Maybe Relic fears lobbies would split the player base too much, as the community is not that big. In Wargame: Red Dragon, sometimes you sit there for ages to have enough people join your game, while there are 10-20 lobbies waiting for players. At the same time hardly anyone is searching for automatch.
Less players @ automatch would presumably lead to longer waiting times and more disparity in team strength, which would then frustrate people and make them abandon automatch even more... so I guess for a community of this size, "forced" automatch might be the best way to go. Also, chances are higher you get equally skilled opponents compared to lobby games.
There might be a bit fewer people automatching, but fact remains that having both options worked in vCOH, while limiting the options excludes a big part of the playerbase. Opening the game for that segment would get more people playing and increase the playerbase.
If lobbies were so succesfull that you werent able to find games in automatch, then I would say thats simply a great argument in favour of lobbies. |
|
Been missing lobbies since Beta, and I was verry surprised to see the final game missing such a basic feature. The way Relic and Noun danced arround this subject for way too long without clarifying or correcting the false rumours makes it that much worse.
I honestly think the game would benefit a lot from public lobbies, and if you have a look at vCOH there was, and still are, a big chunk of the playerbase that enjoys the posibilities that lobbies offer. This means that for a lot of people COH2 simply isnt an option.
Now I could see lobbies solving a lot of the problems people are having with this game. In adition to allowing you to play the map and gamemode you like, it would allow you to match up with players that you had good connectivity with, exclude "OP commander of the month", it would allow for some planning in random team games and exclude abusive players.
Another really exciting feature would be to integrate custom maps and automatic transfer of theese. It would add to the longevity of the game, and bring some much needed variety for the more casual segment.
I know a lot of people who simply dropped this game upon hearing that theire only option (unless they wanted the process of finding games to be a real hassle) was random VP. I think most of you know some as well? |
|
Politics aside, I found the campaign (the part I played at least) to be extremely demotivating. I mean, youre repeatedly told that what you do sucks and that its all for nothing during cutscenes by some whiny guy thats supposed to be you. That dosent exactly build my fighting spirit. |
|
Isnt this just another issue that could be avoided with public lobbies? |
"Strategy Informer: Has the community been very supportive of all the previous changes?
Greg Wilson: We've talked about this internally a few times but are happy to share it, Company of Heroes 2 is outperforming Company of Heroes over the same time frame. The fans have responded by purchasing and engagement and we work with them regularly. We've got forums and fan-sites, and we're collecting telemetry as Quinn mentioned regarding games as a service. We're using a combination of all these pieces to make informed decisions about where we're heading for the franchise, what content we're adding and why we're adding it, and how it's going to help empower the community to really get engaged. Our ultimate goal with COH is to provide the ultimate WW2 experience. That's what the franchise is all about and that's what we're aiming to deliver."
AKA No
lol, thought the exact same thing. That guy would make a great politician though. |
Commander #yolo reporting in.
Relic is a business. A business needs money to develop stuff. To develop stuff you need staff. To get staff you need money. Although I believe the way balancing is done right now is rubbish without DLC or Commanders Relic would have no money. By buying the DLC or commanders we ensure that Noun and pqumsieh have a job.
Just sayin'
I disagree. By buying all the commanders we ensure that Relic will continue releasing flavour of the month commanders, and deliver less content for more money. As a bonus we help killing any hope of the doctrine system from vCOH ever returning in any future installment of the series. Its not like developers didnt balance theire games before DLCs.
By buying the commanders you ensure that we will see more gamebreaking commanders like what "elite troops" was when released. Thanks a lot. |
|
It obviously added a lot of tactical depth. The problem, in my oppinion, is that the game was designed for the simplified firefights where cower didnt really matter all that much. Kind of makes one wonder why they didnt simply expand on the formula of the original, rather than trying to reinvent the infantry combat and poorly so. |
|
Agree with the OP. Infantry shouldnt be able to counter MGs, wich are dedicated anti infantry weapons, by attacking head on. Pretty much all other units counters HMGs, not being able to gren/con-spam them to death so easily sounds good to me. |
It's a fallacy that even heavy T0 can provide Soviets with a large capping advantage, considering the speed with which T1 goes up for Germans (no problems there, IMO neither side should really have a "capping advantage).
I'm tempted to agree that the removal of bunkers would lead to heavier gren spam but I wouldn't want to see the command or medic bunkers gone since those are interesting parts of the game... it's just the non symmetry of fixed defences which worries me...
I would argue that the possibility to produce infantry without investing in a building gives a slight capping advantage, but I agree, its nothing big. Im probably a bit biased in that area as I never grenspam myself, but often go heavy cons, so I was probably a bit to quick.
My original and main point, wich works for bouth factions, is that if youre building a diverse army you will want something to keep your enemy from simply outcapping you and avoid combat, and I think bunkers does just that. Bunkers, if used right, forces the opposition to comitt, and from my point of view helps limit the effectiveness of one unit tactics, like conspam and grenspam, if soviets were eventually given bunkers. |
|
I would say the possibility to go heavy T0 is a potentially big capping advantage. I think most people would agree. I agree that there have been introduced some imbalancies, but thats another topic entirely. Again, I think both sides should have bunkers, and im afraid that removing them would jus encourage more grenspam. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
