Profile of MajorBloodnok

What rubs me the wrong way about this is:

Relic did abandon .org a long time ago because a former community manager was harrassed from people here (correct me if im wrong).

Yet they get out of their way to give direction who to ban on here. Weird silent big-brother vibes, further alienating their customers and people who give a shit.

In the interests of accuracy, Relic abandoned .org as an unofficial partner in circa mid-2014. I am not aware of harassment of a former community manager, but I am aware of the drunk stream which ended with a Senior Admin and his Caster friend playing some online gambling game and discussing the demerits of COH2...which was the final nail in the coffin, after other ranked individuals had previously (out of public gaze), given the Devs something of a good kicking.

Relic are as entitled to make complaints about adverse posts on this board, as any poster is.

I fully realize how much AI casuals love this map, its their blood and bones.

But it also can not be denied how small multiplayer map pool is, especially since all the maps are exclusive and there is no map overlap between the modes, which made CoH2 look like it had much more maps on release.

Good point!

I disagree. I think good games (8/10 rated by plebs) succeed and find the audience.

What you are describing are minor mechanics and direction changes. People will roll over and adapt as long as your game is an objective upgrade. Whether it is more micro-management focused, or more casual, or more strategical - it would have been fine either way as long as it is fun.

I don't think you have understood the nuances in the various COH audiences, if you dismiss such differences so lightly.

(Upgrade conditions would include: better visuals, optimization, pathfinding, AI, netcode, new QoL features, content, mechanics, major rebalance, better backend for content delivery, playbase moderation tools, new and more beneficial business model) I can accept some V1 launch drawbacks but the overall upgrade package has to be an undeniable progress. Otherwise why are you releasing it, this is SF6 and Diablo 4 are taking over all the gaming buzz this month.

Rant noted.

And to prove my point, freaking fighting game has 60k concurrent players this week. You tell me that the primary a console, fighting 1vs1 pvp game, is enjoying this kind of success on PC? It is absolutely the decade of variety: anything goes as long as the quality is good. I bet most of you are playing random crap, from HOI4/WW2 simulators to fantasy MMOs, Cards and Gachas.

People bitched about Diablo III changes (I say this in a positive context where some bickering on social media is absolutely healthy for any game), people now bitching about Diablo 4 mechanics that returned to some Diablo 2 style. Good execution will become a new norm, it is actually healthy for every game to go through these refreshes and wiggles in direction. You can take bad direction, the weather in COH2: admit mistake, learn from it, adapt.

I read the same things about Paradox games streamlining/simplifying themselves. Total Warhammers were panned for magic and other deviations from historical TWs.

More rant. I have never suggested a console player will enjoy COH3. At this stage, I have no idea how it will trend.

The problem with COH3 is, that it isn't just some sharp corners that need brushing. It is the trainwreck that ends up going backwards. Take tank-balance for example: AT superblobs, mines triggered by sound, AT shots clipping on fences, superskillplanes, weird pathing, what are tank destroyers, only heavy destroyer in the game files somewhere never tested. The game is so broken you have multiple direction, technical and design failures all at the same time - sure it functions as a program, but it is a literal mess, don't even know how to start unraveling it.

From your subsequent posts, I deduce that you are primarily interested in team games? Nothing at all wrong with that, but what you describe in team games is not necessarily what is wrong in 1v1. In fact, albeit innocently, you are highlighting the problem with COH1 v COH2. It's the old, old problem do you balance the game from 1v1, or from a team game perspective? FWIW, I think these two POV are irreconcilable and that in fact you should run team games on a different perspective. Here I do agree with you that in 2023, it should be possible to distinguish between 1v1 and team games without too much problem. Team games do not need a wealth of light vehicles with multiple options. e.g. how long will a bike or Weasel last, when players in AT are pumping out fuel and heading for 'heavies' and durable infantry?

Saying that Relic was in some kind of design-checkmate is questionable. COH3 was supposed to be a slam-dunk, it had so many design lessons learned (only by community and ex-Relic), and many low-hanging QoL/Mechanics people asked for years. Couple that with 10 years of modern online gaming trends, visual progress, service monetization - and you have a formula that only needs that 8/10 execution. Nobody even gives a fuck about campaign, it reviewed to some absurd scores (I played COH1 campaigns while in school, rarely do I play SP in RTS).

You have patently ignored what I wrote previously. As a team player, you are entitled to ignore the basics of 1v1 where it changes from COH1 to COh2, but I can assure you those changes were fundamental to the mechanics of 1v1 and explains why so many COH1 1v1 players did not adapt to COHO or COH2. Do you want me to spell these out for you? It involves inter alia light vehicles, ticker timing, capture points and values for capture points.

There might be some elitists who prefer that old version. People still play COH1, Starcraft 1, HOI3, older Counter Strikes, previous SF - the minority, and even they will rollover once the upgrade is undeniable despite not being to their ideal mechanics/details preference.

Experience of the COH franchise suggests that what you have just written is totally incorrect. COHO and COH2 saw off a lot of top COH1 players. Some of those would have gone due to life changes, but many did not like and did not accept the COH2 1v1 changes. Team games are different and the pertinent point here is why Relic did not see fit to try to provide for 2 different modes in COH3. It must be possible to balance the 1v1 game differently from team games, and the lack of maps for team games simply flies in the face of current trends.

I wish everybody here would have gotten that 8/10 sequel to enjoy COH, including gdot, unified + revitalized community and bright future ahead. Instead of talking how Relic is going bankrupt and DOW3'ing it, we could shitposting what kind of these small mechanics and direction changes were the best, what OP units need to be toned down, what could be the patch/content iteration to score 9-10, and wait for the next COH3 showmatches.

Posters on .org have been through the mill with Relic whether the start of COH2, the lack of patches in COH1 or the Dawn of War fiasco. They can be forgiven for a certain amount of cynicism at the launch of a game in COH3 which appears to ignore the mistakes of COH1 and COH2.

Lead sound director for coh1 was a female.

Which is the game imo, that had probably the best overall audio

The Lead Sound designers for COH1 were all male, FWIW.

It's not even the Sistine Chapel, it's more like one of those modern art pieces where one person says they see a brooding meditation on the finite nature of existence and I see a canvas that a Dr. Seuss character sneezed on.

Or even Tracey Emin's Unmade bed?