Clicky

Aside from the adoption of the new tiered pre-order system, which had its own thread so I won't discuss it here, did anyone notice a few peculiar lines among the pre-order bonuses? Specifically:

  • In-Game Currency Gift to be Used Towards Purchasing Future Content
  • XP Boost
  • Unit Boost

..........

In-game currency? XP boost? UNIT BOOST?!

Are Relic turning CoH into an MMO? Even worse, a pay-to-win MMO?

I can't find any word from Relic or THQ on how these "features" will be implemented, and it seems they weren't announced before the pre-order. So, at the moment, I can't figure out a reason not to be worried. Thoughts? More accurate data? I'd especially welcome the latter.

12 years ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

Look at CoH offical forums

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Any hints as to what will be found or what to look for?

Or is it that you just like their forums?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Look at google website

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's dissapointing , i know.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The joys of extreme capitalism.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Please god, let not CoH2 be the "Age of Empires III" of relic games.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Probably will be :(

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Age of Empires III??? Why? That was a good game. Age of empires online is the one that sucks.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm pretty sure he meant AoE Online. Although AoE III wasn't that great either.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

First Generals 2 not Company of Heroes 2, we need a new giant of RTS to add some competition to the genre, would of thought sc2 would be enough to get the big devs to step it up in development but they're all on the slide.

If it was like the dota space with so many publishers competing for the niche market we could be in the second era of RTS.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've been saying this for a while now buuuuut

Men of War > Company of Heroes.

Men of War is a realistic WW2 RTS, Company of Heroes is Space Marines wearing WW2 Infantry costumes.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, I like CoH much more than MoW. It's a matter of opinions

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you play CoH you might as well go play Dawn of War. It's practically the same thing with a different setting. And I'm talking from the opinion of somebody who plays a lot of strategy games. From that standpoint the mechanics of CoH are just plain dumb.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sadly, DoW II requires Games for Windows Live :/

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

not anymore. the enw expansion called retribution has everything the previous ones have and uses steamworks. the only reason to play the old DoW II is for the rgeat campaign

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Me too. I've played MoW, CoH is more fun to me.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Play more rts games to get better at them then go back to MoW and play longer than an hour; doesnt really seem like you gave it much of a shot. If it's too difficult then tone down the difficult or you know, use strategy.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Doesn't stop me from giving him a suggestion.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When I read your reply to moyako1802, I already anticipated a reply as pathetic as this.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself....

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Lol So far your the only who's acted pathetic. I've just been talking to everyone else civilly; congrats on being the douche oh and btw and it all ended a while ago. If you got offended, too bad. ;) bye bye

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's sure a matter of taste, but I find MoW with Dynamic Campaign Generator way more fun (Long time total war player, I love dynamic campaigns). DoW have the same engine as CoD, so they are much similar. If you like more "non-arcade" games you'll sure like MoW. If you want a WWII "sim" go for Combat Mission series or Achtung Panzer (AP have a dynamic campaign too).

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm sorry but even if its matter of taste, and some people may like it; CoH is a bad game. The mechanics of the game don't make sense. Hey lets run at this machine gun placement but don't worry, we won't die, we are bullet sponges. Hey a tank battle, lets watch the tanks just shoot at each other for ten minutes and take the same amount of damage from all sides; what the tanks just blow up? It's like what actually would happen...oh wait..This part isn't a really big deal but it makes more sense for units to be called off map rather than constructing building to recruit. Oh yeah, the part of about infantry being able to survive a tank shell is rather stupid as well. As far as I see it, CoH is just lazy game design. WW2 is not the same thing as Dawn of Wars setting so the game mechanics shouldn't be remotely close to DoW, beyond simple things like path finding and gui and what not, but the game plays like DoW with a WW2 skin. And I'm not saying a game should be as difficult as MoW can be but CoH is a little too easy, all you really have to do is wait at your capture points, build units, attack and then you win. Not really too much strategy in between. I'm not attacking you in any way, I know you said you liked MoW, I was just saying my opinion on the matter.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I was referring to the campaign with the " wait at your capture points, build units, attack and then you win." but the multiplayer is still more economy management to win than actual unit strategies to win.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes but in the end, most of the time, it's about the economic management; who ever does it better will usually win. And in comparison, actual flanking doesn't have the kind of impact in CoH that it would in MoW. For example, I order somebody with an AT wep to to flank a tank in CoH. It doesn't really make a difference except the tank has to turn to hit them back. In MoW, if you have an AT wep powerful enough to take down a tank, I can order my guy to hit it's side or it's engine in the back. The result would be be either crippling a part of the tank or even disabling it completely; i wouldn't get the same results from a head on collusion with against the tank. Hell if I felt like it was worth the time and we didn't completely wreck it, I could even order my men to repair the tank and commander it. Then there is even just stuff like suppression, in CoH, there has to be a suppression effect to simulate actual suppression. In MoW, there is no such ability because if your unit is being hammered by enemy fire, if they step out of cover, they will die; there is no magic retreat button that will save them. It's just stuff like that you take into account when you strategize in MoW but in CoH, you don't really have to worry; all I'm saying is that yeah you can flank in CoH but beyond that, and I guess balancing your armor:infantry, there isn't too much strategy to game in comparison to MoW

