4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

to me this buy-in-beta was not to show the world how awesome the game was, but to get a better feeling about how stable it is /is not. the people who bought in / signed up for ages are extremly likely to buy the game regardless of it's final state so relic is using this old version to iron out kinks with servers ect ect

My computer can't really run it at high graphics so despite putting the money into it, I sort of can't be bothered with it if it isn't an improvement on the original game. Which it sure as hell isn't.

Everything everyone's said on here is correct, but the one thing that particularly annoys me is how hard it is to see my bloody units on the field.

Big meh. Who here actually thinks the developers are on here, and are actually going to the next step of doing something about it? I don't.

Remember in January when they said the beta was all ready to go, and they just needed the OK from THQ? Maybe this was basically the same beta build to test servers, performance etc. But there are many things fixed on the in-house build. THat way, there would be 1 month of dev time between the alpha and beta.

Eh..., COH2 at the moment is so "broken" that they basically need to start all over again, which they obviously won't..., so I personally just stop bothering about it and ask for more support to COH SteamVersion which at a current state is in terrible condition...

+4 for Tommy on this topic, as for COH2 after having spent 100+hrs on it all it tells me is that COH (was) ''IS'' a classic.

I understand your arguement. I can't help but feel all these changes (except UI which I have no problem with personally) may just take some adapting to. What I mean is ... blizzards make things hard to see, seems legit. Tanks are a lot more vunerable due to increased random effects, supporting and scouting for them is a lot more important.

Thanks Tommy, i agree completely. I would also add to your list the lack of popping up experience points from the killed units. Somehow this tiny detail took away a big chunk of satisfaction from my games. Seeing things like multiple +N popping up after a howitzer shot into a fog of war or a grenade or a counter snipe was so satisfying on many levels, including damage feedback

I wouldn't bank on the 2 remaining month to fix the UI issues though. Balance, sure, tweaking a couple of numbers should be easy. But otherwise, as a senior software dev, i can educatedly guess that a software project as huge as an RTS game is currently in the final stabilization stage. Developers are now probably working overtime fixing bugs, optimizing network code, etc. Any radical UI changes will not probably make it in this time frame because it will risk the stability of the release. I might be wrong of course, but i bet we won't see any major changes in released version. Maybe some time after that it will be patched, but that requires willingness on the Relic side. But oh boy will i be glad to be wrong!

Otherwise i was iterating most of the UI issues you have mentioned on the closed forums. As most people here i feel that things like resource bar + cost overlay layout and info panel help people learn the game quicker which is a great feature for a single player mode where you are basically learning new units gradually until the last couple of missions. All this at the expence of the more experienced players who want to play the game competitively after figuring out the basics like unit and upgrade costs. This reasoning cannot justify the lack of traces though but otherwise the focus on the single player is quite obvious. Even the blizzard _display_ effect makes for a more immersive experience (or that is at least its goal as i understand it) which is nice to have when you are telling a story but is detrimental to battlefield awareness for a competitive multiplayer game.

As a side note i was surprised to hear you are dissatisfied with the game though. TFN beta casts seemed filled with glee.

^That's a great first post if I ever saw one.

I think all casters don their smilie faces when casting. Or at least, try to look at it from the bright side. No one wants to listen to one hour of complaining and brooding about a product we're all (probably?) interested in, even if many of us feel a bit skeptical.

^That's a great first post if I ever saw one.

I think all casters don their smilie faces when casting. Or at least, try to look at it from the bright side. No one wants to listen to one hour of complaining and brooding about a product we're all (probably?) interested in, even if many of us feel a bit skeptical.

Pretty much. It's fine to be critical but if you're just shitting all over the game there's no point in casting in the first place, really. Casters want to make a video fun to watch and no matter how many things are wrong with CoH 2, constantly pointing them all out isn't going to make it more fun.

But of course on the other hand Relic has done a ton of things to make CoH 2 less fun to watch too so maybe we'd just be doing our part At least they added ice. That shit's exciting.

