4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 09:00 AMkiemenhund

Again - if you are the better player in CoH2, you will win. This game is competitive, and while the MP system is more forgiving towards the player with the smaller army, it does not break the game. If you have your opponent outcapped, you'll have more muni and fuel income. You'll have tanks, off-map, stukas, what have you, whilst your opponent can't do anything but spam vanilla infantry. You make it sound as if you are on even ground even when he is pinned inside his base, which is wrong. Beta noobs just don't know when to leave a game, thats all

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 00:08 AMLachlanMann

Hi guys,

New here I know, but i've played alot of VCOH and COHF, and am hoping to rekindle my love of COH by playing COH2, but i'm in a mixed bag.



+ 1,000,000. Great post. I feel exactly the same.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 07:59 AMkiemenhund

Do you really believe that a team of well-seasoned game developers like relic just sit down and think "oh man coh1 is great but we need to change something here just for the sake of it, uh, well, let's change the upkeep, uh, and have weapon crews have 6 guys, cuz that'd be fucking kewl". No. They have their reasons. While I totally understand your reservations on the given points, I think you can safely assume that it's NOT relic's mission to fuck up the CoH franchise.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PMKolaris

If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

Yes they have Quinn Duffy, but if you read the early interviews for CoH2 it's pretty clear he had little to do with vCoH's multiplayer.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

Neither of those goals are bad, but the means certainly are. If you want a noob friendly game, help the noob improve. Better tutorials, strong and visible competitive community, fairer matchmaker. You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 09:00 AMkiemenhund

Again - if you are the better player in CoH2, you will win.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 21:00 PMTheSoulTrain

the Activision approach(no real support to the game just mass DLC)

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 21:00 PMTheSoulTrain

Oh and to the one saying they "try new things"... not really, this is just a marketing technique. LOOK GUYS!!!! BLIZZARDS ERMAHGERD SO REALZZZZZZZZZZ SO GUD. These things actually just destroy the game itself for the non casual playerbase. But of course, money is everything in this world, so yep. And yes I do prefer the Blizzard approach, because, you know what? They actually change the game, BUT THE CORE REMAINS THE SAME, Broodwar and SC2 are very different games, but they do share the same ideas, the same mechanics...

Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2013, 23:32 PMHaupt

4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better:

1) Allocate an appropriate budget that assures the development of a well-made game, including good game support, such as solving server issues, and frequent bug and balance fixes

2) Hire game developers who understand the game mechanics of Coh1 as well as why the original game was so much fun.

3) Make Coh2 competitive, for example getting it into Epsorts, as well as avoiding play-to-win aspects and balance-breaking DLC

4) Make Coh2 a sequel in the spirit of Coh1 by staying true to the game, while improving all aspects of the game, for example design, graphics, etc. without dumbing the game down

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PMKolaris

If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

Yes they have Quinn Duffy, but if you read the early interviews for CoH2 it's pretty clear he had little to do with vCoH's multiplayer.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

Neither of those goals are bad, but the means certainly are. If you want a noob friendly game, help the noob improve. Better tutorials, strong and visible competitive community, fairer matchmaker. You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.

Jump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PMKolaris

If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2013, 15:32 PMKolaris

I don't remember it changing at all between Alpha and Beta outside performance, although to be fair they did start with medium sized changes right after the Beta began.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2013, 20:42 PMCrackBarbie

I think this might have to do with the fact that the beta build was +3 months old when it came out. Seeing as the alpha came out late December and the beta early April, it'd be logical to assume that the two builds were only a month apart in terms of development.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2013, 21:30 PMcr4wler

what makes you think that?

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2013, 00:03 AMCrackBarbie

I thought that was made clear in my post... The Beta build was months behind what Relic were testing in-house. And in all honesty, barring some performance and ui improvements, there really wasn't a difference between beta and alpha.

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2013, 00:23 AMStalker

Please explain why they would show off an inferior version of their game to the world then... The closed beta "build" got a lot of attention once the NDA was lifted.

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2013, 00:03 AMCrackBarbie

I thought that was made clear in my post... The Beta build was months behind what Relic were testing in-house. And in all honesty, barring some performance and ui improvements, there really wasn't a difference between beta and alpha.