I don't trust the official balance team.

I wouldn't say it is unfounded. Balance in 1v1 for the competitive scene had precedence in the first patches iirc. It doesn't mean that every change to 1v1 were bad or even affected 4v4 in the first place, but if those two modes were colliding then 1v1 was usually considered more important.
...

Imo the problem lies elsewhere and it is not 1vs1 mode VS 4vs4 mode.

The MOD team has made an attempt to increase the diversity of unit being used which is a good thing. The problem generated from the fact some times even when a unit is slightly OP the effect can be amplified in large modes. (some times the same work the other way round).

Imo one has to keep in mind that not all units/abilities/commander can be equally useful across all modes. The game simply can be played in similar manner in 1vs1 to 4vs4.

It is accurate that there was a time that the effort to balance the game was more focused in 1vs1 and larger modes where neglected. That seem not be the case any more.

But imo that does not prove a correlation where when ones fixes 1vs1 balance one ruins 4vs4 balance and vice versa as OP seem to claim.

In sort I think we basically agree.

Where do you find this info? To my knowledge there was no stats site a year ago. The earliest of pagep's data is march this year.

However, to the point:
I agree that 4v4 balance is bad and that it probably worsened since march (from about 55 to 58-59% axis wins), I am reluctant though to blame only the balance team for it. If you look at the chosen commanders, you see a clear pattern: Ost, OKW and Soviets have a decent selection of commanders. UKF and USF however choose commanders with artillery or strong offmaps. This however is mostly Relics fault. They designed those factions shittily and probably did not allow core changes is that regard. Arty is crucial especially in 4v4. Both Axis factions have them stock, allowing them to get commanders to what they need. 2 out of 3 Allied factions don't, you pick the commander to cover your bare necessities rather than getting an actual strength.

I am not saying that the balance team did not make mistakes. Scott changes in my eyes were bad, the Scott should have been the late game arty replacement. USF AT changes were not fundamental enough either, leaving the faction not in any broken state, but just a boring one regarding AT.
Brita were... Well, to be honest I think without adding units this faction is beyond repair. In my eyes, the team did well with what they had, even if it is still unsatisfactory

Yes, you are absolutely right. This website only got released very recently. But I can clearly remember there was a predecessor. And there are for sure people in this forum posting data each year from ... nowhere, actually. Though I can't provide direct evidence here, there is one thing I am sure about. Because the data I mentioned before showed by somebody else presented such a contractive and almost laughable pattern, late last year, around December, I was planning on writing a thread about how difficult it is to balance around 4v4 and 1v1 with only one set of data( If you have tried making mod before, you would know that the original campaign and multiplayer actually got balanced differently). I was a strong promoter for splitting the game in half and balance each independently( 1v1 & 2v2; 3v3 & 4v4). At least, until then, I was trying to help the balance team out and explain to the public that it was just utterly impossible to balance around all game modes. In the end, I did not finish what I wrote because somebody in my family passed away in mid-December.

Where do you find this info? To my knowledge there was no stats site a year ago. The earliest of pagep's data is march this year.

However, to the point:
I agree that 4v4 balance is bad and that it probably worsened since march (from about 55 to 58-59% axis wins), I am reluctant though to blame only the balance team for it. If you look at the chosen commanders, you see a clear pattern: Ost, OKW and Soviets have a decent selection of commanders. UKF and USF however choose commanders with artillery or strong offmaps. This however is mostly Relics fault. They designed those factions shittily and probably did not allow core changes is that regard. Arty is crucial especially in 4v4. Both Axis factions have them stock, allowing them to get commanders to what they need. 2 out of 3 Allied factions don't, you pick the commander to cover your bare necessities rather than getting an actual strength.