1) I prefer this upkeep system, and appreciate its value from DoW2 experience.
It prevents snowballing and encourages defensive play on the part of the winner and supports breakout options for the loser. If anything, it keeps the game dynamic in midgame, rather than making the odds insurmountable for an opponent who has taken a teching strategy, or whose build just happened to be incompatible to face the enemies choices. Im really having trouble understanding concerns over this.

The net result is that a more successful player in earlygame has to maintain map control in order to continue developing his unit and tech superiority. This is reasonable. For the decimated losing player, it makes teching solutions, and concentrated brwak out tactics along a flank of an territorially overextended units player possible. The winning player stikl has a huge advantage, as he can sustain losses better IF he manages to retain map control.

I am flqbbergasted that people dont comprehend that so many dont seem to grasp how this system is immeasurably more dynamic and conducive to exciting and challenging play for both sides. Only thing I can speculate it resting on is people being recalcitrant to adapt from the antiquated "winner takes all" and linear progression of vCoH. This model was tried and tested in DoW2 and proved highly effective. The only issue this system raises, is the relative upkeep costs of individual units. These however will be constantly changed to improve balance and economic sustainability of this upkeep system. This also was the case in DoW2 where upkeeps of individual where changed in every patch to ensure neither side can, in particular, spam units that are for one reason or another, ocerperforming in the current meta.

A winning player ia faced with the advanted position of mpre map control + vetted surviving units + field presence. The meta shifts at this point to where the winning players priority is maintaining map control and his current unit superiority, wheras the losing players meta changes to breaking out and taking advantage of his opponents early map control, which he is now overextended, due to upkeep, to produce units to universally secure on all fronts. As inherited from DoW2, the game is now far more Victory Point driven, rather thqn unit or categoric build superiority driven. The winning player icontinues to "win" as long as he is controlling those, no matter what the loaing player pumps out with his proportionately (due to upkeep vs controlled resources vs how many units and what he is fielding).

CoH2 is won by Victory point control primarily, and only secondarily opponents decimation.

I can see why people think this means makes it less of an esport, because it is seemingly less concerned with decimation of opponents (or as in vCoH) by retension of vetted units. But this is a false perspective. Decimation is still important but the primary sokution to winning is VP CONTROL. Even if you bleed units like an ebola patient hemmorghaging out of every orifice, if you retain the VPs, victory is yours. This requires a fundamentally different approach to winning which is ultimately goal oriented, rather than domination oriented, and in which micro is still incredibly important to retaining those VPs.

2) On tracers and indicators of what direction fire is coming, I agree. Simple fix, doesnt break realism, and leads to more tactical play by less confusion.

3) I absolutely love the Blizzard effects and think they are excellently implemented. Its an awesome supporrive element to the True Sight mechanic and will certainly become an industry standard for all upcoming RTSs to emulate. The visual obfuscation is so matched to what the units themselves would see. Maybe this is due to me being a Finn and being used to squinting my eyes in snowfall. The game is immeasurably diversified tactically, strategically and practically by all the Blizzard related effects. If you dont like it, then only play nom-blizzard maps. Problem solved.

4) I agree criticals are too random and common in AT capable gun combat. This particularly presents a problem for T34s which are already implemented according to their lower armor and weaker penetration gun. Criticals completely wreck their utility, wheras PIVs,mwhich also suffer from seemingly random criticals, can atleast endure through armor. One caveat: Infantry based AT nades and Fausts need the high critical, but only specifically to mobility related criticals. Id suggest a progressive chance of critical damage to systems that increases linearly to the % damage the armored unit has sustaines, to the result a full hp armo3 has a low chance of suffering critical increasing by % per % of health (with the caveat that armor vs penetrating weapon are included in the crit formula as balancers against each other, and that AT Nades, Fausts and Ram still have a very high chance of mobility criticals, and the Ram a high chance of maingun dmg (since this is necessary dor T34 and overall armor balance).

@Warfish: Destroyed models/units DO result in visual +xp popup.

