[Fact] OF reached gold status

[ÜberJumper]

Would you buy a car with no tires and doors on the hope that the company would give them to you later?

I loled, I said something similar to a Relic dev earlier today.

If THQ HQ wants Relic (THQ Canada) to be the new Blizzard, they best sort out this "Release it now and patch it later" attitude.

I've been a hardcore fan of Relic since 1999, and I love their product(s). CoH: OF's single player will be epic, but the multiplayer... the magic 8 ball says "ask again later".

Relic's devs and designers and artists are some of the best in the business, but the decisions that seem to be made about shipping product (at the THQ level) before it's done is tiring. I understand the need to set deadlines, and I understand the need to meet fiscal end of period dates, but for fuck's sake you've got to stop allowing product to "go gold" and get sent to manufacture when it's not done.

I bet not a single Relic dev is happy about having to send OF to manufacture before it's defect free. I dare someone from Relic to come in here and tell me their proud of shipping a game that they know has issues (zero day patch or not). If anyone from Relic is happy that the product is going gold with the state the multiplayer is in, tell me now so I can find some other company to support.

[TrueKnight]

If you guys look at what they did with COH you should be afraid. A year later and there are still bugs and balance problems. Please be more cynical people.

Follow the facts of the history of coh. Hoping that they fix it won't get you anywhere, you might as well start praying to jesus.

Throwing money at these companies that continue to release games that are clearly not ready to be released is just stupid. Would you buy a car with no tires and doors on the hope that the company would give them to you later? If you are an idiot you might, but I sure won't. Maybe if you purchased from the company before and trust them, but again we wen't through this before with Coh numba 1. I will believe it when I see it.

The truly sad part is that you keep letting these companies take advantage of you because you keep buying incomplete games. Stop it already, just stop it.

What is really funny is that some of you think the bugs in the beta somehow won't be there in the single player. It's as if you think they are two separate games.

Out of all that we were promised from OF what have we seen in the beta? We have not seen team automatch which we were promised, we have not seen better vehicle AI, and they have yet to even balance vCOH.

Gaming companies are becoming the new politician. This isn't getting better, it's getting a whole lot worse.

No offense but, and this goes to any and everyone, if you don't like it - don't buy it. Me? I loved vCOH and I have liked what I have played in the beta. I will buy it on it's release date and be more than happy I'm getting it early.

It's gone gold. It will be out much sooner than any of us could have anticipated. Yeah, they probably pushed it because of money and I can't blame them. Again, buy it or don't. Over. Done. Period.

[DatonKallandor]

Some of us care about graphics, some of us care about single player, some about multiplayer. They should care about all of us out there and not just appeal to people like you, who don't care about the things we want. I agree it's a good game but to pay full price for an expansion with unbalanced armies is not my idea of a fun game.

You are the minority. The sooner you realize that, the better for your blood pressure.
Not to mention that calling it an expansion is misleading. It's a full game, with more content that vCoH, for the price of an expansion. It's the single best RTS deal of all time yet.

[ÜberJumper]

TrueKnight:

Here's my issue with that. I want everyone to buy Relic products like I do on release day. Problem is many won't, because they're getting a rep for shipping with defects.

My point is we shouldn't be having this concern about the state of the game in the first place. We should all be going "Fuck yes, it's early, and it's ALL awesome" not "oh, I guess we'll have to play Single player until Multiplayer is sorted out".

It's like having sex with a super-model and getting the clap. Awesome at first glance, visit to the doctor later on.

[Wargrim]

It's the single best RTS deal of all time yet

Lol. It isnt even out and you crown it king of rts deals OF ALL TIME?

Seriously, there are so many different ways of seeing what is the "best" when it comes to games and RTS...

In my definition, the "best" RTS for me is the same as the "best" FPS or "best" game in general, the one that gives me the longest motivation and fun playing it, the one that has the highest replay value. For me personally that would be Vanilla DoW. It was fun for the longest time of any RTS for me. Untill WA. For many people obviously Starcraft was the longest fun RTS.

