Attention clan leaders

PS: We now have 7 interested clans totaling around 100 community members. Love this community.

Except the majority of the player base doesn't automatch. They play single-player or skirmishes. So releasing a single-player expansion makes sense in terms of immediate financial return.

The multiplayer CoH2 community is extremely small honestly, and its competitive multiplayer community is even smaller.

I don't doubt that you're right. Relic's decisions to pursue single player missions certainly support this thought process. I also think its a lot easier to NOT screw up single player.

I'm curious though...how exactly do you know about the size of the player base and how many don't automatch vs. SP and skirmishes? Do you have access to this information or is there a site I could visit to see it as well? Thanks.

I have no idea if it's true in CoH2 honestly, I'm just going off of the CoH1 numbers that were visible on the News tab. The multiplayer numbers on that for CoH1 always dwarfed in comparison to the single-player and skirmish numbers. I'm assuming a similar distribution of players in CoH2.

Why else would relic be working so hard on single player content right now?

Do you know how ridiculous you look when you suggest people shouldn't lose their jobs if they're not doing them properly?

If you can't do your job, you lose it. I've lost clients over the years because I wasn't able to handle volume or maintain quality. So they say "can you fix it?" I say "yes" they keep me, I say "no" I lose the contract.


Or should everyone have a guaranteed job regardless of ability? This game could be selling far more copies/DLC. It isn't selling for a whole bunch of reasons. Whoever is dropping the ball may deserve to lose their job.


"balancing video games" is part of his job description. He isn't doing it. If he is, he is doing it wrong. People are raging and leaving and they ain't coming back. Maybe it's not all Peter's fault, I doubt after all that he made the decision to prioritise the Ardennes campaign. But Balance is his responsibility and I've never seen a game suffer from so many problems for such a long time.


If you ever open a company, remember this conversation and never ever fire anyone who is performing subpar. Then good luck with your business.

You have the signature of the Rewind Crew too, should mean something for them in terms of competitiveness.

Also they need to understand the following thing;

The time that companies communicated behind doors and only brought out vague comments to the outside world has passed a long time. If they can't communicate more open to a community of more than 8000 members, they will take the loss. Some of us will keep on playing, but if the keyfigures of the game go over to another game, the game is doomed.

Let me be clear, the following keyplayers / coh2 related things are on a serious break / left the game / are not active / not serious anymore about the game;

- Ipkai
- Ami
- Reborn
- Milka
- SNF (streams are off since ... ?)
- Rewind
- Siberian
- HelpingHans
- ESL
- So much more I can't think of right now.
- ...

(Sorry if I wrote your name and you're very active and positive about the game)
This should be alarming for Relic, and they should see this as TOP priority to gain them back.
It's not just a few players who lost interest,. It's about streaming, charismatic people, community keyplayers, ... It's about losing your ambassadors of the game.
Some people who are into marketing know the word Ambassador is widely used and seen as one of the main focusses of companies, in Europe it is. Get ambassadors and they spread the word.

I've seen it with my own eyes in Enemy Territory.
The pro's leave to another game, the caster and competitive designers go? Well the scene is as death as a turtle trying to cross a highway.

They need to see this community as a TOOL they can use.
In that scenario, we would win and they would win.

But, Relic.

e: About Bulgakov;

It's not PETER in particular, it's a whole team that doesn't succeed in balancing.
I agree with the fact that if employees don't succeed after a year, you should start looking for other people.

I was talking with Relic Developers on Sunday at EGX London and they were speaking to me about how they would like suggestions and how they take constructive critism extremely seriously.

I also pledge SMED how ever small we are to your cause.

I was talking with Relic Developers on Sunday at EGX London and they were speaking to me about how they would like suggestions and how they take constructive critism extremely seriously.

I also pledge SMED how ever small we are to your cause.

Yeaaa, they take suggestions very seriously, put them into the wooden chest, set sail to a deserted island and bury it there because they hold our suggestions as a greatest treasure.

Yeaaa, they take suggestions very seriously, put them into the wooden chest, set sail to a deserted island and bury it there because they hold our suggestions as a greatest treasure.

Can you really blame them when most suggestions (at least here on the forums) are poorly thought out and rooted in personal bias?

Can you really blame them when most suggestions (at least here on the forums) are poorly thought out and rooted in personal bias?

I'm talking about the reasonable ones which wouldn't flip the game upside down.

Its easy to distinguish reasonable ideas from balance lolcakes.

I'll happily support this. 4v4 needs work and the balance of the game needs to be ready for when OBS mode comes out. If COH2 is going to be a new hallmark in competitive RTS, then these things have to be addressed. I'm all for whatever Napalm is getting at.

