Petition for my 60 bucks back

This is going to be long and I tried to post my thoughts on the game in another post, but I wasn't logged in and lost the text.

At any rate, I honestly can say that I want my money back on this game. Is there any way I can get it? Through Steam or something? It just plain and simple, isn't very fun. Certainly not nearly as much fun as other games on the market and leaps and bounds behind the first game which came out over 6 years ago. I also feel as if I was lead to believe that this game would have more in it than I actually paid for. Basically, I feel duped into purchasing something that was not what I had been promised.

From that I will continue on with my thoughts on the game after MANY MANY matches.

Technical -

I don't understand what is so challenging about making a smooth running game. P2P has basically made 1 out of 3 matches completely unplayable. This is a result of a game depending not solely on the connection of the other player but, because this game is for some reason so resource tasking, the system of the other player as well. This is incessantly frustrating. I can't be asked to sit down and play a 30 minute game that doesn't run smoothly. This is 2013 - not 2006. There has been a complete and utter regression from the first game in so far as the not just graphics but the smoothness of the playing experience.

As far as the weather and FPS rates in the game. At the end of the beta I voiced my opinion that the blizzards were just really awful and added a lot of pain and frustration to the experience because it downgrades the technical fluidity of the game and shifts balance way too much. On top of that, the blizzards effect FPS rates way too much. I have the following specs:

Core I7
16 GB RAM
ATI 7850 1GB (I know this is a mid-range card but still)

At 1080 res/60 hz with AA and VSYNC off and all other settings low I get max 48 fps, bottoming out to 11.8 fps and averaging about 22 fps. When do you think I see the most significant frame drops? That's rhetorical.

The sunny maps are infinitely more balanced and fluid. They actually feel not only like COH but a competitive strategy game where both sides have equal opportunities to prevail. Blizzards don't provide this and I will tell you why. The balance of this game depends heavily on the ability to deal with certain units. Infantry are very valuable in this game and blizzards make them less valuable and more fragile to the many units on the field that can instantly hinder their effectiveness (mortars, tanks, mg's, flamers, snipers in clown cars). The most valuable AT in the game for the Osteer is the Panzergrenadier with an absurd 120 munitions cost for shreks that fall on the ground very often. Right now in the current state, this is the most valuable AT to stop the SU85 rush. Blizzards ruin line of sight (not really for the SU85) and will constantly lower the health of the PG's rendering them extra fragile when they are already fragile (and because they may drop a shrek and literally end the game) or risky to begin with. The weather simply effects balance too much. In a heated and contested game the weather favors the soviets at this stage. Now, can the weather be balanced? I guess, but I'm skeptical since it was put into the game without much foresight in regards to how it would effect gameplay from a balance perspective. Relic simply has too much on their plate I think and lacks people that think in a critical way about their product. At least, at this moment, that's what it seems like. They have yet to release a patch that deals with weather effects in the game, and I honestly don't see them having the ability to address this...what with qduffy running around with his favorite mortar units and all.

To sum that long, somewhat rambling, part up, I simply don't want to play on snow maps with blizzards. I would rather just exit the game and try for a sunny map the next time because I feel that I'm being cheated in the snow maps and tbh, there's no recourse for quitting without a ladder. I imagine it's the same for many of you others out there. It is a fundamental problem for any game when people do not want to play it. Sure some maps can be unfavorable (many of them in this game are just horrible btw - especially in team games) but we, as players, have no way to disregard the filth and compete on a fun/level playing field assuming the player doesn't want to play custom games. As a suggestion, Relic could take a step from COD and put in place a map voting system at the game start - say 2 map choices and a random. This would provide them with valuable feedback about what maps the community favors and lets us as players participate in a democratic process of some sort.

There are many random, quirky technical "kinks" in this game. It's klunky overall and screams that it does not have the polish that even the first game had at the start. A few issues I can mention (and feel free to add some in the responses) off the top of my head are:

1. Mgs setting up immediately after they get out of a building.

2. The commands in this game are clunky. Sometimes I have to click "B" twice to get a barrage ability to come up on a mortar. Sometimes I have to hit "E" a few times before the circle appears to faust or throw a nade. Sometimes it takes a couple of clicks to get a commander ability out (such as a strafe or something). It'll start the motion and then completely not complete the command and reset. What the hell is wrong with rifle grenade cancelling? I have voiced this concern and was met with "we think it's a bug and hope they will fix". That isn't good enough for my 60 bucks and to be honest, it shouldn't be for yours (90 or something for those of you who purchased the CE). Right now the rifle grenade cancel takes both the munitions and the reload time. This is ludicrous to have been carrying on from the beta.

