Profile of Zveroboy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1

General Information


Thread: This is suppose to be a strategie game?22 Nov 2013, 22:27 PM To be any good with or against a strategy ones needs to both play with it and against it. One finds weaknesses by playing with it, and strengths by playing against it. This is true of all strategic games, be it chess or CoH. One has to ask, if the black player in chess introduced a piece, that he payed for, that white has never played with or against would you say that was a fair game? This is coming from someone who loves the series, has bought every game, watches all your casts, etc. I have no reason to say it other than it being the case - if anything I wish I could say that it wasn't "pay to win" as I see it as a really negative thing. I think it is necessary to make the clear distinction that I am not saying that paying guarantees a win - I am saying that on balance those who do pay have a higher chance of being at an unfair advantage - even in the simple sense of the scope and range of strategic options available. In this case the "Tiger Ace" was driven straight into the opponents base, no micro or control, just parked there. It took a lot of hits from ZiS guns - with at least 10-12 in the rear. In that time it took out all the base buildings. The VPs were well against the Germans and they were triple capped, they only had 2 capping units on the field. I would say that without the "Tiger Ace" the Germans would have lost - even if you dispute that, which is fair enough, it is still an undeniably powerful unit - that you can only get by paying. Sure it isn't unbeatable, but that really isn't the point. Expecting a player to know what is coming, from a tiny portrait or the sudden appearance of a veteran unit is pretty silly. Especially if the player hasn't seen the portrait in question or doesn't have a commander with that skill anywhere. Surly it can only discourage the novice or casual player if research outside of the game is required to begin to level the playing field. Even research only allows one to know what a commander does on paper, not how it actually works in play. Any way you look at it, it just isn't cricket. It is a real shame because the series is great, the game is great. Why Sega - or whoever - would introduce such a detrimental element, for what is presumably a relatively modest revenue stream is puzzling to say the least. Why not just have skins, face plates, ToW, campaigns etc as DLCs - anything that doesn't actually effect the multiplayer in such a way as to, on average, place some players at an advantage simply because they have payed more. Even if you don't agree with me in principal, which is fine, surly you must agree that it damages the franchise for it to be merely open to the accusation that it is "pay to win", surly you must also recognise that really is how some people - some long time fans - do see it. In: Replays

Thread: This is suppose to be a strategie game?22 Nov 2013, 22:27 PM

To be any good with or against a strategy ones needs to both play with it and against it.
One finds weaknesses by playing with it, and strengths by playing against it.

This is true of all strategic games, be it chess or CoH.

One has to ask, if the black player in chess introduced a piece, that he payed for, that white has never played with or against would you say that was a fair game?

This is coming from someone who loves the series, has bought every game, watches all your casts, etc. I have no reason to say it other than it being the case - if anything I wish I could say that it wasn't "pay to win" as I see it as a really negative thing.

I think it is necessary to make the clear distinction that I am not saying that paying guarantees a win - I am saying that on balance those who do pay have a higher chance of being at an unfair advantage - even in the simple sense of the scope and range of strategic options available.

In this case the "Tiger Ace" was driven straight into the opponents base, no micro or control, just parked there. It took a lot of hits from ZiS guns - with at least 10-12 in the rear. In that time it took out all the base buildings.

The VPs were well against the Germans and they were triple capped, they only had 2 capping units on the field.

I would say that without the "Tiger Ace" the Germans would have lost - even if you dispute that, which is fair enough, it is still an undeniably powerful unit - that you can only get by paying.

Sure it isn't unbeatable, but that really isn't the point.

Expecting a player to know what is coming, from a tiny portrait or the sudden appearance of a veteran unit is pretty silly. Especially if the player hasn't seen the portrait in question or doesn't have a commander with that skill anywhere.

Surly it can only discourage the novice or casual player if research outside of the game is required to begin to level the playing field. Even research only allows one to know what a commander does on paper, not how it actually works in play.

Any way you look at it, it just isn't cricket. It is a real shame because the series is great, the game is great. Why Sega - or whoever - would introduce such a detrimental element, for what is presumably a relatively modest revenue stream is puzzling to say the least.

Why not just have skins, face plates, ToW, campaigns etc as DLCs - anything that doesn't actually effect the multiplayer in such a way as to, on average, place some players at an advantage simply because they have payed more.

Even if you don't agree with me in principal, which is fine, surly you must agree that it damages the franchise for it to be merely open to the accusation that it is "pay to win", surly you must also recognise that really is how some people - some long time fans - do see it.

In: Replays