Supply - in-game currency

I really hope the devs read this. When this shit with microtransactions will happen, its gg for CoH2

There is a massive disconnect between how important 1v1 players think they are and how important they actually are.


In fact 1v1 is only important if one believes that Tournaments and Competition are the way forward, in every other respect such as Numbers and Revenue they are unimportant.


It should be apparent by now that Tournaments and Competition are not as important to Relic as they could be, so the 1v1 player base is irrelevant.


Most of them are still unwilling to admit that however.

You have it right, 1vs1 game mode has just the smallest player base by far, most of us play all other games type and it's a fact. However, 1vs1 and computer stomps are the best way to start with and learn the game.

But everyone should have a format it like to play that is fun.

You have it right, 1vs1 game mode has just the smallest player base by far, most of us play all other games type and it's a fact. However, 1vs1 and computer stomps are the best way to start with and learn the game.

But everyone should have a format it like to play that is fun.

No it's not. If you want to learn the game from basic things 1v1 is not an option. After several defeats with 10mins you will throw this game away. It's better to learn from 4v4 when some one can tell you waht to do, carry you and there is no pressure like in 1v1.

And just because you live under a rock, completely unaware of what is going on around for years doesn't really mean you have a point.

Economy is changing, because players allow it and want it. Otherwise it would be like it was 10 years ago and even then, we were shoved up our throats full expansions, you didn't liked single player, you HAD to pay full price for it if you wanted to play multi.

That being said, I never mentioned that I agree with speculated change to coh2, but I'm not dumb enough to not see why its even considered.

Please tell me more about your degree from the University of Phoenix in gaming economics. Lay back down Kaitof, I put the oil in the microwave for you.

No it's not. If you want to learn the game from basic things 1v1 is not an option. After several defeats with 10mins you will throw this game away. It's better to learn from 4v4 when some one can tell you waht to do, carry you and there is no pressure like in 1v1.

I think there's more pressure in team games with people "shouting" at you for every mistake you make.

I would agree, but you don't feel like you're letting anyone down if you drop from a 3v3 or 4v4 because, well, chances are someone already has and still its just an 3v3 or 4v4.

1v1s and 2v2s are where your personal performance really shows up ingame, which can be unsettling.

Also, most of the 3v3 and 4v4s are absolutely abysmal in terms of design and balance (or being interesting at all) which makes for slim pickings as far as good, fair matches go.

I think there's more pressure in team games with people "shouting" at you for every mistake you make.

Well, true, but if you learn the game from 4v4, 2v2 and then 1v1, you won't be total noob.
If you learn the game from 1v1 you will end with 200 1v1 and more defeats than wins. It's not encouraging.

I'm talking from my point of view. Ive started from 4v4, moved to 2v2 and now 1v1. Despite I don't have many 1v1s, Im beating players who has a way lower level than me and many, many, many more 1v1s. Why? Because I was not learning basic things from 1v1 and I entered 1v1 with some experience.

And like I said, getting -20 streak in 1v1 is really discouraging.

I am an IpKai fanboy. I trust his knowledge. His scepticism is hard-won, not internet asshattery of the sort that one finds here in abundance. In short, when he speaks I invariably listen, stroking my immaculately-groomed beard and nodding in agreement at his fell wisdom.

However, this is where I disagree. With knobs on.

IpKai is an esports advocate par excellence. This focus on a narrow sliver of the wider game is why he, and quite a lot of the tournament 1v1 / 2v2 hardcore sometimes miss the point.

CoH2 needs solid, well-polished core game-play *and* it needs shiny-shiny pretty things for the folks who engage with CoH2 (whisper it, lest the sky fall in) differently from you.

I fall in the middle. On one hand, I follow tournies and love watching skilled players. I'm currently getting into and really enjoying 2v2. On the other, I'm a 3v3 / 4 v 4 scrub a lot of the time, I like the occasional mindless stomp and I love aesthetic tweaks to the game.

And even that puts me in a minority of the players who fund this game and keep it alive.

Seriously, the competitive community needs to stop wallowing in a swamp of righteous entitlement and Smell The Coffee. You are whining yourself into irrelevance.

I really like extra features but at the moment CoH2 is a burger made with a really high quality bun and salad but the meat itself is a piece of leather overcooked in an oven for a day.

Whatever your poison be if the main game isn't up to snuff the extras aren't gonna keep people around for a long time.

I actually mostly play team games and I get sick of dealing with massive volks / obers blobs every game and the big ISU-152 gibbing squads from screens away. I'd really love for every game not to turn into the same shit show every time. Then there's the bugs that aggravate players like men getting stuck during retreat or the little micro freezes while playing.

There's a major difference between a game being suited for e-sports and professional players, and the game simply being competitive.

CoH2 doesn't necessarily have to be an e-sport game, but if it is trying to hack it has a multiplayer strategy game, is has to at least be competitive.

