Login

russian armor

4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better

PAGES (19)down
Raz
30 Apr 2013, 09:53 AM
#201
avatar of Raz

Posts: 42

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 :D


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.
30 Apr 2013, 16:09 PM
#202
avatar of Haupt

Posts: 25

Hi guys,

New here I know, but i've played alot of VCOH and COH:OF, and am hoping to rekindle my love of COH by playing COH2, but i'm in a mixed bag.



+ 1,000,000. Great post. I feel exactly the same.
30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PM
#203
avatar of Kolaris

Posts: 308 | Subs: 1


Do you really believe that a team of well-seasoned game developers like relic just sit down and think "oh man coh1 is great but we need to change something here just for the sake of it, uh, well, let's change the upkeep, uh, and have weapon crews have 6 guys, cuz that'd be fucking kewl". No. They have their reasons. While I totally understand your reservations on the given points, I think you can safely assume that it's NOT relic's mission to fuck up the CoH franchise.


If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

Yes they have Quinn Duffy, but if you read the early interviews for CoH2 it's pretty clear he had little to do with vCoH's multiplayer.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

Neither of those goals are bad, but the means certainly are. If you want a noob friendly game, help the noob improve. Better tutorials, strong and visible competitive community, fairer matchmaker. You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.
30 Apr 2013, 16:55 PM
#204
avatar of Tommy

Posts: 742 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PMKolaris


If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

Yes they have Quinn Duffy, but if you read the early interviews for CoH2 it's pretty clear he had little to do with vCoH's multiplayer.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

Neither of those goals are bad, but the means certainly are. If you want a noob friendly game, help the noob improve. Better tutorials, strong and visible competitive community, fairer matchmaker. You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.


This is...basically The Inconvenient Truth. Mass market appeal -> stuff it full of DLC, that's the MO.
30 Apr 2013, 21:00 PM
#205
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1939 | Subs: 2



Again - if you are the better player in CoH2, you will win.

Not always. A few games I lost after an extremely dominate first 10 minutes, and then when you finally get sloppy and lose a unit or so you are penalized much higher than the guy that lost units very early, which is inverse to the coh1 formula of making sure to keep everything alive early, though losing something late game usually wasn't a huge deal unless it was something like a vetted rifle, artillery pieces, or big tank.

Most of the time the better play will win, but it still takes twice as long.
30 Apr 2013, 21:00 PM
#206
avatar of TheSoulTrain

Posts: 150

I just wanna say that I cancelled my preorder, and it truly annoys me to be forced to do that. CoH2, as it is, is a shit game, plain and simple. And it is taking the Activision approach(no real support to the game just mass DLC)which I hate so much and I think it has done/does a lot of damage to the gaming industry(not for their pockets, obv).

If CoH2 was playable I'd still go through the fuckin DLC thingy... but man, I seriously tried, I swear I tried, but I can't get around playing more than ~8 games straight, it just gets me bored and angry.

They already owe me a proper DoW2(fucking 60€ for 20h of play man), no more charity for a studio that has gone to shit.



Oh and to the one saying they "try new things"... not really, this is just a marketing technique. LOOK GUYS!!!! BLIZZARDS ERMAHGERD SO REALZZZZZZZZZZ SO GUD. These things actually just destroy the game itself for the non casual playerbase. But of course, money is everything in this world, so yep. And yes I do prefer the Blizzard approach, because, you know what? They actually change the game, BUT THE CORE REMAINS THE SAME, Broodwar and SC2 are very different games, but they do share the same ideas, the same mechanics...


Oh and btw saying "omg stop hating they are trying so hard blablabla..." won't solve anything, it will have the opposite effect, devs will feel so pleased of themselves "we ain't doing that bad yo!". Complaining might get us something.
30 Apr 2013, 23:26 PM
#207
avatar of RagingJenni

Posts: 486

the Activision approach(no real support to the game just mass DLC)


They've given us a alpha, a closed beta and a coming open beta. The only other thing I can think of that they could give us is patch support, which we very probably will get. I don't get the DLC hate either; as long as it doesn't detract from the product you buys or feels taken out, it's just bonus content.


