Supply - in-game currency

That's the problem though, the supply/durability system described here is nothing like the system used in Dota 2 and CSGO. If they straight-up copied Valve's model that would be amazing. Paying for cosmetic items is totally legit, because it doesn't give you additional gameplay options and it's totally not necessary to do if you just want to play the game competitively. What isn't legit is paying for more gameplay options (different topic though) or paying to continue using your items over time.

If it's limited to only dropped items, it turns off the large number of people who play for that carrot-and-stick incentive of getting a drop after the game. Just look at the anger over the War Spoils system, and the backlash against Valve recently for their changes to the Dota 2 drop system. That's the best-case scenario, and it's still a major negative for a large portion of the community.

You cannot implement Dota2 or CS:GO model into Coh2.

Dota2 is a game aiming for fun in its level of execution, calls, dialogues, heroes are mostly fun. And from that fun, you can take a lot of freedom to design cosmetics, dialogues, calls etc... and sell it, you are just limited by 2 facts: your imagination and the frame decided by Valve.
CS:GO is also aiming for fun and personalization, you can also play with audio, weapon skin and model skins, those are really visible and gives a personification of your pixel character.

Coh2. Coh2 is fun as well, for sure that is part of his objective but in a clear different manner and for sure not in a visual or auditive one. You cannot change you Panther skin to pink with blue bubble because it is fun, you cannot change voices by stupid one because its fun. The frame is clearly limited to a "realistic" visualization and immersion. People find their fun in that realism and its execution with the game engine. You cannot decided to design flying wingmen grenadiers squad in all statistics equal to normal one's but visually funnier.
So basing your economic model on skin and decay... that's going to last a couple of months before all realistic skins and possible voicing are available onshop, and next what?
Coh2 doesn't make you control a single character you can personify but an army, a commander and here is the personification. And it goes in that direction, the one COHO was taking in his time. You select your preferred army, and you design your commander in a dedicated frame. And because your commander cannot be personified you need to found another way to do it. And it goes to abilities and monetize it with economic transactions.

You cannot implement Dota2 or CS:GO model into Coh2.

Dota2 is a game aiming for fun in its level of execution, calls, dialogues, heroes are mostly fun. And from that fun, you can take a lot of freedom to design cosmetics, dialogues, calls etc... and sell it, you are just limited by 2 facts: your imagination and the frame decided by Valve.
CS:GO is also aiming for fun and personalization, you can also play with audio, weapon skin and model skins, those are really visible and gives a personification of your pixel character.

Coh2. Coh2 is fun as well, for sure that is part of his objective but in a clear different manner and for sure not in a visual or auditive one. You cannot change you Panther skin to pink with blue bubble because it is fun, you cannot change voices by stupid one because its fun. The frame is clearly limited to a "realistic" visualization and immersion. People find their fun in that realism and its execution with the game engine. You cannot decided to design flying wingmen grenadiers squad in all statistics equal to normal one's but visually funnier.
So basing your economic model on skin and decay... that's going to last a couple of months before all realistic skins and possible voicing are available onshop, and next what?
Coh2 doesn't make you control a single character you can personify but an army, a commander and here is the personification. And it goes in that direction, the one COHO was taking in his time. You select your preferred army, and you design your commander in a dedicated frame. And because your commander cannot be personified you need to found another way to do it. And it goes to abilities and monetize it with economic transactions.

It can work, you just need to be creative, think different HUD styles for USF or soviets, new voicelines for all your infantry, skinpacks for infantry etc etc..

I know it has been said many times in this thread, and we aren't quite sure if it will work this way, but I wanted to add my voice to the list of those concerned about what is coming.

Relic do not release a wear and tear system that requires constant input from the user to continue to use items in game.

At best I can repair any item from games I have played and it becomes a chore, at worst I get stuck not being able to use things without paying a monthly fee effectively.

If you do this I will be gone.

You're right, you can't monetize an RTS as effectively as you can a game like Dota 2 or CSGO using Valve's model. That's exactly why I was so disappointed when I found out Relic was going to emphasize microtransactions so heavily with CoH2, because I think Valve's model is the only possible way to do microtransactions in a competitive game and it just doesn't work as well in an RTS, let alone a historical RTS that's very much grounded in the real world. Microtransactions in an RTS are futile from the beginning in my opinion, but we're stuck with this situation so Relic might as well try to make the most of it, and I don't think degrading items is making the most of it at all.

Even taking into account the genre's inherent weakness in this area, there are still a ton of avenues Relic could go down with regards to cosmetic DLC that could be profitable. Custom HUDs, super-detailed custom skins for single units, more victory strikes, custom base building skins/models, custom tactical maps, custom icon styles, custom voice packs, hell even alternative building skins/models for buildings on maps. Why do all heavies share a single skin? I bet you if they made some really kick-ass skins for the more powerful lategame units they would make a killing. Look at how popular custom skins were for CoH1, especially near the end of the game's life. If you make cool shit, people will buy it.