IpKai and Ami are out of the game? This is the end...

Napalm, I'll be happy to partake your ideas with the FoG clan.
If this is a positive, constructed argumentation I don't see why we would not support it.
We have 200+ members although only a small share (about 10%) are active on CoH2. The balance issues and the constant changes in the multiple variables have not helped for sure.

I was talking with Relic Developers on Sunday at EGX London and they were speaking to me about how they would like suggestions and how they take constructive critism extremely seriously.

I also pledge SMED how ever small we are to your cause.

Considering that the higher ups are so set in there ways on what this game should be that they pretty much ignore 90% of the feedback coming from their private alpha test group, I think its safe to say they give two shits what some guy at EGX has to say. Typical PR response, you got Relic rolled.

Can you really blame them when most suggestions (at least here on the forums) are poorly thought out and rooted in personal bias?

They completely ignore a lot of legit complaints that are well thought out with solutions made for them. This isn't a issue of Pqumsieh not getting any good feedback, the problem since launch has been that the people pulling the strings at Relic are so proud of their clusterfuck of a game that they are unwilling to settle for most of the changes almost everyone could agree on. Remember this thread? Unanimous approval, no Relic response. http://www.coh2.org/topic/11064/commander-overlap-a-serious-problem

Go forth Napalm and tell Relic what this whole balancing thing is aboot. Also, SITREP?

After meeting up with Relic in person I feel that this letter is no longer required. While I have my reservations about the balance of this game my other major complaints were addressed during my office visit. All I can say is NDA

This thread can be closed for now. Who knows what the future holds.

Who knows what the future holds.

My highly developed sense of deduction says its you!

I have no idea if it's true in CoH2 honestly, I'm just going off of the CoH1 numbers that were visible on the News tab. The multiplayer numbers on that for CoH1 always dwarfed in comparison to the single-player and skirmish numbers. I'm assuming a similar distribution of players in CoH2.

I was told by Relic staff member (don't want to name) that single player skirmishers trump everyone else combined, by more then 5:1, after I wrote letter complaining about some similar issues as Napalm intends to. (thats 1v1-4v4, campaign, and multiplayer skirmishers.
Cannot remember correctly, but only 11 or 13% of people who bought the game played even single online game (this was approx. 6-8 months ago)

Its worth a try Napalm

After meeting up with Relic in person I feel that this letter is no longer required. While I have my reservations about the balance of this game my other major complaints were addressed during my office visit. All I can say is NDA

This thread can be closed for now. Who knows what the future holds.

IGNORE THE COMMANDANT, HE APPEARS TO BE THE VICTIM OF SOME KIND OF ENEMY NERVE GAS

After meeting up with Relic in person I feel that this letter is no longer required. While I have my reservations about the balance of this game my other major complaints were addressed during my office visit. All I can say is NDA

This thread can be closed for now. Who knows what the future holds.

I was told by Relic staff member (don't want to name) that single player skirmishers trump everyone else combined, by more then 5:1, after I wrote letter complaining about some similar issues as Napalm intends to. (thats 1v1-4v4, campaign, and multiplayer skirmishers.
Cannot remember correctly, but only 11 or 13% of people who bought the game played even single online game (this was approx. 6-8 months ago)

Its worth a try Napalm

It's definitely true, and it's true of 99% of games honestly. The vast majority of CSGO, SC2, Dota 2, etc. players who play those games don't play them competitively or with any competitive ambitions. The problem with Relic's approach is that they see those numbers and think immediately that they need to focus their attention on the "casual" aspect of the game, at the expense of the competitive scene.

It's a weird way to think about the game, and Relic is one of the only developers who seems to feel that way. Other developers like Valve and Blizzard and Riot realize that while the vast majority of their players will never play their games competitively, the competitive scene is vital to success because it provides free marketing, attracts new players, and keeps existing players interested in their games and the communities surrounding them. The fact of the matter is, skirmish players are going to keep playing skirmish regardless of the changes to the game. Competitive play, on the other hand, is never going to succeed today unless it is given serious, targeted attention from developers. Most of the biggest non-MMO multiplayer games today are games with hugely successful competitive scenes supported by developers who run their own flagship tournaments and focus a large amount of energy on improving competitive play. These games also happen to have enormous numbers of casual players, even though so much developer energy is focused away from that aspect of these games. The fact that Relic doesn't realize that, and didn't from day one prioritize the competitive scene as a result, is their #1 strategic failing as a company in my opinion.