4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

I think there are lots of ways to make a game 'casual' players will enjoy. Some of them are compatible with making a very good competitive game, and some of them aren't. CoH is a game that 'casual' players love - it's the highest reviewed RTS game of all time. It's not a perfect competitive game but it does a lot of things right and more importantly it's unique. The flanking, the infantry combat, the cutoffs, the doctrine choices, and so on make it a really great RTS game for people who play to win and not to compstomp or chill out in 3v3s or arty spam.

CoH 2 changes a lot of stuff (like upkeep, how resources/territory works, etc.) to make it more accessible to new/bad/'casual' players, and it's possible that this works, but the downside is that it makes it a much worse game competitively. There are ways of making games that are appealing to competitive players without hurting casual players - you don't have to make Starcraft II to be a good competitive RTS. In fact, you can make the original Company of Heroes. Relic doesn't seem to think this is possible. I think the changes to the original CoH formula, which more or less break it, have been made for worse/newer/'casual' players (in fact they've said as much) and that's a real shame because breaking the awesome CoH style game for competitive players isn't necessary.

...

WHAT??? BIGGEST FAIL POST EVER

Wish the franchise (coh1 also) wasn't centered around pleasing noobs with cool visual effects, with the competitive scene being some sort of after thought. Why can't they just force the bad players to play the game correctly.....works for SC2 and MOBA games :/

We don't need maps and mechanics centered around units getting unexpectedly 1 shotted because it looks pretty, and neither does ANYBODY else! The Scheldt cult only exists because Relic created it, they probably would have enjoyed the game even without that shit.

about the (non-)competitiveness of coh2: i've been saying it all along... you CAN cater to both types of players, relic is just deciding not to, and focuses and the casual gamers. maybe they are hoping that the hardcore fans will buy the game anyway and play it for 5 years, waiting for them to slowly turn the game "more competitive".

but that was pretty clear after the first interviews with quinn, shortly after coh2 was announced.

introducing deep snow, blizzards, camp fires and even true sight to some extent all pointed in the direction of a more campy (and thus more "indirect fire" dominated) game.

still, i'll wait for closed beta, see what they change (i don't expect much), and then decide whether i'll cancel my pre-order (and buy the game in a year or so at a discount).

Why can't they just force the bad players to play the game correctly.....works for SC2 and MOBA games :/

Because the tail doesn't wag the dog.

Apples and oranges. CoH2 isn't SC2 etc and was never meant to be. Look at vCoH, are you telling me the dominant meta is healthy? 'Bad' players don't get better the way it's currently configured, it requires one of a set number of 'plays' like an American football match.

And 'forcing' people to do things is seldom fun, dontcha think?

Personally, SC2 is everything I don't like about RTS gaming, so perhaps I was destined not to agree with your post.

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.

Wholeheartedly agree with almost everything in this post, but this in particular. I've followed this post from the get go and as an outsider looking in...there's a lot of negativity here that I just don't understand. Yes, vCoH was a classic that has mechanics that are 7 years old and mastered. But evolution = change...do you really want more of the exact same experience as the old Company of Heroes? I very much enjoyed the beta and after jumping back into vCoH on Steam, I felt the difference in game play and I appreciate and look forward to the changes made my Relic for the sequel. Just my opinion and thanks for reading.

You cant blame Relic's aim at casual players as CoH isnt super competitive, in fact, its not even competitive at all, because the top players are not distinctive enough from the casual players in terms of:

-hours played, as there are no professional players consistently playing at least 50/60 hours a week
-price money, which is negligible
-fan base, extremely small, the top individual streamer wont even get 200 viewers at a time (some streamers have surpassed this figure in the older days ofcourse, but even a couple hundred viewers is far off the ideal)

There is always going to be a difference in skill level, but this is not enough to pass as serious competition.

Wholeheartedly agree with almost everything in this post, but this in particular. I've followed this post from the get go and as an outsider looking in...there's a lot of negativity here that I just don't understand. Yes, vCoH was a classic that has mechanics that are 7 years old and mastered. But evolution = change...do you really want more of the exact same experience as the old Company of Heroes? I very much enjoyed the beta and after jumping back into vCoH on Steam, I felt the difference in game play and I appreciate and look forward to the changes made my Relic for the sequel. Just my opinion and thanks for reading.

evolution implies that the game "evolved", but it didn't. things that were perfectly fine were changed, and new stuff was introduced that is annoying the crap out of a lot of players (and not because it's "new" or "changed", but because it is badly designed).

evolution implies that the game "evolved", but it didn't. things that were perfectly fine were changed, and new stuff was introduced that is annoying the crap out of a lot of players (and not because it's "new" or "changed", but because it is badly designed).

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics over successive generations"
The game has evovled, it just hasn't evolved in a way that adheres to all the comfortable little nuances developed by players over the thousands of hours people have played the original. Some work will be required to master the new mechanics and give rise to a new cream of the crop. But that dosen't make it poorly designed or crap. And it was, remember a BETA

The difference betwen a classic and a usual , consumable, and at the end ''very futile game'' is specially how there is to learn, the time it takes to master and to try to acces to competitive class of player.

Most games .... (i wont named them all but there are surely a majority) are deseign to play temporarly while another is coming. This is NOT evolution its simply a cheap way to satisfy the apetite created by a classic.

