Boycotting the game shouldn't be a taboo anymore

They are going to abandon the game soon enough. I don't think it makes them enough money and is slowly bleeding players.

I just hope when they finally stop "supporting" that they leave the game in a somewhat playable state. We may have to wait like 5 years for COH3 and it will probably have a crap engine too

The game is on sale now. For 7,50 euro. And to be competitive, guess what, you need patience and skill, not dlc.

$50 in Australia for the 2 base factions. $83 for all 5... I brought it up in another thread. What current RTS game has 2 factions and costs $50 after 3 years of release. The 7,50 euro should be its normal cost.

This game is broken. How?

It's broken because balance patches result in an overbuffed/overnerfed units. Then takes a month to change. Example AEC... if it was properly tested it wouldn't have had to be fixed again..

It's broken because the amount of new and old bugs in it. For every old bug fixed, 2 new bugs come, and for every new bug fixed, 3 more new bugs come.

It's broken because commanders are released with clearly over powered abilities and units. And it takes relic ages to then nerf. You know after the money has been made. Its clear as day it's a simple cash grab.

The game is broken in its core. The "test system performance" is a good example, that was terribly inaccurate, it's broken because it doesn't include basic tools such as custom hotkeys, or even has a keyboard map..

It takes a computer made from god, to run efficiently.

The game requires a 100% updated rig with all the latest and greatest. If 1 thing is off. Get bugsplat kit.

Every patch results in no less then 3 new topics of individuals complaining about performance problems

Honestly, the game needs to be redone from scratch imo. They need to make a new engine and start all over. I would personally like to see a coh3. With modern warfare this time next year then to see a broken coh2.

The balance team deserves to lose their jobs. If I could I would vote for that. The British is a sure sign they do not have any idea what they are doing.

Relics streams seem boring, lost. And incompetent, 58 min of uselessness, 2 min of actual information the viewers been looking for

Respect for coh2.org, for being a better fourm then the games actual forums. For the casters who keep this game alive and interesting. It's the dedication of the community is why this game is still around, not because of the game being in a great state. And unfortuantly it ran out thin this last month.

This game has came a long way from the start yes. But it's sad to see where it is still at this point.

You begin to wonder. Does a 5 year plan mean to purposely fuck things up so they keep a job for 5 years? I mean if they make the game perfectly balanced then the balance team loses their job right? See what I mean there.

So instead of "I lost becouse axis/allies/specific unit is OP" we now have "I lost becouse the game is broken" or "I lost becouse the game is too expensive"? You guys will never cease to amaze me.

So instead of "I lost becouse axis/allies/specific unit is OP" we now have "I lost becouse the game is broken" or "I lost becouse the game is too expensive"? You guys will never cease to amaze me.

The better player will win if the skillgap is big. If both players are at equal level, the one abusing meta or using the best commander will win. It's not hard to grasp that concept. Playing non meta vs "op" unit/commander closes the skillgap.

The better player will win if the skillgap is big. If both players are at equal level, the one abusing meta or using the best commander will win. It's not hard to grasp that concept. Playing non meta vs "op" unit/commander closes the skillgap.

Right. But apart from tiny part of community who is skillful enough to win money in a turney this doesn't matter. The fact that you win against somebody doesn't make you "better" in any way just like loosing doesn't make you "worse". It also isn't a real war and there is nothing you could be fighting for. The whole ladder system is implemented just so you can find a match near your level. And this level is not the measure of your skill, but also items and strategies you use. There is nothing wrong about playing against slightly worse opponents just becouse you play non meta.

Right. But apart from tiny part of community who is skillful enough to win money in a turney this doesn't matter. The fact that you win against somebody doesn't make you "better" in any way just like loosing doesn't make you "worse". It also isn't a real war and there is nothing you could be fighting for. The whole ladder system is implemented just so you can find a match near your level. And this level is not the measure of your skill, but also items and strategies you use. There is nothing wrong about playing against slightly worse opponents just becouse you play non meta.

AND this where you don't understand the general mentality of the pop. It's the perceived problem of "unfairness". You'll be surprise that there are more people who prefer to win in an old fashioned way, than losing trying something different.
It's not about having money on the line, what matters or not depends on each individual. It's simple, if presented by the choice of having an iwin button at the reach of their hand, they'll use it even if it's "unfair" for their opponent. You just have to see how many people used the Tiger Ace for the 4 months it was on the wild. You just have to see how many people use Artillery cover, CalliOP, or whatever FOTM.

"Boycotting" a video game because the developers aren't doing what you want them to do is pretty silly. If you don't like the game, either work to make it better or just don't play it. You don't need anybody's approval to stop playing the game.

AND this where you don't understand the general mentality of the pop. It's the perceived problem of "unfairness". You'll be surprise that there are more people who prefer to win in an old fashioned way, than losing trying something different.
It's not about having money on the line, what matters or not depends on each individual. It's simple, if presented by the choice of having an iwin button at the reach of their hand, they'll use it even if it's "unfair" for their opponent. You just have to see how many people used the Tiger Ace for the 4 months it was on the wild. You just have to see how many people use Artillery cover, CalliOP, or whatever FOTM.

