USA scotts (M8A1)

I actually feel like the game would have been better off. I don't ever remember thinking that the game was awful balance wise until the community balancers came. All that's happened after that is, "why is Axis so strong now". And it's not even subtle, its widely known how much an advantage Axis has now. I can only hope that CoH3 doesn't go down the same road. Seeing as how the have overhauled the game and it's units, maybe it won't be and the factions will finally be different but equal.

Allies dominated the finals in the last big 1v1 tourney 7-0. Axis pulled it's weight in earlier rounds.

Allies just dominated the 4v4 tourney.

And I'm not even saying they're op. All I'm saying is that they certainly have a chance. Because allied players have proven it when it matters.

Lets say for example that Whermacht had access to both the Stug and the Jagpanzer IV. Naturally people would invest into the Jagpanzer IV because of the 60 range and being a better unit making the Stug a poor Investment. Su-76 has a similar issue being outclassed by T-70 and Su-85 making it a niche non important unit that rarely gets used.

This is the case with USF. Why should the M8 Scott be a Mini Brumbar when USF already has the 105 Sherman Dozer which is exactly that.

So lets say we make the M8 Scott into a Mini Brumber what would be the point of the Sherman 105 Dozer then? You basically created a Dead Weight Commander Ability in the process making Armor Company less of an option and a weaker pick overall.

Now say we make Pak Howitzer Barrage Focused Only with no Auto Attack, that means the Barrage Would need much longer range and lethality to make up for the fact that it lost its Auto Attack or else it would be useless. This means that unless you go LEFH the Pak Howitzer would be out of reach of Stuka/Panzerwerfer and would be almost impossible to kill. This means that Axis would be forced to go LEFH every single game just to counter a basic USF unit and no one wants that.

This leads us to having no change at all and leaving USF exactly where it is. The only option we have is to make M8 Scott a barrage focused unit that is strong yet fair but strong enough so that Calliope isn't mandatory for USF every game.

You've got a weird conception of design and balance. Pakhowi could remains more or less the same with a barrage that's more accurate / more shells - but not necessarily more range dedicated to counter static positions.
In fact it could be use the same way Rocket arty are atm, you use the barrage and soft retreat until its up again.

Then Scott can be an auto-attack unit, with maybe only smoke as a barrage, that is designed to bleed your opponent and punish blobb.

Lastly, I don't understand your Laius on Stug/jpz and Sherman Dozer, Dozer is a doctrinal unit which has demonstrated to be quite useless at the moment even with its new barrage, but even with that you can't be serious telling us that Scott can't be that because there is a doctrinal unit doing more or less the same. You can use both StugE and StugG which have different purpose in game and using the StugE doesn't mean you can't later on use a Brumbar for similar purposes.

Allies dominated the finals in the last big 1v1 tourney 7-0. Axis pulled it's weight in earlier rounds.

Allies just dominated the 4v4 tourney.

And I'm not even saying they're op. All I'm saying is that they certainly have a chance. Because allied players have proven it when it matters.

Which shows how imbalanced is the game. Obviously when you play within a team with assigned strategy you'll overcome your faction gaps. Nobody within a team is going to ask USF to do the arty job if he doesn't have calliope or priest in its loadout.
But this only shows that balance has to come from the team play instead of the game.

Havent used or had this tactic used against me yet. However i hope the balance team dont just straight up nerf scott or pathfinder, i think its good that USF players are actually using combined arms for once instead of blobbing riflemen/officers like most do in team games.

be okw player ---> lose panzer HQ ---> get command panther and stay in the game anyway

many such cases...

Eh, the Command Panther requires T4 deployed, upgraded and alive for over a year now.

I really, really, really hope don't take any advice from the current community team balancing CoH2.

Even though I do not agree with most of the changes, the QoL changes and bug fixes have been welcome. The biggest question is if they do it for free. If they really do-do it for free, then all the sh** one can give them has no merit and is non-bona fide. If they do get payed, then you can hold them to a higher degree.
Still, bug fixes and QoL changes have been great

Havent used or had this tactic used against me yet. However i hope the balance team dont just straight up nerf scott or pathfinder, i think its good that USF players are actually using combined arms for once instead of blobbing riflemen/officers like most do in team games.

Don't worry they won't nerf scott or pathfinder. They will nerf scott and pathfinder.

Even though I do not agree with most of the changes, the QoL changes and bug fixes have been welcome. The biggest question is if they do it for free. If they really do-do it for free, then all the sh** one can give them has no merit and is non-bona fide. If they do get payed, then you can hold them to a higher degree.
Still, bug fixes and QoL changes have been great

I work now 4-5? years in the BT and i can tell you we never saw 1 single penny.
Same for my mappatches.

