Profile of RMMLz

Jump back to quoted post4 Sep 2016, 21:26 PMDoomlord52

I think it could work. It's actually been done, too. Natural Selection 2 (a strategy-focused FPS game) switched to "community development" in 2014. The initial plan was to release a final patch to fix the major flaws of the game, but they've gone on to release over 40 patches (and counting).

It came from a similar situation: the dev team (NS2's was very small) didn't have time to work on their new project and also work on NS2.

-I've played NS2 but I had no idea about what you said! It's sounds interesting, but I'm not sure about the outcome (whether the community like the changes or not). But still, I think NS is far more easier to balance than CoH. NS2 is also not a competitive game (as far as I know), but CoD is. People on the balance team would then be unable to participate in Tournaments and arguments. They would also be the target of hate and rage, I don't know if anyone is willing to do that. Look at the amount of unconstructive criticism (hate) aimed at Miragelfa and Cruzz, and all they did was release mods!



I honestly don't think so. We'd be going from 1 major patch every ~3 months to (possibly) a minor patch every week or so. While those on the forums might say "lol dead game, they let fans do their work", the vast majority of players aren't actually involved in any forums: they'd just see that suddenly the game is getting lots of updates.

I don't know about you, but when I see a "dead game" I have suddenly start getting updates, I'm inclined to try it out again.

On top of that, you'd also (hopefully) have an increase in quality. While the initial reaction from some players might be negative, I don't think they'd complain about frequent improvements and updates with clear communication.

-Increase in quality is ALWAYS welcome, so is increase the number of active players



Active modders focusing on improvements, high-level players (tournament winners), and people they already talk to for feedback (iirc they do that).


I assume you mean "who would we chose for a dream team"? In that case, I'd say the same as above.

-I meant both How to select and Whom to select. Is it even up to us?

Ideally, no one. It's supposed to work by consensus, not veto. Either way, it would be important to keep a balance mod active to be able to test ideas they aren't sure on.

-We would never have consensus, that's why the team should have a tie breaker (Odd number). But again, a lot of good players contradict each other on the forums left and right. Their play style, the meta, and a lot of other factors affect balance (Duuuh), and the players perspective and play style should be counted as an important factor. Based on what I've seen, I think (simply an opinion not a fact) that we would not have consensus.



Top tier players are almost always top tier with all factions, so yes. Being a good player requires a good understanding of how everything works.

-Don't completely agree with this. I don't wanna name anyone, but we have top 50 players who are good at the game, but their discussions regarding balance are illogical and biased.


I think we have dedicated people to work for free (don't even imagine about a Dev "outsourcing" the balance to the community. Specially Relic) But I don't know if we could have a balance dream team.

Jump back to quoted post2 Sep 2016, 11:13 AMAustralian Magic

L2Read.

I'm saying that none side is supopossed to have temporary advantage but it's better if advantage switches from side to side than if it stayed with double OKW forever.

Jump back to quoted post23 Aug 2016, 14:45 PMTrubbbel

I want more maps. Just transfer some of the awesome coh maps, why not?