A New DLC Plan - Buying Vetos

A thought I had: right now, you pay money to use extra content. The extra content is in your game either way, but if you want to load that new commander yourself, you have to pay for it.

What if everyone got all the content for free, but if you wanted to, you could pay to NOT have to play against it? Instead of paying for a new commander, you could pay for the option to veto it from your opponent's load out. Let's say for practical purposes you can only veto a max of two commanders.

Example - Relic releases the Tiger Ace. The Tiger Ace is horribly OP and dominates the game, cutting down on diversity and wrecking balance. You can't really avoid the Tiger Ace so you're stuck until a patch. Lots of people buy the new commander, but there's a negative effect on the game.

What if instead everyone got the Tiger Ace for free, but could pay to veto it? Relic would still make loads of money, but people would be spared from having to play against broken units. You can imagine the same solution for Advanced Emplacements.

You could do new maps this way too. Hate a map? Pay for the option to veto it.

I think its will be better to buy some vetos to veto more maps KappaClaus.

This is adding even more pay to win into the game right after Relic provide a "free" way to earn money to buy these previously premium units.

I just don't see a way of this working.

Relic could add it atop of the current system. You bought new commander and everyone else bought veto for this commander. Double rage - double money

This would add even more waiting time when searching for a map, I think. Take for example OKW, if you really dont like to play against OKW, and you veto their two most meta commanders,- in a faction that doesnt really have many commanders to begin with,- then you would have to wait for someone who has 3 of the other commanders.
So this does not only work in a way to prevent OP shit, but also in the way of pushing people out of their best options, even if they are not OP.
Same with too many map vetos. (However one or two more map vetos really shouldnt hurt)

And how would you implement this.

You veto for example SCAS and Tace doctrine. Enemy have both of them. They wouldn´t ever meet together or player that is having these commaders won´t be able to use them in match, resulting into one commader layout

A british veto.

That would be my C r a ck

This is easily one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of lol, why receive something for free in the first place since you can even use it at all?

That's like receiving a Porsche for free, but bound by law or something to not drive it on city roads for example, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

So instead of balancing the game, you make players pay to avoid using what was bought?

That's literally paying for DLC and right after paying to not use it.

OMFG NO!

Relic already puts a lot of bad maps in the rotation. Giving them a financial incentive to add more would be shit.

Imagine this:

For $2.99, you get 3 extra vetoes. Relic then adds the following maps:
Sittard Spring
Sittard Summer
Sittard Fall
Sittard Winter

Then they notice that nobody plays 4v4 anymore, so Relic adds these maps to 1v1 & 2v2:
Sittard City Center Spring
Sittard City Center Summer
Sittard City Center Fall
Sittard City Center Winter

And how would you implement this.

You veto for example SCAS and Tace doctrine. Enemy have both of them. They wouldn´t ever meet together or player that is having these commaders won´t be able to use them in match, resulting into one commader layout

They'd meet, but you can't use the commanders your opponent has vetoed.

If you consistently use commanders that are being vetoed it might be a sign that you're picking something like Advanced Emplacements. So I think it'd be on the person choosing that commander.

Guys, in my plan you would get DLC for free. You only pay for the option to veto it.

What's worse for the game - paying to have the release Tiger Ace REMOVED from the game, or a situation where anyone who wants the release Tiger Ace just has to pay $3.99, and there's no way to avoid it?

They'd meet, but you can't use the commanders your opponent has vetoed.

If you consistently use commanders that are being vetoed it might be a sign that you're picking something like Advanced Emplacements. So I think it'd be on the person choosing that commander.

Guys, in my plan you would get DLC for free. You only pay for the option to veto it.

What's worse for the game - paying to have the release Tiger Ace REMOVED from the game, or a situation where anyone who wants the release Tiger Ace just has to pay $3.99, and there's no way to avoid it?

But there are also 2(3) factions you can play against and only 2 vetoes. This for example can means you will almost always get free win against OKW because they have like 2 useful commaders and not too much options to chose from

This will get support from the people who feel butthurt by the UKF.

And criticism from anyone with the intelligence above that of a lettuce leaf.

In essence you would be giving Relic an incentive to release unbalanced DLC to order to make people avoid it. Like a pharmaceutical company releasing a virus upon the world then selling the vaccine

Next step: CoH2 Moba Edition.
Game selects opponents and offers 3 maps, each side bans one. Then we go to the commander draft ban.

Even if what i said is a joke, the concept of vetoing "can work" but not in the current CoH2. You'll have to standardize the amount of commanders (decrease EFA and increase WFA/UKF, depending on how many vetoes per side) and make a system which lets you pick your commanders after ban draft.

This will get support from the people who feel butthurt by the UKF.

And criticism from anyone with the intelligence above that of a lettuce leaf.

In essence you would be giving Relic an incentive to release unbalanced DLC to order to make people avoid it. Like a pharmaceutical company releasing a virus upon the world then selling the vaccine

There is already a rather obvious incentive to release unbalanced DLC.

What hurts the game more more- an OP unit, or a unit that gets removed? The OP unit hurts the game more, because an OP unit eclipses all others. You will always see it.

Same with commanders - a commander being removed will not hurt the game much, but a single commander with an obnoxious ability will wreak havoc for months.

A british veto.

That would be my C r a ck

+ 1000

I would actually pay real world money for this,( you hear me relic, i will give you money for brit veto )

How about we all donate a few dollars/euros/rubles/bitcoins/cake and just buy off the COH2 from relic, so we can just fix it once and for all? Veto relic?