Eh, the Command Panther requires T4 deployed, upgraded and alive for over a year now.

It's almost like he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I work now 4-5? years in the BT and i can tell you we never saw 1 single penny.

At least you got eternal fame.
too bad there are no groupies in RTS.....

I work now 4-5? years in the BT and i can tell you we never saw 1 single penny.
Same for my mappatches.

Well then I take back everything I've said. Bloody shame that is. You do work and brainstorm and for what? Cunt dollars? Shameful Lelic

Allies dominated the finals in the last big 1v1 tourney 7-0. Axis pulled it's weight in earlier rounds.

Allies just dominated the 4v4 tourney.

And I'm not even saying they're op. All I'm saying is that they certainly have a chance. Because allied players have proven it when it matters.

There is a clear difference between the high level and the rest of us. This game is constantly balanced in favor of the high leveled, so about 5% or less of the playerbase. Do you see a problem with that?

Even though I do not agree with most of the changes, the QoL changes and bug fixes have been welcome. The biggest question is if they do it for free. If they really do-do it for free, then all the sh** one can give them has no merit and is non-bona fide. If they do get payed, then you can hold them to a higher degree.
Still, bug fixes and QoL changes have been great

I said balance, not bug fixing. I obviously am not saying that all they've done is bad, just most of the balancing changes.

There is a clear difference between the high level and the rest of us. This game is constantly balanced in favor of the high leveled, so about 5% or less of the playerbase. Do you see a problem with that?

There's no problem in balancing a game around people who know what they're doing. What's the alternative? Balancing it around people who don't know how to play?

Bad players can get better, and so will eventually learn to deal with things. If they don't become better then that's their problem.

There's no problem in balancing a game around people who know what they're doing. What's the alternative? Balancing it around people who don't know how to play?

Bad players can get better, and so will eventually learn to deal with things. If they don't become better then that's their problem.

No, that means that the rest of the playerbase is subject to the opinions of the minority. And if you dare question bad balance decisions you get hit with the learn to play, like with what you just said.

No, that means that the rest of the playerbase is subject to the opinions of the minority. And if you dare question bad balance decisions you get hit with the learn to play, like with what you just said.

You're both complaining that the game is balanced around the top "5%" of players, but also that "Become better at the game" is somehow not a strong argument?

Please explain why balancing the game around better players is a bad thing. (And why this somehow translates to "bad balance").

"High Leveled" is clearly analogous to "Better players", unless there's something I'm missing here.

No, that means that the rest of the playerbase is subject to the opinions of the minority. And if you dare question bad balance decisions you get hit with the learn to play, like with what you just said.

Builds and Strats that work =//= Balance --> Thus make Balance according to "hurr durr I somehow cant get out of 4 digits ranks" ?

Why should you not get punished for being objectively worse than your opponent though? Why should you not be forced to learn from your mistakes or hone your skills?

I get that some people dont have the time to put in the effort due to real life obligations, but they maybe should move on then no?

There is a clear difference between the high level and the rest of us. This game is constantly balanced in favor of the high leveled, so about 5% or less of the playerbase. Do you see a problem with that?

I don't see a problem at all with balancing mechanics around a player base that knows how to use the tools at their disposal.

Then make USF in teamgame stay under 30% winrate ?.
Seeiously, your team lost 5-0, 7-0. That means your team was weak. Not because a stat based in combine arm and teamplay OPie.

You're both complaining that the game is balanced around the top "5%" of players, but also that "Become better at the game" is somehow not a strong argument?

Please explain why balancing the game around better players is a bad thing. (And why this somehow translates to "bad balance").

"High Leveled" is clearly analogous to "Better players", unless there's something I'm missing here.

No, telling someone to just get better at the game when serious balancing issues are brought up isn't a strong argument. Imagine if the AVRE could shoot through the fog of war and instawipe units with no counter play and you bring attention to it, and the only response you get it is, "git gud".

With how large team games turns out most of the time in randoms I don't understand why you think the games balanced. The top 5% of the player base is balancing around 1v1 only, that is dumb and should be blatantly obvious why that is a bad way to balance the game, seeing as how the majority of the player base plays those large team games and not 1v1.

It's ok to say l2p. l2p does not fix balance issues though. The players at the top are better capable of adjusting to imbalance, which is why they are affected less than someone that is still near the bottom of their learning curve. From relics perspective, new players should be significantly more important than the top 5%, because the new players bring in ALL of the money. The top 5% only brought in money when they were not top 5%. It does not serve the community well to have allied noobs getting trashed by axis of noobs of the same skill and vice versa. The sociology in this is extremely important to success.