3. The pathing in this game is just deplorable. I don't know how it could be worse from the last game - but it really is. My units do some very strange things like jumping into fire, tanks circling into heavier slower snow for no reason. I like the reverse key. That's a great addition.


Gameplay and Balance

So this last patch changed things a bit and I understand that Relic is "committed to this game for the long haul". This, at least I hope, means that critical decisions about balancing the game and providing a fairer experience for both sides (and streamlined for team games - all the way to 4v4 - which is something they could never do with vcoh: OF). Tuning units and whatnot is fine my critique stems from the fact that Relic doesn't appear to be thinking about the overall metagame that they want us to be a part of. I think it's a fundamental necessity of this series that Relic have some sort of vision that they see each game progression to. This is very simple and I'll use VCOH (Wehr vs Ami) as an example of how Relic did this pretty well:

In VCoH (again Wehr vs Ami) the games usually flowed somewhat like this, all skills being somewhat equal -

The Ami had a slight advantage early while the Wehr had to usually consolidate their units. There were tactical decisions that effected micro and teching (nades, bars, quick m8) and the Wehr had to respond and certainly had the options to do so at his/her disposal. T2-T3-T4 all had their merits for each faction and they were applicable to each situation in the game REGARDLESS OF DOCTRINE with the exception of T3-Blitz which was a very powerful strat that relied on a call in unit for early-mid game AT. On the other side, the Ami's had Rangers/Paras for the same sort of AT capability from a call in unit (Soviets have this, Osteer have NOTHING like this). This greatly enhanced the strategic possibilities in the game (basically made it more fun). The Wehr had to not necessarily survive but play a little more conservatively until they could get units out from t3 or t4 that made them more aggressive putting them at an advantage. Wehr T4 was awesome, every unit useful. Both sides had end game armor that was useful - both as call ins and from T4 buildings.

If you push on to present day with COH2 there is no sort of thought out fluidity to the meta game that works like this. The Soviets SCREAM right from the start of the game -GO GO GO GO GO GO. Their units are not intended for consolidation in a small area of the map that maintains resources. The Ostheer seem to work the way Wehr worked in VCoH and Relic has made changes to make them stronger in this capacity to take down the waves of conscripts etc (4 man MGs, lmg42's that fire only when stationary). About the 15-20 minute mark, if the Osteer has maintained a decent amount of resources they can get their best unit out - The P4. In a typical game this will do one of two things. If the Soviet has made the egregious error of going t3 he will be put back on the defensive a bit or figure out a way to deal with the P4 collectively as not one unit will counter it. This system seems somewhat similar to VCOH. If a Soviet wants to win, he/she would just get an SU-85. I haven't exactly figured out the timing on the SU85. I've gotten them out as quick as 10-15 minutes. The SU85 realistically trumps anything the Wehr might have which instantly shifts the metagame putting the Wehr back on the defensive. The only problem is, they don't have anything right now that can realistically deal with the SU85. People will say "OH YOU CAN GET THE PAK43 OR AN ELEPHANT"...If the Soviet is forcing you into a doctrinal choice for your own self-preservation from a base-built unit, this is a balance problem. I was never pigeon-holed by a few m10's in VCoH forcing me to hope I can get to a Tiger Ace before the game ended. By the way, all late game heavy tanks for both factions in this game suck. They are supposed to be like fun toys you get for persisting through a tough game. We, as players, rarely get to use them. They should be useful. Right now, they aren't useful/feasible in most games therefore I'm not having a fun experience.

So to sum up the current meta game with the SU85, the Early game is somewhat balanced I guess with both sides having equal opportunity. The Soviets are faster and more mobile, have multiple upgrades to conscripts that make them really adept at fighting multiple untis, they have loads of MP to spare which shows up many times in the mid-late game as they can build OP's or just have excess units sitting around. There is about a 5 minute window where the Ostheer have a bit of an advantage. Against infantry, the PG's work well, plain of course, The P4 is a great unit but as soon as the SU85 comes out the momentum shifts to the Soviets creating a third transition in the game. There is no fourth transition usually because VPS and resources become an issue as the Soviets amass units and the army's start to get very lopsided. In my opinion, as far as the meta game goes, the Osteer should have a late game tank destroyer that is as good if not better than the SU85. The T34 should be better against tanks but I'm not sure how much better because the P4 either needs a move to t4 with some other unit being a decent multi-use AI and AT weapon or the stug needs to have way more viability than it does. Right now, I don't think the game has a unit that would make this work. The Panther was supposedly useful some time ago, before I started the beta. It isn't now. It's range renders it ineffective against SU85's. It's cost and the other units in T4 being somewhat useless (perhaps maybe the stuka is ok - it won't win the game for you in most cases) renders bypassing a p4 a risky/dumb decision.

I realize what I'm saying is a bit lost in translation for some of you. Try picturing the meta game of VCoH as being a 3 round fight inside each individual match - early, mid, late. Each side had advantages. R1 - Ami, R2 - Wehr, R3 - Up for grabs based on 1 and 2. This game seems to have about 2 and a half. There is a small window for the second where the Osteer have a clear advantage all things being equal. The third round clearly goes to the Soviets with the SU85's ability to trump all other late game armor. Again, I reiterate that a doctrine should not be a necessity for victory. Can a strategy incorporate one to make it better? Absolutely, in fact, that's what makes them awesome. I shouldn't HAVE to choose one to deal with an individual base-built unit.

Thanks for reading and I'm serious about my 60 bucks so if someone knows a way to get it back please let me know.

Ohhh Dave...

Come to vent and play more CoH2.

Ofc it has its issues but compare where CoH2 is now to where CoH was during this same timeframe (1 month after release). Its balance and bugs are quite a bit better than CoH1 was not to mention the release of OF and ToV units. There are no ladders or any reason to take the game seriously in any way so just play for some fun for now. It will get better and lots more maps are yet to come, just grab a brew and relax.

I like you Budwise.

I would but I always have felt the need to critically advocate for fairness. That being said, I also hate, HATE to lose. That's just who I am. It's terrible conundrum to be in because I don't want to sit there and play Soviets because I feel that they are very easy to use (in team games x200), but I have a fetish about winning and fairness. I'd be happy to sit there and play as Soviets. I'm much more relaxed and I empathize with my opponents, but at the end of the day it's justice that I want. I want the game to succeed and be a fun experience for everyone that plays. I want to be good (relative term) at a game that is recognized for being a competitive game like SC2 or LoL or anything like that.

My main complaint is vehicle crushing rules. P4's and Ostwinds can't run over trees. They are supposed to be the ultimate killing machines yet they can't run over a little tree stump. lol

Fairly certain you can get your money back from a product on Steam, but that requires the game to plainly not work, be broken beyond belief or not being anything close to what's advertised. CoH2 doesn't fall in either of these categories.

I would but I always have felt the need to critically advocate for fairness. That being said, I also hate, HATE to lose. That's just who I am. It's terrible conundrum to be in because I don't want to sit there and play Soviets because I feel that they are very easy to use (in team games x200), but I have a fetish about winning and fairness. I'd be happy to sit there and play as Soviets. I'm much more relaxed and I empathize with my opponents, but at the end of the day it's justice that I want. I want the game to succeed and be a fun experience for everyone that plays. I want to be good (relative term) at a game that is recognized for being a competitive game like SC2 or LoL or anything like that.

Just a comment to this: if you want to get better, learn to take a loss. Nobody likes to lose, but if you want to improve as a player, think less about balance and more on what you could have done differently after losing a game. This game might have some rather glaring balance issues at the moment, but thinking "blargh, <insert faction/unit> op zomg" after a loss never helps.
..I just felt compelled to add that after too much time as a strategy specialist on GR. :V

Eh, I kinda feel the opposite, as I mostly play 2v2.

There are lots of map-dependent problems, but mostly I find that it's really hard to slow Ostheer down much. With the patch changes to clown cars, scout cars and Flamenwurfers are much bigger problems then they were before, and you can easily lose a fuel as Soviet. If you go T1 to deal with MGs using flamer cars, you won't be able to lay the mines you need to unless you sacrifice another conscript to make another engineer who will be tasked with mine-laying. Guards in cars are really risky, I've lost more than half the squad chasing Flamenwurfer/scout car combos...Then the PZivs come out, and Ostheer can faust and then flank an SU-85 pretty easily with a PzIV. And if that PZiv already has vet, it's even easier and you don't even need the faust.

