This isn't about free and instant, and never has been. It's about having a game that is playable, with a progression system that is great and fun and fair for new players and puts them on a great footing.
The game IS playable. This is precisely the sort of extravagant hyperbole to which I take exception.
Even now you have to buy the ranger/pershing commander to have competitive heavy armour. Especially with the nerfs to Jacksons that seem to stack up over and over.
... and thus we are back to "make all the factions the same". Thanks, but no.
It's Magic the gathering. People LOVE blowing money on that. Doesn't mean COH2 needs to follow the same example.
I didn't say it should; what I said is that extravagant and hyperbolic claims that what Relic is doing is uniquely bad are patently ridiculous; it's at the milder end of paid-for DLC, and not doing anything unreasonable.
And in COH2's case, it actively drives people away. RTS's have never lent themselves to micro-transactions, and COH2's bold experiment has failed.
I'm sure you'll be able to back up that bold claim with evidence, won't you? Because what I see in the concurrent player stats does not suggest any kind of grand exodus.
I disagree with you strongly on the last point.
You're perfectly entitled to. What you're not entitled to do is assert your preference as an absolute truth. |
|
Well, I don't have a Twitch channel, and I think this is completely normal and unremarkable.
Obviously its in the interests of such companies to put their 'stars' out on public view; partly because it makes things more real and relatable, and partly because it implicitly offers "this could be you".
And taking balance advice from top players is completely reasonable, and certainly no weirder than getting various sports celebs to participate in designing shoes or what have you, which is as old as the hills.
I don't see the issue. |
squippy, are you actually defending the war spoils system? I've seen people do some stupid stuff, but the War spoils system is VERY poor - it actually destroyed the previous progression system that gave people the ability to earn a tiger tank call in. Nowadays, you are lucky if you get that after picking up the game. You've given some of the worst commanders (unless your soviet) and expected to make do compared to the monsters you can get now. Look at the USA commanders.
Not in every respect, no. I'm glad they are looking at it. What I'me objecting to is the petulant demand that everything be free and instant, and the equally petulant attribution of motives to Relic. It would, or should, be entirely possible to engage in constructive criticism, but when the conversation is invariably derailed by someone's sense of personal persecution by Relic, it gets in the way.
None of the examples you have given has issues like COH2 has, and all were produced by considerably smaller, less experienced studios than Relic.
Civ5? Really?
Anyway, if you don't like those, how about Magic: The Gathering? That's been following the DLC model since long before there were DLC; it's also notoriously expensive, and equally notorious for demanding you spend megabucks to stay current. More so, IMO, than CoH2 does.
The perspective here of the range of games, or the range of DLC models, the range of business strategies in the gaming world, seems very limited to me indeed.
I miss COH1's fantastic commander trees. They were unique and different and fun.
I don't, not even a tiny little bit. They were boring and repetitive; solved problems, dull as ditchwater. The variety and variability of the commanders system is one of the best changes CoH2 made, IMO. |
well, most games that let you pay for crystals are crappy f2p mobile games, which shouldnt be a competetor to coh2 in any regard
But they are competitors in the sense that when people look at how best they can get a return on their investment by putting money into a game company, they are an available alternative. |
|
The fact that commanders are mix-n-matches of existing abilities is perfectly normal; that's more or less what factions are in most RTS's; slight shifts the need for a resource or cheapness of armour or something like that. This is all perfectly fine.
I don't see that there is any hurdle for new players; for the base game they get a whole bunch of commanders. And on this note, making Wehr and Soviets free is a terrible idea, because that would make Relic even more dependent on DLC sales, and push this into MMO microtransaction hell.
Whether commanders are overpriced is a difficult thing to take a judgement on, given that there are so many games that will let you buy "crystals" or some other rubbish to instantly construct buildings that might otherwise take a day of real time. Even if you went out and bought everything CoH2 I one go, it would not come to as much as many people spend on much shittier games.
Maybe I'mm misremembering the AJ thing, but then I'm content to say I disagree with him. And FYI, I played the original Warcraft and Dune.
As for these calls for optimisation, I agree that would be great, but you have yet to explain what motive Relic has to put in all the necessary work if they have no prospect of generating revenue to pay for it. |
as i already wrote, you can use the dlcs for free when the host has them. that is very fair! and as far i understand, one cannot have an advantage by buying a dlc, so its not p2w.
As you acknowledge, these games are complex; and so walking into a multiplayer game that relies on, say, changes to the trade system that you know nothing about and have to figure out on the fly, is a good way to get your butt handed to you. So no, it's not nearly as distinct as you suggest.
coh2 is very differentwell, paradox games are very special and complex (for example hoi3), so its no wonder the fanbase is loyal. the difference in coh2 is, that i (and i think many others) have the feeling that most of the development goes into cashcow commanders instead of optimization, good patches and balance, bugfixes, etc.
And the very fact that you call them "cashcow" commanders is where we part company; I think that's ludicrous and absurd. What they really are is CONTENT, exactly the kind of content that can introduce new units. Whereas its predecessor, and indeed most RTS's stick with a single unit roster their entire product lives, CoH2 is set up in such a way that commanders, as modular components, can add new units to play. This is a Good Thing.
And if you want them to keep working on patches on bugfixes, on balance, you WANT them to be able to make a continuing profit from the game, don't you? Because otherwise it is literally not going to be worth their while, and they will just stop support. How would that be a good result?
On top of this, you then go further and impute motive to Relic; you and others imagine that you understand what is going on in their minds. And on the basis of that thing that you have imagined, you then feel outraged and angry. And that is where, IMO, you cross the line from criticism to pathetic crybaby.
 im not complaining getting free stuff. i think its clear what iam complaining about...
Yes it is. You're complaining that you don't get all the free stuff immediately.
never said that. but all games that have such a DLC policy are critisized heavily (watch angry joes video on coh2!). some games are harshly critisized for far less (oblivions horse armor, assassins creeds sword, ...)
I have seen Joe's video, and that was made BEFORE commanders were drops in War Spoils,so as far as I'm concerned, that issue has been dealt with. I'm not claiming that all DLC models are good, and I've been critical of them myself; but ever since War Spoils made commanders available for free simply by playing the game, I think everything is basically fine.
Similarly, I think allegations of CoH2 being "P2W" are just as silly. If an imbalance is introduced, as inevitably the case with something so complex, then ongoing support from Relic is precisely what we need to solve the problem. The suggestion that Relic are deliberately introducing overpowered commanders so they can drink the tears of players is just more of the afore-mentioned stuff people imagine.
If you really hate all this stuff then fine: come up with a better idea for how Relic can be encouraged financially to provide ongoing support and content for this game. Because if you can't do that, you're basically arguing that Relic should pull the shutters down on CoH2 and go on to something new which they can sell. |
i quickly googled your example and i would say its off.
the dlcs in eu4 change the game significantly (as you wrote), which most commanders dont, at least after they were gutted. furthermore the total amount of money you need to have everything is far less and there are sales very often (-75% atm!!)
I don't think that you can really say that one is greater than the other. Changes to EU4 are sometime so subtle as to be invisible; at other times they are very obvious. Commanders certainly do change the game significantly; they certainly change the meta regularly.
and still quite a bit of people seem to be not happy that they took some things that should have been in the basegame and made them dlc.
Yes, as I said. But for that issue, let's look at another example: Civilization 5. Civ 5 shipped without significant elements - like religion - that had been major components of Civ 4, only to later add them as DLC. People do claim that some things in EU4 DLC should have been in the base game, but that's a much more tendentious argument than is the case with Civ. In Civ, you could see that previously existing components had been removed, and the base game as sold felt much more shallow than its predecessor.
Another example is Tropico 5 and 5 which, like Civ, dropped significant elements of the predecessor only to add them back in via DLC.
Either way, Paradox enjoys a very loyal, even fanatical fan base, that will reliably buy both DLC and new editions of games. And both regard this as a win-win; the fans know that they are effectively hiring Paradox to keep working on a particular sort of play that they like, and Paradox have the security of an audience they can have confidence in, and don't have to go chasing after the Next Big Thing.
None of this is a bad thing. A subscription model for games is just as reasonable as it was for magazines before the decline of print media. And yet, this is even better than a subscription model because you don't have to commit to a periodic contract, and you don't get completely cut out if you can't or don't want to buy the latest addition... and on top of that, you get the stuff for free just for entertaining yourself.
What the hell is there to complain about?
why do you think i have to see the negative in everything? i already gave examples for games where i happily spend the money for dlcs....
Because you're complaining about getting Free Stuff just for playing a game you enjoy. I mean where else do you get that? Do you get free petrol just for driving?
Besides which, the point I was responding to was the claim that Relic's DLC policy is uniquely bad and uniquely unpopular. This is very far from true. |
|
EU4 regularly sells expansion packs, all of which change the gameplay in significant ways, and which would more or less be necessary for engaging with multiplayer; and they each sell for nearly as much as the base game. They are currently up to 8 such expansions for a 2-year old game. They also sell cosmetic items on top of this.
And while there certainly are a small minority who complain about it, the overwhelming majority IME regard this as a good and positive thing, encouraged by the fact that the company keeps working on its games.
Those of you who are determined to see the negative in everything would undoubtedly claim that Paradox is "milking" it's players and that it's nothing more than "greed"; while most Paradox fans would simply see EU4 as something you subscribe to, rather than buy; and that by their subscription, they are supporting continuing development of a game they enjoy.
Relic is very, very far from the worst offenders in the DLC world, and I regard its policies as perfectly reasonable and even generous. |
It's hard to imagine for me that anyone - or even a "large part of the community" - would primarily want to play against the AI considering how boring that is but if that's the case so be it.
For CoH1, Relic said that there player base was roughly evenly split into thirds: 1 played ladder matches, 2 played AI skirmish, and 3 played Campaign only. There was some overlap, of course, but it's a sizable distribution that has to be taken into account. |
And I don't need them for flamer.
See, this is yet another case of role overlap. Yes, its useful, but its hardly a reason to get them, because CE already cover that. Pair of CEs will do incomparably better job at pretty much everything and it won't even cost you more as you start with one.
Except that you have other jobs for your CE's to be doing - constructing buildings, repairing vehicles, detecting mines, laying mines - all of which are not getting done while you are using them as flamers. Would you turn down a flamer you found lying on the ground? Probably not.
Reinforce cost aren't really that relevant, because you can use cons for merge.
That was purchase price. Disregarding the cost of T1, Penals are cheaper per model. Including the cost of T1, they are significantly more expensive, especially if you only build one or two.
Same with the penals, they were supported by merge cons so they can stay on field, these strats still weren't effective at all vs better players, because later on penals became irrelevant, not being able to keep up with long range firepower of axis and being squishy compared to everyone else.
I don't really get what "strats" you mean; if these strats amount to trying to build Penals instead of Cons, I wouldn't automatically expect that to work any more than I would expect building 4 mortars to work. Nor would I want it to, because as I've already indicated, that would render Cons redundant. So I fail to see how this means much.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
