What do you think Relic should do?

(voted other)

Honestly, become MUCH more transparent.

Right now, Relic is essentially acting as a mystery box; it's like this:

1. The community asks for stuff
2. Wait a month or two
3. Fix 1/10 things the community asked for
4. 9/10 random stuff

It just feels like there's very little connection between Relic and the community; biggest example being the last two major patches.

First, the community states that Brits are weak (they were), and the AEC was a notable candidate for improvement. Relic then over-buffs the unit, pushes the patch live, and leaves it in "unit eraser" more for about a month.

Now we have the current patch, where the fixes seemed like a good step forward, but didn't address everything. Regardless, the patch came out, broke a ton of stuff, was then partially reverted (before a weekend, no less), and then left (now we're waiting). And all of that could have been avoided with a 'beta test' patch. Release the patches on Thursday in BETA (i.e. that optional DL thing on steam), let people test them, and then review that feedback. If everything is good, release the patch on Monday/Tuesday, leaving 3-4 days to fix anything that slipped through the beta. If things are broken, well then it's just a beta patch. The live version is fine.

Then there's the question of actual game design and changes. Even with relic's weekly stream, it's REALLY hard to figure out what their actual "end-game" goal is. What is OKW supposed to be; a Volks-shrek blobbing faction with powerful late-game tanks? Or is this just a symptom of the current meta overriding the faction's design? Same goes for pretty much every faction (SOV Maxim Spam? USF Dual-upgrade blobs? Etc.). In the ideal world, where perfect balance is a thing, how are these factions SUPPOSED to play?

Then there's the whole "overbuff/overnerf" thing that's going on. What is the intent behind some of the massive stat changes in some patches? I understand that the AEC was overperforming, but were changes to the main gun, cost coax, burst and RoF really needed? That's five changes to fix one problem - that's a lot. On the other hand, the 222 change was done (IMO) correctly; it was weak, so they buffed ONE stat. If its still weak, they can buff a (single) different stat. If its now too strong, they know EXACTLY why it's too strong (HP change too great); only 1 stat needs to be adjusted to get the unit to the right place.

Once we have a good idea of what relic actually wants to do, and what their thinking is behind certain things, we can move forward much more efficiently.

I completely agree with this. We don't need new content, unless that is used to balance the existing factions or to justify dev time to balance existing factions.
We certainly don't need a new game either. The game itself is still pretty damn good it is the faction design and balance that needs attention, as well as (as stated above) the reasoning behind Relic making the decisions they have.

Relic should be able to answer three questions for each faction, unit and commander and preferably openly, so we know what we are dealing with?
1. What was the intent with designing the unit/faction/commander as it currently is?
2. Is the unit/faction/commander effective in the game considering its likely counters?
3. Is the unit/faction/commander balanced compared to others of a similar cost?

Do not make the game, or to improve their skills, to stop using drugs

(voted other)

Honestly, become MUCH more transparent.

Right now, Relic is essentially acting as a mystery box; it's like this:

1. The community asks for stuff
2. Wait a month or two
3. Fix 1/10 things the community asked for
4. 9/10 random stuff

It just feels like there's very little connection between Relic and the community; biggest example being the last two major patches.

First, the community states that Brits are weak (they were), and the AEC was a notable candidate for improvement. Relic then over-buffs the unit, pushes the patch live, and leaves it in "unit eraser" more for about a month.

Now we have the current patch, where the fixes seemed like a good step forward, but didn't address everything. Regardless, the patch came out, broke a ton of stuff, was then partially reverted (before a weekend, no less), and then left (now we're waiting). And all of that could have been avoided with a 'beta test' patch. Release the patches on Thursday in BETA (i.e. that optional DL thing on steam), let people test them, and then review that feedback. If everything is good, release the patch on Monday/Tuesday, leaving 3-4 days to fix anything that slipped through the beta. If things are broken, well then it's just a beta patch. The live version is fine.

Then there's the question of actual game design and changes. Even with relic's weekly stream, it's REALLY hard to figure out what their actual "end-game" goal is. What is OKW supposed to be; a Volks-shrek blobbing faction with powerful late-game tanks? Or is this just a symptom of the current meta overriding the faction's design? Same goes for pretty much every faction (SOV Maxim Spam? USF Dual-upgrade blobs? Etc.). In the ideal world, where perfect balance is a thing, how are these factions SUPPOSED to play?

Then there's the whole "overbuff/overnerf" thing that's going on. What is the intent behind some of the massive stat changes in some patches? I understand that the AEC was overperforming, but were changes to the main gun, cost coax, burst and RoF really needed? That's five changes to fix one problem - that's a lot. On the other hand, the 222 change was done (IMO) correctly; it was weak, so they buffed ONE stat. If its still weak, they can buff a (single) different stat. If its now too strong, they know EXACTLY why it's too strong (HP change too great); only 1 stat needs to be adjusted to get the unit to the right place.

Once we have a good idea of what relic actually wants to do, and what their thinking is behind certain things, we can move forward much more efficiently.

+1

No goals = No Progress

Bugs, Balance, Optimization (SLI maybe )

Bugs, balance and optimization (i feel thay even dont work with it ).