@Those with difficulty seeing their units, consider eyeglasses, increasing zoom or purchasing larger screens. I can understand people have difficulty seeing individual infantry models on blizzard maps, but its just a matter of getting used to. Colors are more muted and in a more narrrow spectrum owing to the nature of winter camo. One lateral option to thia, would be being able to field your infantry in arboreal camo, where they would stand out better vs the winter background. Personally, I pay more attention primarily to the unit indicators, and only swcond to actual model positioning. Its just a matter of getting uswd to the winter color tones. I suspect its more of an issue for people who IRL are not used to differentiating in a wintrr environment. Another option, if possible to include at this late point, would be an outline color on selected units, akin to as in the Close Combat series, to help differentiate which models are exactly where.

Seriously, having gone back to play vCoH I can see some things in CoH2 that are simply much better. I acknowledge the issues Tommy raises (I hate the GUI with a fiery passion) but my last few vCoH games have featured:

Gratuitous sniper spam. Just non-stop snipers. Sniper sniper sniper. Boring. I can counter them but my poor old brain can't micro three snipers. My build orders become predicated on defeating snipers. For the love of God make it stop. American wall of snipers / AT guns spam. It's dull.

CoH2 still has snipers, sure, but at least they aren't wearing cloaks of invisibility. Yeah, the double Soviet sniper trick is effective but I can still uncloak them and kill them if I play right.

The other thing that strikes me as dumb? Buying veterancy and Bunker Spam. Bunkers... bunkers *everywhere* Zombie grens.

I used to even like campy, bunker play now and then. Not any more.

CoH2 isn't perfect, but neither was vCoH on release (six years of patching, apart from Staghounds). I'm trying to be glass half-full here. The devs seem to listen and there is lots of time to patch / tweak CoH2 to make the competitive community happier.

The upkeep system, GUI and resource-rates can be fixed. The vehicle criticals can be modified. This is all stuff that can, and I suspect will, happen.

So some of the hyperbole about how broken / crap CoH2 is makes me laugh. I also think that *some* of you underestimate the challenge of making coH2 a profitable, mainstream RTS whilst keeping elite players happy. As a very mediocre player who likes competitive play, I see both sides. The pro / 1 v 1 elite are *crucial* to the longevity of games like this and I love to follow the community. But OTOH without the rest of the gaming community tagging along the whole thing is screwed. It's a delicate ecosystem, and sometimes things don't go our way.

Love and Peace
BFW

*snip* *snip*

+1

"I prefer this upkeep system, and appreciate its value from DoW2 experience.
It prevents snowballing and encourages defensive play on the part of the winner and supports breakout options for the loser. If anything, it keeps the game dynamic in midgame, rather than making the odds insurmountable for an opponent who has taken a teching strategy, or whose build just happened to be incompatible to face the enemies choices. Im really having trouble understanding concerns over this."

LOL!

Yeah, lets take any decisions that matter and skill out of it and hope for the best. Awesome idea.

1) I prefer this upkeep system, and appreciate its value from DoW2 experience.

...aaaaaand I'm done.

DoW2 was a competitive and imabalanced mess. I hated the entire tech progression in that game, the middle game transition and the failed attempt to hang on to CoH's successful design. It was a fun game to playa round with, but NOT a prime example of multiplayer genius.

Games are supposed to be lost. You tend to lose if you make mistakes. Games should punish the player making mistakes, and reward the player taking advantage of his opponent's mistakes. As such, a game shouldn't promote defensive play or aggressive play. It should promote both options to a player with the upper hand, the loser has to adapt.

The current upkeep system removes options from the winner, in an attempt to "giddyup" the loser. This is even MORE terrible when the loser is clearly outmatched: it just drags games longer and wastes everybody's time.

CoH2 isn't perfect, but neither was vCoH on release (six years of patching, apart from Staghounds). I'm trying to be glass half-full here. The devs seem to listen and there is lots of time to patch / tweak CoH2 to make the competitive community happier.

The upkeep system, GUI and resource-rates can be fixed. The vehicle criticals can be modified. This is all stuff that can, and I suspect will, happen.

I appreciate this sentiment, and I hope it turns out to be true.