This durability/supply system is the easy way out in terms of time investment, just like monetizing commanders was, but it's ultimately going to hurt the game because it doesn't improve the player experience at all. It's a system that only makes sense if it's tuned to turn a profit for Relic, yet it doesn't actually add anything of value to the game.

Inb4 this happens:

Inb4 this happens:

And the worse thing is, even those "free users" (us) have already paid a lot of money on this game. If the game was totally free, being P2W was not an issue, don't like it don't play it. But we have already spent money on this game...

It can work, you just need to be creative, think different HUD styles for USF or soviets, new voicelines for all your infantry, skinpacks for infantry etc etc..

Even taking into account the genre's inherent weakness in this area, there are still a ton of avenues Relic could go down with regards to cosmetic DLC that could be profitable. Custom HUDs, super-detailed custom skins for single units, more victory strikes, custom base building skins/models, custom tactical maps, custom icon styles, custom voice packs, hell even alternative building skins/models for buildings on maps. Why do all heavies share a single skin? I bet you if they made some really kick-ass skins for the more powerful lategame units they would make a killing. Look at how popular custom skins were for CoH1, especially near the end of the game's life. If you make cool shit, people will buy it.

This durability/supply system is the easy way out in terms of time investment, just like monetizing commanders was, but it's ultimately going to hurt the game because it doesn't improve the player experience at all. It's a system that only makes sense if it's tuned to turn a profit for Relic, yet it doesn't actually add anything of value to the game.

I would like to believe you but, in my opinion, this is not enough to secure enough money. The game impose a realistic concept of character design. What is the matter to have 3 different skins based on the same real one? What the idea of having different HUD skin or victory strikes or faceplate? Today that's free so people are happy with that but people isn't going to spend a lot of money into something he saw 1 minute in the game.
Faceplate and victory strike are invisible during the game
HUD are good but that not what people really want to buy, or you have to create the Hype around by linking them to special events.
Voices, you can expect 2 or 3 different voices for a faction, but a german accent is a german accent.
Skin for Super Heavy and Heavy, yes that's going to be the motor of your business
Skin for medium and light will sustain it
Skin for soldier models, they are just too small to be interesting

Now I'm not saying they are making the right decision with supply but IMO they are making the right decision to not focus on customization to make it viable.

This ingame currency thing frightens me and if I dont like it im just gonna quit the game

This ingame currency thing frightens me and if I dont like it im just gonna quit the game

What can be worse then the system we have now?

What can be worse then the system we have now?

well ingame currency could allow tou to get a boost in a game, call in a certain unit to save you from defeat etc, im not as happy with this game as I was with Company of heroes 1 but I still like it and will play it but I dont want it to become who payed more money wins, we already have to buy commander which I have problem with but still ok with its nothing big but if this ingame currency comes into action I hope its limited to skins, faceplates etc nothing that affects the gameplay

well ingame currency could allow tou to get a boost in a game, call in a certain unit to save you from defeat etc

Ingame currency could also detonate a nuclear bomb in most capital cities on Earth.

I base this on ABSOLUTELY nothing but by all means let us issue nuclear danger warnings in case it turns out to be true.

If they will work on this game hard. I have no problem with in game currency.

EDIT: I made this post without realising that thread I was in, hopefully I didn't post it in the wrong place.

Snip about how rts team games can't be balanced

As a player of Age of Empires 3, I must respectfully disagree.

Age of Empires 3 is similar to starcraft in mechanics. I wish to emphasise here what similar means, and how it does not mean 'the same'.

To simplify the counter system;

Skirmishers > Musketeers > Cavalry > Skirmishers

Cannon > Infantry > Cavalry > Cannons


In a 1v1 game;
Player A builds skirmishers only. Player B builds cavalry only. Therefore, player B wins
Clearly, this is a terrible idea for player A. So he needs to build a mix of units.

But which mix?

Player A: Cavalry and Skirmishers. Can you think of a combination that beats Cav + Skirms?
..
Cav + Cav

Yep. That's right. A single unit spam > combined arms!!!
What about Cav + Musketeers?
..
Musketeers + Musketeers!!! (Musketeer = Musketeer, Musketeer > cav, therefore Musk + Musk > Cav + Musk)

Mathematically, every 2 unit combination has a 1 unit counter.

What about 3 unit combinations (3v3 is the most popular game mode for aoe3...go play if you don't believe me)
Cav + Musk + Skirm (all 3 units)
No 1 unit combination can defeat this, but...