Some want Multiplayer, some Singleplayer, some ballance, some graphics, some story, some many fractions, some want it easy, some want it complex, it is impossible to say what is best. But as a matter of fact, we know from the Beta that OF is not yet there where it could be. Überjumper said all i could say allready. Best deal of all time? Potentially, but not at release following the current trend. Having to patch the game before being able to play it properly leaves a bad first impression, and first impressions are lasting impressions.

[DatonKallandor]

Seriously, there are so many different ways of seeing what is the "best" when it comes to games and RTS...

Your reading comprehension fails. Show me a different RTS that has a standalone, backwards and forwards compatible, expansion with more content than the original game at expansion price.

[Bota99]

You have some good points Uber, but what Publishers are not doing this these days? GL finding one. A lot of people hold Blizzard up to high standards because of Starcraft but that is just a game they supported with patches for years and years and years until they finally got it right. No other dev. I know of has done that for any other game. They just do not have the time or money.

You are quite right that something needs to be done about the state of the gaming industry right now. I just do not know what. Perhaps it will someday become something that *gasp* legislation will need to tackle as the younger gaming generation gets a bit older and starts getting into positions of power in various countries legislative branches. I just dunno.

[Wargrim]

Your reading comprehension fails

No, i see your point, but i say your standards are by far not the only standards to measure what is

the single best RTS deal of all time

[TrueKnight]

TrueKnight:

Here's my issue with that. I want everyone to buy Relic products like I do on release day. Problem is many won't, because they're getting a rep for shipping with defects.

My point is we shouldn't be having this concern about the state of the game in the first place. We should all be going "Fuck yes, it's early, and it's ALL awesome" not "oh, I guess we'll have to play Single player until Multiplayer is sorted out".

It's like having sex with a super-model and getting the clap. Awesome at first glance, visit to the doctor later on.

I can totally agree with you. And, yes, it is disheartning that it seems that all publishers are going the "rushed" route these days. I'd love for the game to be near perfect when it comes out but we can all see that isn't happening. I'm willing to have a little faith in Relic, even though it may be blind faith.

Flip side of that coin... For all the complaining that everyone is doing? I can't recall ever seeing a game released (at least an online game) that was perfect at launch...?


And you're quoted text that is bolded? Best quote for relating two items.

[Darksider2]

Your reading comprehension fails. Show me a different RTS that has a standalone, backwards and forwards compatible, expansion with more content than the original game at expansion price.

it has more content, but did it take more time to make? It's not completely original, i.e. some of the graphics were just altered. I'm pretty sure it didn't *cost* as much as vCoH to make.

I have not heard anything about pricing yet, does anyone have updates?

And why can't relic fix vCoH if this is so standalone and great. In my opinion, they're expecting everyone who wants to be competitive in CoH to get OF. Look at how piospam hasn't been fixed in vCoH. OF will sell, and as much as some of us want them to be more like blizzard in terms of esports and competition, i doubt they're motivated to do that.


and for those that say this game is releasable, someone please tell me how vCoH factions can defeat OF ones. I've yet to see posts of vCoH faction OPness, or even arguments saying you can compete against the new factions.


i just wish they'd care more about mp, or someone make a statement about the state of multiplayer. they seem content to release it with multiplayer being addressed later... that doesn't appeal to some of us out there.

[ÜberJumper]

Bota:

True, Blizzard's been known to patch more than once for their products, but that's not the comparison I'm making. Everyone I know seems to think that when you buy a Blizzard product, you can be assured that it was "done" when they shipped it. Yes they fix issues and add things. Blizzard also supports their products for a longgggg time. As you noted, they're still patching starcraft (not sweeping patches mind you, but none the less). Relic (since being purchased by THQ) seems to have lost the love a bit for Dawn of War. There's seemingly no committment to maintaining products.

With Blizzard products you know it's going to be damn good when it comes out the door (we'll see for Starcraft 2 ) and they're going to support it and fix broken game issues seemingly until the end of time. Now with THQ, THQ seems to be shipping product before it's done and assuming they can patch later. The Relic guys we know want this product to succeed and are working hard on the product.

Ravenwild:

After you have 40,000+ posts over 9 years on these forums (or their various incarnations over the years) most of them supporting Relic's products, you can come back and make such a silly statement. Take your 27 posts over 11 months and come back later.

[DatonKallandor]

And why can't relic fix vCoH if this is so standalone and great. In my opinion, they're expecting everyone who wants to be competitive in CoH to get OF. Look at how piospam hasn't been fixed in vCoH. OF will sell, and as much as some of us want them to be more like blizzard in terms of esports and competition, i doubt they're motivated to do that.

You obviously don't understand what OF's standalone capability means. Everyone will get OF's fixes. It doesn't matter if they buy it. You can have vCoH and you'll get all the OF side content to play against and you'll get all the patches. There is no seperate vCoH after OF is out.

[Darksider2]

Everyone will get OF's fixes. It doesn't matter if they buy it. You can have vCoH and you'll get all the OF side content to play against and you'll get all the patches.

i completely understood this part, but notice how you said play against. are the OF sides balanced with the vCOH sides right now?

[IRON_EMPEROR]

sigh the sad part is that it doesn't matter if u get OF now or OF later THQ will be shoving a game down our throats that many feel is not ready

[Arinax]

although i think it was a rethorical question but : NO they are far away from being balanced

[Ap0k]

I've just pruned a giant steaming pile of crap from this thread. If you guys can't post civilly and constructively, don't bother posting at all.

[bean_22]

The patches seem to be in the right in the direction. Wehrmacht, I just played the last few matches with them seem very competitive even against the brits. Piospam has been fixed (it should be a somewhat viable strat...it certainly is unique), blitz RHS is great now and if I have lots of munitions my favourite doc to take, grab storms then head down the right side. Blitzkrieg! is insta win any tank battle and mp blitz is great now. Mg's and volks are more than competitive against british troops, trenches can be a problem early game but lets be serious if they are tying 400 mp to hold a very small section of land then go elsewhere you'll have the advantage, Heroic charge is the only real early game counter to mgs, and that requires an alive vet 1 lt. Brits have trouble fighting panzer command units, their AT gun is great but stationary and can be flanked easily especially with previously mentioned Blitzkrieg! Piats are ok but miss against moving vehicles and die easily. The only brit tank that has a chance is the firefly but is very expensive to initially get and is terrible vs troops.

The only thing I fight out of wack right now is the rangers vs the old wehrmact...light tanks, not a chance, troops get annihilated, the only thing is heavy tanks and that generally comes too late. They need to be toned down a bit.

[Nerdinheimer]

To all the moaners: don't be such misery guttses. There's plenty of balance patches coming out all the freaking time for the BETA. I have no doubt there will be a day 0 patch. I think at this stage Relic have had all the complaints/issues/suggestions from the community and consequently a decent ETA on when they'll be fixed.

Hell, it's not you don't have the Devs on the boards all the time.

I'm confident it will be a really great game.

[ÜberJumper]

Something has been explained to me that fills in some gaps. I understand a bit better what's going on, but it's not my place to explain it to the fans. I'll see what I can do about getting an interview with Relic together to explain it.

[natrapsmai]

Prove it to me. Have you played the single player game?

Uh, have you? You do know that the game bugs that exist in multiplayer are going to exist in single player too, right?

do you know if there are bugs in it? bugs that havent already been fixed?

No. I doubt you have.

Have you seen the state of the multiplayer game lately? Continue to sugarcoat it all you like, but UberJumper said it best: pushing unfinished games out the door and patching them retrospectively is the game industry's biggest shortcoming right now. Relic is no exception; no matter how good the rest of the game may or may not be, selling broken software isn't right.

If they can magically fix all the goods before zero hour and get them in the final retail box, then all this doesn't matter. But judging by how vCoH was and how the beta has gone thus far, I can't say I expect that to happen.

[TankHunter678]

Opposing Fronts is not ready for release, that much is plain and simple. Though Relic Online has improved and many old units referred to as useless have been improved to a state they are decent. The old Nebelwerfer used to be nothing more then a pop and manpower sink, now it is reasonable against the British and their masses of Trenches. The StuG used to be pretty useless, but can contend with all but the best British tanks. Infantry company and terror got the boosts they needed to compete with the other doctrines in the Originals.

Yet even with these improvements all can agree a lot more problems were made.

[TeufelHund666]

OF balance and stability has improved out of sight since the closed beta started (I could hardly connect at all for weeks).

I'm ready to believe that there's a reasonable chance that the single player will be bug-free and fun on release and the multi will be passable for a new release.

Of course, it probably won't come out here in Australia till early in October since we can't buy it on Steam, so it will probably be a bit more polished when we get our hands on it.

[scoiatollo]

Since my last post got deleted I try it again...

Buggo said they would continue their support with all Relic games, yet DC being out for over a year has gotten 1 balance patch 6 month after it's release and it's still not "perfect", playable to a certain extend but some matchups and a whole race which was added in DC (who sees similarities here) are really broken! Relic isn't even fixing some damagetables entries that are obviously wrong.

In the DoW section is a thread called "Earnest discussion about the future of DoW" (or something like that) where I stated that I hoped Relic learned of their failures they made with WA and DC (since the support of CoH was much better than DC's, maybe even better than the whole support for the DoW scene) so that I will be able to trust this company again. As it seems now it won't come back for a looong time...

Relic may have time to balance OF (which I doubt...) but those "release now patch later"-attitude isn't the right way if you ask me...

btw.: I wouldn't try arguing with DantonKallandor about Relic, he seems to be something like a Relic fanatic (or an Relic employee undercover...)

[Muad'Dib]

@TeufelHund666

I don't think you'll get a better version. If they start production in a week or so from now, then it will be the version of what everyone else gets regardless when the release date is for certain countries. Though I'm thoroughly convinced that by the time it's released in Australia a patch would already be available online. There's still a bit more spit and polish needed for OF but by the time actual production starts, we'll probably get an OF that's 80% to 85% ready. An after sales patch would probably come in a week or two after. Then again, its a common fact that RTS games are never 100% perfect. So maybe 85% is what a good release version really is.

[Question]

Hmm...wonder how long it will take for a bundlepack of COH+OF to be released .

[Phazon]

As someone stated on another CoH forum I frequent, the campaign must be finished...


Opposing Fronts is far from balanced. The two new factions completely dominate the old ones. There are still useless doctrines. Ugh, I do not want to have to wait for patches AGAIN.

[BlackLabel]

Its really intresting how many software development experts are here. "The game is far away from beign finished..."...eh ya.

I will buy OF nevertheless and i bet the ones that moan the loudest are those that preorder it.

I dont have a problem with patches at release date. As long as they actually FIX stuff...

AND you people bitch around about balance as if the thing was unplayable. It needs tweaking, but overall, 2vs2 and above become alot more intresting.

[Altaire]

Better this then nothing.

[scoiatollo]

And what if I am not interested in 2v2 and above? I mainly play 1v1 since this is the style that offers most fun for myself (and I am probably not alone). I also don't care about SP (never touched it in CoH).
And no, I am not going to buy OF till the first few patches arrived and most of the community say it's balanced! I did the same with CoH after being disappointed of DC.

Why should I buy a game where more than half of the community is moaning how IMBA the game is? I wanna play fair games not winning/losing because someone found a new exploit (pointing at piospam...).

[BlackLabel]

First off, and iam really sorry, i think that many, many people dont have a clue about balance. People moan and bitch because:

1. They are used to a diffrent playstyle

2. Their old strategys are useless or need tweaking accordingly to the new situations they are facing

3. People LOVE to moan and bitch around.

I dont even think its "half of the community". ( i know many, many people that play alot COH since the last beta that NEVER EVER look at this forum or gr.org WHY? they just dont care and dont want to get involved in useless speculations with selfproclaimed "pros" and "balance experts"...those people maybe have more fun...)

IF you limit yourself to 1vs1 you miss out on a huge portion that is Company of Heroes. Maybe they should have sticked a big sign on the pack that says "designed for 2vs2 and above". Dont get me wrong i like 1vs1 too but i really think that the 1vs1 competitive crowd is smaller than you think. There are ALOT new people around here due to the OF Beta.

Again..its really, really simple...IF you dont like it, dont buy it. But if you dont buy you cant bitch and moan about it in forums instead of acctualy playing the game.

An evil mind might say " yeah they made the OF races OP ( wich they are not, after some balance tweaks ) to sell more OF.... "


Edit...woooo my first *sticky* topic....

[re-con]

"Dark Crusade didn't have an extensive beta testing stage where the community was involved"

So I take your definition of extensive beta testing is less than a month with all four factions? Seems a little to release it end of September. If they do it will be DC all over again. First patch for DC wasen't ready for over 8 months remember. And even then it did very little to fix the broken game play. After only one patch they have, for all intentiional purposes, abandoned DC and moved on!

Alternatively, if THQ is mainly focusing on the Single Player campainge then that explains the 'assumed' early release. Whats the statistic again 90% play SP and only 10% if that play MP. So if SP is ready to go I can't see why they wouldn't release it early. I'm getting the feeling that SP is where Relic and THQ are putting most of their emphasis.

[BlackLabel]

But thats logic re-con. The game dosent sell over the multiplayer. IF that whould be the case we whould have 5000+ players online.

[scoiatollo]

I don't mind losing games at all, and I have no problems adopting strategies, the opposite is true, I love trying new strats to find counters.

Tastes are different, I tried 2v2 but it's not as much fun as 1v1 for me. You like 2v2 and above, I don't...

Again..its really, really simple...IF you dont like it, dont buy it.

See and that's the problem, I like CoH, but I like it balanced...
So why shouldn't I be complaining about a rushed release since the last time Relic did it (DC) the whole thing was fucked up on release day. It's not my turn to prove that Relic is able to release "balanced" games on release...

edit:

But thats logic re-con. The game dosent sell over the multiplayer. IF that whould be the case we whould have 5000+ players online.

And that's the problem. It's not SP that keeps a game alive and selling, it's MP...

[re-con]

I guess then you could put me in as the single player fan. I'll get WiC for MP as its far superior to anything Relic has ever released. I doubt very much they will ever release a game that is truely MP freindly, due to their poor ability to balance, and dodgy peer to peer connection. However, I will get OF for the SP campainge.

[BlackLabel]

I just say limiting yourself to 1vs1 takes away the most intresting factor to develop strategys with another human beign, maybe using teamspeak and Vent....thats where its at...Get a friend and try again....

It's not my turn to prove that Relic is able to release "balanced" games on release...

True that is. And i really hope they learned or at least adjusted their patching processes acordingly.


edit*...man WiC is not an RTS...its a "mirror match" game. Thats not hard to balance. Its popcorn RTS....It works totaly diffrent from OF...get it right.

[scoiatollo]

Why am I limiting myself? I tried it and didn't like it. I liked 2v2 and 3v3 in DoW but I dislike it in CoH...

And Actually I found some pretty close friends in my DoW days who visited me in real live (despite the 1200km distance...)

[BlackLabel]

Isent that nice ? I just think you miss out on alot of fun. I got into CoH beta ( a year ago ) because it was markedet as "teambased rts" or whatever they called it. I allready played a teambased RTS ( codename : panzers ) for a long time with some friends so it was easy to switch over to coh. Man its totaly cool if you dont like the 2vs2 and above part, but still, i think you miss alot of what makes CoH really great and diffrent.

Competitive 1vs1 leads to exploits and just using "what works best". This might be fun but if you do it over, and over, and over ,and over , and over , and over...oh did i say...and over again. It gets repetitive. ( not to mention there are only 4 1vs1 maps )

[Akranadas]

]So I take your definition of extensive beta testing is less than a month with all four factions? Seems a little to release it end of September. If they do it will be DC all over again. First patch for DC wasen't ready for over 8 months remember. And even then it did very little to fix the broken game play. After only one patch they have, for all intentiional purposes, abandoned DC and moved on!

