Does anyone else think COH2 is a piece of shit?

I'll be brief.

Peer to peer and not server based.
Hilariously bad unit design and balance.

"i have a great idea! how about i got to the coh forums and smacktalk their game! yeah! i'll be sure to get tons of people on my side!"

ITT: another babby who thinks relic can get a game perfect on the release date- they never have; their balance and content his hilariously bad on release but after 6-7 years of support for the game it turns out really good

The only thing that is a piece of shit about coh2 forums are
-the crybaby russians
-people like you

In b4 lock.

The original COH feels superior in a lot of ways unfortunately. Especially with how infantry on infantry combat plays out.

I don't, I prefer COH2.

Aren't all RTS games peer 2 peer?

Movac you got 12 posts i bet u didnt even play coh1 and if u did i bet u compstomped... Fuking newbs dont even know how the game works , some1 beats them and they start complaining bout balance and shit
The game is great needs working yes but we will get there same as vCoH, no1 should ever bomb game with balance patches
Damn noobs

COH2 is perfectly fine, i heard Solitaire is pretty balanced, go check it out and don't come back.

Aren't all RTS games peer 2 peer?

Yes, in some way or another. Including Starcraft 2.

I started a counter-thread, titled what I thought the title of this was

...
ITT: another babby who thinks relic can get a game perfect on the release date- they never have; their balance and content his hilariously bad on release but after 6-7 years of support for the game it turns out really good
...

go and launch the "Company of Heroes (New Steam Version)" now..., and then tell me - where exactly it turned out really good after 7 years.

CoH2 kicks ass. Have a cry somewhere else or post a proper comment in balance discussion.

Can we get this poster moderated please? That gif was disgusting.

Aren't all RTS games peer 2 peer?

In very vague ways. In that it requires a connection to be established between a player and another party.

The difference is, Relic is pure peer 2 peer. The only server they have is one to facilitate players finding eachother, and to save stats, and I think they use Steam for all that. Everything else is up to the players.

Games like Battle For Middle Earth II, StarCraft II, Warcraft III, were all based on connections to a single host. If you couldn't connect to the host, you couldn't play. Your connections to other people didn't matter.

Think of it this way; In most games, all players connect to a single box. That box holds the game together and keeps things running. If the box fails, then the game either ends, or the players find a new box, depending on what the netcode is like. If a player can't connect to the box, then he can't play.

In Relic games, every single player is their own box. All boxes have to be connected to eachother. If a single box out of any of those boxes fails to connect to another one of the boxes, then the player gets kicked.

So instead of having 6 connections in a six player game, that are all stable, you have 30 connections all of varying stability.

As you can see, the more players you add, the bigger the problem gets. In a Relic game, if you jump for 3v3 to 4v4, you jump from 30 connections to 56.

The numbers might not be 100% correct because I didn't really take time to think about it, but that's the general gist of the difference between the standard player hosting system and the Relic p2p system.

The standard system is basically how everything works. If you ever join a Battlefield 3 server, you're using the standard system - somebody basically has a server somewhere that everybody needs to connect to in order to play.

* locked