RELIC-how about you tell us what is in the march 31 patch!

Do you really believe dev studios sell for garage sell prices?
Are you really that stupid?

Relic was sold for the highest out of all of THQ's properties dude. It was one of the most expensive company acquisition's in game development history.

They don't go for garage prices, but they don't normally go for double digit millions.

gg wp
Wikipedia best source

Back on topic:
Any leaks about patch yet?

Obviously:

Show Spoiler

@Alexzandvar

Relics license for Warhammer 40k IP expired.
They have said so themselves.

If it is any different at the moment, it is because they have reneved it, but you are not a relic employee, so you have no slightest idea what you are talking about as thats just mad mans conspiracy theories here coming from you.

Oh, and just so you know, big producers don't but game designing studios to MAYBE get profits in FEW YEARS.
They do so, because they see opportunity in fast, easy dollar.
Now, Sega bought Relic when they were about to release a big title of famed and renowned franchise that was HUGE success and won reward after reward.

Yes, Sega definitely got Relic because of concept that might not even exist, not because of CoH2 being potentially a goos lying golden eggs

Relic still has the license to the WH40k IP dude, and Creative Assembly has the WH Fantasy license.

Like, it's kind of mind blowing you don't understand company aquistions when you claim to be a developer, why do you think companies buy IP's and studios? Because it's an investment, sometimes one that doesn't pay off immediately.

Do you really believe dev studios sell for garage sell prices?
Are you really that stupid?

That question is purely rhetorical right?

That question is purely rhetorical right?

Duuh

I'd pay 3-4 grand for rights to kick okw fan boys in the shin every time they said a unit is UP.


I dunno why you guys expect relic to tell us every time they go take a restroom break. We will see what they did soon enough. I'm anxiously anticipating it too. I will say I think they should do more marketing/hyping before big releases.... but patches? Nah.

But every time you play against another person, you're competing against them. It doesn't matter if you're taking the game seriously or not, when you play against someone and try to win, you're competing. You don't have to be a tournament player to want to win. If you're playing a multiplayer game, you have to accept the fact that the vast majority of players are playing to win. For most people, winning in a boring way is a whole lot more fun than losing in a unique way. Nobody goes into a game of CoH2 and says "I'm going to try to lose". You're playing to win against an opponent who's also playing to win; that's the very definition of a competition.

[...]

That question is purely rhetorical right?

People don't play more DoW anymore because the last DoW game made is over 4 years old dude. DoW has always been more popular just because WH40k has a buttload of name recognition.

It's fun, because when I stopped playing DOW2, COH1 had MORE players than DOW2, and still has. For a 9 years old game dude. Go check the top games played on steam.

About your article, it only says Sega owns Relic WH40K games rights. You won't find anywhere on the net someone from Sega or Relic saying they have WH40k license.
DOW rights =/= WH40K license

Hell, even Quinn Duffy said it a few month after the THQ bankrupt : "Dawn of War, because it's a license and it's owned by Games Workshop, they have the opportunity to work that license with whoever they want. I would hope it would be us again. "

Left 3 months ago, there is still 0 Change.

dang brah

What did you expect?

But every time you play against another person, you're competing against them. It doesn't matter if you're taking the game seriously or not, when you play against someone and try to win, you're competing. You don't have to be a tournament player to want to win. If you're playing a multiplayer game, you have to accept the fact that the vast majority of players are playing to win. For most people, winning in a boring way is a whole lot more fun than losing in a unique way. Nobody goes into a game of CoH2 and says "I'm going to try to lose". You're playing to win against an opponent who's also playing to win; that's the very definition of a competition.

Of course the meta can change without patches, but that requires a game that encourages variety. Unfortunately, CoH2 lacks a lot of the traditional RTS elements that encourage variety in other games. It's all about finding the optimal unit composition, which is a tough thing to do with so many units in the game, but once it's been found there's little incentive to introduce variety on the player's part because unit composition is really the only strategic outlet players have.

Thats the problem of the players (all the 10 year old boys or the ones who behave like them) and not the game's. People are stupid and that is a fact (you can see prove everyday everywhere around you).
There are so many players who choose to have fun with the game and experiment with the meta and i heard all of them saying that they enjoy the game even if they loose. I had soooo many wow games that i lost. They where 1000 times better then some wins i had.

