Profile of 5trategos

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 449

General Information


Thread: RELIC: how about an update_news_something3 Oct 2014, 18:19 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Oct 2014, 17:43 PMvoltardark Setting up a server in 2014 is virtual, not physical, you don't need new computers to do it. The load balance should be the same as the players would split between the servers. The coding is rather easy as the UI is the same, only some options are disable. I know a tad at what i'm saying since it's within my field of expertise... a working adaptation could be done in a few weeks or so by any good game programmers. It's rather the corporate administrators/structure that would slow the process... (games of power). Thanks I didn't mean the actual servers costing much. Rather, the team and the infrastructure supporting the beta servers as you describe them, would have to be much larger than what they currently employ. If the game become well optimized and balanced, it would sell better as it's the same mechanic that is at work within the others mode of play. [..] The COH2 concept is excellent at is core, it only need more tuning to fully realize it's true potential. Again, this is an assumption. I would like it to be true, mind you, but I doubt it is. Balance and optimization don't translate into sales as clearly as you might expect. In: Lobby
Thread: RELIC: how about an update_news_something3 Oct 2014, 17:17 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Oct 2014, 17:12 PMvoltardark With that, the community feeling should be broader more embracing, like a big family working and playing toward the same goal : Having fun a making a great game. This kind of thing would be nice but very expensive for Relic. Jump back to quoted post3 Oct 2014, 17:12 PMvoltardark Relic's income should and will increase as that goal become closer. This is the biggest assumption on these forums. I have strong doubts this is the case when the vast majority of the playerbase plays the campaign and skirmish missions. In: Lobby
Thread: RELIC: how about an update_news_something3 Oct 2014, 17:12 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Oct 2014, 17:02 PMQueenRatchet123 You have no right to make statements like this... Most players here obviously care about this game. I understand you have good intentions. But, steer clear of this kind of commenting. It backfires on you Inverse may lack tact and unfortunately that diminishes the ideas that he tries to get across. Let's put it this way: All advice is not equal. In: Lobby
Thread: I enjoy CoH 23 Oct 2014, 16:58 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Oct 2014, 16:37 PMschnuersi For example the vast majority of players still hasn't grasped the concept that the German sinde will get stronger and stonger as time goes by. So allies need to be agressive early on to win or it will get very hard. This effect gets more pronounced with player count. Or that playing without VCPs heavily favours the German side since they don't need to push early on and hold to at least one VCP. This is not a hard concept to understand but it's a hard concept to accept because it's blatant imbalance. If anything, this is a perfect example of what frustrates people because this has been a core problem since the beta. In: Lobby
Thread: Issue Tracker3 Oct 2014, 14:59 PM This needs to be stickied. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: I enjoy CoH 23 Oct 2014, 14:56 PM I love this game but I also understand the frustration with it. Relic deserves a lot of credit for making a unique and polished game with a dedicated playerbase. It also deserves a lot of criticism for lingering bugs and balance ineptitude. I think if there was some alternative to CoH, a strong competitor, Relic would have no choice but to adapt and improve faster. In my mind SC2 doesn't qualify, no other RTS reaches the same level of tactical depth. Until a competitor does come along, we remain the only critical voice out there pushing for improvements, which kind of sucks because they already have our money which makes us an annoyance at best. In: Lobby
Thread: Sherman's AP vs HE rounds2 Oct 2014, 14:40 PM My experience with it is that the increased AOE gives the Sherman much improved squad wipe potential. Of course, the scatter is still an issue so the get around it you need to have more Shermans which increases the chance that shots land where you want them to. In fact, my favorite way to use the Sherman is in a pack of 2-3 and send them hunting lone squads with HE rounds. It doesn't really matter if they retreat on sight (and they usually take a second or two), you can still chase them and wipe them out most of the time. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Why are there so few good players in the CoH2 playerbase.1 Oct 2014, 20:58 PM I agree there are few high level American players but there are a bunch of Koreans at the top of the CoH2 ladder that are easy to overlook. They don't participate in any tournaments and have names that end up looking like dots in-game. They play a mean game though. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: USF Cost of Lieutenant vs effectiveness30 Sep 2014, 20:44 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 20:39 PMRomeo Haha, well nobody said he is cost efficient. I transition him out of my army once he is down to 3 men by crewing a team weapon with him (whether paradropped or stolen). He will place his BAR on the ground so you can recover it with another squad. What good is lieutenant after 8mins? He can't use rifle grenades and that's all rifles are good for mid-late game. USF bleed lots of manpower reinforcing 5-7 squad blob, so no need to make it worse keeping this officer around. But. But. He can run when out of combat . In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why are there so few good players in the CoH2 playerbase.30 Sep 2014, 16:45 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 16:11 PMAerohank SC2, obviously. I tried to look for SC2's DAU data but couldn't find anything so it's kind of hard to measure its success. And by success I mean its ability to retain a healthy population size compared to the more popular games today. I know it sold well, but that doesn't mean people still play it in droves. Besides SC2 is more than 2 years old. My question was if you could think of a successful competitive strategy game within the last 2 years. If game quality alone was an issue, then at least some of them should be successful. My point is that quality and balance don't fully explain the OP's question. No matter how well designed CoH2 could have been there just isn't the demand for it to be able to rise to the level of popularity we would like it to have. It's a known phenomenon in the gaming industry that competitive strategy games don't sell. Singleplayer, story driven, open world, even survival strategy, sells. Not competitive strategy. I think Relic knew this which is why they catered so much towards the skirmish and singleplayer crowd. In: COH2 Gameplay