You could make this argument in favour of abolishing the tact map though right? It also helps you in 'realizing where and when your opponent probes and pushes'. Ultimately these QOL changes in effect are productivity tools and which, while making your life easier in some regards, free your mental resources up to concentrate elsewhere. Auto reinforce is another good example.
Its not a hill I would die on though, I'd much prefer to see the control groups functionality, selector and events functionality fleshed out.
There's a lot of aspects - some already implemented - that go either way. I don't share your comparison to the tac map or auto reinforcing. The 'mechanics' and impact are just too different. The mini map does not show you new info, it is just an overview of what is going on. It reduces the micro of needing to skip to three different positions on the battlefield to get all the info and lets you focus on overall unit movement. The auto reinforcement reduces mindless clicking. In short, they both reduce things that I would not call a core feature of RTS games and free up time for the core loop itself.
Marking and tracking units however is different. I see this as a core mental part of RTS: Being able to estimate the enemy's strength in a position, weak points, how far you can push etc. Because this info directly influences your decisions, movement and positioning. Auto reinforcement and having a mini map do not change the core gameplay, they remove tedious tasks.
There is a point however that I think is much closer: Being able to see which player controls each unit, as well as stats like the aforementioned veterancy status. These also allow you some form of unit tracking. However, e.g. being able to see the enemy's vet vastly reduces frustration and imprpves readability, because the vet provides an explanation how the fight plays out. You could argue that you should not be able to see who the unit belongs to, since you'd then need to figure out yourself by sheer unit presence if you're beingteamed up on or not. Technically, it would be good for gameplay, but not fair for mixed teams, since teaming up on one single player would be obvious by the units you see.
That would be closer to ypur original point. However, just like for yout would not be a major point of discontent for me, but I weight the downsides heavier than the advantages.
Why? Well it would make it much easier to keep track of your opponents units if you could mark them in some way. For example, if I mark all my opponent's 4 rifle squads 1-4 and I notice 1,2 are on the left part of the map and 3,4 are on the right, if I note that 3 has come over to the left, I know that 4 is on its own, so I can send a vehicle over or whatever.
Another example, I mark my opponent's first Panzer IV when it comes out, but then another P4 shows up with no marker, I can deduce that they're on their second medium tank.
But that's part of the point of strategy and tactics: Properly realizing where and when your opponent probes and pushes.
I don't think this would add more than it took away from the strategy of the game.
Anyway, technically you can already do it (or at least could do it in CoH2), but you'll have to remember the veterancy progress of the squad. Not feasible for infantry, but for tanks it is. CoH3 should actually make it even easier with the added weathering on vehicles.
I am slightly disappointed to see that they did not expand the range of target sizes, but still use roughly the same scaling as in CoH2.
Together with similar accuracy values, the compressed range will make it more difficult to differentiate between some of the vehicle classes.
*The range stats for the Tiger & Panther appear to be bugged at the moment. The values for the Far/Mid/Near ranges are all set to "-1" which defaults them to the maximum range of the weapon. This results in both tanks using their maximum penetration values across their entire ranges.
Well, I didnt know they've said that. If this is the case, then I expect them to introduce proper patch this week fixing at least few of the major issues which were point out it. But I do have a feeling it was a bla bla from them, because day 1 DAK nerf didn't look like it was well thought out beforehand.
Found it again, it was on their summary after the MP test, but not before unless I missed something. Basically saying the feedback will incorporated after the launch. Obviously it's a lot of corporate gibberish and I guess some things will be swept under the carpet, but they were frank enough to say the feedback won't change the launch state. They probably did not have time for that anyway.
I guess Relic needs to figure out how to tackle balance etc. There can't be a meta or well-founded balance opinion after only one day, so all that they have at this point is people screaming on their forums about DAK and maybe some internal suggestions what could be implemented for their play tests. Changing stuff at this point is like asking your crystal ball for advice. I wouldn't blame them for a weird band aid fix at day 1. If this still happens in a month, then that's a different case.
Point here being, CoH3 is still solid game, but it had everything to be a good at launch, yet it isn't, simply because relic cut corners for some unknown reason.
I guess Relic was either (or both) under pressure from SEGA to release the game or miscalculated the time needed to fix things twice but wanted to avoid the bad PR of moving the game's launch only weeks before the respective launch date.
They rather went with the option of "the game is okay, overall best is to launch it right now and fix stuff later". They might be right on this from the company's perspective, but not from a player's perspective.
Regarding your points about the January MP test:
They said (beforehand?) that they won't be able to incorporate the feedback into the launch version, but will use it as a guide to prioritize the work in the first patches. Which is fair given that the test was about a month beforehand, but the overall point still stands: They knew that CoH3's overall state is - let's say - subpar and launched it anyway, and that misplanning is their fault.