With the most influential aspects of gameplay and mechanics being up to a diceroll moreso than player input, it's like watching a game play itself and it is pretty boring to do so.

n a related note: could you please provide me with some numbers for modes played? its not that i do not trust you, trust me i just missed out on reading about it so far

cheers

http://www.coh2.org/topic/25574/game-mode-stats

The problem is RTS games just aren't designed to be competitive and properly balanced in team games. The core of all RTS gameplay revolves around periods of strengths and weaknesses, and team matches completely ruin that dynamic.

A single player in an RTS can generally only focus on one thing at a time from a strategic perspective; as a simple example, you can decide to invest in anti-infantry, or you can decide to invest in anti-tank, but there generally isn't enough time or resources to invest in both against a competent player. That leaves weaknesses that your opponent can exploit, and periods of time where you may be lacking counters to your opponent's strategic moves.

In team games, that dynamic is completely thrown out the window. When you have two players on a team, one can focus on anti-infantry and one can focus on anti-tank. Suddenly you don't have any period of weakness for your opponent to exploit. When that happens, games drag on, and the stronger lategame faction has an implicit advantage. There's really no way to get around that situation, especially in an asymmetrical RTS.

Ignoring the number of players of each mode for a second, it's clear from the above and from looking at RTS games over their history that 1v1 is the most viable game mode for competition. Because balance has its biggest impact in competitive games and because of the incredible difficulties in balancing for team games thanks to the dynamic described above, it simply makes the most sense to balance around 1v1 play.

The beginning of the end for coh2?

If Relic turn this into a way to eek even more money from the every-dwindling player base coh2 will VERY quickly die. I really hope Relic don't do this, but I'm not optimistic considering their track record....

The problem is RTS games just aren't designed to be competitive and properly balanced in team games. The core of all RTS gameplay revolves around periods of strengths and weaknesses, and team matches completely ruin that dynamic.

A single player in an RTS can generally only focus on one thing at a time from a strategic perspective; as a simple example, you can decide to invest in anti-infantry, or you can decide to invest in anti-tank, but there generally isn't enough time or resources to invest in both against a competent player. That leaves weaknesses that your opponent can exploit, and periods of time where you may be lacking counters to your opponent's strategic moves.

In team games, that dynamic is completely thrown out the window. When you have two players on a team, one can focus on anti-infantry and one can focus on anti-tank. Suddenly you don't have any period of weakness for your opponent to exploit. When that happens, games drag on, and the stronger lategame faction has an implicit advantage. There's really no way to get around that situation, especially in an asymmetrical RTS.

Ignoring the number of players of each mode for a second, it's clear from the above and from looking at RTS games over their history that 1v1 is the most viable game mode for competition. Because balance has its biggest impact in competitive games and because of the incredible difficulties in balancing for team games thanks to the dynamic described above, it simply makes the most sense to balance around 1v1 play.

That you point of view, i respect it but i absolutely don't share it.

In 4vs4 you need to develop a broader view of the battle field, you have to trust you teammate and know when you have to drop what your doing in favor of a more important priority. Yes 4vs4 is harder to balance but it's because it's way more complicated beast. To win versus in a evenly matched setup, you need to innovate, surprise, control your emotions and get out of the meta. You have to fight to keep the team moral up if you in a bad posture and bid your time to counter strike.

In 4vs4 with evenly matched team, the game balance become less important then the ability for a team to focus and accomplish its objectify. As it is with arranged team 4vs4 the balance is fine.

Also the fact that your playing with friends make the game a lot, a lot more enjoyable. Incredibly fun and interesting.

Build a team with your friend and start automaching, you will soon realize that it where COH2/COH1/COHO true shine the brightest.

But you will all to accept for the better or the worst that in team game that sometime you lose and its not your fault. But team victories taste so good.

Finaly, it's all a matter of personal preference only and whether or not you have enough friends willing to team with you.

However, random automatching is bad, really bad, i rather play 1vs1 or not playing at all, because the difference between arranged and random is so great, to great to be fun or minimally interesting.

It's would be an honor and a great challenge to cross saber in a 4vs4 with team Inverse !!!

E-sport 4vs4 game casting is like watching a saturday night's hochey match with commentators and game's analysts. E-sport 1vs1 game casting is like watching a tennis match. Both are interesting but different.

Long live to COH2, the best by far team RTS.

CoH1 and CoHO had questionable 2v2 balance; 3v3s and 4v4s were completely garbage in terms of balance, and were never played competitively. The same goes for games like Starcraft, Warcraft, etc.

You can enjoy team games more than 1v1s, I never said you couldn't. But there's a reason the vast majority of RTS competitive play is in the 1v1 space, just like there's a reason the vast majority of MOBA competitive play is 5v5.

CoH1 and CoHO had questionable 2v2 balance; 3v3s and 4v4s were completely garbage in terms of balance, and were never played competitively. The same goes for games like Starcraft, Warcraft, etc.

