In Game Store???

I'll do what I can, but I need to do some work on my current map and got a few other minor projects I need to finish off. I promise I'll keep looking in my spare time though.

Thanks god, I don't play the game. Would be pissed off.
Btw, who is the new balance designer ? Since went mia ?

Now let's pretend Relic implements the CoHO shop system. We have no idea if they will or not, but let's just pretend they do. Suddenly your commanders and bulletins only last a few games before you have to repair them with supply. That's fine and dandy until you realize that your super fancy King Tiger costs more supply to repair than you receive for free after each game. Suddenly you're faced with a decision: do I remove my King Tiger every few games and accept playing with inferior units, or do I pay Relic a few bucks for the privilege of continuing to be able to use this unit in every single game?

Which is a strategic level decision forcing you to decide if you want to use the same commander and the same units every game or "I can beat this guy without using X"

Sorry, that sounds awesome - more or less exactly how AA works because it is not setup to use the same Company all the way through.

You might not necessarily be able to employ the same methods in every game so it would force people to explore and use a variety of tactics.

No more "Wah, stale call-in meta" and the advantage in the game shifts from people who find the optimum strats for each patch and execute it effectively (which you have been complaining about), to those able to effectively play and use with all the tools at their disposal.


So there's some reservations about that, but almost everyone here is crying about how awful this could be on the basis of no evidence whatsoever about how it will be implemented, I can equally sit here and point out the upsides if it's done well.

When Relic charged people for the WFA factions, nobody bitched. When Relic charged for a new single-player campaign in AA, nobody bitched. When Relic charged for new ToW missions, nobody bitched. When Relic added new skins and faceplates and victory strikes and decals, nobody bitched.

Yes they did

They complained that they were too expensive

They complained that they weren't interested in buying them

They complained that Relic were working on that rather than doing what they wanted Relic to do

In other words, you fuck over a lot of the people who frequent these boards.

See above for my thoughts on this

Also:

Good

Despite lots of evidence to the contrary the 1v1 Taliban persist in deluding themselves that are in anyway relevant, let alone important

Paying to "add variety to gameplay" is the same as paying for an advantage, just not as direct. Having more gameplay options in an RTS is an inherent advantage. Paying for new factions is one thing, but paying to make an existing faction more robust is an entirely different situation.

You shouldn't have to pay a cent in order to ensure you're on an even playing field with your opponent.


You're right, they need something. But they need something that will preserve gameplay integrity at the same time. A system that is extremely detrimental to your most dedicated players is not the answer.

Even with it's pay to win coho online was regarded as a great game(in the top 20 greatest of all times even). There was never any shortage of people online. It had so much variety that any shortcomings could be esily overlooked. Fun trumps fair when you are talking about any game in my opinion. Coh2 lacked variety from the get go and then came the nerfing sprees and the unique but gimmicky wf factions. People aren't talking about how fun the game is but whats wrong with it.

I'm ok with Relic charging for some things as it a business with bills to pay and mouths to feed. I would much rather them work on fun things that affect actual gameplay rather than useless placeholder items that people won't buy anyway.

I really hope they don't make P2Play...that would be retarded.

I miss the coh1 model of releasing expansion packs

I miss the coh1 model of releasing expansion packs

I don't.
If it was applied to coh2, to play WFA armies, you'd need to pay for WFA+AA together. Awesome deal indeed.

It has nothing to do with them trying to make money and everything to do with how they're trying to make money. There are a lot of proven ways to monetize your game that have zero impact on the actual gameplay.

By monetizing commanders with unique units and abilities, Relic is letting players pay for more options. If you're trying to compete in a strategy game, having more options is an advantage, so by letting players pay for more options, they're indirectly letting players pay for a strategic advantage in their games.

Now let's pretend Relic implements the CoHO shop system. We have no idea if they will or not, but let's just pretend they do. Suddenly your commanders and bulletins only last a few games before you have to repair them with supply. That's fine and dandy until you realize that your super fancy King Tiger costs more supply to repair than you receive for free after each game. Suddenly you're faced with a decision: do I remove my King Tiger every few games and accept playing with inferior units, or do I pay Relic a few bucks for the privilege of continuing to be able to use this unit in every single game?

If we pretend COH2 will be like COHO, you're wrong in your example.

1- It requires to change the structure of any commander, not much but still into 2 branches.

2- But changing the structure or not isn't important in fact. What make your example wrong is that abilities will always be available for free (as it was in COHO) but Bulletins and special cards dependant of supply.

So your Tiger will always be available in any of your game. But thee +10% vet card you'll use as bulletin will need to be supplied. With probably different level of card bonus (who knows maybe a +10% vet, a +20% vet and a +50% vet) and each of them would have a different cost supply.

if really Relic copy/past COHO system, maybe new "veteran" units will be available. Like a veteran panter tank with better stats than the basic one and here again, calling this veteran unit will cost you supply, but here again nothing would stop you to use the basic unit instead.

And for tournament, you can easily control the usage of such units/bulletins. You can prohibit supplied items from your tournament. Or you can as well impose a limit of supply for each game or per phase. Pool phase = XX amount of supply, 2nd phase = YY amount etc... putting a bit of macro-management in your tournament.

Anyway, supply isn't the devil you describe. I have little faith on Relic today but COHO was a really good game that needed to be polished.

I don't.
If it was applied to coh2, to play WFA armies, you'd need to pay for WFA+AA together. Awesome deal indeed.

I see WFA and AA as 2 separate expansions one for multiplayer fans and one for single player and they shouldve made a pack of them to together, but all Im afraid of is the game might become pay to win with this supply thing fingers crossed it wont

i dont follow. has it not always been like this? you had to pay to stay competetive in coh. in coh1, you had to pay for opposing front to use new armys. later you had to pay if you wanted to use new TOV units like the schwimmwagen or kangeroo. in coh2 you had to pay for new commanders and you had to pay to get the new armys.

if a new system get implemented the basict fact that from time to time you can spend some money to widen your options in the game and to enhance your chances of winning stays basicly the same.
of course there are changes in detail and we still have to see if and how it plays out. maybe it will get more expansive to stay competetive. maybe top players never have to pay a dime because they win a lot in automatch and so get rewarded a big amount of free supply. i dont see any reason to object a "play for free but pay for extra content approach" in general.

in one way or another - someone has to pay for a game that gets support. thats just the way it is and you have to pay for balance relevant core gameplay options because faceplates and skins just wont make real money.

one aspect of warspoils /cohonline that has not been discussed widely holds a much bigger threat to competitive gameplay in my opinion. in the current warspoil system as back in the days in cohonline there are items that will help your gameplay but that are not for sale. now that is just stupid in my opinion and i dont want to see it further implemented in coh2.

some commanders in coh2 can not be purchased in a shop but drop randomly after playing a game. same in cohonline: you simply could not buy the sprinting mg with the rocketlauncher (or any other hero unit if i remember it right) - you had to wait for it to come to you. after you had it, you could spend cash on keeping it active.

what i dont want to see are items in a game that you can only get by chance and that are not for sale.

this is how it should be in my opinion:
- the better players should be rewarded for their skill and effort by so much free supply that they should not have to pay real money (maybe as a reward for certain a ladder position).
- the casual player should not be forced to buy anything if he does not mind playing with fewer options.
- the eager but lazy player should be able to purchase anything there is in the game with cash.
- the eager but cheap player should be able to get anything there is by grinding.

You're right, buying new factions can be seen as buying options, but it's not really in the same ballpark as something like commanders or ToV units. Having an extra faction doesn't help you in a single automatch game, for instance, while having purchased commanders definitely can. The two are on completely different levels in my opinion, though I see how they relate and I understand it does weaken my argument.

As for the ToV units, there was heavy resistance to the concept in the CoH1 community when that expansion was announced and released. We got really lucky that the new units were not, for the most part, drastically superior to their original counterparts, but still, if you're a Brit player who doesn't own ToV you're at a major disadvantage in the current metagame because Brits really need Stags in order to be competitive. I think that's a bullshit situation and it should be avoided at all costs.

I see commanders as dozens of mini ToV expansions, which is why I think it's a concept that's so detrimental to gameplay. The only proper competitive game I can think of that has a similar system is League of Legends, and even then tournament players are given access to all game content so it's less of a problem.

Which is a strategic level decision forcing you to decide if you want to use the same commander and the same units every game or "I can beat this guy without using X"

Sorry, that sounds awesome - more or less exactly how AA works because it is not setup to use the same Company all the way through.

You might not necessarily be able to employ the same methods in every game so it would force people to explore and use a variety of tactics.

No more "Wah, stale call-in meta" and the advantage in the game shifts from people who find the optimum strats for each patch and execute it effectively (which you have been complaining about), to those able to effectively play and use with all the tools at their disposal.


So there's some reservations about that, but almost everyone here is crying about how awful this could be on the basis of no evidence whatsoever about how it will be implemented, I can equally sit here and point out the upsides if it's done well.


See above for my thoughts on this

Also:

Good

Despite lots of evidence to the contrary the 1v1 Taliban persist in deluding themselves that are in anyway relevant, let alone important

So you think it's awesome that someone playing in a tournament is going to have to decide between paying money to repair their items or playing with less potent ones? That literally directly gives an advantage to the player who is willing to pay.

I've said in every post I've made on this subject, if you don't care about competition then the CoHO system was alright. My posts have directly targeted how fucking awful it is for the competitive scene.

Yes they did

They complained that they were too expensive

They complained that they weren't interested in buying them

They complained that Relic were working on that rather than doing what they wanted Relic to do

There's a big difference between complaining that a company is charging for something and complaining that the content they're charging for is irrelevant, uninteresting, or too expensive. Nobody with any sense expected the WFA factions, ToW missions, or AA campaign be released for free, which was the point of my statement.

