Profile of Raz

@cr4wler: you need to look up "straw man argument" and some examples.

While the example you use about your opponent losing his whole army on a foolish base rush isn't really that useful in proving your point (because your opponent did something really stupid and THAT is why he lost), assuming what you're saying is true... I like it! I think it's excellent that no player is ever out of the game until the VPs hit 0. That's way more exciting than in vCoH where if you get behind you're seriously screwed unless the you sacrifice a virgin to the RNG gods AND your opponent makes multiple serious blunders.

Deeptrance, you aren't alone in your ability to enjoy the game.

How can this be a good argument for a competative multyplayer? Worse player should pay for his mistakes, and the better should be rewarded, decisions should matter in the game.

At the moment we are at the extreme where loosing player is giving him such advantages that despite his skill he is kept alive by the game design. And your counter argument is complaining about how it used to be on the other side of the extreme scale, where smallest mistakes in early game would loose you a game. So if you're not happy about that I think you can see how people would not be happy about how things are right now.

So why not try to find middle ground instead of shouting how people are afraid of change. Because from what I read here better players want ballance, where comebacks would be possible but where skill would be the judging factor who wins a game.

"I prefer this upkeep system, and appreciate its value from DoW2 experience.
It prevents snowballing and encourages defensive play on the part of the winner and supports breakout options for the loser. If anything, it keeps the game dynamic in midgame, rather than making the odds insurmountable for an opponent who has taken a teching strategy, or whose build just happened to be incompatible to face the enemies choices. Im really having trouble understanding concerns over this."

LOL!

Yeah, lets take any decisions that matter and skill out of it and hope for the best. Awesome idea.

This isn't possible. The game isn't released yet. If you have it preordered you can cancel it. You can't transfer it.

How can i cancel it? Can't find that option anywhere.

I'm not against catering to noobs, make a better tutorial, give links in game to outside comuninty sites I bet there are loads of other ways to do that, no need to put in the game mechanics and dumb down the final product because of it.

Again - if you are the better player in CoH2, you will win. This game is competitive, and while the MP system is more forgiving towards the player with the smaller army, it does not break the game. If you have your opponent outcapped, you'll have more muni and fuel income. You'll have tanks, off-map, stukas, what have you, whilst your opponent can't do anything but spam vanilla infantry. You make it sound as if you are on even ground even when he is pinned inside his base, which is wrong. Beta noobs just don't know when to leave a game, thats all

It's not that you can't win, but the system is in place where a better player is handicaped because he is better. Of course he will win, but that doesn't make it alright that he has to win with a handicap.

All I'm saying that playing on the multiplayer against other human beeing no side should get advantage no matter their skill level. What should be done is to give a system where players are matched against their appropriate skill level. This system to me seems like an easy way to please the noob players.

It doesn't even matter how good CoH was, although that influences how much outcry there is.

The problem is that rather than saying "how can we make this better", Relic seemed to be thinking "how can we make this different" or at worst "how can we make this easier."

There's some innovation to be found in CoH2 certainly, like Cold Tech and Trusight.

There's some improvement too, like capture points.

But none of those innovations or improvements depend on messing with the core vCoH formula to the degree that CoH2 has. The rest is just change for change's sake, or deliberately trying to make the game more forgiving with a lower skill cap.

Agree 100% with this. I was hoping and still am for a game that is challenging and fair, both to a skillfull player and to a noob. What I mean by this is that the skillfull player gets rewarded for playing better, and the noob get's rewarded for improving.

But now it seems the game is catering the noob player with the thought that it's too hard for a noob player to improve so that he won't quit the game we will just make that the system will allow him to still play it easily and we will do this by handicaping the skillfull player.

If this were chess to me it seems like the loosing player gets off board reinforcments after bad plays just because he would still be all happy and in the game. While at the same time, the better player as soon he is in the better position he get's handicaped.

And this is noob vs skilled player, but what if it's two unskilled players, then it's even worse when a winning player can't capitalize on his position and the loosing can just come back. This system takes almost all the skill out of the game and throws you in fake enviroment where the path of the game is influenced by design rather then by competition and skill of the players playing it.

And lastly I would like to say what multiplayer CoH awesome to me. Apart from all the other cool stuff that has been mentioned I loved the most how your skill mattered, and after time playing it you could see improvement in your game, how your better or worst decisions realy mattered to the outcome of the game. If you're shit you won't have any chance against 3-4 level higher player, he will eat you alive. But if you improved you could take that player on on level terms. Now it just seems that the playing field is rigged.

Invest money in a better matcmaking system and this cop out way to please the masses.

Sorry for the rant