Note: I'm going to try my best to give my analysis about the situation. Fell free to flame me.
I understand Relic's POV, players should pay more money for new "contents", and I am sorta ok with it for this following reason. I saw this coming a long time ago when EA started pulling this crap and no one complained until it was too late, therefore, it is partially gamer's fault.
Battlefield 4 franchise for example has the balls to tell you straight up, BEFORE THE GAME IS RELEASED, that there's going to be $50 DLC package associate with the original game. And that is ok, for BF4 to do so. Why? Because it is a FPS game and for the following reasons:
(1) BF4 DLCs involves new maps which indirectly divides player into different groups. One of the group will be people who does not pay for DLC denote group A. If other people who bought the DLCs and are just happening to be playing with group A on a server with original maps only, then no one has ANY competitive advantage.
(2) BF4 DLCs involves new guns which are side grades anyway. so it doesn't really make much a difference in game play.
(3) BF4 has a large enough player base to be divided that way
Now, COH2 is a unique game even when compared with other RTS game such as Starcraft. Why? because owning portions of the map gives player DIRECT advantage on economy, where as starcraft owning larger portion of the map gives you more vision only, and OPPORTUNITY to have a better economy if players choose to invest in it. What does this all mean? It means COH2 is a more COMPLEX game to balance in a sense because what happens in a game later is directly tied to what early game, in contrast starcraft allows strategies such as 1 base play in the beginning and have equal footing with enemy during late game if played correctly. This IMPLIES that COH2 CANNOT afford to introduce new contents that shift early territory control pattern so rapidly and expect game to be still in balance. It is not going to happen. Any changes like above would throw the entire game out of whack. Especially when new elements are only accessible to an exclusive group.
This being said, there will be a F2P RTS game out by EA called Command and Conquer (Generals). Now we don't know how the business model is going to shape out and how the commanders will be balanced. But one thing is different for sure. Even if they introduce some commanders that is more "OP" than others it would still not be as a big deal as coh2:
(1) In game currency. Those commanders can be bought with C&C in game currency so it doesn't really provide a hard-locked exclusivity to competitive advantages
(2) Different game play (Territory control). Like starcraft, C&C is based on COLLECTING resources and BUILDING economy by DIRECTLY INVESTING in them. So minor "OP"-ness in certain commanders would not have as big of an impact on game play, in contrast of coh2.
So what's the main points of all these:
(1) COH2 is a unique game that cannot introduce new content rapidly like BF franchise does.
(2) COH2 cannot introduce any noticeable competitive advantages and is only exclusive to certain groups of people. because there is no in game currency and this is RTS game so all players should be on somewhat of an equal footing.
(3) Even slightest changes made in COH2 would hugely affect game outcome so serious thoughts need to be put in before all deployments and changes.
This is wrote in a short period of time so please excuse the grammar errors and presentation methods.
+1 |
its like buying a GT car, as a performance fanatic, just to find out that the extra content was just a toilet paper holder, a baby carriage and extra cup holders, but wait there is more, if you had bought the normal car and bought the extra pieces (turbo, brakes suspension) by separate you get a better car than the GT car, harder better faster stronger. who told you GT means Grand Tourer? they just told you a gt carrr it did not say it would comply with the definition of grand tourer. because GT means Extra cup holders! and a nice smell! and a faceplate!!
Best Analogy ever! |
|
If it were a completely different faction, there won't be so much angst about it. But you can easily pick different commanders ingame and you don't need to go assault grens during that game. I mean, you can pick from 3 commanders so you can use it when
a) Opponent goes T2
b) You go T2 and get assault grens with scout cars.
ie, this is a choice that is far too flexible. |
|
Yup, here's the confirmation doctrine is OP.
Sigh... |
Commanders are expensive because they have already factored in the amount of overtime work hours the balance team will need to fix them
+1
I DID NOT. I DID NOT GET THE COMMANDERS. ONLY THE SINGLE PLAYER STUFF I DONT PLAY BECAUSE ITS TOO DUMB FOR MY TASTE. I HATE WHEN HARD GAMES JUST MAKE ENEMY UNITS MAKE MORE DAMAGE.
I was just stating a hypothetical, and even then, that would be bad.
|
|
Others have said it before but I'll say it again. This is a slap in the face to all that have preordered and bought DLC at a time when Relic was struggling.
Thanks to these changes, even if Preorders/DLC got it for free, the community wouldn't grow at all if not shrink and because of that, essentially, we payed all that extra for a shrinking game.
I'm seriously hoping Relic changes their policy. Otherwise, more ppl will end up leaving.
|
|
At the end of the day, with more decisions like these, the only players left will be ppl who either pre-ordered or DLCs.
And lets say I pre-ordered. |
|
Can I just say something here?
Trying to milk as much money from the community like this is no good. This F2P model is utterly ridiculous and does not work with a strategy game at all.
This isn't even a proper expansion, just slow additions to the game. |
For me, this is exactly the same as a new army, different abilities and options, but not necessarily better.
The major key difference here is that
Since these are commanders and you can have 3 commanders in a game, this means that you can have 3 commanders doing completely different things, meaning you have a ridiculous amount of choice in game as opposed to picking a completely different army prior the game. It's like having a choice of Tank Destroyers, Defence and Terror as doctrines in the one game in COH1.
I'm fine with new abilities and options being available but these must be made free to anyone who decided to pay $60 for the game.
This is the first game I've heard/played where the devs clearly decided to segregate ppl who have payed $60 and ppl who got the DCE with things that severely affect gameplay in game. |
So vCOH was pay to win because of Opposing Fronts ? no, it meant players had different options, but players could still win with original armies.
and this should be the same, if it's not, then I will agree, but a better player should be able to beat a lower skilled player with the original armies and commanders.
Opposing fronts did not add new abilities for existing factions and did not have any impact whatsoever as to how Wehrmacht and the Americans can be played, especially in Wehr vs Ami games.
This on the other hand is completely different - essentially, you are changing how people play with the original factions by adding more and more commanders.
For a while, I was contemplating getting back into COH2 after the MG changes made gameplay more fluid. After this, not so much unless if they release free commanders EDIT: If new abilities come out like this.
This is not like releasing new factions, it is more like releasing a completely new tree into current gameplay. It's exactly like, for instance, introducing Luftwaffe Doctrine into the Wehr faction. |
Australia
Waddn
hubewa
Relic Entertainment
