Without a good balance, you will still play COH 2?

Yes, yes and yes.
I love this game with all its flaws!!!

I play less and less every week. The one thing that keeps me interested is the chance they will release a patch that addresses many issues. If they fail to do so then i suspect i will only play on odd occasion or until i recall the reasons why i left..

I also couldn't care less about the upcoming content and won't be buying anything if current form continues....

Why would i bother paying for more of the same..

Same here...

I only play on weekends with AT. As of now, Counter Strike is my drug not COH2 as once was.

http://www.coh2.org/topic/27284/remember-when

In case people need a reminder

Because otherwise we get the echo chamber of how terrible everything is

Gotta love that positivity eh!

It was ULTRA bad, now it's just bad!
Hey, let's call the 'just bad' balanced and suddenly the game is balanced!

*Insert mind=blown.gif*

Gotta love that positivity eh!

It was ULTRA bad, now it's just bad!
Hey, let's call the 'just bad' balanced and suddenly the game is balanced!

*Insert mind=blown.gif*

do you have anymore of that salt?

Aye, I love this game. Flaws and all. I don't think I could have survived this long without my Bears though. Having a community of friends that help you bear with the balance is the only way to go.

I wouldn't say balance is terrible right now. I will say that the game is fucking boring for me, I find it to be an exercise in frustration (bugs, one shot squad wipes, terrible pathing etc.) and tedium (shreck and lmg blob vs mass aoe death machines and endless call in heavy tanks every game)

The more I play it the more frustrated I get with it, doesn't matter if I win or lose.

do you have anymore of that salt?

The game is in a far, far worse state than it was even after WFA came out. The Bugs have just slowly snow balled to were the point I'm seeing major gameplay fucking things in every game.

But yeah things might have been bad at that time! So it makes the current shitshow perfectly fine.

*Kubel slowly rotates in background, maxim team in a building forgets how to set and and fire their weapon*

I mean, scout car spam was just wicked wasn't it?

*Sturmtiger self destructs*

Then you had the Tiger Ace! Argh how simply OP!

*Tank drives over teller mine and takes no damage*

Then you had Sturms on WFA release, pshaw how broken!

*M20 does donut's on ice instead of driving away and dies to an AT gun*

The game is in a far, far worse state than it was even after WFA came out. The Bugs have just slowly snow balled to were the point I'm seeing major gameplay fucking things in every game.

But yeah things might have been bad at that time! So it makes the current shitshow perfectly fine.

*Kubel slowly rotates in background, maxim team in a building forgets how to set and and fire their weapon*

I mean, scout car spam was just wicked wasn't it?

*Sturmtiger self destructs*

Then you had the Tiger Ace! Argh how simply OP!

*Tank drives over teller mine and takes no damage*

Then you had Sturms on WFA release, pshaw how broken!

*M20 does donut's on ice instead of driving away and dies to an AT gun*

Im not saying that the game is in a particularly fine state now, im just saying that there are people who are dedicated to hating the game and spreading negativity on every occasion. And btw, the game currently isnt THAT bad. I remember far, far worse times. But this obviously doesnt justify the current state.

Im not saying that the game is in a particularly fine state now, im just saying that there are people who are dedicated to hating the game and spreading negativity on every occasion.

Are people really dedicated to hating the game? Or are they loyal to the game they want but don't have? Currently, CoH2 can be hard to watch and to play. I empathize with anyone pushing the agenda that this game is not healthy. They're more desperate than angry.

Im not saying that the game is in a particularly fine state now, im just saying that there are people who are dedicated to hating the game and spreading negativity on every occasion. And btw, the game currently isnt THAT bad. I remember far, far worse times. But this obviously doesnt justify the current state.

It was worse on COH2 release, but that's such a high bar of shit to clear that it shouldn't be even comparable.

Really balance isn't THAT bad right now, other than the lack of viable commanders in every faction. But the bugs have really really gotten out of control. Shit's whack yo.

I voted "sometimes". The game only has a few minor bugs at the moment so it's well playable. The game-play mechanics are fun and 1v1 is pretty balanced, so the game is worth playing. However, this 1v1 balance is only maintained because of a very restricted roster of viable strategies and (P2W) commanders (which is discussed in many other threads). This makes 1v1 extremely repetitive and only worth playing once in a while.

Well Balance is a different thing from "Boring" and "Stale-Meta"

I just get over the fact he actually implied that there were only minor bugs when there is one that literally causes your Sturmtiger to self destruct.

Well Balance is a different thing from "Boring" and "Stale-Meta"

*Disclaimer* All my posts are from a 1v1 perspective.

It depends on your criteria for balance. If your criteria for balance are something along the lines of "I want to have an equal chance of winning against an equal opponent, regardless of what factions we have chosen", then this game is pretty balanced. However, this balance is only achieved when certain conditions are met. These conditions are: Both players veto the most imbalanced maps, both players either use the best commanders (Mech assault, shock rifle, fortifications, guard motor, Elite troops, rifle company, and a few others) or agree to both use sub-optimal commanders (such as a game of Soviet Reserve Army VS Festung support doctrine), and finally, both players stick to a very limited scope of strategies and build orders (OKW and USF are more limited in this regard then Soviets and Ostheer).

