Profile of Inverse

No, what people want is to win all the time in the easiest manner possible.

They will then complain that the meta is stale and expect someone else to fix it for them

Very few are willing to take risks and experiment

Blaming players for the metagame doesn't really make much sense when you're talking about a competition. If there's one style of play that clearly gives the best odds of success, it's obvious that people are going to use it more often than other styles. It's up to the game to encourage, and to make viable, a variety of different styles. Players can help it along, obviously, but it's unreasonable to expect people to handicap themselves in the name of manufacturing variety. The best way to encourage variety is to make it a competitive advantage.

and?...

Dota 2 could run on a 2010 tablet.

Coh2 runs like crap

But comparing it to another game

means nothing

I can run bf4 on ultra with constant 198 fps

But i get 98 fps on crysis 3 enthusiast settings

By ur logic, "There's a major problem with that."

It's a problem because CoH2 is competing with those games for players, which means comparing it to those games is a perfectly fine thing to do. When I play CoH1 or SC2 or Dota 2 or CSGO, I have a wide enough range of configuration options to where I can find a mix that gives me enough frames that I never, ever have to worry or think about it, and I can focus entirely on the actual competition. That's essential for a multiplayer game, and it's a major problem for CoH2 because even at bare minimum settings the game performs terribly. Trying to play CoH2 competitively (and every time you play against another player and try to win you're playing it competitively) is an exercise in frustration because you're constantly wrestling with poor performance that affects very basic things like unit control and camera movement.

The problem isn't on the high end; I don't give a shit if you need a supercomputer to max out CoH2. The problem is the low-end performance is pathetic, and if you want a vibrant multiplayer community you need a manageable low-end spec so that as many people as possible can play the game without ever thinking about performance impacting their quality of play. Every single one of CoH2's competitors in the multiplayer space have good min-spec performance. If people have to fight against frames to play your game, they're going to get frustrated and they're going to turn to a game that they can play without issue.

Every time I've tried v-sync I've experienced noticeable input lag, which is a pretty big no-no in a competitive game.

Performance is very subjective. As someone who likes to play my games competitively, my minimum standard for performance is 100FPS average, 80FPS minimum. That FPS target gives me a nice cushion before the choppy 60FPS mark and usually results in consistent frames, which is also very important to me because frames tend to influence the speed of screen panning and scrolling in RTS games.

I mean, I could run CoH2 maxed with "no performance issues" if I considered 20FPS to be "no performance issues". Making a statement like that without numbers is kinda meaningless because everyone has a different perspective on the matter.

It was far worse in the past, at least from 2009 up to the last season or two of CoH1 SNF, when Relic realized they would be able to make a sequel and started trying to generate goodwill by sponsoring some tournaments and collaborating with the community on the last balance patch. Aside from that, there was essentially zero communication except around patch time. No tournament or stream promotion, no feedback on or solicitation for suggestions, nothing.

Communication really isn't as important as you guys think it is. Valve is notorious for being really terrible with communicating about their games, yet Dota 2 and CSGO are the two most popular Steam games by huge margins because they make very good games, and at the end of the day quality is what matters most.