Okay, now your taking everything out of context. This isn't Dark Crusade; this is Opposing Fronts which is apart of the Company of Heroes franchise. As we've already seen with CoH; Relic is committed to releasing patches. 9 Patches and a new stand alone-cross expansion (which is also like a massive balance patch) in less than 12 months is nothing compared to Dark Crusade.

Relic have said time and time again that they are committed to perfecting Company of Heroes/Opposing Fronts with patches. They have reworked their patching process and now have a hotfix system in place to deal with quick patches. Dark Crusade (and DOW on a whole) is harder to patch than Company of Heroes; How many times does Buggo have to say this before people understand! Seriously, it's like you guys need the bloody messiah to tell you face to face before you'll beleive anything Relic tells you.

Give them a break, it's not them pulling the strings here, it's THQ. If THQ wants to release it when they think it's ready; Regardless if it still needs some work (that can be done via patch before release) then they, as the producer can do that. Relic can only do what they can from now; thats continuing the support they are already giving with Company of Heroes.

We should be supporting Relic, not burning them for something that is out of there hands.

[scoiatollo]

Okay, some guys eat cats and dogs and would say I miss something, so are you missing something not eating cats and dogs? Me not...

And 1v1 is not the whole tactic over and over again, if you are facing someone equally skilled as you, you will have problems with standard tactics so you need to adopt and even if you lose the game, it's a good feeling (at least for myself)! Whenever I play against someone obviously weaker I offer him advice as good as possible.
I am not playing for the wins, I am playing for fun and why should I play something that offers no fun for myself? I don't have that much time to waste.

And for the 4 1v1 maps, how about adding some? I'd really appreciate that...

edit:

@Akranadas: So it's okay for you to buy bugged games and rely on the devs that they will fix it? It may not be Relics fault, but how else are you able to harm THQ (or better to teach them a lesson) by not buying the game? Seriously, if you know a better way, please tell me 'cause I am fed up of being a beta tester on release day...

[Octopus Rex]

I think, scoiatolla, the point is that the game may not be designed exclusively for the particular part of the game that you personally buy it for, especially if you only buy it for one small part.

Take a game like Monkey Ball 2 for example, it has 12 sub games (I think it's 12, haven't played it ages). If I only like monkey tennis, which is not even the main game its a party game (the main game is the one where you roll aroud the mazes) if I only like this ONE small part of the game, I haven't really got much of an argument if all my criticism of the game is based around this. "Monkey Ball 2 sucks because the big monkey is the best at tennis by far" (in fact they are all the same, but you get the point).

Your idea of what COH is is flawed. CoH is more than multiplayer 1v1. The single player campaign could be awesome, the best the world has ever seen, people play through it time after time and the game is a mega hit, but you would continue to think CoH sucks because 1v1 is not balanced enough for your high standards. Your view is narrow and short sighted if you do not take the whole package into account.

Edit: if 1v1 is not up to scratch for you, and that really is ALL you play it for, then don't buy it. It's not complicated. You are a small demograph.

[scoiatollo]

You got something wrong here. I like CoH as it is now and from time to time I like 2v2 (above it's to much chaos if you ask me...) nut I like 1v1 best since it's the best way to compete imho.

And I am not playing SP because I like the challenge, and against AI there is hardly any. If I like a story I am playing a good shooter/adventure/rpg not a rts.

Why should a feature be included (1v1 i.e.) if it's broken/unplayable? Or what makes 2v2/3v3/4v4 better/more justified to be balanced?

btw.: I haven't said that 1v1 is the only true way to play this game, I said tastes are different and I prefer 1v1 with CoH...

[Octopus Rex]

It's okay, I didn't feel that you thought it was the only true way to play. And as far liking CoH, my apologies, simply swop CoH for OF every time I mentioned it.

Why should a feature be included if it is broken or unplayable? Well, you've answered your own question there. You clearly feel that, for you personally, the single player is unplayable in that the AI it a total walkover and just it's not a challenge. You think: why bother playing it? So why have they included it then? Many people clearly feel that it is very playable. Can you see that if they feel this about the SP then surely they can about the 1v1?

And as for why 2v2 or 3v3 should get precedence? Well, you're taking this as though they have chosen to ignore 1v1, when they won't/haven't, again you're dividing it all up into your pieces and their pieces - your not seeing the bigger picture again.