+1

Plus Three

Balance and Optimization!

I have doubts for CoH3 in the future.

Balance and optimization.

1-Pretty obvious, we have enough content already, now we need it to work properly.

2-It runs terribly even on good GPU and CPU...

Optimization is abesolutely terrible in this game! Good GPUs and CPUs should be crushing this game and are not.

I also agree BRAD is a toxic/dull/abrasive person to be at the helm of your casts. He reads peoples remarks and simply says "I think that's a L2P issue honestly" or "What's unbalanced to some isn't unbalanced to others".

FINALLY. I named the f'ing Tactical Support Commander and you all voted for it! Thank you! But guess what, they never gave me the commanders like they promised... I had to buy them. Go figure.

Bugs, balance and optimization.

Fixing some balance issues should be really easy, for example, the 222 needs an obvious fuel increase (5, 10 more fuel). The cromwell cost should also be slightly increased (10 more fuel). Ostruppen price increased to 210-220 MP, OKW should have some sort of non-doctrinal hard counter to maxim spam...

The game is pretty balanced but this small issues sometimes are incredibly annoying (aka 222 spam, maxim spam, UKF emplacement spam...)

Balance may be the key, but they cant stop producing new content. It's a business, they can't balance for free at this point. A game that 3 yrs old is no longer really making any revenue off sales. They rely on DLC/Skins,etc to make any sort of cash flow...

If anything SEGA needs to throw them a bone so they can hire a proper balancing team otherwise they're going to run into all the same problems with Coh3, Dawn of War 3.. or any RTS game they develop in the future.

New DLC commanders for one oversaturated market? What possibly could go wrong?

Ok sure, try to reinvent the wheel and ignore the highly successful monetization schemes used by CS GO, DOTA, LoL, Hearthstone, Heroes of the storm. Just pretend these games don't even exist.
Brilliant plan!

SEGA+EA have become cancer in the gaming industry because they use money grabbing DLC that affects gameplay on top of a full priced game. Valve+Riot have learned their lessons to avoid that by implementing new monetization schemes that don't affect gameplay.
Personal, as a semi-retired MMO trader I would be happy to invest 1000$ in COH2 tradable collector items using a monetization scheme as CS GO and Dota2. I'm not even rich and if there were 500 more MMO traders like me that 500.000$ easy for eSport without any new commanders shit. How much does it cost to balance rare collector items? Zero.
It's like the marketing team behind COH2 don't want to make money, just piss off the potential fan base that could carry this game financial without messing with the actual gameplay.
I have MMO friends that help run big alliances (https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Niffer%20Mac) and this controversy with making "microtransactions/money grabbing DLC" from core content is like watching 5+ years old MMO discussions. All of this shit have been discussed before in great detail by many experienced MMO players including highly popular SC2 2014 streamers such as Destiny.
https://blog.destiny.gg/starcraft-2-legacy-into-the-void/
Quote from Destiny, Favorite StarCraft II Individual Streamer in 2014
1st Place: Destiny
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18313046/and-the-winners-are-%E2%80%A6-3-18-2015

-SNIP-
No one knew 4 years ago what the e-sports landscape would look like today. A large number of people and organizations dumped money into the StarCraft 2 bubble that we saw burst in late 2012/early 2013 (remember NASL, IPL, MLG, Ministry of Win, Slayers, GameOn.org, etc…etc…?) with no idea of what the future would bring. Looking at things now, though, it’s very clear to see what will work and what won’t work. Blizzard doesn’t have to “guess” at which monetization scheme for LotV would be effective, there are plenty of successful examples that have had time to grow on the market already. At this point, Blizzard could simply copy another monetization model from another successful title. There’s no point in trying to reinvent the wheel here.

To further this point, look at another thing all of these games have in common – their developers are able to monetize content past the initial sale of the game. In DotA 2/LoL’s case, they don’t even require an initial sale to generate revenue. Skins, hats, and new characters all generate revenue for these companies which allows them to justify the development time they put into the game. And all of these monetization schemes bring greater content to the players. Players are motivated to play more in a way that generates more revenue for the developer. This relationship is so important to the success of these other leading titles.

For the love of gaming get informed and stop trying to reinvent the wheel. All these pseudo-intellectuals that keep talking about new commanders on this forum can go where the sun don't shine.
Go play one AAA MMO/large multiplayer game and try managing, at least, one 50+ player sized guild/clan for over a year. Do that and maybe you should have something to say about DLC and monetization schemes. Forum and real life experience don't count bro only in-game + guild experience. By the end of the day, it's the multiplayer community that decides what DLC will sell or not. No amount of wishful thinking will change it except maybe deceptive marketing ploys such as the TW: Warhammer preorder scandal.

CS GO players review COH2:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/43448/i-love-cs-go

Yo Relic, if in the future you want to make another competitive RTS/MOBA game then learn from Starcraft 2 / Dota 2 / CSGO / LOL : Don't release DLC that will affect the gameplay like the commanders shit.

Learn from CS:GO/ Dota 2 please: I have spend more then 1200$ on their game and guess what? Those fancy shit only affect the look, not the fucking gameplay. That's how you get the money and still make customers happy!