I agree but it still doesnt mean that player will loose more matches becouse balance is not perfect, there some bugs present or he didn't buy dlc. He will just play against different people than he would in a perfect world but still with about 50% winrate. And whether he wins a particular match on this level or not is still up to him and his skill.

I just thing that if somebody doesn't understand how the game creates the illusion of fairness he should educate himself instead of complaining. Its his problem, not games.

i would pay so much money to get the brits removed...


rest is ok

+1

Well, I'd remove m3a1, demo, change Maxims and give riflemen only 1 Lmg. Nerf calli, reduce volks shrek range, stop unit clumping, spread out the maps, add received acccuracy nerf for all blobs and a few other things too.

but yeah, f*ck the Brits and their emplacements BS.

"Boycotting" a video game because the developers aren't doing what you want them to do is pretty silly. If you don't like the game, either work to make it better or just don't play it. You don't need anybody's approval to stop playing the game.

They both involve the same thing, just boycotting also noisily tells everyone they're doing it. Which won't ever not sound silly when you say it out loud when the thing is a video game.

"Boycotting" a video game because the developers aren't doing what you want them to do is pretty silly.

Like creating usefull content, bug-free patches, tests before patches and not random balance changes? Yeah, pretty silly. Its also fun to see, how even the worst indie game company usually listen to community much more then relic.

If you don't like the game, either work to make it better or just don't play it. You don't need anybody's approval to stop playing the game.

Work hard like all ppl who create data-bases for free, mods for free, bug hunting, competitive and non biased balance suggestions. Work harder and ... be ignored by relic, because they have their own view on problem and they dont give a shit about what you think.

Still, I think its better to leave game or accept that CoH2 team is very far from being decent and it seems they are fine with that, so with every single patch there will be new shitty broken things.

Let's see why they deserve the silent treatment from the community;

- Insulting and disrespecting the community
- Manipulating by promising free stuff (new brit docs, MNWL skins) but not actually delivering
- Not giving a damn that their game is completely broken now.
- Disregard for community feedback.
- Trolling, arbitrary wild balance changes (SU76, StuG, AEC etc)
- Extremely slow and timid; You want a simple buff for a forgotten unit? Well then it should be approved by the united nation first.

Relic really needs to reign in its community moderation. These Wehraboos in power really stifle discussion.

http://i.imgur.com/ZdQqSmv.png

http://i.imgur.com/tm88Qut.png

"Boycotting" a video game because the developers aren't doing what you want them to do is pretty silly. If you don't like the game, either work to make it better or just don't play it. You don't need anybody's approval to stop playing the game.

What? Boycotting and choosing to not buy is how we as consumers influence the marketplace. If we want CoH to change we have to be willing to use our power as the consumer.

Why should they listen to our complaints if we still buy the DLC, expansions, etc?

"Boycotting" and "not buying" aren't even close to the same thing. Boycotting is being obnoxious and public about not buying something, and trying to convince others to not buy that something. Going to that extent for a video game because its developers aren't doing what you want them to do is the silly thing.

If you don't like what Relic's doing and you feel that voicing your concerns is a waste of time, stop playing the game. If you think that justifies avoiding Relic games in the future, then don't buy Relic games in the future. But nothing Relic has done justifies organizing a boycott against them and their products.

Another day another gibberish posts from PenileBatRation.

you mean daspoulos right?

I am really sorry for starting this stupid thread. As a fan, you should support your favorite game, have some patience if things go wrong and appreciate the hard work the Devs have been doing for the game.


Even thinking about relic ending their support for the game makes me shiver.


LOCKED

They are going to abandon the game soon enough. I don't think it makes them enough money and is slowly bleeding players.

http://steamcharts.com/app/231430

Bleeding players, yet average player count rises and was higher then now only at release month.

+1

Well, I'd remove m3a1, demo, change Maxims and give riflemen only 1 Lmg. Nerf calli, reduce volks shrek range, stop unit clumping, spread out the maps, add received acccuracy nerf for all blobs and a few other things too.

but yeah, f*ck the Brits and their emplacements BS.

Or you could just have said "I'd nerf all allies" while pretending charts don't show all armies being more or less equal with axis being in advantage(yet again) in team games above 2s.

http://steamcharts.com/app/231430

Bleeding players, yet average player count rises and was higher then now only at release month.



Or you could just have said "I'd nerf all allies" while pretending charts don't show all armies being more or less equal with axis being in advantage(yet again) in team games above 2s.

Nerfs to the allies would mean we'd have to nerf the axis too. I'm not against that. My suggestions are to remove things that (to my mind) spoil the gameplay.

It's likely those changes would leave the allies too weak, so obviously we'd have to buff something else or nerf an axis unit if it became a problem afterwards.

The end aim would be fun gameplay without static defensive play being the meta. Does that sound objective?