I am not saying that the balance team did not make mistakes. Scott changes in my eyes were bad, the Scott should have been the late game arty replacement. USF AT changes were not fundamental enough either, leaving the faction not in any broken state, but just a boring one regarding AT.
Brita were... Well, to be honest I think without adding units this faction is beyond repair. In my eyes, the team did well with what they had, even if it is still unsatisfactory

In my opinion, there were great solutions to the pakhowi/scott dilemma for USF. Lack of stock rocket arty could have been solved by that. Adding a mortar halftrack to the E8 commander and making the E8 a true brawler with 240 armour and 800 hp and a decent enough AI/AT gun (in the lines of the Comet) with a proper price tag. They could have made the scott a mini brummbar and pak howi an inaccurate autofire howitzer that deals damage IF it hits but with a strong long range barrage. You'd have 4v4 indirects right there. And considering how slow to maneuver and how innacurate the pak howi would be in autofire, you'd easily make it non-1v1-oppressive. Well, as long as you don't play camp-wars. Scott would be a mini brummbar + smoke dispenser + I'd make the barrage induce a good amount of scatter. Getting 2x Scotts would be quite good to displace massed infantry and teamweapons on the front line. Current Scott can't kill in one barrage an AT gun or an MG team (For MG teams, should change as they get more clumped up in the upcoming patch). Let alone use the 50 range to do anything meaningful or follow up. Pak howi is the same ever since the 50% AOE nerf.

As for the brits, they did do a good change on the mortar pit. Adding that HE barrage that really puts a hurt on static positions did help out in teamgames, but at the same time, they'd buffed flame based weapons so that the static position won't survive for long against anyone with half a brain cell. Still, given that brits have a 290 armour/800 HP generalist premium tank for the lategame, and a high damage firefly with tulips + some good croc commanders, I'd say they are doing fine if played properly in 3v3+. Problems I've seen playing with allied brit players, is that they use the 1v1 strategy of mass IS vs OST which falls flat due to the MG42 + pio sight with lane-y map design where one MG42 can cover the whole lane (eg mid VP from building on Whiteball). What I did see work for brits in 3v3 is the UC into AEC with a couple of IS and engies, maybe one mortar pit.
And IS spam vs OKW I've seen always fall flat against double spios or 221 or fussies. Most good players don't go for volks vs IS spam and push the brits way back, winning the lane

Soviets are well rounded.

I love how Gachi says that every faction besides OST and Soviets is inherently unbalanced, like there is some sort of a standard metric with which one can measure "imbalance". Lame unintelligent reasons but still, goes to show the general idea of this forum.

I love how Gachi says that every faction besides OST and Soviets is inherently unbalanced, like there is some sort of a standard metric with which one can measure "imbalance". Lame unintelligent reasons but still, goes to show the general idea of this forum.

Except there is a standard metric. Which is ost and (as of late) sov.

USF, UKF and OkW all lack a necessary non-doc elements which sov and ost do have. Be it rocket arty, flamers, snares on mainline or even a sniper (to counter another sniper) etc.

This design is brought about by "asymmetrical (im)balance" and is the reason said three factions will never be as good as sov or ost.

Heck, when this game was released, even sov was missing some parts and had to rely on commanders to get about, but that could be fixed (somewhat) along the way.
Sadly, relic doesn't allow that to happen to the other three factions.

Except there is a standard metric. Which is ost and (as of late) sov.

USF, UKF and OkW all lack a necessary non-doc elements which sov and ost do have. Be it rocket arty, flamers, snares on mainline or even a sniper (to counter another sniper) etc.

This design is brought about by "asymmetrical (im)balance" and is the reason said three factions will never be as good as sov or ost.

Heck, when this game was released, even sov was missing some parts and had to rely on commanders to get about, but that could be fixed (somewhat) along the way.
Sadly, relic doesn't allow that to happen to the other three factions.

I'd take asymmetrical balance over the mirrored BS any time of day. OKW has everything they need to counter everything. Maybe sniper is a bit tricky if you don't have JLI. Luchs can do a good job of hunting down a sniper, so can a kubel. Played a lot of games vs tryhard snipers even in non ranked games that were hunt down easily with a kubel, usually losing the kubel along the way but worth.

