs debugging and balance testing.
You cannot sell a product and say "Oh I'm sorry there are bugs and it isn't balance at all but I'm too busy right now to finish it, I need more cash so I focus on a new DLC"
That mentality of selling something and not giving a shit to make it reliable. Why didn't they give Western Front for free if there are so few multiplayers? I guess people playing Solo and Skirmish aren't buying it?
why don't they tell us that it is just a fucking beta - like it is really today until they release the complete version of AA. Because of DNA? Because they wanted our money before giving us the right service they're supposed to do?
Today they fucked up their vcoh2 version with that horrible beta of DLC. there are many players who would have prefered to continue to play vcoh2 in good condition with a version that is balanced. And people really wanting WA would have wait until the final release.

They can come and say - We are busing, we are working hard - yes sure it is true because that game is on BETA. And they sold it to us with a big smile and a big pot of vaseline.

I took the wrong quote

? That was a response to a comment that more servers wouldn't be more expensive because they would be virtual...

The problem is, people are reactionary, and most people aren't very good at the game. I'll give you an example from CoH1. When the most recent patch came out, people thought PE were overpowered against Americans. That lasted for a whole year, until Aimstrong came along and showed people how the matchup should be played. Now it's an Americans-favoured matchup, all because one guy figured out a better way to play the game.

What was his special way to dealing with PE?


There is one problem in what you describe. If a developer makes a faction or balance changes and has no idea how to deal with it in game he is throwing his customers in murky water and asking them to find their way on their own.

In a sense that is what relic did with the kubel. They over buffed it, but had no idea how to counter it. When I presented Peter with all the evidence about the kubel his position was something to the effect "people need some time to adapt". I disagree with this approach, they need to have a better idea what those changes are going to do to the game before introducing them.

SO Inverse, what are your suggestions to help fix the game. It seems like you are suggesting that this game is beyond saving