Login

russian armor

New Soviet Commander on the way!!!

10 Apr 2014, 17:49 PM
#101
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 16:41 PMVonIvan


Considering DLC is only $3 each I believe the cheaper choice would be CoH2 DLC. Though I do not support the idea of DLC having a price tag for this game.


Men of War - Assault Squad 2 = 27$.

For 27$ you get:
-65 multiplayer maps.
-250 tanks and vehicles.
-200 infantry Units.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/244450/
◾15 new single player skirmishes plus 25 reworked ones from the original Assault Squad

◾eight player co-op support and an all new multiplayer 8v8 game mode

◾65 multiplayer maps and five gamemodes

◾more than 250 vehicles at your command

◾more than 200 soldiers with unique equipment

◾five factions and various battlefields in Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and the Pacific

◾direct control every unit as if you were playing a 3rd person shooter

◾development tools such as 3d model exporter and map/mission editor, and much more.


For relics DLC P2W crap you get a lousy commander........

10 Apr 2014, 17:51 PM
#102
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 927

I do find the whining about DLC a bit much. They provide the battle servers for you to play on FOR FREE!
No one is asking you to buy them ... I haven't.
People win without them.
If a good one pops up that peaks my interest ... I might throw them a bone ... It just might keep the battle servers free.


Some athletes win without doping, and they aren't technically forced to take drugs, but it's still an undeniable unfair advantage - and those that don't dope have to work harder for the same result. Same goes with the old Soviet Industry and Elite Troops, both old and new versions.

If Relic had charged for battle servers it would have been an absolute disgrace, with or without free commanders.
10 Apr 2014, 17:55 PM
#103
avatar of RuberGruber

Posts: 39

My only issue seems to be the name of commander/tactics. Not One Step Back Tactics, really? I know those words are suppose to be meaningful in a historical context, but the naming seems too literal when compared to other commanders.
10 Apr 2014, 17:57 PM
#104
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

My only issue seems to be the name of commander/tactics. Not One Step Back Tatics, really? I know those words are suppose to be meaningful in a historical context, but the naming seems too literal.


Relics have Problems to find new names for commanders becuse we already have too much commanders.
10 Apr 2014, 18:10 PM
#105
avatar of RuberGruber

Posts: 39

Might as well go with; They Will Drown In Our Corpses Tactics or A Complete Disregard for Human Life Tactics. But seriously, there's a lot to work with here; Mass Attack Tactics, Overwhelming Force Tactics, Forced March Tactics. Something that lends itself to theme of both desperation and massed infantry.
10 Apr 2014, 18:17 PM
#106
avatar of Routaloid
Donator 11

Posts: 31

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 17:48 PMBurts



Also, jesus people, remember +6 months ago how you complained that commanders were basically all the same, you wanted the commander system to be like in coh 1 "where every commander gave you a completely different playstyle" and you got these kind of commanders, be happy now. But no, now people complain that they break what COH is.

Yeah we complained because these were the commanders we payed for with the pre ordered collectors edition. Immediately after they decided to release new more interesting commanders.
I just hope they would redo some of them
10 Apr 2014, 18:30 PM
#107
avatar of herr anfsim

Posts: 247

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 15:40 PMNapalm
Commander #yolo reporting in.

Relic is a business. A business needs money to develop stuff. To develop stuff you need staff. To get staff you need money. Although I believe the way balancing is done right now is rubbish without DLC or Commanders Relic would have no money. By buying the DLC or commanders we ensure that Noun and pqumsieh have a job.

Just sayin'


I disagree. By buying all the commanders we ensure that Relic will continue releasing flavour of the month commanders, and deliver less content for more money. As a bonus we help killing any hope of the doctrine system from vCOH ever returning in any future installment of the series. Its not like developers didnt balance theire games before DLCs.

By buying the commanders you ensure that we will see more gamebreaking commanders like what "elite troops" was when released. Thanks a lot.
10 Apr 2014, 18:36 PM
#108
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1935 | Subs: 2

Guys stop buying them. If you say you hate the DLC but you buy it anyway, you're part of the problem. Relic isn't a multi billion dollar empire like Rockstar or Activision/Blizzard, we can make a difference here if people weren't so fucking weak willed they sell out to get better spot on the ladder. If they want to sell singleplayer or aesthetic content like camos or alternate sound packs, fine. This multiplayer p2w needs to stop.

@NWF They don't deserve the DLC revenue, in the "real world" you get money when you provide a solid product, not because you're such a small company that people buy your shit out of pity. We are consumers, not investors.
10 Apr 2014, 18:52 PM
#109
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

Considering they have to spends months and months to get a semblance of balance out of new commanders, they're probably not even making any money out of those sales. Not directly anyway.

What they get is more content, which looks good on Steam in the long run, and they get to make some waves on social media sites with their articles and videos. That in turn could lead to more sales of the base game.
10 Apr 2014, 19:22 PM
#110
avatar of morten1

Posts: 368



http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=902144&st=142



relic don't give a fuck


don't know why people are trying after reading countless posts of people not wanting this, ( cept northwestfresh; he obviously wants DLC so he can bitch about them later) People will buy, Relic sees the dissatifction with DLC and justifies there action with "" we are supporting the game in the future" how about when that financing problem comes actually go to the community to fix the problem not take a selfish route that I personally don't see any long-term "financing"
10 Apr 2014, 19:31 PM
#111
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1567 | Subs: 2

Glad to see my image is still making the rounds. 18/11/2012 never forget.

