Mirror Match

Unless the factions are created so asymmetrically that skills from one faction won't necessarily translate to another(i.e. comparing terran and zerg), you honestly need to play more than one faction at a relatively high level to understand the inner workings of the faction. However, the ability to focus primarily on just one faction means that even though you can play the other factions at a high level, you'll be able to play your main faction at the highest level. Which, in turn, elevates the level of play overall.
For that reason, specialists are often not quite on level with a somewhat-less-of-a-specialist, at least from what I've experienced.

And forcing a player to master two armies won't elevate the level of player overall by giving him a deeper insight into not just one both both armies ? By allowing mirror matches you do create a much more narrow player. And also one who might be a bit more limited when it comes to providing feedback for balance since they will only consider one side of the argument.

Again, it's a design issue more than anything else. TvT is/was one of the deepest match-ups in SC2, providing each player with a massive variety of options and styles. Terran was, by far, the best designed faction of that game, though. Contrast that with protoss mirrors, and then consider how well protoss were designed compared to terran.

Obviously it's still going to be harder to design around mirror matches, but if that's something Relic has had in mind all along, it could still work out if they're wary of what they're doing. And according from what I've heard from people that tried the alpha, they didn't experience any problems with the mirrors contra asymmetrical matches. Thus, I'm optimistic, though still open to removing mirrors if they turn out to be crap/too much work.

So me pointing out that they were bloody boring doesn't count for anything ? And wouldn't it rather be the point to balance the game and design it around the asymmetrical gameplay. That is the more dynamic of the gameplay modes. And rather what fits in more with the first CoH.

And you do risk that things which do not work in mirror matches but work well in asymetrical matchups could result in things getting removed. Simply for the sake of the mirror match.

Focusing on playing only one faction doesn't make you truly understand that faction because you will play vs mirror and other faction. Both has different approaches, Ost vs Ost will not be same Ost vs SU or SU vs SU.

For months on Facebook and on every other public channel Relic stressing on the Eastern Front historical figures of casualties, fact etc then creating a game SU vs Su. Lol.

The only arguement is repeating the "competitive, e-sport" words like x1000. Some people really thinks that Mirror willmake COh2 worldwide popular like Sc or Wow, 100 million online players etc just because it allows mirror. Yeah sure.

Seriously, COH is best because of it's dynamics and authenticity. Mirror is gonna kill it and all you gonna have a tasteless game but uber duper competitive geek player community.

Have fun, I'm not gonna be a part of this.

I am 100% behind mirror matching in Company of Heroes 2. I thought it was ridiculously stupid when Relic removed it from the CoH beta, it's always fun in my opinion to have more diversity in a RTS over historical accuracy. At the end of the day we're talking about a game.

Alpha testers got a taste of mirror matching (nothing NDA breaking here), and I didn't see any real complaining about it. The vast majority of people complaining about the concept seem to be people who simply haven't tried the game yet.

I would highly advise that Relic stick to their guns on this, and keep mirrors in. With that said, I wouldn't mind if there was a quickmatch option for people to select that they only want to search for non-mirrors.

I disagree that players are significantly less deep if there are mirrors. They still have to learn two match ups at least, and whether or not mirrors are easier to learn than switching factions simply depends upon how the metagame evolves. Relative values, timings, build orders are all match up dependent; in a sense, you are playing a different faction when you play Americans vs. Wehr as opposed to Americans vs. PE.

However, I deeply object to the idea that mirrors will have any effect on competitive play. Chess requires the mastery of two very different sides; black and white are far more different from one another in practice than Americans and Wehr, yet all great chess masters master both sides.

In starcraft, mirror matches are the most boring matches by far,

Flash v. Ryung, Game 2 GSL Code A
one of the best RTS games you'll ever see....
Mirror Match.

i don't know if i want to pay $60 for one match up.

mirror matches provide 3 match ups to master and wrap your mind around.

i don't know if i want to pay $60 for one match up.

Anyone buying vCoH did just that. (is it 60 or 50?)

I'd rather have one excellent match up than three that average around 'ok'. You might call it pessimistic to think that having mirrors would hurt the gameplay of a mixed match up, but I think that's just being realistic. Just look at CoH1. We simply aren't big enough to have the same kind of support that blizzard can give to SC2.

We can't speak of alpha specifics, but another important element of mirror matching would be that, if commander abilities and intelligence bulletins are designed properly, they can provide asymmetry EVEN when both opponents use the same faction. The probabilities of two players using the exact same layout of abilities and bulletins is very small, if they are varied enough.

Of course, fi they are not properly designed, and there's an easy way to spam something and exploit it, then we are back to vCoH 1.7, where its Blitz vs Armor EVERY TIME!

When talking about mirrors in SC2 ZvZ comes to mind. Most boring thing I have seen ever.

I remember watching some match amongst top players where up until 10th min or was it 15 min. Everything they did was exactly the same with almost exact timings. Not that interesting tbh.

Mirrors can make game more fun for few people competing, but I don't understand the argument how mirrors can support e-sports.

. It would allow players to specialize in one faction, instead of forcing them to play both as we do now.

That's true, but it would help only players participating. There are 16 or 32 people playing, 5 people organizing and 2000 people watching the tournament on stream. People watching don't care, how armies for 3rd match are chosen only if game is fun to watch. To support e-sport, Relic have to think about audience not just about players. Making gameplay faster and fluid, making graphics easier to read over detailed, making game more balanced, that would be things definetely making game better for e-sport.

I want to make it clear, i don't care about realism as long as game is fun. I've played other rts like dow, w3, sc2. Mirrors just feel ok in that ones. If it comes to COH... Relic chose this game to be authentic and this is one of the best thing about it. Armies are using real equipment, real tanks, planes, fighting on real locations. In this context, Russians in blue shirts pwning Russians in red shirts just feel stupid and confusing for viewers. I'm not talking pro players who played 1000+ games, who don't care anymore, only looking for mechanics.

What i mean is, if you people want coh to be more popular, stop only thinking: " i will specialize in axis only, it will be awesome!", or " finally it will be little bit easier to run tourneys".

I know, some like mirrors and think, it would be ok to put it in basics as an option. But there is nothing worse that matches like: russians + germans vs russians + germans, i don't know who would like to play this shit.

you made no point at all in those two paragraphs, at least none that would fit the part that you were quoting.

it's not a "design issue" if you nerf one unit, because it is too OP in one matchup, and thereby mess up all other matchups... it's not a design issue, unless you call mirror matches a design issue.

also (and i have to admit, i was never really good at it), if i remember TvT in SC2 correctly, if both players made it to mid game, the player with more vikings won like 90% of the time.

The point was that mirrors weren't "inferior by default". You need a faction that's designed around having multiple options in every situation. This is, of course, really hard to do, but it's far from impossible.

Also, "the guy with the more vikings wins" was true if both players went tank/viking/thor, which was the easiest way to play the match-up. Marine/marauder/medivac, tank/marine/medivac and sky terran were also extremely viable builds, though, although more challenging to use and therefore not very often seen below high level play.

And forcing a player to master two armies won't elevate the level of player overall by giving him a deeper insight into not just one both both armies ? By allowing mirror matches you do create a much more narrow player. And also one who might be a bit more limited when it comes to providing feedback for balance since they will only consider one side of the argument.

It'll elevate the level of the players, no doubt. However, we won't see quite as refined play in each individual faction as we would if you could focus on a single faction, simply because not all the skills you learn as one faction translates over to the other. Having the MG micro to stop flanks as wehrmacht isn't a skill that's directly beneficial to me as a US player. However, it still takes a lot of time and effort to learn; time and effort I could have spent on learning to flank with US instead.

The ability to make better decisions based on your experience with the other faction is the most valuable skill you'll take from playing multiple factions. However, that kind of useful experience can often be gained from high-but-not-top level matches as well. Besides, if there ends up being more than two factions and you're only forced to play two of them, you're not being forced to gain experience from both sides in all matchups.

The balance point is interesting. In my experience, high level players mostly seem to agree on what's too strong or too weak, regardless of whether they play multiple factions or not. Still, you're right in that it could improve feedback somewhat.
..also, let's pretend that the balance forums on GR don't exist. <.<

So me pointing out that they were bloody boring doesn't count for anything ? And wouldn't it rather be the point to balance the game and design it around the asymmetrical gameplay. That is the more dynamic of the gameplay modes. And rather what fits in more with the first CoH.

It does, and it's a completely valid opinion. I just disagree that the mirrors were all boring.

And you do risk that things which do not work in mirror matches but work well in asymetrical matchups could result in things getting removed. Simply for the sake of the mirror match.

That could be said about any case where there's more than one match-up involved. Granted, it's completely true and still a valid point, but it's more an argument against having more than just one match-up than it is against mirrors.

Mirrors can make game more fun for few people competing, but I don't understand the argument how mirrors can support e-sports.



That's true, but it would help only players participating. There are 16 or 32 people playing, 5 people organizing and 2000 people watching the tournament on stream. People watching don't care, how armies for 3rd match are chosen only if game is fun to watch. To support e-sport, Relic have to think about audience not just about players. Making gameplay faster and fluid, making graphics easier to read over detailed, making game more balanced, that would be things definetely making game better for e-sport.

I want to make it clear, i don't care about realism as long as game is fun. I've played other rts like dow, w3, sc2. Mirrors just feel ok in that ones. If it comes to COH... Relic chose this game to be authentic and this is one of the best thing about it. Armies are using real equipment, real tanks, planes, fighting on real locations. In this context, Russians in blue shirts pwning Russians in red shirts just feel stupid and confusing for viewers. I'm not talking pro players who played 1000+ games, who don't care anymore, only looking for mechanics.

What i mean is, if you people want coh to be more popular, stop only thinking: " i will specialize in axis only, it will be awesome!", or " finally it will be little bit easier to run tourneys".

I know, some like mirrors and think, it would be ok to put it in basics as an option. But there is nothing worse that matches like: russians + germans vs russians + germans, i don't know who would like to play this shit.

That was well put! I couldn't have said it better myself! Thank you Sztefenfu.

Imagine Wehr vs Wehr = go tier 2 and spam medic bunkers. Tier 2 (schreks and paks vs pumas) hard counters tier 3 so nobody would go tier 3 pre tier 2. Boring, stale, spam siege tanks, blablabla.

Given that Relic never really was able to bring a great balance (max gameplay potential) to the table to vcoh alone, I just think mirror matches would be a horrible idea.

@Ohmwrecker: Not sure who you're talking about. Saw plenty of people complain about it. Perhaps not on the alpha forums because they couldn't access it But even there there was heated debate on the subject.

As for the "It's just a game" argument. That's not one at all. I could argue that CoH ought to be a FPS with RPG elements and then just go "It's just a game".

Yes it's a game. But that doesn't mean that anything can be done with it. And if you're going to pretty much just ruin the WW2 aestethic of it. You might as well not bother with WW2 at all. You might as well not bother with the authenticity.

One of the reasons i really like CoH is for the simple fact that there are no mirror matches. It is fun.

@Naereas: Regarding the MG/Rifleflank. That's not right. If anything learning how to setup the MG would also teach you how to flank one because mastering the MG would not just be about the strengths of the MG but also the weaknesses.

That is why one of the prime suggestions for a new player struggling with one army is to play the other one, to learn the strengths and weaknesses of that one to then apply to their own army

@Naereas: Regarding the MG/Rifleflank. That's not right. If anything learning how to setup the MG would also teach you how to flank one because mastering the MG would not just be about the strengths of the MG but also the weaknesses.

That is why one of the prime suggestions for a new player struggling with one army is to play the other one, to learn the strengths and weaknesses of that one to then apply to their own army

Like I said, experience like that helps you making good decisions about when to flank or not to flank, and that's invaluable. However, it doesn't help your execution in terms of a flank, because the way you micro in terms of setting up and executing a flank is vastly different from the micro you use in stopping one, and learning each of those skills takes time.

You can (and should) still play other factions next to your main faction even if mirror matches are an option, just to get the experience in a given situation. You're just not forced to do it if you can play mirrors.

Imagine Wehr vs Wehr = go tier 2 and spam medic bunkers. Tier 2 (schreks and paks vs pumas) hard counters tier 3 so nobody would go tier 3 pre tier 2. Boring, stale, spam siege tanks, blablabla.

Given that Relic never really was able to bring a great balance (max gameplay potential) to the table to vcoh alone, I just think mirror matches would be a horrible idea.

The coh2 factions are better designed for mirrors, stop bringing coh1 factions into this.

The coh2 factions are better designed for mirrors, stop bringing coh1 factions into this.

Well a) that remains to be seen, the fact that they are considering mirrors does not indicate that they are being explicitly designed around them and 2) CoH1 factions are the closest thing to a direct comparison, so yeah, they are the best way to evaluate it in lieu of a full game (CoH2).

....btw, the unit list for the ostheer was released, and remains almost unchanged from coh1 wehrmacht

If you are referring to the unit list presented at the London event, then, contrary to what it claims, it cannot be complete. It's at the very least missing the tiger and brummbar tank.
http://www.coh2.org/news/884/coh2-multiplayer-london-event-review

Mirror matches can cause big moves forward in the metagame because i can watch the build order and strategy of an opponent who beats me... and then use it in my very next mirror match game.

As opposed to mixed games where you are forbidden to learn from your opponent...?