4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

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...

What if Battlefield 4 beta has:

-no ballistics, bullets instantly arrive at targets with no drop similar to Star Wars lasers
-pistols 1 shot kill anything closer than 75 meters
-there are no player controlled aircraft, AI controlled CAS comes after killstreaks
-only players using some sort of crew specialist class can operate tanks and LAVs
-indirect fire kills anything within 100 meters
-shrapnel can potentially kill someone 400 meters away from the explosion
-engineers can lay mine fields which can only be detected and slowly defused by other engineers

but THAT would be ok since it is a new game, right?!

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.

just to also say it:

straw man argument (the part about coh2 being a different game).


let's put it this way: i played a game in beta where i lost pretty much my entire army twice over. i literally had maybe a gren squad and a pio squad left, no vet. my opponent had everything, at guns, mortars, vetted conscripts, T-34s, the whole map safe for 1 strat point outside my base... everything. yet, with the amount of manpower i did get (and the little fuel that i had, i managed to get a pak and a stug i think simultaneously , right when he decided to rush his T-34s into my base. Also, a blizzard hit. needless to say, about 5 minutes later i was looking at the "VICTORY" screen, because my fresh, unvetted units shit all over his vetted squads that were freezing in the blizzard and were hurt from prior engagements.

i felt sorry for the guy, but i guess this is what coh2 has come to, no matter how far ahead you are, you can always lose everything in a heartbeat.

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...

They went out of their way to make the game more punishing for the better player and more forgiving for the worse , thats why we have the new fixed pop , the new mp income system , the lack of frontal armor , the vast superiority and lack of micro for supertanks and many other things i wont bother explaining .

And whats all that idiocy about the differentiation between coh and coh2 ?? As if truesight,coldtech,vet,different units(usage) and a truckload of other things were not enough we had to have more change for its own shake . The new mp-resource-pop system is just not good it takes a lot of the strategy out of the game and it makes comebacks a matter of routine defeating its own purpose of making the game more exciting and since it evens out skill difference it places more importance on faction/commander balance issues aka the guy with the big tank doctrine wins.

just to also say it:

straw man argument (the part about coh2 being a different game).


let's put it this way: i played a game in beta where i lost pretty much my entire army twice over. i literally had maybe a gren squad and a pio squad left, no vet. my opponent had everything, at guns, mortars, vetted conscripts, T-34s, the whole map safe for 1 strat point outside my base... everything. yet, with the amount of manpower i did get (and the little fuel that i had, i managed to get a pak and a stug i think simultaneously , right when he decided to rush his T-34s into my base. Also, a blizzard hit. needless to say, about 5 minutes later i was looking at the "VICTORY" screen, because my fresh, unvetted units shit all over his vetted squads that were freezing in the blizzard and were hurt from prior engagements.

i felt sorry for the guy, but i guess this is what coh2 has come to, no matter how far ahead you are, you can always lose everything in a heartbeat.

How is my argument straw man? Is CoH2 a remake of vCoH??
Anyway, I agree with your second part. Looks like your opponent got way over confident and over stretched his lines. That's GREAT in my opinion. It's much less arcade like. It's a lot less "super squad/units of death" and more about the meta game of how you manage your armies maneuvers. The tactic of the whole battle as opposed to individual engagements. What's funny is the way you described that battles reminds me of the way the Nazi army lost to the Red army outside of Moscow and was eventually soundly beaten. Same way in Stalingrad. But how do you see the mechanics of your example as an actual "punishment"?

@Basilone
- No I would not like that Battlefield...but how is your fantasy comparable to our discussion here? I don't see the link. Other than the rate of income flow and the obvious need for buffs and nerfs to unit balance, there isn't such a dramatic shift in the complete CoH experience. Which is sort of my overall, underlying point here...

Again, like I've said before...think what you will, it's no difference to me for I know I'll never change opinion here. I have just been trying to shine a little light from a different, more optimistic perspective. But since that's against the majority here, I'm wrong...that's how it goes, right?

@cr4wler: you need to look up "straw man argument" and some examples.

While the example you use about your opponent losing his whole army on a foolish base rush isn't really that useful in proving your point (because your opponent did something really stupid and THAT is why he lost), assuming what you're saying is true... I like it! I think it's excellent that no player is ever out of the game until the VPs hit 0. That's way more exciting than in vCoH where if you get behind you're seriously screwed unless the you sacrifice a virgin to the RNG gods AND your opponent makes multiple serious blunders.

Deeptrance, you aren't alone in your ability to enjoy the game.

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.

then stop arguing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring

This thread has nothing to with whether or not the game has evolved, and whether or not it has is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Doesnt punish winning players. Just changes the dynamic so that the impetus of strategy changes from early to mid game.

Meaning games are no longer won or lost, necessarily, in the first 5mins.

You can garner advantage in the form of Vixtory points and resource control, and take favorable ground, and your units are more vetted.

I can understand that people "want it" to be like it was like in vCoH, but Relic have decided to implement the more recent DoW2 system over the antiquated vCoH model.

I think whats really bugging people, is not the upkeep model, but rather the vet changes.
Meaning Allies no longer achieve dominance by unit preservation and vetting, and Axis by teching.
I meqn this is the real change that everyone is sidestepping, and what I think this upkeep debate is really about.

Its inane to think the losing player is "rewarded" for losing units. Yes, his resource income increases proportionately, but he has stillmlost map control and units. That is the primary setback. Having more money in the bank doesnt help until you actualise that liquidity into eeal assets, which the winner at that point has retained.

Another thing people are not understanding about this upkeep model, is that it rewards and supports progression and teching. Ifnyou choose to overexpend in a particular teir, and pump out a ton of units thereby gaining a temporary and seeming advantage through sheer spamming of a given tier over your opponent, younare punished for that with less resource income to continue teching. Younhave to take into account your tech peogression as an inevitqble impending cost, and therefore be careful to not invest too heavily in a given tier, because thereafter you will be starved to progress.

I agree armor is not working well in CoH2. I attribute this primarily to a too narrow light vehicle window.
Progression to armor, and especiakly super armor, is too flat. Secondart to this, are the axtual armor stats, which I agree are not well optimised. Frontal armor engagements are onesided, and the range of supertanks is atleast 1/2 screens too far considering the map sizes in CoH2. Ram is supposed to mitigate the early PIV dominance, but its situational. Many want improvement to T34s, vut I think a better solution is naturalising the PIV to the T34, rather than the othrr waynaround. This would help draw out the escalation to super tanks.

Ideally, as others have stated, escalation should follow be from infantry, to light vehicles mixed with light tanks at the tqil end, to medium tanks (ie T34 vs naturalised PIVs and the associated tier Tank destroyers, and only then at great expense, thempossibility of endgame super tanks. As it is now, due to the upkeep system and progression being so flat and cheap, people skip 1-2 tiers when underdog and start spamming higher tech units with their flooding resource pool, putting the naturakly progressing and winning player onto an automatic backfoot and unable to tech in response due to smaller resource income until he loses units. Losing territory is automatic in this situation, but its onlynlosing units that will supply the resource flow necessary to tech to respond.

TLDR: Teching is too flat and too cheap. Winning players, who are losing resource income to a larfer force, are not currently able to tech proportionately in order to respond to the losing players resource income. Currently a losing player can tech and pump out several tactically superior units which counter the opponents force composition, too wuickly for the winning player to respond. I think its great that the loser has a breakout potential, and that the larger force winnernshould have less income, but the rate of income is currently off. I want to see the winning player able to tech and put out atleast one pre-emptive unit choice from the next tier, by the time the opponent has teched and is producing two. Currently, the winning player is forced into a reactive and defensive posture, first of all because he has to extend his fronts acrossnthe map with out teched units, and secondly because he cant push advantage by teching himself to be prepared for the enemies next gen units.

@Basilone: With all due respect, you are talking about unit/xommander balance changes. Those indeed are dhanged because they arw relqtively auperficial and isolated, ans therefore can be changed indivisually without cascading balance effects. But the upkeep system? I see zero chanxe of it reverting to vCoH.

Id instead encourage those people disgruntled by the new upkeep system, to brainstorm solutions that can be implemented within the new upkeep system, so that the game better matches their wishes for it. Know what I mean? Find ways to suggest changesmto upkeep rates, thresholds, individual unit upkeep costa, tedhing costs etc.
Workmwithin the current system to offer solutions.

Too much to tackle here before going to bed. To start it off, how does this resemble the DoW2 resource/upkeep system?

DoW2 put an enormous amount of Manpower out in the map to be contested and taken by the player who won the early game. It was not given as a handout to a player sitting in his base.

Total upkeep values were nowhere near CoH2's levels.

Upkeep could be set on an individual unit basis, a balancing tool that will be sorely absent later on in CoH2's life.

then stop arguing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring

This thread has nothing to with whether or not the game has evolved, and whether or not it has is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I wasn't arguing, I was defending my original statement. I must stay, your post comes off quite impertinent.

@Kolaris: Im sure everyone would want to hear suggestions from you how to correct the new and current upkeep system.

Could you please numerically list some some suggestions which work from within the elements of the current system, that would improve it?

It would provide a valuable structure for discussion that is solution centered,mrather than people constantly restating "the problems" and ultimately getting nowhere, especially not closer to something the Devs can implement and axtually work off of.

I think it's excellent that no player is ever out of the game until the VPs hit 0. That's way more exciting than in vCoH where if you get behind you're seriously screwed unless the you sacrifice a virgin to the RNG gods AND your opponent makes multiple serious blunders.

Deeptrance, you aren't alone in your ability to enjoy the game.

Thank you! You summed exactly how I feel about that quite nicely.

Is it just me or is this "lowering the skill factor" seem to be nonsense, if you can get an early victory but still have to be on your toes to keep wining, does that not require more skill to keep wining? instead of getting really good at the early game and resting on that first victory to basically shut the game down???

Skill is determined by your ability to out think, out play and adapt.

doing the same thing every match is not necessarily skill but more repetition, which anyone can do.

No matter how easy something is you will always get the elite who excel, lower entry levels just means more competition.

Is it just me or is this "lowering the skill factor" seem to be nonsense, if you can get an early victory but still have to be on your toes to keep wining, does that not require more skill to keep wining? instead of getting really good at the early game and resting on that first victory to basically shut the game down???

Skill is determined by your ability to out think, out play and adapt.

doing the same thing every match is not necessarily skill but more repetition, which anyone can do.

No matter how easy something is you will always get the elite who excel, lower entry levels just means more competition.

read my example again:
i made a million mistakes in the early game, my opponent made 1 (losing 2 t34s in my base), maybe 2 (neglecting to cap the 3rd VP sooner) mistakes ALL game.
i won the game because his mistakes came at a later point in the game. i had about twice his manpower income and could easily get units on the field that were stronger than his units (with vet!). i do not feel like i outplayed or outthunk (he) him in any way, nor did i "adapt".

doing the same thing every game (and winning) does require some skill at least, but it rather shows that the game is not balanced if you can play the same strat over and over again.

@danielD: the "coh2 is a different game" argument is the epitome of a straw man argument, it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

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.

Evolution doesn't know things like better or worse, it adapts to the enviroment. There are just too many players who can't take a loss and quit. That's why relic is trying to soften the hard landing for the loosing players.

And to me it's really sad. Loosing should be painfull and not fun, that's why you want to improve so you wouldn't loose.

@Nulist, please answer me this - if i make a decision to bring a knife and unicicle to a tankbattle on a muddy terain should I be punished for it and die of stupidity in the first few minutes or have some magical armor drop from the sky and get some stealth bombers coming to help me from nowhere, just so it would make a fair fight?

@cr4wler: you need to look up "straw man argument" and some examples.

While the example you use about your opponent losing his whole army on a foolish base rush isn't really that useful in proving your point (because your opponent did something really stupid and THAT is why he lost), assuming what you're saying is true... I like it! I think it's excellent that no player is ever out of the game until the VPs hit 0. That's way more exciting than in vCoH where if you get behind you're seriously screwed unless the you sacrifice a virgin to the RNG gods AND your opponent makes multiple serious blunders.

Deeptrance, you aren't alone in your ability to enjoy the game.

How can this be a good argument for a competative multyplayer? Worse player should pay for his mistakes, and the better should be rewarded, decisions should matter in the game.

At the moment we are at the extreme where loosing player is giving him such advantages that despite his skill he is kept alive by the game design. And your counter argument is complaining about how it used to be on the other side of the extreme scale, where smallest mistakes in early game would loose you a game. So if you're not happy about that I think you can see how people would not be happy about how things are right now.

So why not try to find middle ground instead of shouting how people are afraid of change. Because from what I read here better players want ballance, where comebacks would be possible but where skill would be the judging factor who wins a game.

I wasn't arguing, I was defending my original statement.

Is there a difference?

I must stay, your post comes off quite impertinent.

Good God, is someone being impolite on the internet?
Sound an alarm! Call the police! Get Aquaman!

Good God, is someone being impolite on the internet?
Sound an alarm! Call the police! Get Aquaman!

Classic crazyguy.

I think we should just wait and see how is the open beta THat will be much much closer to the final product

Evolution on COH2 should be done by adding features not removing them..., Get me right - the CORE stuff like: pop-cap is removed, tho instead we have a blizzard for example.

You cannot expect a competitive player to be OK with that. Clearly in COH2 the strategic depth is much thinner and that is what worry us.

OFC if you have played COH1 for just a bit and do not for sure know the 100% of strategic deph of vCOH - you also cannot judge MP gameplay.

All the dynamic things and effects will be stunning for you and you will fulfill your interest in COH2 seeing massive explosions, graphic effects, blobs of units on field doing "something".

BUT. - for those who doesn't care about that, it is not because they just dont care, it is because they have explored all the strategic depth of COH1 and don't want to miss it due to "Evolution".

EXAMPLES:

DOW -> DOW2
Supreme Commanders -> Supreme Commander 2

Sequels of those games are horrific!!! We do not want same to happen with COH2!!!

I do not play COH because of stunning explosions and effects which are present in COH1 as well ofc, but because I love the strategic depth of the game and how it can be used to achieve victory combined with a dynamic environment. Cutting off strategic depth just makes the game BOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

While the example you use about your opponent losing his whole army on a foolish base rush isn't really that useful in proving your point (because your opponent did something really stupid and THAT is why he lost), assuming what you're saying is true... I like it! I think it's excellent that no player is ever out of the game until the VPs hit 0. That's way more exciting than in vCoH where if you get behind you're seriously screwed unless the you sacrifice a virgin to the RNG gods AND your opponent makes multiple serious blunders.

Deeptrance, you aren't alone in your ability to enjoy the game.

Yeah it can work I suppose but its still destroying the early game to much. 300 manpower base income is absolutely way to much and drowns out the strategic early infantry play of the game. Reinforcing prior to 30 population barely inhibits you from getting a new squad. For example, as America if you had to reinforce a rifleman by 4-5 men without having inflicted any damage to Axis it would hurt you in the early game a lot more. Early game in CoH2 just feels like who can get the most fuel, the manpower war is literally non-exsitant at this stage of the game and this annoys me extremely!

CoH1 early game = Fight for mapcontrol and manpower.
CoH2 early game = Fight for mapcontrol.

This is simply how I see. One extra thing to worry about in CoH1 early game is so much better for enjoyment and competativeness. They have made it fast paced early game I believe because they think the masses find this period boring. If this is their reasoning I am very angered.