The last batch of commanders Relic released were pretty balanced. Assuming they don't fuck this one up I'll be picking them up. Poverty must suck. Not wanting to drop $3.00 on a commander to keep your favorite RTS title going strong is pretty cheap.
10 Apr 2014, 20:08 PM
#112
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10622 | Subs: 9

Guys stop buying them. If you say you hate the DLC but you buy it anyway, you're part of the problem. Relic isn't a multi billion dollar empire like Rockstar or Activision/Blizzard, we can make a difference here if people weren't so fucking weak willed they sell out to get better spot on the ladder. If they want to sell singleplayer or aesthetic content like camos or alternate sound packs, fine. This multiplayer p2w needs to stop.

@NWF They don't deserve the DLC revenue, in the "real world" you get money when you provide a solid product, not because you're such a small company that people buy your shit out of pity. We are consumers, not investors.


You live in a trailer park, bro? I mean,that way I understand why you post as you do :) (Does not make it right, though!:(:( )
10 Apr 2014, 20:13 PM
#113
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 13976 | Subs: 7

@NWF They don't deserve the DLC revenue, in the "real world" you get money when you provide a solid product.


Tell that to chinese and apple.
10 Apr 2014, 20:18 PM
#114
avatar of Napalm

Posts: 1567 | Subs: 2

:rofl:

We are fighting over the price of a large Starbucks coffee.
10 Apr 2014, 20:29 PM
#115
avatar of Puppetmaster
Patrion 310

Posts: 871

I don't think the price is the issue. I generally don't like the way dlc is in games now but its here to stay. You have games like Cod and BF that I feel you kinda have to buy all the DLC because if you want to play with friends and stuff, lacking maps etc can be a real pain. The way its done in coh is better imo, because not having commanders and stuff doesn't physically stop you playing with people who have or don't have the dlc. I am against pay to win however and it shouldn't be the way that you have to buy a commander to give you an advantage over someone who doesn't have it. It's even worse when its almost required to have it because other people are using p2w against you.

I fine with dlc like skins and Tow (I really like TOW, I think its fun). Considering the way that Elite Troops and Soviet Industry launched, I (and others I would imagine) can't help but feel they were released in this way to generate $$$$. They were clearly far from balanced. The way they are now is much much better.
10 Apr 2014, 20:34 PM
#116
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 13976 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 20:18 PMNapalm
:rofl:

We are fighting over the price of a large Starbucks coffee.


Actually, some people are fighting over it, because they believe they have to buy one of each kind where they enter Starbucks fir the first time, otherwise they will feel inferior to the people who already tried different coffees.
10 Apr 2014, 20:54 PM
#117
avatar of MadeMan

Posts: 304

I think it's more the idea of DLC like this throwing balance out rather than the price. I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that $3 is unreasonable for the content, it's more that this kind of DLC shouldn't exist.

Personally I don't care since I don't take the game seriously anymore, especially after seeing so much favour to historical accuracy vs gameplay options, something clicked and I realised I should be playing this game for fun rather than with a competitive mindset. I can still try to win, but the game is inherently not (competition) balanced by it's nature and probably never will be unless they radically change things.
10 Apr 2014, 21:07 PM
#118
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1935 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 20:13 PMKatitof


Tell that to chinese and apple.

Apple makes good products. Not everyone likes them, and I think they are overrated, but they are high quality. Poor manufacturing is another topic.



You live in a trailer park, bro? I mean,that way I understand why you post as you do :) (Does not make it right, though!:(:( )
Well I'm posting on topic, and other people have said pretty much the same thing for the past 6 months now. But you log in just to attack me without even going on topic at all and then try to act like you're on some moral high ground. You are right though, but at least its the biggest trailer in the whole park. :facepalm:

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 20:54 PMMadeMan
I think it's more the idea of DLC like this throwing balance out rather than the price. I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that $3 is unreasonable for the content, it's more that this kind of DLC shouldn't exist.

If this was a FPS there wouldn't be nearly as much bitching about it. If they made a $30-40 traditional expansion once every year or two nobody would be complaining. In a so called competitive RTS people should have access to all the same stuff without being nickel and dimed for it, the imbalanced part just adds insult to injury. Plus that $3 adds up real fast when you consider how many commanders there are.
10 Apr 2014, 21:09 PM
#119
avatar of DarthBong420

Posts: 381

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Apr 2014, 20:54 PMMadeMan
I think it's more the idea of DLC like this throwing balance out rather than the price. I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that $3 is unreasonable for the content, it's more that this kind of DLC shouldn't exist.

Personally I don't care since I don't take the game seriously anymore, especially after seeing so much favour to historical accuracy vs gameplay options, something clicked and I realised I should be playing this game for fun rather than with a competitive mindset. I can still try to win, but the game is inherently not (competition) balanced by it's nature and probably never will be unless they radically change things.


Yea I stopped caring about winning along time ago. Although, I play 4v4 Germans so right now its not a very big challenge to win. I stay away from the Soviet army because I find that the Soviet faction is fucked by design and their only chance is for call ins, pretty much I hate playing them. They rely on things like ram etc... I don't think that they will have a chance at winning because they are a conscript/penal army in coh2 and I don't think that that's going to get changed. relic in my view, is ditching the eastern front. they realize that the Russians have no chance because the design is totally fubar and now they have to give the allied teams super op americans(we all know they will be for at least 4 months, and to counter them release uberduper German army). leaving the eastern front armies forgotten, only those without the expansion will play them and they will quit within a month because they will have no chance against the new P2W factions.
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag tightrope
  • The British Forces flag Kobal
Faymonville Approach
Faymonville Approach Honor
Honor it
2
Download
Download
7
uploaded by Kobal

Board Info

66 users are online: 4 members and 62 guests
distrofio, Zbir, The_Flying_Flail, Toyvendor
215 posts in the last 24h
1008 posts in the last week
3642 posts in the last month
Registered members: 74229
Welcome our newest member, lucy451go
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM