Biggest Concern for COH 2

About snipers - it's not to fair that Wehr has an advantage in sniper wars, Wehr player has as sniper as anti-sniper (bike) in T1. US player has only expensive shitty jeep (compare to bike) in T1.

And I think RO2 is ok - yeah, not so hardcore as RO1 but really interesting. I play RO2 even now

How does snipers not cloacking nerf sniperspam?

I think it would make it more difficult to do but players who spam 3 or 4 snipers usually run around uncloaked with a bike anyway.

Sniperspam right now is nerfed because snipers don't shoot when you use the attack move button, you have to target manually Which means you need to micro more and in general they'll be less effective because you can't simply "A-click" with them and retreat and repeat it forever

Well that would only nerf counter-sniping I think the bit would be just they wouldn't be able to creep up and would be easier targets then.

But we'll see the full extent of things in the beta.

Nothing wrong with easy to play. What makes a game hard ultimately is the competition provided by other players.

Nothing wrong with easy to play. What makes a game hard ultimately is the competition provided by other players.

Not really. If the game is too easy and the skill ceiling is low, you'd get a lot of "top" players, but the games would be decided by luck or stupid mistakes. Imagine tic-tac-toe tournament.

I want to clarify terms. Firstly too easy in regard to what specifically and low skill ceiling in regards to which skills?

micromanagement is just as much a part of a strategy game as the other components you listed up. COH1 was already extremely low on micromanagement. Reducing it even more will leave almost no room anymore to distinguish between good and great players.

This. If you don't like micro management, remember this is a RTS: REAL TIME strategy. If you want slow paced; you should invest more time in games like Chess, Total War games, and Civ5.

Not really. If the game is too easy and the skill ceiling is low, you'd get a lot of "top" players, but the games would be decided by luck or stupid mistakes. Imagine tic-tac-toe tournament.

Men of War has a clunky interface, and it takes a while just to learn how to preform simple tasks (re supplying your troops, repairing stuff, making defenses, mastering direct control, etc) then you still have to learn the tactics of the game, which are much more complex than those in CoH.

SC2 is a really easy game to understand. You make workers, build structures, build units, expand, and attack. All with just simple hotkey memorization and a little bit of clicking. Does this mean SC2 has a low skill ceiling? Hell no.

I want to clarify terms. Firstly too easy in regard to what specifically and low skill ceiling in regards to which skills?

I've meant that it shouldn't be too easy to execute perfect play. With less than 40 CPMs required to play CoH well, just few reasonable teching paths, and maps that force always the same positioning and strats there's almost no difference between good and top tier players in CoH. At least it's not big enough to compensate for a bad luck roll.

Low skill is just that - low skill all around (micro, macro, tactical reasoning). CoH is ridiculously easy as it is atm.

SC2 is a really easy game to understand. You make workers, build structures, build units, expand, and attack. All with just simple hotkey memorization and a little bit of clicking. Does this mean SC2 has a low skill ceiling? Hell no.

Easy to understand, but hard to play well. You need a lot more multitasking and almost triple APMs than in CoH to play SC2 at top level. And CoH is a lot easier to play than SC2 - no workers, less buildings, arguably less possible strategic and tactical decisions.

The SC2 analogy is a good one. Imo, you have a heap on stupid work to do (building a lot of building, workers, units). This doesn't add anything to the game other than pumping up the APM-count.

On topic, though: The sniper mechanic is rather nice in Coh1, but I think it's good to see camouflage being linked to cover. Cloaked storms, cloaked paks and cloaked M18s were a bit stupid...

And I bet with all that weather, ice and true line of sight, the game will be hard enough to master.

Greets
Schepp himself

In nearly all the tournaments I've run all of the top 8 seeds generally make it to the top 8. There is clearly a difference between the different levels of players.

Ah yes! the 5 S build ack to B00g

I've meant that it shouldn't be too easy to execute perfect play. With less than 40 CPMs required to play CoH well, just few reasonable teching paths, and maps that force always the same positioning and strats there's almost no difference between good and top tier players in CoH. At least it's not big enough to compensate for a bad luck roll.

Low skill is just that - low skill all around (micro, macro, tactical reasoning). CoH is ridiculously easy as it is atm.

The cpm skill comparison for CoH vs SC2 is invalid. In SC2 most of your commands are just hotkeying your buildings and keeping a steady production. Then the tactical micro isn't really that much. The best of the best are obviously much quicker, but for 90% of SC2 players its as simple as selecting a blob, tabbing to the unit you want, and pressing a key. CoH micro doesn't require as much keyboard pounding, but still needs fast reactions and good multi tasking (unless you are content being subpar player).

More tactical reasoning? Lolno. Definitely more strategic diversity since there is many more units and abilities, but it doesn't need a smarter person to do it. It definitely takes more knowledge of meta game and experience, but becoming acquainted with the game =/= better tactical reasoning.

If it is as easy as you describe it to be, I can expect to see you make the SNF semis, right?

