Profile of Fantomasas

There is no traction for this game anywhere. You look at Steam reviews, forums, reddit, here. A ghost-town, only talking how much of the failure or disappointment this game is.

Month 2-3 I was still hopeful that some kind of "Launch-ice" will break or melt, there will updates, maps, new Battlegroups. The situation will start improving.

Nope, 4 months in, there is nothing. Maybe 5th month there will be an extra map, while DevM is rewriting pathfinding because nobody else is there to work on it. AE trying to host the tournament of the game which "best moment" was soldiers getting engine-damage, while mines are exploding randomly.

I think September or October will be that "Heartfelt" letter about moving forward from COH3.

I'm serious, it really boggles my mind there is no crossplay. What easier way to ensure console players at least have humans to fight against than to add crossplay.

I just don't get it. Why were there so many issues with the friend request UI when it was simply intended to be redundant to steam, instead of connecting players cross platform? Why hide player names if not to avoid the possibility of console players having vulgar names relic might not be able to enforce bans on.

My theory is that crossplay WAS intended, but the devs didm't have the time or manpower to implement it, and left it to be added in the future or canned entirely. That's the only thing tht makes sense besides incompetence..

All our speculations/disagreements on the horrible UI/Teamcolors for 4vs4 invalidated, because the game is not even crossplay or crossplatform. It is just multi-platform...

Everything in this game can be explained as: the studio behind it had no skills or knowledge how to continue the COH franchise, and this is the result. I am sure they all planned on making a good game, with adequate quality, content and features.

Or money. Sony requires money for those games that have cross-platform. Therefore, one of the most profitable games for Sony... It's Call of Duty. Maybe it was easier to negotiate with Microsoft, but it clearly makes no sense to spend money on cross-play for Playstation with a minimum income from the game.

That is not true. The Sony crossplay fee refers to the situation where a primary Sony platform user (Lets say 90% hours Playstation Fortnite player) starts making purchases on a different platform, yet Playstation remains his top platform. It is a fair business deal from Sony: crossplay is allowed provided it doesn't undermine their own revenue.

If you don't allow cross-platform account progression, then Sony fee doesn't even matter. Since you would always need a new copy of the game, with a different platform account, to make any purchase with COH3.

I just want to point out at the delicious COH3 cool-aid that the developer still, even after being fired, is savoring:
"... it will keep being one of the best RTS of all time."

Bruh, maybe it is the linkedin speak for hyping up your past projects, but you have to be self-aware. The game is approaching COH1 popularity, it is negatively rated by users, you got fired for this result, and the studio might even fold if MS is going to pursue a new AOE direction.

So you wanted him to editorialize. Just not in a negative way towards Relic? Why are you responding to my post to agree with me? Color me confused.

I agree with the conclusions because we already knew the news/evidence from other sources.

Every single moderation platform is run by people.

If they don't like you, they are not going to care about your appeal. Trust me, even if they had an inbox to appeal, you would get the same result. Getting unbanned means that they were wrong, which is an extra barrier that to overcome. You are trying to find the agnostic-logic in the process, as if it is some legal battle with the impartial judge. They can enforce their TOS however they like, your only option is to go to the consumer groups or courts if you want to have any chance of appealing such ban.

Appeals work when you have automatic-systems. Locking accounts based on weird logins, patterns, language detection, cheating-false-positives etc. They do not work if someone banned you explicitly.

I think no game should moderate the social media and use that as evidence against your account. It is a game, go moderate the in-game behavior where people are toxic, racist and ruining games in your own platform. You can use evidence outside the game to punish the in-game behavior, but not the outside behavior to punish the game's account.

//

Yes, it is a rant and a personal opinion.

In my own words, I would describe COH2 as:
(Faster Phases, More Lethality, Less Strategic Map, Commanders automatic linear tree)

I might not get the "crux" of these gameplay changes in 1vs1. But could you try to explain what am I missing. A well placed flanker SMG squad or micro'ed TD could wipe units. An unlucky mortar shot could wipe a clumped squad, un-dodged grenade wiping squads. Some other differences in teching and sector resources.

I also understand that the light-vehicle "Phase" is much longer in 1vs1. You get your one-trick flame halftracks or clown cars in 4vs4, but the window is short and you know the medium tanks will start to come out from 12th minute. I don't understand how it matters if the "infantry/light vehicle" phase is much shorter in 4vs4? A well balanced unit will retain it's value with high veterancy even later in the game. Kubelwagen is the consumable unit, it is a scout. You can have a wider light motor pool selection aimed at different playstyles. You want to micro your Pumas and T70? Perfectly viable, a high vet Puma is the MVP in many games. Case point the AEC is a great Stukahunter or suicide Tiger flanker with movement-hits.

From the design perspective, it is ok to have units aimed at different modes. LEFH or Priests are definitely not 1vs1 units, they can be balanced for 4vs4 knowing they will never disrupt the 1vs1. Same for those light motor pool options: some just get out-phased too fast in 4vs4. You have different maps, and probably a pool of tech options excelling in different scenarios.

The strategic choices to capture Fuel and deny your opponent resources: It is fine to put fuel into manpower points making sure that you cannot lockout your opponent from teching. I will concede that you lost strategic options by going with COH2 system, but... COH3 has regained it, right? And... I don't mind either way. Instead of 3 COH2 linear tech trees you now have 3 COH1 tech trees to choose from.

So what, most people playing games are in the Casual/Unranked/Silver bracket, they will adapt to either side as long as the game is exciting to play without even understanding the nuances. To this day I don't know why my IS is capturing sector at half speed sometimes. I was at the top of the 4vs4 ladder. I played COH2 not because it had any mechanical differences I preferred, but there were more players, it had more commanders/units to play with, and the game looked/sounded much better.

COH2 wasn't made for team games either. The 1vs1/2vs2 was the priority up until late into the lifecycle, when they nerfed base-sector artillery shots and then community patches followed. I can maybe accept that COH2 had more consideration for the 4vs4, but none of the COH1/COH3 mechanics are problematic to be as a 4vs4 player. Just... where are the maps, why is my MGs/PAKs/Mines bugged, why can leavers ruin games unpunished. (I know MGs and PAKs are greatly improved now). I have gripes on the nuance how they changed the tank-destroyers, but I would adapt and roll-over if the game was that "objective" upgrade I describe.

(I write COHO off because that game simply failed the F2P monetization test, it could have had the "best" mechanics but that game was fundamentally botched because it was a pre-LOL F2P game meaning a terrible free experience. I logged in once, it was the most freemium shit, uninstalled and never cared enough to play a single round online.)

Anyone else is also welcomed to say: no fantomshmuck, you really don't get how different these games were. Or... yeah, we don't care about nuance, either is fine.