Oh and to the one saying they "try new things"... not really, this is just a marketing technique. LOOK GUYS!!!! BLIZZARDS ERMAHGERD SO REALZZZZZZZZZZ SO GUD. These things actually just destroy the game itself for the non casual playerbase. But of course, money is everything in this world, so yep. And yes I do prefer the Blizzard approach, because, you know what? They actually change the game, BUT THE CORE REMAINS THE SAME, Broodwar and SC2 are very different games, but they do share the same ideas, the same mechanics...


Then go play one of those games. What else is there to it? I just tried to lay out why they do what they do from what I've learned from them the last few years. If you don't like it then don't. I think they're changing their games from game to game. Is it always good changes? No. Is the product as polished? No. Do they sometimes change too much? Yes. That being said, I've enjoyed what they've put out, and I know that I'll get something new and interesting every time I put down money for one of their games and so far I haven't been disappointed.
1 May 2013, 01:38 AM
#208
avatar of Aymes

Posts: 9

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2013, 23:32 PMHaupt
4 things that would make CoH2 instantly better:

1) Allocate an appropriate budget that assures the development of a well-made game, including good game support, such as solving server issues, and frequent bug and balance fixes

2) Hire game developers who understand the game mechanics of Coh1 as well as why the original game was so much fun.

3) Make Coh2 competitive, for example getting it into Epsorts, as well as avoiding play-to-win aspects and balance-breaking DLC

4) Make Coh2 a sequel in the spirit of Coh1 by staying true to the game, while improving all aspects of the game, for example design, graphics, etc. without dumbing the game down


This was the wisest thing said so far in this entire thread.
1 May 2013, 07:06 AM
#209
avatar of RsvT

Posts: 117

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PMKolaris


If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

Yes they have Quinn Duffy, but if you read the early interviews for CoH2 it's pretty clear he had little to do with vCoH's multiplayer.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

Neither of those goals are bad, but the means certainly are. If you want a noob friendly game, help the noob improve. Better tutorials, strong and visible competitive community, fairer matchmaker. You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.


Amen. So after 11 pages , you guys still think we have hope ? :)
1 May 2013, 15:00 PM
#210
avatar of Solver

Posts: 34

Some things have to be accepted as the reality. I had come to terms with additional doctrines and bulletins as DLC way before playing the beta - that is simply the business model of modern games.

Where the beta left me disappointed is, after all, the overall standard of gameplay compared to CoH. CoH2 isn't bad but so far I can't see it holding up for years like CoH did. The key impression for me is that, aside from true sight, I can't think of anything significant that is better in CoH2 than in CoH. Doctrines, veterancy and the the sector system are all worse, UI and clarity are worse, and many little things also seem to be worse. Vehicle battles easily have the potential to be better though, if they actually give a chance of not having damaged engines after an exchange of blows.

Still, this is the best thread I've seen on CoH2. If Relic does some good tweaking to address the 4 initial issues raised here, the game would become much better.
1 May 2013, 19:39 PM
#211
avatar of Pounder

Posts: 67

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Apr 2013, 16:48 PMKolaris
If it wasn't their intention, then you have to question whether they understand what made vCoH great in the first place.

If you don't understand what vCoH did right and what could be improved, you inevitably make changes that appear random or off the mark.

I think their intentions are pretty clear at this point, unfortunately. To make a game with more mass appeal - more forgiving, lower skill cap, more tanks and explosions. And to make a game with more long-term revenue - downplaying Doctrines so they can be sold as DLC, bulletins etc.

You don't change the game so the noob doesn't have to.


Bingo. I was going to reply with essentially this.

Regardless of intent, it feels like the game is "change for change's sake" as opposed to a core/mechanical upgrade & improvement.

I certainly like some of the changes to the game. At points it does feel new and fresh and improved. Unfortunately, these points are few and far between more often than not. More people seem frustrated than excited. There are a lot of decisions, especially design-wise, that don't make a lot of sense and really do illustrate the "change for change's sake" instead of a "yes, wow, that's exactly what needed to be done" idea.