Rifle nades are absolute beasts, while shock and guard nades are totally random in their impact. In fact I don't even bother with bundled nades now, I just use rifle nades. They're really overpowered for the current cost, especially since there's a not minute chance they will just bring down a building.

Soviet AT is useless...Fighting heavy support is very, very hard since the Soviet sniper remains decloaked so much faster. Those new fast-firing mortars devastate infantry...

And basically you're forced to go a Guards doctrine even though the late-game Soviet tanks would be really, really useful to have any chance of maintaining map control mid game with HTD and guards...

Generally, I also think Soviets require a lot more, and a lot better micro than Ostheer. You know the way a single early Wehr mistake would cost you the game in COH? Well it seems to be sort of like that, except for the entire game with Soviet. One bad pathing turn or misclick of an SU-85 is going to cost you the game, and that's a real problem. It seems far easier to lose conscripts than grens or higher-health Pgrens when you look away for a second and suddenly a rifle nade has devastated your squad...

Balance is never perfect at launch and if you dont like snow maps just quit when they come up.
With all the "community requested" features coming up it is likely to see a map selection pool before playing.

Oh and asking for refunds is so dumb. Only a couple of times steam has accepted refunds and that was for completely broken games like WarZ.
Most of the issues youre talking about are balance and maps, both of which who will get fixed over time.
You want a refund because you find the meta game broken? thats laughable

I still think people are missing the point. Relic didn't "promise" us anything, so you haven't been lied to (individual Relic employee statements don't count). Maybe the game didn't live up to your expectations, I'll give you that. That's an opinion though, and you are totally entitled to it.

You probably won't get your 60 bucks back, but you can trade games on Steam (Trading Beta).

I agree there is quite a bit of lag with p2p. It is a huge problem making micro impossible. This does need a serious look into as does performance.

I agree there is quite a bit of lag with p2p. It is a huge problem making micro impossible. This does need a serious look into as does performance.

P2P lag seems to be alot worse then in COH1. Units are so unresponsive sometimes. About the performance, I personally don't have any issues. But alot of people seem to struggle with it. Let's wait until Nvidia/AMD release a proper driver for this game, as they haven't done that yet.

A well constructed and thoughtful post.

I really have no idea why anyone bought this game as a pre-order or immediately at release given the state of the beta. If you wanted a competitive, balanced game (on day 1, no less) there were plenty of signs and even pretty explicit statements from Relic that it wasn't going to happen. Maybe I'll pick up the game on Steam Sale if it goes down, but likely I'll keep playing the vastly superior in nearly every possible way CoH.

My main complaint is vehicle crushing rules. P4's and Ostwinds can't run over trees. They are supposed to be the ultimate killing machines yet they can't run over a little tree stump. lol

I heard there are issues with crushing certain types of trees. Like tree X winter version might crush by a tank, but the same tank can't run over the same tree on spring or summer version. Its being worked on now from what I know, and most trees should be crushable by medium tanks in the future.

I want to add this to the list to bugs/technical features that really degrade this game and keep this discussion going -

Sometimes fausts do 0 damage to m3 clown cars from the rear. 0...STILL

I really have no idea why anyone bought this game as a pre-order or immediately at release given the state of the beta. If you wanted a competitive, balanced game (on day 1, no less) there were plenty of signs and even pretty explicit statements from Relic that it wasn't going to happen. Maybe I'll pick up the game on Steam Sale if it goes down, but likely I'll keep playing the vastly superior in nearly every possible way CoH.

Now that's a good post, I can agree with. You might not like CoH2, but you made an informed choice and stuck with it. Simple as that. We knew what we were getting all along. There are no excuses.

I'm not saying Dave's post is wrong or misinformed, but he did have a wide window of opportunity to cancel a pre-order/not buy it.

Generally, I also think Soviets require a lot more, and a lot better micro than Ostheer. You know the way a single early Wehr mistake would cost you the game in COH? Well it seems to be sort of like that, except for the entire game with Soviet. One bad pathing turn or misclick of an SU-85 is going to cost you the game, and that's a real problem. It seems far easier to lose conscripts than grens or higher-health Pgrens when you look away for a second and suddenly a rifle nade has devastated your squad...