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Fun isn't the same thing to everyone but I'm not arguing about what is more fun to the average person; I'm just saying that a lot more time and effort was put into crafting MoW. And it's like comparing an Rts game to an Rts game....

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ok yeah, you do have me there but the genres are close enough that they can be compared. Your example, "It's like telling someone an FPS game is better than this RPG game." is just extreme. And if you didn't think they couldn't be compared, you wouldn't have bothered to bring any of what you brought up.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well that is a tad extreme too :b but I do feel like they could have tried a bit more to make it feel like a different game. I understand that they might not have wanted to create a totally different engine but I just don't think that it fits well with time period.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'd also just like to say that I am by no means saying that CoH is boring or not fun, I'm just saying that MoW is better developed.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I understand you. My point is that some people just want a "WW2 lite" game, fast, simpler combat mechanics, etc. I can't play CoH "competitive" multiplayer because, like Starcraft, it's too fast paced and economy management based (like knowing the way to maximize units output, etc.). But that's something that a lot of players want... The tank physics of MoW are simply superb, not HP based like CoH.

Have you played World of Tanks, if yes, have you found it "fun"? Well, I have here Steel Beasts Pro PE, a real military tank sim, but I'm pretty sure that most of people would prefer WoT, they would find it more "fun".

My whole point is: "realism ≠ fun" for most people.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, I know but I'm just saying in term of how I base a game in terms of how "good" it is. It would be like comparing Red Orchestra and CoD, CoD is clearly the more popular game but Red Orchestra is clearly the better developed game.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Red Orchesta vs CoD: Whoever wins, Duck Hunter loses.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It was a typo, most likely.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

CoH > MoW
I dont like Dawn of War series. Cant stand it. LOVE LOVE LOVE COH! .. Non-steam version I have over 300 hrs punched. Love it!

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, you probably don't like the settings but the game mechanics are basically the same. All you have is MoW: Vietnam which isn't a good example because even for MoW, Vietnam is ridiculously more difficult and there is no competitive aspect to it. But if you have more fun with CoH then by all means have fun with it, I won't stop nor will I tell you it isn't a fun game.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

In-Game Currency
This one scared me.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I already made a thread about this Clicky

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry, I only searched for "Company of Heroes" and "CoH" before making a thread.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A P2W game that costs $79.99? Classy move.

Relic seem to be lowering their trousers in order to take a giant, meaty crap on the Call of Duty franchise.

Between this and EA's similar act of defecation on C&C Generals, 2012 and 2013 look like being bad years for RTS fans. At least EA have the decency not to charge an eighty dollar entry fee for their P2W malarky.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"$80?

I'm seeing $59.99 and $99.99 for the standard and collectors respectively."

Yup. Eighty US dollars for the basic version. You are evidently lucky enough not to be paying Australia/New Zealand prices.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well it costs money to flip everything in the game upside down for you guys

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Haha.

That's the first plausible explanation I've heard for the high prices down under :D

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Here is an old thread about it. Weird how the CoH price is AU/NZ but the rest is American for me here in SEA.

Anyway, I do find this disturbing. CoH2 looks like its trying to be an MMO, and I don't think thats a good direction to take a full priced AAA RTS title to.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

well said, sir

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm not convinced. I read the first few pages of that thread and they just keep saying "It's not pay-to-win!" without any evidence. The thing you quoted is a perfect example. The question was about boosts and archetypes, the answer tried to change the subject to tank skins.

Even if they really aren't planning to sell any gameplay advantages, what worries me is that they have a system in place to do so. As other games have already demonstrated, it's not at all hard to go from cosmetics only to pay-to-win. Can THQ resist the temptation?

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

All three of those sound super dodgy. I would wait until the release before deciding to buy it.

12 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 12 years ago by Vercinger.