I'm really banking on the fact that it was "closed beta" and am hoping there's still a lot of work that's gong to be done. The problem with that is the amount of time between alpha-->beta and the apparent lack of progress (obviously excusing a bit of that because of the THQ debacle), and the fact that it's slated to be released in about 2 months.

Still, I really think if Relic takes some of the better ideas and well constructed suggestions into consideration (and implements them), we're going to have a pretty damn fine game.
3 May 2013, 15:26 PM
#212
avatar of Haupt

Posts: 25

I doubt the game will change much from what we have seen in the closed beta.
3 May 2013, 15:32 PM
#213
avatar of Kolaris

Posts: 308 | Subs: 1

I don't remember it changing at all between Alpha and Beta outside performance, although to be fair they did start with medium sized changes right after the Beta began.
3 May 2013, 20:42 PM
#214
avatar of CrackBarbie

Posts: 182

I think this might have to do with the fact that the beta build was +3 months old when it came out. Seeing as the alpha came out late December and the beta early April, it'd be logical to assume that the two builds were only a month apart in terms of development.
3 May 2013, 21:30 PM
#215
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164

I don't remember it changing at all between Alpha and Beta outside performance, although to be fair they did start with medium sized changes right after the Beta began.


a few balance changes did occur, and for example the wire was made uncrushable. but yeah, not a whole lot of progress for like 3 months.

I think this might have to do with the fact that the beta build was +3 months old when it came out. Seeing as the alpha came out late December and the beta early April, it'd be logical to assume that the two builds were only a month apart in terms of development.


what makes you think that?
4 May 2013, 00:03 AM
#216
avatar of CrackBarbie

Posts: 182


what makes you think that?


I thought that was made clear in my post... The Beta build was months behind what Relic were testing in-house. And in all honesty, barring some performance and ui improvements, there really wasn't a difference between beta and alpha.
4 May 2013, 00:23 AM
#217
avatar of Stalker

Posts: 37



I thought that was made clear in my post... The Beta build was months behind what Relic were testing in-house. And in all honesty, barring some performance and ui improvements, there really wasn't a difference between beta and alpha.


Please explain why they would show off an inferior version of their game to the world then... The closed beta "build" got a lot of attention once the NDA was lifted.
4 May 2013, 00:25 AM
#218
avatar of CrackBarbie

Posts: 182



Please explain why they would show off an inferior version of their game to the world then... The closed beta "build" got a lot of attention once the NDA was lifted.


I presume for stability reasons.
4 May 2013, 11:33 AM
#219
avatar of RooadHoouse

Posts: 4

Great OP! I agree 110% with all the posts, except the blizzards maybe. I like them since they seem to keep the game more diverse. Coh2 really needs that IMO.
Im actualy fine with the engine fire to btw. Suits you right for trashing the sanctuaries of the poor and cold infantrysoldiers :D

I did enjoy the beta a lot actually, but im a bit afraid this game will grow real old, real fast for me unfortunately. Cant help feeling the game has to little diversity and depth in the strategy-department to keep it interesting in the long run. Matches feels so very alike. It dosent seem to matter which faction or doctrine i choose, they all just feel sooo similar... Just my opinion though.
4 May 2013, 12:59 PM
#220
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164



I thought that was made clear in my post... The Beta build was months behind what Relic were testing in-house. And in all honesty, barring some performance and ui improvements, there really wasn't a difference between beta and alpha.



so if i claim that the beta must've been 2 years old, because it was so bugged, graphically inferior and generally showed a lack of performance optimizations (which is like 20 more reasons that you named), does it make my guess any more correct than yours?

using an outdated version for testing is pretty useless, for very obvious reasons.

not including certain features into a beta is, however, common practice.
PAGES (19)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

Board Info

249 users are online: 1 member and 248 guests
Crecer13
38 posts in the last 24h
414 posts in the last week
1404 posts in the last month
Registered members: 27088
Welcome our newest member, kredyt86661
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM