USA scotts (M8A1)

A game can be balanced for lower skilled players.

Imagine you have two factions:

Faction A) slow, defensive, sturdy, good relation of cost to damage and health points/armor, complete roster

Faction B) fast, aggressive, high damage but low health/armor, many special abilities, roster with holes


Faction B will be very strong in the hands of skilled players which have the micro skills and the understanding to utilize speed and combinations of abilities to full effect. In addition a skilled players can partly compensate the missing pieces in a roster. As a result Faction B will be nerfed constantly although it was underpowered in lower skilled play from the beginning.

In addition Faction B will be better in 1vs1 and worse in 4vs4. Reason: At 1vs1 maps there is a lot more space for moving, flanking, evading and relocating.

Exchange Faction A with Ostheer and Faction B with USF now to get the idea ;-)

For a good balance across all skill levels all factions should have units that fit the style of Faction A and Faction B. CoH2 severely fails at that.

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".

That's kind of a weird strawman argument. Try to think of something realistic if you're going to put words in my mouth.

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.

That's completely illogical. If something is actually imbalanced then being better at the game doesn't suddenly make it balanced. All that would happen in reality is that better players would be able to use broken (overpowered) units even more effectively, and would simply not use broken (underpowered) units.

Imbalance is magnified at higher levels of play, not made less obvious. If the game trends to being better balanced at higher levels then that means that the game is well balanced.

If the argument is that the game is more balanced at higher levels of play then the solution really is to simply learn to play better.

[...]If something is actually imbalanced then being better at the game doesn't suddenly make it balanced. All that would happen in reality is that better players would be able to use broken (overpowered) units even more effectively, and would simply not use broken (underpowered) units.

Imbalance is magnified at higher levels of play, not made less obvious. If the game trends to being better balanced at higher levels then that means that the game is well balanced.

If the argument is that the game is more balanced at higher levels of play then the solution really is to simply learn to play better.

This exactly. I think the problem here is that many people seem to confound actual balance and "easiness to play". Two factions can be completely balanced in terms of chance to win, yet both can also require substantially different skill levels to play well. This is also nothing unique to CoH2 or RTSs in general; for example, SF5 has vastly different tier lists for different skill brackets and even though I have no idea how the situation looks like in, say, SC2 I'd be surprised if it were any different.
Obviously it would be great to have each faction in CoH2 require a similar degree of micro, tactical awareness and strategic understanding, but this is hard to achieve if you want as much asymmetry in faction design as possible. Nonetheless, it seems that at least at a very high level where these differences begin to blur the actual balance of the game is quite good indeed. And, frankly, this is where it matters the most since for anything below high level play matchmaking should even things out. Learning how to play the game obviously helps a lot, too.

That's kind of a weird strawman argument. Try to think of something realistic if you're going to put words in my mouth.



That's completely illogical. If something is actually imbalanced then being better at the game doesn't suddenly make it balanced. All that would happen in reality is that better players would be able to use broken (overpowered) units even more effectively, and would simply not use broken (underpowered) units.

Imbalance is magnified at higher levels of play, not made less obvious. If the game trends to being better balanced at higher levels then that means that the game is well balanced.

If the argument is that the game is more balanced at higher levels of play then the solution really is to simply learn to play better.

Not strawman, cause it actually happened. Replace AVRE with the Sturmtiger. I thought it was obvious.

I feel like you ignored the whole, "only balancing around 1v1" part.

Not strawman, cause it actually happened. Replace AVRE with the Sturmtiger. I thought it was obvious.

I feel like you ignored the whole, "only balancing around 1v1" part.

I'm aware of what you were "going for", but it's irrelevant as I'm not defending either the AVRE or the Sturmtiger being able to oneshot people from fog, and it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. It's a non-sequitur.

1v1 and 4v4 need separate balancing, but I'm not seeing how I'm "ignoring" that. You've been specifically complaining about the "top 5%" of players, not so much 1v1 vs 4v4 games.

You've also been insisting that Axis are heavily advantaged, when that doesn't even seem to be the case at the moment. Do you even have any specific examples of imbalance?