You can think that it's your opinion...but you would be wrong and the statistics would prove you incorrect I believe. Do Soviets require MORE micro overall? Yes, but that's because they have more units on the field that depending on the time of the game do much more devastating damage...not really a fair trade.

Now that's a good post, I can agree with. You might not like CoH2, but you made an informed choice and stuck with it. Simple as that. We knew what we were getting all along. There are no excuses.

I'm not saying Dave's post is wrong or misinformed, but he did have a wide window of opportunity to cancel a pre-order/not buy it.

The title is to grab your attention.

Currently this game is not worth 60 bucks. Every review I've read reflects this as well as my own individual playing experience.

Furthermore my grounds for claiming I want my money back DO NOT stem from balance issues. Bad games are bad games and there's suckers who buy bad games. Because the first one was really good there are a lot of suckers here today. My beef comes from the technical issues with the game. Simply put, the requirements to run this game that are posted are misleading. This is an unpolished and underdeveloped game forced into release with a limited budget. The criteria stated to run this game smoothly (I don't think averaging 30 fps at 1080 with my pc is too hard to ask with no dropoffs during weather - it's not Crysis 3) does not transition to the actual game experience. This is misleading information and grounds for claiming that I want my money back.

Just a comment to this: if you want to get better, learn to take a loss. Nobody likes to lose, but if you want to improve as a player, think less about balance and more on what you could have done differently after losing a game. This game might have some rather glaring balance issues at the moment, but thinking "blargh, <insert faction/unit> op zomg" after a loss never helps.
..I just felt compelled to add that after too much time as a strategy specialist on GR. :V

I can take a loss just fine. Well, strike that, I can't but that's a different issue. I can fully accept a loss all things being equal and just being outplayed. I fully congratulate people that win vs me as Ostheer in both 1v1s, 2v2s, 3v3s, & 4v4s. But when things don't work like they're supposed to and this ends up in a loss - like two fausts doing 0 damage to a scout car for example - I feel like I've been somewhat cheated (not really the best word) out of an opportunity for the gratification of winning. Unfortunately too many things in this game simply don't work to create an enjoyable atmosphere of equal competition. On top of that, most of these people spamming Soviets today think they're really good because they can win with ease yet fail to even see the side of the opponent.

These entitlement posts are so funny. I remember when you would buy a game cartridge and there was no such thing as post-launch support. If you didn't like the game, there were no forums in which you could whine about it, and there were no Gameshops to trade it in. Also, I've dumped plenty of quarters into crap arcade cabinets. Either you enjoy the developers' vision and rulesets or you don't. I have countless games I won't finish or that I have tossed aside but I initially bought most games because I was interested in the product or premise. If a game failed my inner child's ADD, at least there was the hope that my money would help the company develop an improved sequel.

These days, I love when developers want to support their games and even offer additional content and patchwork. But with this entitlement attitude, you seem to imply that if you don't enjoy the entire game, the developing company should just fail and hand back everyone their precious monies. Please don't encourage the lemmings.

Don't get me wrong as I'm not attempting to troll you personally and I can sympathise with much of your thoughtful post, but I get depressed reading all of these defamatory and slanderous Headers and Posts. It only adds more fuel to the unfounded flamers out there.

If you want your money back, go work a few hours and earn it back. Regard your 60 as a small personal loss, yet a contribution to the community in good faith that the company will only improve. Instead think of all the money lost to the shit you put in your mouth. I don't get a picket sign out and demand McDonlds give me a refund every time my freedom fries are cold or I get the dire runs. I simply stop giving them more money and on the plus I stay regular. c'est la vie!

I heard there are issues with crushing certain types of trees. Like tree X winter version might crush by a tank, but the same tank can't run over the same tree on spring or summer version. Its being worked on now from what I know, and most trees should be crushable by medium tanks in the future.

Here are the list of tanks that can crush trees:

Wehr
Panther
Tiger
Elefant

Soviets
IS-2
IS-2-152
KV-8

I once had a vet 3 SU-85 crush a tree and then I tried to run over another one and it wouldn't. lol That was on a summer map.

At least CoH1 crush made more sense.