However, I look at your issues with vCoH (Snipers, Bunkers, Stags, Veterancy) and the only one that's a design level, unchangeable mechanic is the Veterancy. If Relic was to devote some time/resources to vCoH, that effort would go a long way to fixing those issues. Ofc that's not going to happen.

I look at all the issues I have with CoH2 and I see a lot that I don't believe Relic is going to change. The UI, the simplified linear Doctrines, the faction design & diversity, the lack of global upgrades, the lack of visibility, the bulletin system, and at this point the upkeep system will likely only change in very small ways.

I think the issue is priorities. Of course Relic would love to make the competitive community happy, but it's becoming apparent to me that what the competitive community wants is at odds with what Relic believes to be the future of their game - casualizing it for the micro-transaction crowd.

> @Warfish: Destroyed models/units DO result in visual +xp popup

Yes there are, but on the unit that scored a kill, not on the killed unit(s). This is obviously very inconvenient for artillery since you are probably looking at the point you fire your howitzer _at_ and not at the howitzer itself. Or take exploding mines for example. Otherwise even a simple grenade throw gives a lot less damage feedback to me now. And of course no staring in horror at all those +2's (i think they are +2's) when nuclear pine apple leaves just a couple of men alive from 2 full volks squads.

But yeah, there good things about CoH2, at least in my opinion, and most of the not so good things can be fixed. For me the beta was tedious to control due to lack of small feedback details like traces, xp popups, generals color scheme, tactical map, etc. Hard to figure out what is going on, you have to fight against the game for that information sometimes. But otherwise i found it fun, to figure out new stuff. Now if only vehicles could crash through wire..

I appreciate this sentiment, and I hope it turns out to be true.

However, I look at your issues with vCoH (Snipers, Bunkers, Stags, Veterancy) and the only one that's a design level, unchangeable mechanic is the Veterancy. If Relic was to devote some time/resources to vCoH, that effort would go a long way to fixing those issues. Ofc that's not going to happen.

I look at all the issues I have with CoH2 and I see a lot that I don't believe Relic is going to change. The UI, the simplified linear Doctrines, the faction design & diversity, the lack of global upgrades, the lack of visibility, the bulletin system, and at this point the upkeep system will likely only change in very small ways.

I think the issue is priorities. Of course Relic would love to make the competitive community happy, but it's becoming apparent to me that what the competitive community wants is at odds with what Relic believes to be the future of their game - casualizing it for the micro-transaction crowd.

While I basically agree, I don't think that competition and casual are necessarily at odds with each other- for every super competetive game, sport, whatever, there's always a spectrum, and at the very bottom you'll find plenty of average-to-bad players who can still enjoy the game for what it is. Relic could change the game in ways that preserve competition without impacting their need to entice a more casual audience.

^

I think I discussed this in a thread with Tommy and Quinn on the Beta forums (I am Airfix Panzer over there). I wholeheartedly agree with Tommy's post here too.

My dream solution is a 'Pro' mode, like the ironman option you see in many RPGs. This would be a totally separate ladder optimized for competitive play. Anybody could play in it but many features would be stripped down and it would *feel* different from lobby / fun games. The cream would very quickly rise to the top.

I personally think that the benefits for Relic would be considerable for what would be a reasonable thing to implement - what I call lifeblood / legacy players (i.e. those of us who are either elite players or the pc gaming version of serious spectators / fans of competition play) would be nourished and begin to trickle in grassroots talent from the more casual / lobby / stomping side of the house.

Of course, this is my dream happy land of unicorns and love, as I enjoy CoH on every level, from competitive to lobby play with friends and I look forward to the new co-op / stompy stuff too.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive either, but I DO think that Relic thinks they are, or will develop the game as if they are. Just my impression.

I don't think they're mutually exclusive either, but I DO think that Relic thinks they are, or will develop the game as if they are. Just my impression.

I think you are, at the moment, on the money Kolaris. When Tommy raised this point I think Quinn replied "I can't make two games."

Fair enough, but with the greatest respect to Quinn, I think he is slightly missing the point. Options sliders for competitive play shouldn't break the design of CoH2. Just add to the awesome quotient.