You can enjoy team games more than 1v1s, I never said you couldn't. But there's a reason the vast majority of RTS competitive play is in the 1v1 space, just like there's a reason the vast majority of MOBA competitive play is 5v5.

It's just starting, E-sport is still in it's infancy. The audience is there, so i'm pretty sure that team E-sport will grow. The future will tell which one of us is more right...

If one day we get on the same team, i'm confident that i can show you my point. Maybe even more.

I strongly recommend that you build a team and give it a try for some time. Your argumentation will indubitably become richer.

Also your are welcome if you ever want to play with us, i'm sure that we would greatly benefit from your tactical expertise while we enjoy those great battles. However, even if our main language is french we can still communicate in english. An all Canadian team ! That sound great.

Enemy or teammate, both would rock !

Se you on the battle field ! i hope.

People have been playing competitive RTS games almost exclusively 1v1 for 17 years But whatever floats your boat. Just keep in mind that "I like it better" generally isn't a very good argument.

People have been playing competitive RTS games almost exclusively 1v1 for 17 years But whatever floats your boat. Just keep in mind that "I like it better" generally isn't a very good argument.

Hey 1'm 47, i'v been playing team game and solo for 35 years.... Since the screen were only black and white.
Both team and solo game are great, only their design matter.

I know my stuff enough,so i don't need anybody to approve my logic or my arguments. Still i appreciate your communication for what it is..

Your opinions about RTS team game will always be shallow unless you seriously commit to it.

Give it a try, i sure you will enjoy it a lot. That should not «kill you». Be open. Come play with us.

Voltar Dark

Why do we always have the same discussion with the same people?

It's simple, the further you desviate from 1v1, more of the aspects that CoH is focused on become less important.

Teching timing and consequences of it, map size, strategic points per player, cut offs, flanking, inflation of resources, alpha damage of units and HP pools, number of counters being able to be field, etc.

@Voltardark, it's not about who enjoys what or not. I'm gonna put it simple: shows us a list of SUCESSFUL COMPETITIVE RTS team games. I've some in minds but numbers talks for themselves. Inverse is just trying to say that it is futile to try to reinvent the wheel.

Well, true, but if you learn the game from 4v4, 2v2 and then 1v1, you won't be total noob.
If you learn the game from 1v1 you will end with 200 1v1 and more defeats than wins. It's not encouraging.

Either you jump on 1v1 or on 4v4, if you don't have any guide or intention to improve nothing will change. Playing 1v1 for 100 games or 4v4 for 1000 isn't gonna change anything if the guy doesn't realize what is doing wrong. The best way to improve is to just watch high level play and see the difference with your game. Then it's a matter of polishing your game, being able to adapt and undestand what is going during the game.

/Offtopic

Why do we always have the same discussion with the same people?

It's simple, the further you desviate from 1v1, more of the aspects that CoH is focused on become less important.

Teching timing and consequences of it, map size, strategic points per player, cut offs, flanking, inflation of resources, alpha damage of units and HP pools, number of counters being able to be field, etc.

@Voltardark, it's not about who enjoys what or not. I'm gonna put it simple: shows us a list of SUCESSFUL COMPETITIVE RTS team games. I've some in minds but numbers talks for themselves. Inverse is just trying to say that it is futile to try to reinvent the wheel.



Either you jump on 1v1 or on 4v4, if you don't have any guide or intention to improve nothing will change. Playing 1v1 for 100 games or 4v4 for 1000 isn't gonna change anything if the guy doesn't realize what is doing wrong. The best way to improve is to just watch high level play and see the difference with your game. Then it's a matter of polishing your game, being able to adapt and undestand what is going during the game.

/Offtopic

You can't have seen game not yet on the market....

Boxing was invented long ago, and they were people saying that not other sport or team sport could be as interesting or evenly possible... later other sports came... like they will in E-sport. History is repeating itself... Common...Stop saying nonsense.

...
@Voltardark ... I'm gonna put it simple: shows us a list of SUCESSFUL COMPETITIVE RTS team games. I've some in minds but numbers talks for themselves. Inverse is just trying to say that it is futile to try to reinvent the wheel.
...

i do not understand ppl defending relic preemptively when talking about balancing 3v3+ (4v4 primarily). and it isn't as drastic as reinventing a wheel, balancing 3v3+. relic hasn't even tried half-arsely and i think it is at least partly due to these preemptive relic defenders when it comes to 3v3+ balance. its not like the ppl don't have good points but let relic try at least ffs.

i.e. they nerfed opel blitz truck in a way it has no impact on sacred 1v1 mode, and balanced 2v2+ where opel blitz+ caches allowed germans to shit resources out of their ass.

if you play 3v3+ quite regularly, it is blatant, almost offensive how obvious some game breaking shits are.

next step should be making caches only affect one player in 3v3+ or just disable that shit. there are 10 normal resource points and 8 freakin players ffs.

anyway. can't wait for this supply thingy. got me hyped a little.