Even with it's pay to win coho online was regarded as a great game(in the top 20 greatest of all times even). There was never any shortage of people online. It had so much variety that any shortcomings could be esily overlooked. Fun trumps fair when you are talking about any game in my opinion. Coh2 lacked variety from the get go and then came the nerfing sprees and the unique but gimmicky wf factions. People aren't talking about how fun the game is but whats wrong with it.

I'm ok with Relic charging for some things as it a business with bills to pay and mouths to feed. I would much rather them work on fun things that affect actual gameplay rather than useless placeholder items that people won't buy anyway.

It was a great game but it only lasted 7 months? How does that make sense? I never saw it above 2000 concurrents any time I played before they removed the player count from the interface. You can't be wrong about what you like, but it's hard to see how a game that shut down after a 7-month beta can be considered a success.

It was a success in that it got people interested in CoH that might not have been otherwise, but that's about it.

Could be promising but going by Relic's track record it will be a pretty half arsed feature that won't get fleshed out for another few months or even years after initial release.

I see WFA and AA as 2 separate expansions one for multiplayer fans and one for single player and they shouldve made a pack of them to together, but all Im afraid of is the game might become pay to win with this supply thing fingers crossed it wont

Yea, if you look at coh1 expansions, they would be put and priced together and released when AA content would be ready, not with WFA few months in advance if the model was applied here as well.
Just look at SC2, you don't really have DLC there, but you are forced to basically rebuy full game for the full price every expansion.

So in general, you'd need to wait longer for the same amount of content and pay for what you wouldn't use, because its in the package.

DLCs have their own disadvantages, but they don't shove on you content you don't need and won't play.

So you think it's awesome that someone playing in a tournament is going to have to decide between paying money to repair their items or playing with less potent ones? That literally directly gives an advantage to the player who is willing to pay.

I have a Team of Top Men working around the clock to discover new ways I could care less about the discomfiture of tournament players


Barring some new theoretical breakthrough I must regrettably conclude that it is impossible for me to care less


If anything I am now actively rejoicing in it

Hello fellow debaters,

I find it normal and evident that everyone must have the same winning change in a tournament.

I think Relic could include some features/options for tournament that would disable any non vanilla units or include a way for tournament managers to determine the setup for every one in the tournament, defacto leveling the playing field for everybody.

Those are not difficult options to code/implement.

Both types of player would have what they want or need to be happy.

We must remember that everyone/customer is important.

Comments ?

Look at hearthstone, it a real free to play for me. They can easily adapt something around that financial design. I gave them 10 USD and i'm playing it since the beginning.

Taking Hearthstone as example is laughable. Hearthstone is a grindfest and extremely beginnerunfriendly, because the game is very dependent on rares and legendaries. (furthermore its absurdly high amount of RNG sucks, i dont know how anyone can go pro in such a rng-heavy game)

btt: i can understand Inverse problem with tournaments and repairing and i agree that it would not be sufficient for a game which wants to be an esport. furthermore if a f2p-player looses to a guy who spends money, chances are high that he wont properly analyse his mistakes but blame it on a op-premium doctrine etc. pp, which makes the game much less enjoyable for him

I have a Team of Top Men working around the clock to discover new ways I could care less about the discomfiture of tournament players


Barring some new theoretical breakthrough I must regrettably conclude that it is impossible for me to care less


If anything I am now actively rejoicing in it

Honest question: is this appropriate from a staff member at a site which routinely promotes those tournaments? A site which seems to be at the forefront of promoting those tournaments? Your hostility toward their participants is off-putting at best and this attitude from a "Senior Editor" deserves scrutiny from other staff.

It's actually funny because COH2.ORG was devised specifically to be the hub of CoH competitive play. It's unfortunate that there still exists people who think you can't have compelling casual play unless you flip off the competitive scene. Interestingly enough, the two most popular games on Steam right now are hardcore competitive games with vibrant casual communities. You're a fool if you think the two are mutually exclusive.

Hello fellow debaters,

I find it normal and evident that everyone must have the same winning change in a tournament.

I think Relic could include some features/options for tournament that would disable any non vanilla units or include a way for tournament managers to determine the setup for every one in the tournament, defacto leveling the playing field for everybody.

Those are not difficult options to code/implement.

Both types of player would have what they want or need to be happy.

We must remember that everyone/customer is important.

Comments ?

nah. i rather have one game mode that can be used for both casual and competitive play.

although "tournament tweaking" ability could be interesting to disable obviously broken shits. but we already kinda have that. rules like "no dlc commanders" etc. don't think we really need to extend that.

Honest question: is this appropriate from a staff member at a site which routinely promotes those tournaments? A site which seems to be at the forefront of promoting those tournaments? Your hostility toward their participants is off-putting at best and this attitude from a "Senior Editor" deserves scrutiny from other staff.

It may come off as hostile as this is a hostile environment. Eat or be eaten. The Hunger games have arrived to coh2.org and team "eports" and team "never played the game but have an opinion" are winning the battle for the forums.

+1 Napalm


HAHAHAHAHHAA