For example: I want to play a game as Ostheer vs USF.
How do me and my opponent make this match-up balanced? Well, first we have to veto all the bad maps like Stalingrad and Langreskaya (there will still be bad maps, 6 vetos is not enough). Then, we have to agree on commanders. Since in automatch 90% of the players go for the best commanders, this means the USF will go for airborn or Rifle company, and the Ostheer will go for Mech assault or Elite troops. Finally, both players will only use the optimal strategies (m20 rush into major or call-ins vs T1/2 into call-ins). In this scenario, the game is pretty balanced and both players will have equal chances of winning if they are both equally skilled.

If these conditions are not met, then the game is no longer balanced. For example: A game of USF vs Ostheer on Stalingrad with commanders Rifle Company vs Blitzkrieg Tactics is not balanced at all. Likewise, a Soviet vs Ostheer game on langreskaya with commanders Elite Troops vs Partisan tactics is also far from balanced. A huge gap in between these players skill levels is required for these players to have equal chances of winning.

Now, because of human nature, 90% of the players will try to get any advantage they can, you are left with a very stale metagame. A balanced metagame, but only as long as you stick to the blandness of vetoing the same maps, playing the same commanders and using the same strategies game after game (especially with USF and OKW).

*Disclaimer* All my posts are from a 1v1 perspective.

It depends on your criteria for balance. If your criteria for balance are something along the lines of "I want to have an equal chance of winning against an equal opponent, regardless of what factions we have chosen", then this game is pretty balanced. However, this balance is only achieved when certain conditions are met. These conditions are: Both players veto the most imbalanced maps, both players either use the best commanders (Mech assault, shock rifle, fortifications, guard motor, Elite troops, rifle company, and a few others) or agree to both use sub-optimal commanders (such as a game of Soviet Reserve Army VS Festung support doctrine), and finally, both players stick to a very limited scope of strategies and build orders (OKW and USF are more limited in this regard then Soviets and Ostheer).

For example: I want to play a game as Ostheer vs USF.
How do me and my opponent make this match-up balanced? Well, first we have to veto all the bad maps like Stalingrad and Langreskaya (there will still be bad maps, 6 vetos is not enough). Then, we have to agree on commanders. Since in automatch 90% of the players go for the best commanders, this means the USF will go for airborn or Rifle company, and the Ostheer will go for Mech assault or Elite troops. Finally, both players will only use the optimal strategies (m20 rush into major or call-ins vs T1/2 into call-ins). In this scenario, the game is pretty balanced and both players will have equal chances of winning if they are both equally skilled.

If these conditions are not met, then the game is no longer balanced. For example: A game of USF vs Ostheer on Stalingrad with commanders Rifle Company vs Blitzkrieg Tactics is not balanced at all. Likewise, a Soviet vs Ostheer game on langreskaya with commanders Elite Troops vs Partisan tactics is also far from balanced. A huge gap in between these players skill levels is required for these players to have equal chances of winning.

Now, because of human nature, 90% of the players will try to get any advantage they can, you are left with a very stale metagame. A balanced metagame, but only as long as you stick to the blandness of vetoing the same maps, playing the same commanders and using the same strategies game after game (especially with USF and OKW).

TL;DR Bad maps and the commander system are the reason for bad balance?

TL;DR Bad maps and the commander system are the reason for bad balance?

That, and the strategies part. That refers to things like Soviet T4 being worthless in 1v1, UAF captain tier being bad, OKW T3 into rush into panther being necessary, Ostheer T4 being more or less in-accessible etc. I did not go into detail on this part in my previous post but it also contributes heavily to the stale meta game.

TL;DR version of my last post:
Game is balanced if you stick to the stale limited meta with few commander options, strategies, and maps. Game is not balanced if you deviate from the meta.

Yep still enjoy playing. Maybe it's because I'm not playing top games so I actually use different factions and try different strats.

Tbh, it's the only game I'm playing currently. Not sure if OP means that if Relic would stop completely (less than now) supporting the game would I quit playing or if they would mess up the current balance situation.

In any case - I would see. There has been few patches that I have ignored the game for a while but now I'm pumped and enjoying it.

As long as it's playable as both sides I will probably play it. Atm it is possible to win as allies and as axis so it's fine.
What decreases the fun is players using cheese and abusive tactics such as truck pushing etc.

The game is in a far, far worse state than it was even after WFA came out. The Bugs have just slowly snow balled to were the point I'm seeing major gameplay fucking things in every game.

But yeah things might have been bad at that time! So it makes the current shitshow perfectly fine.

*Kubel slowly rotates in background, maxim team in a building forgets how to set and and fire their weapon*

I mean, scout car spam was just wicked wasn't it?

*Sturmtiger self destructs*

Then you had the Tiger Ace! Argh how simply OP!

*Tank drives over teller mine and takes no damage*

Then you had Sturms on WFA release, pshaw how broken!

*M20 does donut's on ice instead of driving away and dies to an AT gun*

These are all great points that I've remembered seeing first hand up to this point.