The cpm skill comparison for CoH vs SC2 is invalid. In SC2 most of your commands are just hotkeying your buildings and keeping a steady production. Then the tactical micro isn't really that much. The best of the best are obviously much quicker, but for 90% of SC2 players its as simple as selecting a blob, tabbing to the unit you want, and pressing a key. CoH micro doesn't require as much keyboard pounding, but still needs fast reactions and good multi tasking (unless you are content being subpar player).

More tactical reasoning? Lolno. Definitely more strategic diversity since there is many more units and abilities, but it doesn't need a smarter person to do it. It definitely takes more knowledge of meta game and experience, but becoming acquainted with the game =/= better tactical reasoning.

If it is as easy as you describe it to be, I can expect to see you make the SNF semis, right?

*ahem* I think you picked on th wrong guy here.....Nonseii was pre-COHO and neat with his US flanking....Also a Strategy Specialist on GR....

But not a tournament winner

But not a tournament winner

True, but i've beaten more than one tournament winner... and that wouldn't happen in SC2. I don't claim that i'm top player, but i've been more than solid lvl 16 with vcoh armies, and even top10 wehr and american when I had the time to play more. And i'm almost 40 yo with a job, wife and kids.

I'm arguing that difference between good (ie lvl16) and top players should be greater. If anyone can get almost as good as CoH experts with not so serious practicing that's bad for a game as e-sport. Look at the amount of dedication and practicing that's required to become good in SC2 and compare it with CoH. People (spectators) admire the skill and dedication of top players because it's extraordinary, not merely slightly better.

The cpm skill comparison for CoH vs SC2 is invalid. In SC2 most of your commands are just hotkeying your buildings and keeping a steady production. Then the tactical micro isn't really that much. The best of the best are obviously much quicker, but for 90% of SC2 players its as simple as selecting a blob, tabbing to the unit you want, and pressing a key. CoH micro doesn't require as much keyboard pounding, but still needs fast reactions and good multi tasking (unless you are content being subpar player).

More tactical reasoning? Lolno. Definitely more strategic diversity since there is many more units and abilities, but it doesn't need a smarter person to do it. It definitely takes more knowledge of meta game and experience, but becoming acquainted with the game =/= better tactical reasoning.

If it is as easy as you describe it to be, I can expect to see you make the SNF semis, right?

Just goes to show how you have never played sc2/couldn't get out of bronze league, congratz.

True, but i've beaten more than one tournament winner... and that wouldn't happen in SC2. I don't claim that i'm top player, but i've been more than solid lvl 16 with vcoh armies, and even top10 wehr and american when I had the time to play more. And i'm almost 40 yo with a job, wife and kids.

I'm arguing that difference between good (ie lvl16) and top players should be greater. If anyone can get almost as good as CoH experts with not so serious practicing that's bad for a game as e-sport. Look at the amount of dedication and practicing that's required to become good in SC2 and compare it with CoH. People (spectators) admire the skill and dedication of top players because it's extraordinary, not merely slightly better.

Coh is a random numbers game. Anyone decent can beat a top player with a little luck and something going hhis way. But it will only happen like 1 in 100. Levels mean nothing in coh. Anyone who can be fucked spamming games can be level 16++. All that matters is tiurnies really. That's where the best come out to play.

Just goes to show how you have never played sc2/couldn't get out of bronze league, congratz.

Have you ever played? Making gold league is as simple as improving your macro mechanics with a basic BO from TL. If you are trying to learn MLG tacitcal micro techniques before you have good enough macro mechanics to make gold, you are doing it wrong.

True, but i've beaten more than one tournament winner... and that wouldn't happen in SC2. I don't claim that i'm top player, but i've been more than solid lvl 16 with vcoh armies, and even top10 wehr and american when I had the time to play more. And i'm almost 40 yo with a job, wife and kids.

I'm arguing that difference between good (ie lvl16) and top players should be greater. If anyone can get almost as good as CoH experts with not so serious practicing that's bad for a game as e-sport. Look at the amount of dedication and practicing that's required to become good in SC2 and compare it with CoH. People (spectators) admire the skill and dedication of top players because it's extraordinary, not merely slightly better.

Yeah there is more competition for SC2, but that doesn't mean that the top CoH players aren't very good compared to the rest. I beat level 16s all the time, some of them kinda easily...but I've only come close to beating a regular SNF player one or two times. And how little you play CoH doesn't really matter, because believe it or not most of the top CoH players don't play 40 hours a week. Aimstrong is one of them. He usually just comes out of the woodwork when a tournament or SNF is upcoming, and is still good enough to beat Symbiosis 3-0.

CoH takes a lot less practice compared to SC2. For one, the smaller pool of units and tech paths lets you learn the meta game pretty fast if you put any effort in to it. But because SC2 has almost infinitely strategic diversity (and more balance patches) you need to stay active to know the current meta game. And the mechanics of the game are just different. If you get rusty at SC2, you have a LOT of work ahead of you when you try to start playing again. But CoH is similar to riding a bike, you never really forget how to play....making a return can be done in just a few days.