I'm aware of what you were "going for", but it's irrelevant as I'm not defending either the AVRE or the Sturmtiger being able to oneshot people from fog, and it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. It's a non-sequitur.

1v1 and 4v4 need separate balancing, but I'm not seeing how I'm "ignoring" that. You've been specifically complaining about the "top 5%" of players, not so much 1v1 vs 4v4 games.

You've also been insisting that Axis are heavily advantaged, when that doesn't even seem to be the case at the moment. Do you even have any specific examples of imbalance?

You did, though. You say there's no reason why the game shouldn't be balanced by just what the top 5% of the player says, but they balance the game just for those top players in 1v1. They're not balancing for the good of the rest of the player base, who primarily play teams.

The Sturmtigers an example, lots of complaining had to be done to get that fixed. What about the Pak 43, the only cannon that can shoot through buildings, the insta suppressing MG42 that Ostheer gets at the start of the game, the cache spamming that is something I only ever see Ostheer do because why wouldn't they, their nondoc tanks are just on average superior.

You did, though. You say there's no reason why the game shouldn't be balanced by just what the top 5% of the player says, but they balance the game just for those top players in 1v1. They're not balancing for the good of the rest of the player base, who primarily play teams.

The Sturmtigers an example, lots of complaining had to be done to get that fixed. What about the Pak 43, the only cannon that can shoot through buildings, the insta suppressing MG42 that Ostheer gets at the start of the game, the cache spamming that is something I only ever see Ostheer do because why wouldn't they, their nondoc tanks are just on average superior.

I don't recall the top 5% of players clamouring for the Sturmtiger to be as it was.

Imagine thinking the Pak-43 is imbalanced.

Cache spamming only really happens when you fail to bleed your opponent.

1v1 and 4v4 need separate balancing, but I'm not seeing how I'm "ignoring" that. You've been specifically complaining about the "top 5%" of players, not so much 1v1 vs 4v4 games.

4vs4 needs no own balancing it just needs two things that are related to map design and ressource allocation:

1) Much wider maps (-> double the width of the current ones):
- allowing tactical movement / evading...
- breaking up MG lockdowns
- breaking artillery dominance (less crowded maps / less accuracy because distances are bigger)
- blobbing is more of a disadvantage (giving up map control)


2) More strategic points + 4 fuel + 4 munition with each player gaining only a 1/4 of the total gained ressources.
- leading to a longer early / medium game
- more points of interest = more interesting and shifting game

There isn't much cutoff play in 4v4. The attitude is generally all or nothing on a +7 fuel. Funny because you can cache one point to get +6, not that far off for all the resources people pour into fighting over a +7.

People are saying this thread is likely in reaction to a 4v4 game that happened recently. Has anyone got a link to this?

That Poll is basically 'Here are the list of nerfs oh and we should also nerf airborne because reasons'

Pathfinders and majority of CP 0 call-in infatry should become buildalbe from HQ. That would make less map depended and can reduce the power spike of producing multiple units at the same time.

but they balance the game just for those top players in 1v1. They're not balancing for the good of the rest of the player base, who primarily play teams.

The majority of the balance team consisted of teamgames players for the past 1-2 years, and about half of the team before that, and we pushed a lot of changes specifically for teamgames in the last couple of years. And, more invisibly, the teamgames members also blocked a lot of 1v1 changes that would've negatively affected teamgames (and vice versa). It's a myth that the game is being balanced for 1v1 only. That hasn't happened for years.

A game can be balanced for lower skilled players.

Imagine you have two factions:

Faction A) slow, defensive, sturdy, good relation of cost to damage and health points/armor, complete roster

Faction B) fast, aggressive, high damage but low health/armor, many special abilities, roster with holes


Faction B will be very strong in the hands of skilled players which have the micro skills and the understanding to utilize speed and combinations of abilities to full effect. In addition a skilled players can partly compensate the missing pieces in a roster. As a result Faction B will be nerfed constantly although it was underpowered in lower skilled play from the beginning.

In addition Faction B will be better in 1vs1 and worse in 4vs4. Reason: At 1vs1 maps there is a lot more space for moving, flanking, evading and relocating.

Exchange Faction A with Ostheer and Faction B with USF now to get the idea ;-)

For a good balance across all skill levels all factions should have units that fit the style of Faction A and Faction B. CoH2 severely fails at that.

Low level players being unable to play USF has nothing to do with higher mechanical requirements imo. USF just requires a slightly different way of thinking about the game and that makes 90% of coh2's playerbase's heads explode. Any new player approaching the game with a rational mindset can still become top 200 (and probably higher) within 500 hours. That goes to show how terrible the established playerbase really is. Most people are incapable of analysing this game rationally because they have this irresistable desire to blame their own faults on the game or their opponent.

Most people are incapable of analysing this game rationally because they have this irresistable desire to blame their own faults on the game or their opponent.

Many such cases.

Trash players being unable to play USF has nothing to do with higher mechanical requirements imo. USF just requires a slightly different way of thinking about the game and that makes 90% of coh2's playerbase's heads explode. Any new player approaching the game with a rational mindset can still become top 200 (and probably higher) within 500 hours. That goes to show how terrible the established playerbase really is. Most people are incapable of analysing this game rationally because they have this irresistable desire to blame their own faults on the game or their opponent.

Every time I read your entries, I have the impression you're a Asperger person. This or having a serious superiority complex.

Most/all people blame on their faults on opponent or mechanisms because its human nature to do that. It takes a lot of self reasoning to pass through it.
Now specially for Coh2 the main reason for that is the amount of information someone must know to master each faction and be able to perform this rational analysis and the little available access to it. Some people may have it easier to master it than other, remain the fact that all Top players accumulate much more dedicated hours to the game than others. New almost-top players like Elpern or AngryDutch have spend tremendous amount of time on the game to reach their current level, something unreachable for 99% of player base.
So comparing their knowledge and capacity to reason on Coh2 mechanisms to regular player's one does not make sense at all and even more considering the latest as trash for that.

Now each faction requires a different way to play the game and players of all factions blame their own mistake on mechanisms or other players, not only USF one's. And USF is at the moment the less forgiving faction and the only one without late game dedicated units on their stock roster. No heavy tank, no rocket arty, no soaking damage behemoth.
Here there isn't a question of understanding the mechanism because everyone understand rapidly that in order to match Axis late game level you must pick Calliope or Priest every time on team game. Or doing the Path-Scott strat which is seen more and more regularly from 2vs2 to 4vs4 at all levels.

Let's remember that because Axis players considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because Axis players considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have Axis players considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.

Every time I read your entries, I have the impression you're a Asperger person. This or having a serious superiority complex.
....
Let's remember that because Axis players considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because Axis players considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have Axis players considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.

That is simply a biased way of looking things.

The idea that patches changed depend on what "Axis players" consider OP or Up is simply silly because the MOD's goal is to balance them game and not to please the "Axis players" (or even the allied players). I am pretty sure that people who actually find the game boring and stopped playing is one side was always wining.

In addition the idea that there is an army of "Axis player players" is also rather silly since I think that the majority of people play all faction. Actually it very probable that people who stick to 1/2 factions do not really have an all around perspective of the game.

Now can pls this "Axis/Allied players mentality.

That is simply a biased way of looking things.

The idea that patches changed depend on what "Axis players" consider OP or Up is simply silly because the MOD's goal is to balance them game and not to please the "Axis players" (or even the allied players). I am pretty sure that people who actually find the game boring and stopped playing is one side was always wining.

In addition the idea that there is an army of "Axis player players" is also rather silly since I think that the majority of people play all faction. Actually it very probable that people who stick to 1/2 factions do not really have an all around perspective of the game.

Now can pls this "Axis/Allied players mentality.

You don't get the point. People playing every faction already says that Axis on team game is the easy way. That's not something new but the skill gap between USF and other factions (allied or Axis) has greatly increased since the last few patches. The nerfs the balance team has constantly applied to USF are in fact nerf that greatly impact the player experience. They conscientiously or not increased the skill requirement to use the different units specially on the late game by making them squishier, more vulnerable, less forgivable in case of miss use. That the problem here, it is not that suddenly people are less skilled to play USF, is that instead of balancing the faction the balance team just increase far above the other the skill requirement to use it well.