Cav + Cav + Skirm = Cav + Musk + Skirm
Yes, it's not a 'hard counter', but a combination of micro + soft counter means that every 3 unit combination (there is only one) is defeated/equalled by a 2 unit combination
From player A's perspective; (2 advantages, 1 neutral)
Cav = Cav
Cav > Skirm
Skirm > Musk

From player B's perspective (2 advantages, 1 negative)
Cav > Skirm
Musk > Cav
Skirm < Cav

Micro is much more of an issue here, as well as naturally the number of cav, musk, skirm that a player has. But at least in theory, it is possible for a 3 unit combination to be defeated by a 2 unit combination.
Also important is the type of cav, musk, skirm. For example, if player B (cav+musk+skirm) has really good skirms but crappy musk, he will be even more at a disadvantage because his best unit is being hard countered, and only his worst unit is hard-countering something of the enemy.

The point here is that more players do not 'negate' weaknesses. Even if you could play 5000 vs 5000 battles, as I have just explained above, it is 'impossible' to find any combination of units that cannot be countered.

There is also a 4th variable, Artillery.
Musk + Artillery > Infantry Only
Musk + Artillery > Cav + Infantry (Musk > cav, artillery > infantry)

This is not dissimilar to coh2 where b4, pathfinders, etc can call in arty and completely screw the counter system.


Does a starcraft-esque counter system translate to COH2? It is harder to say. Infantry is split into AI infantry and AT infantry, Tanks are AI and AT tanks, mortars can counter all infantry or none at all. But at least hypothetically speaking,

MG > Rifles > Mortars > MG (rifles = any standard stock infantry)

AI Infantry > AT infantry > tanks > AI infantry (AI infantry includes mortars, HMG)

AT Tanks > AI Tanks > AI Infantry > AT Infantry > AT Tanks

AT Infantry = AI tanks (Sherman, ISU152, King Tiger and Scott are all "AI tanks", but quite different in exactly HOW they counter AI. Shreks, zooks, ptrs (lol), AT nades, are all quite different in how exactly they counter tanks.

Everything else > AT guns > Tanks <-- this one is similar to aoe3 artillery, where it counteres all infantry

Surely with an even more complex and fluid counter system in Coh2, it is even harder to create some mythical perfect army combination that invalidates the counter system in team games?


tl;dr

RTS team games DO NOT negate the counter system. AOE3 is a prime example
The same logic may not necessarily apply to COH2, but the more complex coh2 counter system should be harder to negate than the 'triangle system' in AOE3, which is already impossible to negate.

...

You miss a huge point. It's not just about the amount and diversity of units fields, but also about the resource system, teching and capping.

well ingame currency could allow tou to get a boost in a game, call in a certain unit to save you from defeat etc, im not as happy with this game as I was with Company of heroes 1 but I still like it and will play it but I dont want it to become who payed more money wins, we already have to buy commander which I have problem with but still ok with its nothing big but if this ingame currency comes into action I hope its limited to skins, faceplates etc nothing that affects the gameplay

That's a oddly rediculous scenario. I don't think i've ever seen a multiplayer game that allowed you to pay in-game for a sudden advantage. Except maybe those crappy iphone games.

That's a oddly rediculous scenario. I don't think i've ever seen a multiplayer game that allowed you to pay in-game for a sudden advantage. Except maybe those crappy iphone games.

I played alot of games in the past and there were games where you can just pop a potion (that you bought with real money) if you're losing a battle to win it in a 1 on 1 duel with another player but mostly I dislike the concept of mmos where you have suscribers and buyable ingame items and while I may be over reacting I just want to point out that even if it is a slight possibility I dont want Company of heroes 2 becoming that I dont know maybe Im just being paranoid but there arnt much games out there I like anymore they are all going down the same path unfortunately

But if this currency thing is to do with selling the items you dont need, trading with other players for skins, commanders, bulletins etc. I'm happy with that

Ingame currency could also detonate a nuclear bomb in most capital cities on Earth.

I base this on ABSOLUTELY nothing but by all means let us issue nuclear danger warnings in case it turns out to be true.

There weren't nukes in WW2 unless you count the Atomic bomb which Im sure wasnt ready yet in 1944 which multiplayer is based on that year so the closest think we would have is the V2 rockets the Germans had but then again maybe you're being sarcastic

That won't happen here. If they implement supply, it will be used to replenish durability in items between games. That's the best estimate you can make based on the strings, and it 100% replicates (even down to the terminology) the system they used in CoHO.

If people will be able to create their own commanders we will see even less diversity as there will only be enough room in the meta for 1-2 Commander archetypes per faction and everyone will use them.

See "Magic The Gathering Netdecking" for more details.

If people will be able to create their own commanders we will see even less diversity as there will only be enough room in the meta for 1-2 Commander archerypes per faction and everyone will use them.

See "Magic The Gathering Netdecking" for more details.

Hopefully it's implemented right. From the looks of it it seems like the abilities will be catogorized as such that you can't just choose any 5. But that probably won't stop people from finding the "optimal" builds.

Hopefully it's implemented right. From the looks of it it seems like the abilities will be catogorized as such that you can't just choose any 5. But that probably won't stop people from finding the "optimal" builds.

You wont be able to get boths falls and jagers as okw in one commander for example?