Profile of BeltFedWombat

^ You do realise that you might have only half a dozen commanders that didn't fit across the *whole* game, right?

Am interested in seeing how Windustry looks now. The changes to that and the Ace makes sense, and am really happy about the 2 CP elite Soviet troops restrictions. All in all, a really positive looking patch.

Good idea but won't happen. It's much cheaper to say "game is balanced towards 1v1" than have separate testing processes for different game sizes... unfortunately.

But that's the whole point - it's not balanced towards 1 v 1. In fact, 1 v 1 is the mode that gets *most* screwed under the current system.

Hi.

This is a long post, I will try to tl;dr at the end.

Reading the ongoing discussion concerning commanders, something occurred to me. This something might sound obvious to some of you, but it was slightly revelatory for this call-sign. What is it? I hear you ask with baited breath.

We are all arguing about three different games. There are a number of groups of people here playing this game differently but trying to figure out how to make everything the same. It's like trying to nail jello to a wall, or herd cats.

It's a circle, I'd argue, that can be squared...

Bear with me. These groups are interchangeable, folks can belong in any of them or some (or indeed all). But nonetheless they are playing different games.

Group the First. Many of you play solely 1 v 1. You are probably more focussed on the ladder, automatch and are either an above-average player or aim to be. Your knowledge of game meta and tactics is better than most and you have an instinctive feel for balance and whether a commander sucks. Furthermore, you are disproportionately and unfairly impacted by new commanders, as the 1v1 ecosystem / meta is more fragile.

The second posse are the 2 v 2 crowd. 2 v 2 hardcore players can be every bit as skilled as their 1v1 equivalents and find new synergies in playing with a partner. They are equally as affected by commanders, as the 2 v 2 meta can easily be impacted by a new unit or ability. However, I've made them a separate group as the way in which commanders impacts on the 2 v 2 dynamic is considerably different from 1 v 1 (for example in 1 v1 you choose shocks or guards... in 2 v 2 you can have both which makes for a totally different experience).

The last and probably biggest (and most quiet - they tend not to become hardcore community members) are 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 casuals or hardcore stompers / custom gamers. I sit in this category 80% of the time and get as much of an endorphin release from playing an exciting game as I do winning one. We are also the least impacted by commanders: A decent 4 v 4 Soviet team shrugs at a Tiger ace and can bat off a Windustry T70 rush (it's still annoying and needs fixing, it does not however make the entire-fucking-sky-fall-in). These gamers are ignored by the 'elite' but they buy DLC and fucking love new commanders. I play with these guys all the time. In many ways, they are supporting the elite players as a grass-roots customer base that pumps money into CoH2.

Furthermore, many of them in my anecdotal experience hardly ever play 1 v 1 or 2 v 2. I would love to see Steam metrics on this.

Now before I suggest a solution, let me give an example of how a large gaming company admitted a mistake and radically changed a mechanic that involved *money* paid on top of a base product. Because this is what I'm going to advocate shortly.

Diablo 3. I mentionedf this in another thread. Diablo 3 had the gold and real-money Auction House (AH). You could buy uber-gear for your toon. There are many comparisons with the AH and CoH2 commanders (even though a single player game, but it has a long-promised PvP arena too). In any case Blizzard (yes, fucking Blizzard) said "sorry guys, we implemented AH as an attempt to do something cool but it's adversely affecting the core meaning of the game - killing monsters and getting loot. We're killing it. Not changing it. GETTING RID OF IT). And you know what? People more or less got it and most of us on the Diablo community are looking forward to the AH-free future with an expansion out next month.

And I'm not even advocating getting rid of commanders.

Simply make them game-mode specific. So when you buy a commander it says "this commander is for 3v3 or 4v4" or "this commander is suitable for all game modes." You simply allow Tiger Ace in 3v3 and 4v4 but it won't appear in a 1v1 or 2v2 loadout. Everyone wins. Everyone. You could make even more fucking lazer-panzer commanders for the 4v4 crowd that will sell like hookers on navy day. And the 1v1 and 2v2 people won't be impacted on the ladder.

This is so straightforward it hurts.

Quinn, in the unlikely event you read this look up the Diablo 3 re-boot. And at the end of Q1 say, "You know, we still think commanders are great. But CoH2 is a deep, multi-layered franchise. So we've made the difficult, but ultimately healthy decision to restrict certain commanders to certain game styles. This will give Relic the power to tailor and develop even more exciting content that supports however you choose to play CoH2, from elite 1v1 to large casual games with friends... and to everything inbetween!"

tl;dr - restrict commanders by game mode - 1 v 1 / 2 v 2 and higher.

Thanks for reading.

BFW OUT.

TZer0 you haven't read my first post have you? Base game, skins and faceplates simply won't fund the game even in the mid-term.

Theatre of War, a controlled release of premium content with a mixed payment model (i.e. balanced commanders with frequent promotions / sales and giveaways)*and* the stuff you subscribe is the *only* way.