OKW is better than OST in my opinion. Much stronger in all modes except 1v1. USF I consider to be much stronger in all modes than soviets, with the only bona fide redemption they have is the katyusha (which can turn the tide in teamgames).

OKW is weak to double MG vs soviets/brits in teamgames. If the map does not allow flanking, they can have some problems displacing it. Luckily there is the fast lava nade so there is some counterplay with careful positioning

4v4, all players

4v4, top 200

Please, for the love of god, stop using that site for 4v4. As a 4v4 tournament player I can guarantee you that arranged team vs. arranged team in 4v4 is completely balanced or depends on the map.

Random 4v4 automatch is a shitfest of monkey apes that cant deal with the tech tree of USF and soviets. For example soviet t1 players that get rekt by blobs and tank rush because they dont know how to counter it without a HMG or AT gun. Same story with USF tech tree as HMG and AT gun + packhowie are kinda mutually exclusive. Both axis factions always have MG, AT guns and indirect fire no matter how they tech. I have seen it sooooooo many times now on playercards where someone had 60% winrate as axis but 40-45% winrate as allies because of this (ofc the player was just bad as well)


Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

Please, for the love of god, stop using that site for 4v4. As a 4v4 tournament player I can guarantee you that arranged team vs. arranged team in 4v4 is completely balanced or depends on the map.

Random 4v4 automatch is a shitfest of monkey apes that cant deal with the tech tree of USF and soviets. For example soviet t1 players that get rekt by blobs and tank rush because they dont know how to counter it without a HMG or AT gun. Same story with USF tech tree as HMG and AT gun + packhowie are kinda mutually exclusive. Both axis factions always have MG, AT guns and indirect fire no matter how they tech. I have seen it sooooooo many times now on playercards where someone had 60% winrate as axis but 40-45% winrate as allies because of this (ofc the player was just bad as well)


Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

Thanks God you arrived .... my brain is seriously damaged after reading this shitfest based on stat page which tells you literally nothing ... just like research before election .... Aera is absolutely right and me as a TOP10 RANDOM player I can confirm everything he said ....

(Even for me its much harder to carry as UK or USF cause you need to have good coop with teammate and get into late game where u can have upper hand above enemy) - Only if u are not one of those 90% stupid playerbase and u know which maps are super-strong-axis-favoured and you put vetos on them

Yes and so what if 1v1 automatch is dead? What do you balance the game around then? 4v4s? 99% of the 4v4 players don't know anything about the game and 4v4s are incredibly dumb. Blob 24/7, spam tank destroyers and arty. That's literally it. Half of the game mechanics don't matter in 4v4s, timings, cover, build orders all go into the trash. If you look at twitch or youtube 90% of the content is for 1v1s and 2v2s, 5% is tightrope being paid to cast 3v3s and 4v4s.

Don't act like you want to balance the game for the majority because an overwhelming majority of the playerbase is playing 4v4s at level 1-16 and it's pretty much an objective fact that axis shits on allies at that level in 4v4s. Go ask anyone in, uhhh, skippy's server or whatever and they will tell you how the mg42, elefant and JT are broken yet you and sturmpanther keep saying allies are better than axis in 4v4s simply because allies can cheese the game better than axis in top 10 arranged team games which happens way less than 1v1 games or normal 4v4 games where the allies get shit on. "1v1s automatch is dead" is literally just an excuse.

And lastly why do we have this server full of top 30-50 1v1/2v2 players if our feedback is going to get dismissed as "1v1 automatch is dead"? Go and post the invite link to this server to the coh3 server so people from game modes where automatch is not dead can help you guys balance the game.

Stuff

You questioned if there was a standard metric and I provided the explanation in the form of sov and ost.
You will agree those factions aren't mirrored. That is what every good player wants, not having to pick a commander to fill in fundamental gaps in the faction.

Or do you think sov and ost are mirrored?

Thanks God you arrived .... my brain is seriously damaged after reading this shitfest based on stat page which tells you literally nothing ... just like research before election .... Aera is absolutely right and me as a TOP10 RANDOM player I can confirm everything he said ....

(Even for me its much harder to carry as UK or USF cause you need to have good coop with teammate and get into late game where u can have upper hand above enemy) - Only if u are not one of those 90% stupid playerbase and u know which maps are super-strong-axis-favoured and you put vetos on them

Please, for the love of god, stop using that site for 4v4. As a 4v4 tournament player I can guarantee you that arranged team vs. arranged team in 4v4 is completely balanced or depends on the map.

Random 4v4 automatch is a shitfest of monkey apes that cant deal with the tech tree of USF and soviets. For example soviet t1 players that get rekt by blobs and tank rush because they dont know how to counter it without a HMG or AT gun. Same story with USF tech tree as HMG and AT gun + packhowie are kinda mutually exclusive. Both axis factions always have MG, AT guns and indirect fire no matter how they tech. I have seen it sooooooo many times now on playercards where someone had 60% winrate as axis but 40-45% winrate as allies because of this (ofc the player was just bad as well)


Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

I trust you guys. And just to clarify, I did not just have a losing streak, and then rage wrote this post. In fact, I am still having a 100% win rate against 100+ players and a roughly 65% win rate against the top 100 players in 4v4. Personally, all of my factions are at a 65%+ win rate except for OKW, which is below 50%.

But here is one thing I don't understand, why the hell does OKW have a 65% win rate in random team 4v4 within the top 200 player pool. That is beyond the statistic error. And it seems like you guys can give me an answer, especially you XARDAS. It does not because we are still winning the games means the balance is fine. Those data are clearly showing something wrong.

And also, just to add to Areafield's matchmaking problem. To those who wonder what timeslot that is, it is around 7 pm UTC+8 to 1 am UTC+8. Most Chinese players play during that time, and most of them love to play Axis. This is why you see a lot of high-rank Axis players but not for the allies. And yes, I know it because I am Chinese.

Yes and so what if 1v1 automatch is dead? What do you balance the game around then? 4v4s? 99% of the 4v4 players don't know anything about the game and 4v4s are incredibly dumb. Blob 24/7, spam tank destroyers and arty. That's literally it. Half of the game mechanics don't matter in 4v4s, timings, cover, build orders all go into the trash. If you look at twitch or youtube 90% of the content is for 1v1s and 2v2s, 5% is tightrope being paid to cast 3v3s and 4v4s.

Don't act like you want to balance the game for the majority because an overwhelming majority of the playerbase is playing 4v4s at level 1-16 and it's pretty much an objective fact that axis shits on allies at that level in 4v4s. Go ask anyone in, uhhh, skippy's server or whatever and they will tell you how the mg42, elefant and JT are broken yet you and sturmpanther keep saying allies are better than axis in 4v4s simply because allies can cheese the game better than axis in top 10 arranged team games which happens way less than 1v1 games or normal 4v4 games where the allies get shit on. "1v1s automatch is dead" is literally just an excuse.

And lastly why do we have this server full of top 30-50 1v1/2v2 players if our feedback is going to get dismissed as "1v1 automatch is dead"? Go and post the invite link to this server to the coh3 server so people from game modes where automatch is not dead can help you guys balance the game.

Dude, would you please not act like a 1v1 master race. I even wonder if you have read all of my posts. I have never, ever said I want this game to be balanced for the majority. And I have mentioned I knew the reason why the hell they spend most of the time balance 1v1. What I am mad at is that since John said the team would balance ALL game mods for ALL players, they should show at least a sign of doing so. And if they indeed only will or spend the most time balance for the 1v1, then don't make a false claim like that.

OKW is weak to double MG vs soviets/brits in teamgames. If the map does not allow flanking, they can have some problems displacing it. Luckily there is the fast lava nade so there is some counterplay with careful positioning

the maxim has horrible suppression, i wonder how okw would struggle when even a volks squad takes like 4 seconds to be suppressed in yellow cover
The prime reason why one shouldn't trust the current balance team is that they have put an equal price on the mg-42 and maxim, with a straight look on their faces

adding non doc rocket arty for USF and UKF alone will be enough to balance 4v4's for the better. It boggles my mind why relic does not allow this. @modders if relic allows further patches please BEG them for this change

Posting this here to show how to include the options and date range which could be very important.



And here is a smaller time span to show the latest patch games.


As far as the discussion of the balance team and other games modes there were changes made to all of the major 4v4 commanders. Mostly all nerfs. That is an indicator, to me, that the larger modes were considered.

The 4v4 stats are not perfect due to 100 variables like:
- Premade teams.
- Were all players the same faction.
- Which maps were being played.
- Time of day the gamers were played.

From the last patch my low rank games were all B4 commanders for a couple of weeks and Allies were doing very well. Lately the B4s have stopped but the Sturmtiger has taken over and you see 1 to 2 every game now. Most games I see where allies are doing well only lasts until about 7-8 minute mark. From then on Axis blobs start to overwhelm.

Then early Allied tanks show up for a few minutes and Axis gets pushed back a little. Then panthers show up and it is usually GG from then on as most players do not make enough AT. Watch 1v1 games and they have 2 AT guns next to each other. In 4v4 I see games where no one has an AT gun at minute 20. Like their first tank will stop the panther swarm.

And if the panthers dont end the game, then the KTs and ELEs finish it by camping a VP.

If artillery starts falling its a roll of the dice who wins based on the shit RNG of the garbage game we play and whether your team mates speak the same language and can coordinate.

The other major factor is late game axis takes much less micro. So I see low skill players do very well with a giant blob and one good tank.

Posting this here to show how to include the options and date range which could be very important.



And here is a smaller time span to show the latest patch games.


As far as the discussion of the balance team and other games modes there were changes made to all of the major 4v4 commanders. Mostly all nerfs. That is an indicator, to me, that the larger modes were considered.

The 4v4 stats are not perfect due to 100 variables like:
- Premade teams.
- Were all players the same faction.
- Which maps were being played.
- Time of day the gamers were played.

From the last patch my low rank games were all B4 commanders for a couple of weeks and Allies were doing very well. Lately the B4s have stopped but the Sturmtiger has taken over and you see 1 to 2 every game now. Most games I see where allies are doing well only lasts until about 7-8 minute mark. From then on Axis blobs start to overwhelm.

Then early Allied tanks show up for a few minutes and Axis gets pushed back a little. Then panthers show up and it is usually GG from then on as most players do not make enough AT. Watch 1v1 games and they have 2 AT guns next to each other. In 4v4 I see games where no one has an AT gun at minute 20. Like their first tank will stop the panther swarm.

And if the panthers dont end the game, then the KTs and ELEs finish it by camping a VP.

If artillery starts falling its a roll of the dice who wins based on the shit RNG of the garbage game we play and whether your team mates speak the same language and can coordinate.

The other major factor is late game axis takes much less micro. So I see low skill players do very well with a giant blob and one good tank.

Great post, man. Instead of showing March 8th to August, would you please post a picture showing a range from March 8th to June 21st?

Anyway, just a few comments here. People should notice something strange here. How come the June patch, which seemingly buffs Soviet's utility and nerfs the German core combatant, the LEFH, instead boosted the win rate of both German factions and somehow even lower the Soviet's one? Let's not forget Elephant and OKW cheat artillery flare also got a nerf there too. Right, we can blame Stromtiger for being OP as hell. But there should be something else as well.

And that, to me, is a sign of lack of feedback considerations and ignorance for the bigger game mode in general.

I'd take asymmetrical balance over the mirrored BS any time of day.