Edit: and the same point still goes - if you don't like it don't get it. Simple really. You even played the beta.

[Akranadas]

@Akranadas: So it's okay for you to buy bugged games and rely on the devs that they will fix it? It may not be Relics fault, but how else are you able to harm THQ (or better to teach them a lesson) by not buying the game? Seriously, if you know a better way, please tell me 'cause I am fed up of being a beta tester on release day...

By not buying the game, I am not doing any damage to THQ, the damage will be felt by Relic. Who without sales; won't get the go ahead to develop more titles like another chapter of Company of Heroes or future patches. Why patch a game that doesn't sell well?

[Wargrim]

Why patch a game that doesn't sell well?

Investment into trust, investment in the future. The better your support, the higher the chance you can sell new games later on. Just look at the mass of complaints regarding DC, and how that poisoned the image of Relic for quite a few forumers.

[scoiatollo]

So what's your way to say it's enough? I can't hit THQ alone so Relic is more or less collateral damage. I won't buy any rushed game any more! I did it with CoH (bought it after 1.7 was released) and I am happy with it. I got a good game for little money that's "balanced". If you think it's okay to buy unfinished games go on and buy them, I am definitely not supporting this!

@Octops Rex: I don't play single player cause I lack the challenge, if someone likes it I am not judging him. I for myself need the competition, the thrill of fighting a human or how ever you wanna name it. SP is something solid and since not everybody is able or want to play online it's a good way to increase the sells.

My 1v1 comparison came up because blacklabel stated that 2v2 and above is really great. I just used 1v1 as an example. btw.: if something is broken in 1v1 it's normally worse if used on team games, so imho a game should be first balanced on 1v1 and then move on...

[KingzizeM]

So it really is true about the release , i was really 2nd guessing if it was true or not but i read that they wanna release the game the 26th of september .

I don't think relic really wanted this , i think it is more a money thing from THQ .
personally i still think there is alot to be done but oow well ...
but still am gonna buy the game ! i will play the single player till everything is patched then switching 2 multiplay , the same i did with the 1st company of heroes .

[Octopus Rex]

1. Again, don't worry I didn't think you were judging people, I just meant it to illustrate different perceptions.

2.

if something is broken in 1v1 it's normally worse if used on team games

That's a good point and I would agree with you there.

[re-con]

"edit*...man WiC is not an RTS...its a "mirror match" game. Thats not hard to balance. Its popcorn RTS....It works totaly diffrent from OF...get it right."

I wouldn'd necessarily call it a mirror match, there are certain difference with a number of units that effect game play. As to "popcorn RTS" I think you a very wrong in this assumption. There is alot of strategy involved in playing the game. The number of different BO make it alot more in depth than your 'standard' RTS like OF, especially for competitive ranked games. I have also found it tactically more demanding to play than OF. However, these are my opinions of the game, and are just as valid as yours. In the end its each to his/her own. All I can say is that RTS with dedicated servers WTFBBQPWN RTS run on peer to peer servers. No more waitng for 10 minutes to get a game only to have some one drop!

[Arinax]

@Arkandas

Maybe ppl. just buy the game for singleplayer because they know the multiplayer part is broken..

[BlackLabel]

How is it "broken" ? all i see is balance arguments ( some have their merits ) and complains about BETA connectivity ( wich will be fixed as they did with vCOH )

Again people blow stuff way out of proportion. the friends of mine that never ever look on those forums are happy with the game. Everytime i tell them some of what i read here they just laugh and ask me if i have too much time on my hands....

And another "again"....

Comparing WiC with CoH fails because of:

1. Totaly diffrent online system

2. scale, CoH is more squadbased while WiC focused on a bigger scale

3. its alot easyer to balance some "old style" rts like WiC. ( I know CoH is desperatly trying to be diffrent )

What allways bugs me is that people write like they know ANYTHING about development cycles and publisher/developer relations...

Anyways, we could argue that "rushed games" that need a patch at release date are more a trend that came with the better internet connectivity for the masses.