I sitll think a well designed game would succeed. COH2 has no one huge flaw, but there are many little ones that add up to a bad feel for both casual players, historical players, competitive players, players looking for a fair fight.. etc.
Design and quality might fix some problems but not all.
Think about it, name one (1) successful, competitive strategy game released in the past year. What about in the past 2 years?
There's Heartstone, but that's stretching the genre a bit. |
|
Some good reading here.
It's also no secret that competitive strategy games focusing on 1v1 combat have been losing ground in the marketplace (SC2 included). In other words, people just aren't drawn to them anymore.
As the video game market became more saturated and diverse, something happend in our collective mindset that drove us away from these types of games and into the hands of team competitive games (the likes of LoL, Dota, CS:GO, etc).
My opinion is that people are naturally attracted to team games to begin with because we're social animals at our core. If competitive strategy games were popular once, it's probably because the technology was still too restrictive (latency, cost of good internet) for games focusing on team play.
There's also the matter of avoiding blame. If you lose a 1v1 battle, there's no one to blame but yourself. Team games however, allow you to assign blame on others for a loss while retaining the conviction that you were extremely valuable during a win. It would definitely be interesting to hear the opinions of a psychologist on the matter.
|
For this reason, I think a setup/tear down mechanic is the way to go. This would actually reward flanking the damn thing: at the moment, it is very hard to exploit even a very well executed flank until Rifles hit Vet 1 and gain access to AT nades.
Reduced acceleration works essentially like a soft setup/teardown, which I think is a much better (more intuitive for all parties) mechanic.
It was already suggested in the OP. |
I dont think resource reduction or any balancing based on 3v3 and 4v4 is good for the game.
It was a noticeable problem in 1v1 as well. |
Omg only the kubel needed tweaking.
-Resources
Munition rate from 100% to 80%
Volks+shrek spam was getting out of hand.
Mind you, it can still be done, it's just that now there should be some setback to it. |
|
How about a decrease in acceleration instead of a set-up, tear-down.
This way, you allow the unit to maintain some fluidity to its movement and still reward player micro but force a more defensive position. |
|
I don't think restricting munitions is the way to go here. It really was too punishing in alpha.
The problem as I see it, is that there's no real drawback to upgrading volks with shreks especially when their grenades are so damn efficient.
So I'd rather consider:
- an increase to the upkeep cost of volks
- a decrease in their accuracy gained through veterancy
- an increase to infiltration nades cost.
- a decrease to volks regular nades aoe range.
- less starting fuel
|
|
There should be a sticky list of useless abilities.
Speaking of which, has anyone tried creeping barrage lately? |
|
I think there's still something fundamentally wrong with paying part of a unit's value after purchase, in this game. |
Its not just about bringing in new players, it about retaining them to. The new player experience is sorely lacking at the moment.
Yes, retaining players is what I meant by the flattening of the decaying curve.
The good news is that WFA had the effect of reducing the decay rate. |
RtN. Havoc
Strategos
Strategos
PanzerGrenadierAngreifen
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