If you miss use a Panther or a Brumbar, you still have the armor hand health pool that can get you out, possible smoke or if vet1 with your panther blitzmode. If you miss use your Jackson, what do you have? nothing.
Scott is in fact the last late game unit USF has that allow you mistake with its vet1 smoke and guess what, that's what you want to nerf.

The balance team evidently failed to properly balance the game for everyone. The game is balance for the Top1%, that great but you can't simply congratulate yourself with such a little achievement. Only 1% of the player have actually a game balance for their enjoyment.

You don't get the point. People playing every faction already says that Axis on team game is the easy way. That's not something new but the skill gap between USF and other factions (allied or Axis) has greatly increased since the last few patches. The nerfs the balance team has constantly applied to USF are in fact nerf that greatly impact the player experience. They conscientiously or not increased the skill requirement to use the different units specially on the late game by making them squishier, more vulnerable, less forgivable in case of miss use. That the problem here, it is not that suddenly people are less skilled to play USF, is that instead of balancing the faction the balance team just increase far above the other the skill requirement to use it well.

If you miss use a Panther or a Brumbar, you still have the armor hand health pool that can get you out, possible smoke or if vet1 with your panther blitzmode. If you miss use your Jackson, what do you have? nothing.
Scott is in fact the last late game unit USF has that allow you mistake with its vet1 smoke and guess what, that's what you want to nerf.

The balance team evidently failed to properly balance the game for everyone. The game is balance for the Top1%, that great but you can't simply congratulate yourself with such a little achievement. Only 1% of the player have actually a game balance for their enjoyment.

That is completely different issue from:
"mod team changes things because they listen to Axis players"

Scott can take 3 ATG hits and use smoke making very difficult to counter, it practically more durable than the Calliope.

That make the unit hard to balance because it if it perform offensively according to price it will be OP. The objective here is not nerf the unit but to design it better so it better for both player using and the player facing it.

Poll seems slightly biased. All the change options in last 2 quesitons are nerfs?

I think scotty is fine, but if the unit is getting ANY change it should be buff. No chance in hell it should get nerfed again

no way in hell this thing should be nerfed again. it needs a buff. barrage sucks. blob killing for usa sucks. same for brits. centuar is not the answerfor blobbing and scott aint either. buff both of them. scott cant shoot at a atgun without dieing if it dont use barrage. if u use barrage the enemy will move and u didnt kill units. have to wait for barrage to make the atgun move again.

Every time I read your entries, I have the impression you're a Asperger person. This or having a serious superiority complex.

Most/all people blame on their faults on opponent or mechanisms because its human nature to do that. It takes a lot of self reasoning to pass through it.

He's absolutely right though (even if I'd probably not put it so bluntly). Also, blaming your faults on others being human nature doesn't invalidate his argument even the slightest - on the contrary, this is exactly the problem at hand. And it gets exacerbated by the fact that the lower people's general understanding and ability to play the game is, the more they overestimate their own knowledge and skill. The classic Dunning Kruger effect.

This inability to recognize and accept own faults and shortcomings instead of projecting it on some higher force, paired with blatant and totally unwarranted overconfidence is why 90% of the balance suggestions made here on the forums are mostly worthless.

How on earth could someone that plays one faction exclusively in the 1k digit ranks even come to an informed opinion on the overall state of balance when they not only lack the skill/knowledge that would be required but also have an inherently narrow and restricted vantage point on the game as a whole?

Let's remember that because people playing all factions on a high level considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because people playing all factions on a high level considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have people playing all factions on a high level considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.

Took the liberty to just fix that for you.

In all seriousness, I do get your point that allies (USF in particular) may be more difficult and less forgiving to play well that axis at the moment. But that is an issue that begins to vanish at high skill levels and seems to be most pronounced in the lower to middle skill bracket - the area where matchmaking has the biggest leverage to guarantee fair games with equally-skilled parties on each side. At least in theory that is what should happen - if axis is easier to play at a certain level, then the matchmaking algorithm will pair the players with an allied team of higher skill to keep things even and vice versa. That this approach isn't perfect and gets exponentially more difficult the more players in a team are involved is of course another story altogether.