Go tell this to vCoH USF and Wehr, which had pretty much all the nessesery tools and the same units with same roles, but factions was completly asymmetrical. Its funny how most of USF\UKF players still bitching about "OH WHERE IS MY ROCKET ARTY" while at the same time having rock hard on the idea of "asymmetrical factions". Here is your asymmetry as you want it. You dont have strong tanks, you dont have snares, you dont have rocker arty, but you have very strong inf, deal with it.

If factions have access to the same tools it doesnt mean that they instanly become mirrored, its just plain false claim.

Please, for the love of god, stop using that site for 4v4. As a 4v4 tournament player I can guarantee you that arranged team vs. arranged team in 4v4 is completely balanced or depends on the map.

Random 4v4 automatch is a shitfest of monkey apes that cant deal with the tech tree of USF and soviets. For example soviet t1 players that get rekt by blobs and tank rush because they dont know how to counter it without a HMG or AT gun. Same story with USF tech tree as HMG and AT gun + packhowie are kinda mutually exclusive. Both axis factions always have MG, AT guns and indirect fire no matter how they tech. I have seen it sooooooo many times now on playercards where someone had 60% winrate as axis but 40-45% winrate as allies because of this (ofc the player was just bad as well)


Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

I don't know about saying it's balanced, but thanks for the data. I've long suspected it and never been able to see it. I know I've been in some really really screwed up matches where it seems like I have to carry everyone in the team. Then there are other games where it seems like everyone is carrying me. I knew it was making uneven matches, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. You've got teams of noobs with a sacrificial good player, up against full good teams lol.

Go tell this to vCoH USF and Wehr, which had pretty much all the nessesery tools and the same units with same roles, but factions was completly asymmetrical. Its funny how most of USF\UKF players still bitching about "OH WHERE IS MY ROCKET ARTY" while at the same time having rock hard on the idea of "asymmetrical factions". Here is your asymmetry as you want it. You dont have strong tanks, you dont have snares, you dont have rocker arty, but you have very strong inf, deal with it.

If factions have access to the same tools it doesnt mean that they instanly become mirrored, its just plain false claim.

If you could read, you'd see that I don't want any sort of stock rocket arty on USF, pak howi and scott should be enough, but after the mega nerfs, they have become less than obsolete at fighting late blobs. And USF does not have very strong infantry. Rifles are great close range, lose long range against both volks and grens. 2x BAR reinforces medium range firepower when all of the combat is done at long range where Obers dominate along with MG grens. If you actually played this game at any level other than rank 9000, you'd know that the notion that USF has some Godgiven infantry is false. Are rifles strong? Yes. Do they sh** on volks or grens? Only on close range. Hence why you see kubel start vs USF all the time. Kubel vs Rifles is a won engagement. Spios + kubel + volks >> 2x rifles + echelon.
Same goes for OST. Pios + MG42 on most teamgame maps = locked down area of the map.

Play USF in higher brackets and you'll see how the "USF Infantry stronk" diminishes quickly

Oh and there is also the 4v4 matchmaking. We (a lot of 4v4 players that I know & myself) have a saying "Do not search allies 4v4 in dead timezones, only in EU afternoon time. You will always get unwinable games."

Truth be told, same goes for 3v3. And as a person from Croatia (+2 GMT), I always search when Germans and the likes play (19.00 PM) after work. Right now I searched when there were 9885 players online, game took ages to find and it was a sh** one. Played vs horrible players with horrible players. Only one of all 6 players to have a positive K/D ratio with most captured points. Searching late at night yields a fast game that is even worse. I don't think there is a magical time to search in europe as there will always be some Chinese players that heighten the ping to 2 seconds and have 0 communication skills (no offense to any Chinese players, but you really don't care about anything or anyone else but yourselves from my experience).
Still, teamgame wise. If skills are matched in <thinking, micromanaging, awareness, execution> I think that the axis has the inherent advantage whichever way you put it.

from March 8th to June 21st?

This is close.

This is close.

Thanks, man. I only need it for the prefection.