CoH 3 is fundamentally a working game. It's not like a 2077 where the units load in 3 seconds after you move the camera over them; abilities work, animations look fine, textures load in, the balance is a little whack but it's not insanely bad.
Broken is too strong a word, but unpolished and rushed are definitely applicable.
Probably was not clear enough, with broken I did not refer to CoH3, it was a general statement.
But actually broken and unfinished games have mentally moved the norm so much, that a still rushed and incomplete game such as CoH3 suddenly shines and needs to be defended against criticism? That's the tribalism I am talking about. It's someone's new favourite game, and everything is excused because there are worse games out there and the predecessor had a worse launch.
It's not okay. Relic said the game is basically finished by launching it. Critiquing that there's still tons of rough edges that could have been fixed on Relic's side and features missing is absolutely fair. The fact that a game 10 years ago had a worse launch does not change anything about it. I know plenty of games that had better launches, so what is the argument there?
Anyway, I know that you're surely not the 'correct target' for this answer, but more a general point.
CoH3 is playable, surely fun at times, and yet this does not excuse Relic from stripping features that could be expected and that they also promised.
My point is that you need to compare CoH3 now to what is on the market right now as well, not to what was on the market 10 years ago. You're argumenting against someone who claimed that Relic will instantly drop CoH3 or that it is screwed up beyond repair, but most people don't claim that.
CoH3 was clearly rushed and could have used another couple of months for implementing basic features and polish that you could expect if a) the predecessor already has it and b) Relic markets so much as developing stuff for and with the community.
They cut those features because they did not want another delay. That's their fucked up management and nothing to excuse.
Yes, CoH3 will very likely improve with patches. But a bad launch state of CoH2 does not excuse that CoH3 launches with missing features and still some screwed up designs from what I saw on gameplay videos. If that weren't the case, their road map wouldn't include 'fixing the game and delivering basic features' for the first months. We know it could have used more time, Relic knows it could have used more time, no need to arguethat this were not the case.
I definetely not in the camp of people that say CoH3 were a failure, I've always written that I expect it to surpass CoH2 in quality within half a year or so, depending on how committed Relic really is. But I am tired of that mind boggling tribalism that players will defend unfinished games, just because launching broken shit has become the norm over the last decade.
You're right. Just because the second game was bad at launch, it doesn't excuse any issues the third has at launch as well. The game should ideally be polished as much as possible so we can all hold it to a higher standard.
But c'mon, he's being disengenious by suggesting that coh 2 is somehow vastly superior when we all know it wasn't. It was much more of a mess than 3 currently is.
I mean it's hard to make a discussion out of this thread since there is no point to discuss about. It's pretty much a shit thread, nothing more.
CoH3 (me speaking only from the January tech test) had very good improvements over CoH2, but Relic has to deliver in the next couple of months to really add some sorely missing features as well as overall atmosphere and gameplay improvements.
I'm pretty confident that Relic will commit to that despite them dodging DoW3 so early, because first they committed to AoE4 and second they probably don't have much of a choice financially than making CoH3 a success.
You really underestimate how many people play on 10+ year old PCs and blame everything except their hardware for low performance.
Just go to reviews of any game that does not have pixel art graphics and you'll notice the exact same comments on negative reviews, irrelevant hardware, windows 7 and rant how game is "badly optimized" or has "bad graphics".
That's assumptions on your side. As an outsider it is impossible to know which computer and game settings the players run.
I think it is reasonable to demand that a new game should be decently playable on a 5 year old machine with low-medium settings. And often enough even new hardware has performance issues, sometimes tied to specific pieces of hardware, sometimes to combinations thereof. That's all fair criticism.
Katukov if you wanna know how a garbage launch and pay2win trash for years looks like, you should have been here in 2013-16 for CoH2, but I know for a matter of fact you're some random who picked up the game for free in 2018.
CoH3's launch is infinitely better in every single regard.
But yeah, feel free to stick with dead CoH2 bro, 3v3 is somehow gonna be even more dead than before now so maybe you achieve something like 3 digit ranks now
This comparison does not make any sense. The fact that CoH2 was bad at launch does not excuse for CoH3 having the same issues at launch. It proves that Relic misplanned their development schedule and that features are missing from the game. Games are consciously or subconsciously rated by comparing them to competitors in the market. CoH2 is a competitor to CoH3. If there are features missing, that's Relic's fault with no excuse.
If your first child hits its head on the floor after birth, you don't call the second birth a success because the child hit its head on a slightly softer rubber surface and is now just half as disabled as the first child was back then.