Profile of Hypnotoad

after years of civil war, humiliation from Western countries, 8 year war against Japan... they are now a true superpower with biggest army ever, 1 billion citizens, well equipped and extremely trained soldiers and what is more important - they don't owe money to anyone, if they would ask now Mericans to return their money to them, what Merica would say? I heard they had plans to give them some technologies but i don't know if it's a good idea

about vid - nice one MVGame

You shouldn't sound so smug sunshine, because it isn't the EU, and definitely not China that guarantees Poland's independence from Russia..

Do you really believe that a team of well-seasoned game developers like relic just sit down and think "oh man coh1 is great but we need to change something here just for the sake of it, uh, well, let's change the upkeep, uh, and have weapon crews have 6 guys, cuz that'd be fucking kewl". No. They have their reasons. While I totally understand your reservations on the given points, I think you can safely assume that it's NOT relic's mission to fuck up the CoH franchise.
Also, I don't think that CoH2 is that much more forgiving towards lower skilled players. From what I've seen so far, I can say that I've always seen the better players win. I remember this discussion from the time before SCII came out and people where complaining that multiple building selection would "ruin" the game and lower the skill ceiling, which turned out to be wrong (although Idra would certainly debate this ).
I'd say give the game some time, learn it, get used to it, and you'll beat lower skilled players the same way you did in vCoH because you'll know HOW to do it.

This.

Thank you bro.

For me it feels like you get much less rewarded by playing better than your opponent, in nearly every aspect.

I agree with this, and I did say things needed to be a bit tuned. But I still disagree about the pace of the coh1 games, (they were not quicker than coh2's games as far as I can see) DevM's quick wins were that astounding precisely because they were that quick. I'm not arguing for the system as it currently is, i'm just saying that imho, fundamentally it's good and it'll reach it's full potential with a bit of tweaking.
I feel also that some want things to be exactly as they were in coh, which would defeat the purpose of having a sequel....

That's the problem- literally the only thing the game has going for it in the 'epic game' department is long, VP close games involving a lot of tanks. There's no epic MG micro to look for because it switches targets automatically, there's no awesome light vehicle stuff because LV's get owned by ATGs due to the removal of target tables, and so on.

'Long, VP close games' Really? I haven't seen a 1v1 game that goes for more than 45 mins and coh1 60-70 min games were the norm, at least on the high lvl shoutcasts.
And I do like the more accurate weaponry this time around, no more 5% tanks getting away because an RNG rolled a miss/crit on a schreck squad at close range.

It makes the game LESS fluid. Instead of giving effective players a quick win, it lets even bad players come back from behind and drag the game out because their MP income barely takes a hit from being cut off and in fact their MP income beats their opponent because they have less upkeep. The game doesn't flow: it just bumbles on for half an hour until the better player wins anyways but only after dealing with the multiple inevitable comebacks from the worse player. And when players are evenly matched it just evens out the highs and lows and makes big victories and defeats matter less because the other player can always come back. It's not faster paced, it's slower paced - you can't win quickly.

Well like I said to Tommy, I haven't seen a 1v1 game that goes on for more than 45 mins yet. There is still quite imaginative cut-off play i've noticed especially on Kholodny(?) with its sectors on the flanks that cut everything off.
But to the fundamental point, I disagree with you when you say the game bumbles and doesn't flow. Sure the winner can't knock out the loser early and seal the deal (though I did say in my original post that there probably should be some numbers changed and I do concede the reward for bettering your opponent/playing well is currently not sufficient) and because of that there are no situations where a player can 'gloriously' dig themselves out of a hole. But i'd much rather see a close-fought, fast-paced and unpredictable game that goes back and forth without a clear winner for most of the time rather than what we saw most of the time in coh at high levels which was early dominance leading to a predictable win or early dominance then the other guy busts out a can of 'T4 armor and bought vet/vet 3 rifle whupass' to pull an improbable win.

PS: the one point i'll concede about the visibility is that it does go to shit in the mirrors: 'Oh wait, wtf are those conscripts fragging that M3? who's shooting at.. huh?' and so on...

I understand why many of you are upset with the new MP system, (it doesn't reward good play, too simplistic etc..)
At the same time however, this new MP system, combined with the new 'passive-capturing' of sectors makes the game much more fluid - i.e, faster paced and closer in terms of the point difference in the outcome.
I think this is a good thing, perhaps it doesn't reward a well played early game as much as it should (perhaps the numbers could be tweaked as mentioned in other posts) but it also means the outcome of the game isn't decided in the early phases and makes the winning player work hard for their victory. (which would in turn improve the quality of their play) The spectacle of a close game is also enthralling for the stream audiences.
I remember (I believe it was the second TFN beta cast) the 2v2 between Ami on one side and some other randoms coming down to literally a single VP, the winning side having sat on that single VP while draining 60 or so points from the opposition..

Now that shit was a watch and a half.

I agree that the UI is pretty shit, (it looks ornate and stupid and the resource layout is way too small) but the other gripes such as the lack of visibility of the units, during blizzards and combat I don't agree with. I never had a problem seeing who was shooting at who and I could always clearly differentiate the units from each other. Hell, I even remember the OP saying during one of his streams the conditions (lack of visibility etc..) of the Blizzard added an additional tactical layer to the game by making ninja caps easier for instance.

In closing I think especially with the gripes over the look of the game it's important for us all to remember that this is a different game to coh1 and that we shouldn't want to revert this game to be more like the former (what would be the point of a sequel then?)just because we dont like some things as they are atm. The new MP system has as well introduced a faster paced and closer style of play than coh1 which isn't bad (I think it's great ^^) so don't just piss all over it just yet
- give Relic some time to sort some of this shit out.

/enddevilsadvocaterant