This is my opinion of CoH2 compared to vanilla.

The difference betwen a classic and a usual , consumable, and at the end ''very futile game'' is specially how there is to learn, the time it takes to master and to try to acces to competitive class of player.

Most games .... (i wont named them all but there are surely a majority) are deseign to play temporarly while another is coming. This is NOT evolution its simply a cheap way to satisfy the apetite created by a classic.

This is my opinion of CoH2 compared to vanilla.

It's too bad you see the upcoming game as some sort of cheap trick. Good thing the game's servers are on Steam now, eh?

Better players will still win with this upkeep system.

I enjoy this game, even as it is, immensely, and only have issue with a few unit and Commander balances, not with any of the core mechanic changes such as Blizzards and upkeep.

Shame to see so many people angry at change.
The choice is yours then, you may as well unsubscribe and remove yourself from the forum as well, because upkeep and Blizzard arent going anywhere.

For those of you who wnjoy CoH2, Ill see you ingame!
Dor those who dont, I hope youll find something else to suit your fancy.

Wholeheartedly agree with almost everything in this post, but this in particular. I've followed this post from the get go and as an outsider looking in...there's a lot of negativity here that I just don't understand. Yes, vCoH was a classic that has mechanics that are 7 years old and mastered. But evolution = change...do you really want more of the exact same experience as the old Company of Heroes? I very much enjoyed the beta and after jumping back into vCoH on Steam, I felt the difference in game play and I appreciate and look forward to the changes made my Relic for the sequel. Just my opinion and thanks for reading.

Proper evolution would be additional proper game mechanics that increase the skill cap, not decreasing it by making it more forgiving. CoH was already fairly forgiving for a number of reasons.

The choice is yours then, you may as well unsubscribe and remove yourself from the forum as well, because upkeep and Blizzard arent going anywhere.

I'm pretty sure the sites operators are disgusted by the current upkeep system, what do you suggest for them?

Proper evolution would be additional proper game mechanics that increase the skill cap, not decreasing it by making it more forgiving. CoH was already fairly forgiving for a number of reasons.

Very vague counter argument. What does "proper evolution..." even mean? I see this statement as saying you expect the game to be evolving in a manner that best suites your expectations, that falls within the already established paradigm of how the game should be and would be played by a "pro." Evolution is change that perpetuates the success and longevity of things, that grants the evolved an advantage over its predecessor to survive. This means a change to the fundamentals, in my opinion.

I feel it's a "Forrest for the trees" issue with the hardcore, super competitive fan base. You've been playing the original so long that any new system could never measure up to the 7 years of establishment. I'm not trying to win any hearts and minds here. I'm just expressing my...well my bewilderment about this site's overall reaction to the game. I, personally, really enjoyed the beta. I couldn't get enough of it. So that's why I'm bewildered. As I said in my original post, it's my opinion.

I'm pretty sure the sites operators are disgusted by the current upkeep system, what do you suggest for them?

Id suggest they discontinue the site, if they have no intention of playing the game.
Upnto them. Not my prerogative to tell them what to do, but since you asked.

Though I hope not, cos the site is excellently designed and full of great functions.

by your definition of evolution, it would also be evolution if they re-made pac man and called it coh2.

coh2, if anything, devolved. best example is the UI.
go read this for an extended list.

also, i'm not saying that there are no people that might enjoy this game. to the contrary, i even listed people that like the successor way more than the original. my complaint is, relic could have made them happy AND the competitive player base, but chose to only cater to the former.

by your definition of evolution, it would also be evolution if they re-made pac man and called it coh2.

This logic smacks of the Straw man.
So you're saying that CoH2 is not going to be a competitive game by design?

Yes, they very clearly designed CoH 2 so that worse players could still feel like they are winning - better players are punished with stuff like upkeep and the resource system that gives you manpower pretty much no matter how many points you own and which lets you get fuel or munis just by OPing a strat point next to your base that can't get cut off.

Id suggest they discontinue the site, if they have no intention of playing the game.
Upnto them. Not my prerogative to tell them what to do, but since you asked.

Though I hope not, cos the site is excellently designed and full of great functions.

What makes you so confident that things won't change? When Ami first played CoH2 at that exclusive press only event there were NO RESOURCE SECTORS and resources could be built right outside your base. Because of his feedback that was changed, just like how super OP mortars were changed in beta. Stuff like that is prime example that the developer doesn't always know whats best for the game (specifically for multiplayer).

Once upon a time in vCoH a strafe run would instantly kill literally everything in its path. Guess what, that was changed because of people complaining on forums like these. Just because for some reason you prefer this uber slow paced and very forgiving gameplay, don't expect the majority to remain silent about the issue.

You say "punished" as though Relic were going out of their way to spank you on the bottom for winning the game. Perhaps you view punishment in comparison to the way you've played the original for 7 years...but this isn't a remake of the original. It's a new game...it's a different game. It's not going to be the same and I wouldn't want to buy it if it had all the same mechanics of the original. I didn't feel like I was ever being "punished" during my winning matches in the beta...

Honestly, I just wish you guys could feel the enjoyment I got from it, I had a blast.
Carry on with the spite.