I enjoy CoH 2

There seems to be a wave of general negativity permeating both CoH2.org and the official forums lately that, if I hadn't been playing the game, would probably convince me CoH2 has never been in a worse state that it currently is and is nigh unplayable. I won't try to convince people to love the game, but since I do, I felt obliged to start this topic.

The game is obviously not perfect (more on that later), but currently when I play a 1v1 or 2v2 AT (or with a decent random partner) game, the three most important conditions for an enjoyable game are met:

-I win or lose mainly due to my being better or worse than my opponent, or making mistakes;
-I feel free to use a variety of tactics and build orders while not sacrificing or severely worsening my chance to win;
-I have fun.

I understand and agree with a lot of the issues repeatedly brought up on the forums, especially regarding the slow bugfixing and new bugs introduction. There's really no excuse for it so late after release, considering Relic has been working with more or less the same engine for about a decade. However, I've also witnessed on numerous occasions people (on my team, or the opposition) playing truly badly (from a tactical and unit preservation point of view) and then blaming balance in the chat.

I'm not saying balance and unit design issues do not exist. I do feel, however, that, once a certain skill level is achieved by all players involved, balance issues are enough to decide a game by themselves only when the skill levels of the opposing teams are very close, and even then luck and RNG (and, unfortunately, an untimely bug) could easily be more important. The nature of CoH (and one of the reasons I love the game) is such that the way a unit is used or opposed may produce vastly different impressions of that unit's performance, which is why I am also willing to argue that the game can only be realistically balanced at one skill level, and that must by necessity be a relatively high skill level. I don't mean ladder position, merely a certain minimum knowledge of the most common mistakes, unit roles, and ability to efficiently control a certain number of units at all times. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's a competitive game (by which I simply mean one human plays against another) and the inherent goal of every competitive game is to win and be (and become) better than your opponents, and improving my game is actually the most enjoyable aspect of CoH to me.

All of that being said, there are several areas where I think small changes to the game could bring big improvements to the gameplay:
- Intrafaction balance - there are now a number of viable strategies, but if some of the forgotten units and commander abilities were made more viable, that number could be big;
- Long (enormous, that is) range units - Jadgtiger, ISU152, Elephant (I also hate the Sturmtiger, but that's personal ). I don't think the survivability their long range provides is currently offset enough by weaknesses such as price or speed. Again, though, as with other balance issues (which I'd rather not get into), most of the time it's mistakes losing a game, rather than units winning it;
- In 2v2 matchmaking (and I assume it applies to larger game modes, though I've no experience there) I've sometimes been matched in less than ten seconds with teammates that have been frankly bad, while opposing a team of two decent to good players. As far as I know, the matchmaker considers 1+3 to be equal to 2+2, and while that's true in maths, it's not necessarily so in skill level terms. If the playerbase allows it, matching within teams as well as between teams would prevent a lot of frustration, and I myself would gladly wait twice as long for a ten times more enjoyable game.

Now that I've typed a novel, I realize I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this topic is . I guess I just wanted to see a positive title for once. I realize most of the people coming to these forums love CoH, and most of the complaints are not because people think CoH is bad when it could be good, but rather that it's good when it could be utter brilliance. I myself won't buy AA before some of the most glaring bugs are fixed. However, I also don't think things are as bad as they could seem to someone simply visiting the forums. IMO, CoH is still ages ahead of the competition in terms of enjoyable, challenging and original gameplay, it has improved drastically since release, and I've no doubt it will continue to improve with time.

me too

Signed! Couldnt have said it better myself.

NooOOO, you are LYIng, we haTES that FILthy CoH2! HISSSSS! HISSSSS!

I agree, I don't even Kubel spam as OKW, it is a lame tactic and if you don't beat them early with it, the Kubel doesn't scale well.

The game does have some problems and probably will for at least another year, but I will still be here.

+1

I love this game but it can and should get so much better!

I have to agree with OP, the number of topics about balance, especially on official forums is kinda enormous.

I find hillarous there are even some topics from guy which i play against, outplayed him without using Kubel, yet he still wants nerf OKW/OH to ground.

I enjoy game myself, my win/lose ration in most of brackets is around 1:1, i know i lose sometimes against cheese, but i dont rage its just game. Ofc there are many annoying bugs, some commanders bit broken, or unsuable, but i still enjoy game after playing 500 hours...

This forum is more a less a valve for people who want to complain about the game, rather than their own gameplay. I have seen uncountable retarded posts.
This is the reason why I almost never write here.
People in coh2 tend to blame everything on Relic. Sure there are bugs, etc., but they do not really matter that much in their (and my own) skill level. As long as we got players who almost always beat their opponents because of skill, it is alright.

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.

Ugh...

Every 2-3 months, we go through the same crap man. Lots of complaining and nagging about Relic and the game, the game and Relic and Relic's game. Then someone shows up and creates a "I am happy, good job Relic" thread.

It's getting lame... this community reminds me of a chicken coop with a fox in it.


Like Relic gives a f**ck.


Show Spoiler

Still, 1.5 years after release and the state of the game is like we just left the beta. To be fair I understand why people are upset, it's really hard to tell the difference between rumors and actual fact when Relic don't talk with us.

I agree. The game has its issues, and it is very frustrating when you come up against something OP (like a well-microed Kubel as USF), but I love this game. It is pretty much unique amongst RTSs at the moment, and I really love the thrill I get from the games. I think a lot of the negativity directed toward Relic is misplaced - they aren't perfect but they've made a great game that I've had a lot of fun with.

That said, the one thing I think is truly unacceptable is the buggy state of the game. In most other modern titles (LoL, Dota 2, SC2 e.t.c.) bugs as destructive as the Maxim retreat issue would be fixed in 1, maybe 2 days no matter what. I don't see why Relic isn't capable of this.

From my point of view this is how it usually is with most games.

The fact that there have been and still are some balance problems has trickeled down even to the most casual player. From the very second they hear it everytime somthing bad happens to them or they loose they will blaim the "broke balance" even though in 99 % of the cases they simply skrewed up.
Even worse since they now have something to blaim other than themself they will not even try to get better.

In CoH and CoH2 this problem is amplified by the fact that there are no mirror matches and that the game is very complicated and detailed.

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.

P.S.:
As far as I can tell CoH2 is not more or less buggy than other current games. There are some positive examples. But these are mostly E-sports related with leagues playing for prize money. Other games wich like CoH2 are SP and MP are in a far worse state. There are also publishers who wouldn't even support and patch a game anymore at this point.
I think we should be glad they even bother and while they break stuff while fixing something lese they try and usually fix more than they break. Also nothing all development teams managage.

I have more and more disappointing game.
Last DLC - Western front, too
New Germans? Not enough two Germans in vCoH?
I was hoping that the new DLC will be new about the Pacific
Japan vs USMC / Trans-Baikal Military District of the Red Army.
Well it would be nice battle for Italy
Italo-German troops against the Allies.
And of course the multiplayer balance.

I am with you OP and all toxicians and VonHaters can go... You know what Kappa

I love playing CoH2, but I feel the current state of it is in need of tweaking. I would also like many obvious and irritating bugs to be fixed as well. The feedback may be negative, but overall it is aimed more towards the constructive criticism of Relic, rather than the typical "COH2 IS DED GAME I HATE DIS GAME EVERYONE CAN GO DIE IN A HOLE" type of negativity. We are simply trying to improve the game.

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.

This game is more like a love-hate relationship for me.