I know that this is how the society thinks (winning with every cost) but as i said before, people are stupid...
First means everything, second means nothing, the biggest BS line of our time.
Participating and having fun, this is how it should be.

Thats the problem of the players (all the 10 year old boys or the ones who behave like them) and not the game's. People are stupid and that is a fact (you can see prove everyday everywhere around you).
There are so many players who choose to have fun with the game and experiment with the meta and i heard all of them saying that they enjoy the game even if they loose. I had soooo many wow games that i lost. They where 1000 times better then some wins i had.

I know that this is how the society thinks (winning with every cost) but as i said before, people are stupid...
First means everything, second means nothing, the biggest BS line of our time.
Participating and having fun, this is how it should be.

There's a time and a place for having fun. Some players (Lenny,redwingz) can be good,and effective, and have fun in automatch VS players, A lot of players cannot do that.

When you click automatch vs players you're playing to win. If you don't care about winning and you want to have fun, , then learn to win with odd strats or play custom games, public game lobby,auto match VS ai, or campaign.

It's not a problem with the players though, it's a problem with human psychology, and as a game developer you're a slave to human psychology. You can't change human nature just because you don't like it.

Ignoring your silly and pathetic attempt to denigrate people who play to win, the simple fact of competition is it's all about winning. Sure, the act of participating in the competition is inherently enjoyable, but I haven't yet met a single person who enjoys losing to winning. When you're playing in a competitive environment (and automatch is a competitive environment) it's illogical to assume people will do anything but play to win.

If "participating and having fun", as you say, were all anyone cared about, sports wouldn't have championships, and amateurs wouldn't compete and practice. Your utopian worldview contradicts human nature completely.

The only practical way to add variety to a competition is to make that variety competitively attractive. In an RTS, that means giving players a variety of competitively viable strategies to choose from. When a single style exists that has been proven to be the best by a large margin, that's the style people are going to use a vast majority of the time. It's the game's fault for not providing players with more options, not the player's fault for discovering a single strategy that happens to be ideal in all possible situations.

I think everyone at some point goes through a phase of experimentation but I definitely don't believe that because you choose to do that more than others, you have a claim to some moral high ground.

Calling people stupid because they play competitively just sounds petty when the game was designed around competition.

People experiment when it's competitively viable to do so. It's always smart to be strategically diverse as a player because that means you're more easily able to adapt to new patches, but that kind of development is best done in a proper practice environment. In a competitive environment (automatch, tournament, basically anything that isn't explicitly a practice environment), it's only logical to assume your opponent will try his best to win. If that means using the same strategy over and over because it's the undisputed best way to play, well, you should be expecting that, and if you don't like it, you should stick to playing casual basic match games against friends until the game is changed to encourage different styles of play.

why dont you guys just wait 10 days. If they announced the changes now it would just lead to a barrage of "CHANGES ARE SO OP" posts.

I think everyone at some point goes through a phase of experimentation but I definitely don't believe that because you choose to do that more than others, you have a claim to some moral high ground.

Calling people stupid because they play competitively just sounds petty when the game was designed around competition.

Correct, but I also don't have sympathy for people who veto as many maps as they can, only ever use the same 3 commanders and then complain that they are bored


Inverse and I are however more or less in the same place for different reasons

He thinks that the structure of the game is such that there is a small number of optimum strategies for each patch and that balance patches may move them around, but won't increase their number

I think that if you are bored with the game the problem is at least partially your own responsibility and that it is not up to Relic to tweak unit values to make you try other commanders and strategies

i love you van voort, but maps are horrifyingly horrible pieces of steaming hot shites these days. i actually miss hill 331.

Of course, if you're bored of using the same strategies over and over again, either use different strategies or stop playing the game. But if you're bored of playing against the same strategies over and over again, it's silly to blame the players. It's unreasonable to assume that, in a competitive environment, your opponent will not use the strategy that gives him the best odds of success. If there's only one obviously best strategy, that's a problem with the game, not the players.