Addressing the issue of ELO-hell.

Is it even possible to get out of elo hell?

First of all it's important to know what your goal is. Let's say top 200 and staying there for example.

Because the only way that is possible is if you play sweaty with a super tryhard build, capable of carrying trash teammates. Here's the deal: in the ELO hell, most of the times you should get enemies that are bad enough that you should be capable of winning against 1.5 players on your complete own without any help from your teammate... IF you play sweaty & optimal. 2 players if the enemies are super bad.

Your army composition must be capable of countering (almost) anything the enemy can build, e. g. never skip AT guns or HMGs in the hopes that your teammate builds it for you.

This is the stuff I am talking about. Barely winning and holding your side isn't enough to get out of these ranks. You need to be capable of completely smashing your side and then flank the other side if you play against bad enemies and matchmaking isn't too fucked. The 3 Western Front armies have it much easier here to pull off these aggressive plays with their strong mainline inf and forward retreat mechanic.

On the other hand, if someone is having a bad understanding of the tryhard meta or slow micro or bad unit preservation etc etc, then it's not possible to escape ELO hell ofc unless you are lucky with matchmaking over a longer period.

I think ultimately it comes down to this.

No matter the algorithm, if there are only braindead people playing (I consider myself one sadly) it's more than likely that one would get matched to them.

I am bad at the game. I do not try to pretend I am good.

So my expectation based on my skill is that I should oscillate around level 10-13 with soviets. Not plummet to level 4 in a week and never be able to recover.

If I make maxims, I am strongest but eventually will get run over by infantry if my partners are not good.

If I make cons or penals I will have a K/D ratio of .18 and we will lose badly. My infantry never does damage. Ever. I had a penal squad next to a guys cons wiping some pinned units and he got all of the kills. I barely even had any damage. Penals - 0, Cons - 5. So a 240 mp unit vastly outperforms a 300 mp unit? Makes sense. And if there is an MG within 50 meters my units will be insta-pinned.

If I have a mate that makes MGs I will go sniper and we usually do very well.

So with this knowledge and anecdotal data stored away, I can understand floating around Level mid 11s or low 12s. I would be totally fine with that.

I would also like to add that I tend to play the worst factions. You do not learn anything about what is wrong with the game state by playing the easy to win factions or smashing noobs with premades.

Imo the main problem with ELO and stuff is that its some what permament or degrading.

For instance, your first 10 games when you are unranked are impermeable because they pretty much decide the level of suffering. You either can have proper games and then you will be able to matched against more or less equal opponents or you might get shit games with players dropping either on your or enemy side resulting in your rank being sabotaged.

My UKF 4v4 was destroyed this way. When I got multiple droppers and unwinnable games in my first 10 games, resulting in me not even bothering picking 4v4 UKF, simply because for every 1 game I can win, I will lose 5.

Aswell as, unless its 1v1 its really hard for new players to climb the ladder even if they are improve, because you more of often then not put in unwinnable games.

Whole ELO problem is actually should be managed by seasons. So if I am new player and I suck, but then I've improved, I shouldn't be forced to start climbing from 1000+ ranks.

Also people who abused sertain patch and were put on the very high possitions, shouldnt keep them because its resulting in a shit MM and doesnt reflect their skill. Or the people who just bruteforce their rank, having 3k games and 50-50 w\r or less, but also having middle ground rank for some reason, resulting them being paired with legitimate middle ground players..

This is pretty much the seasons come into play, pretty much reseting player stats every season and keeping history of previous seasons. Not to mention, it might make MM less toxic, because some people are frustrated because rank\stats are permanent, without any way to reset it.

And not to mention that, even if we will be super optimistic, CoH3 most likely wont have huge player base to cover the whole MM system properly. My bet that at very best CoH3 will have like 10-15k stable player base, spread across 4 pvp and 4 pve gamemodes. And unless Relic make ranks ultimately less important in a long run, we will have garbage MM again.

Been saying this for years. If you're talking about nub mode 4v4, then if you get dragged into the vortex of ELO hell (say, rank 6 and below) during a bad streak, it's almost impossible to get out, unless you're a top level player.

At those levels, most games are simply decided in the first second, because almost every game will have at least one afk (1-3 out of 8 is normal), a genuine novice who doesn't know how to build units, or a full-time troll, so for 70%+ of the games, you simply can't have any influence on the outcome (over a large sample you will win half, as you'll be on the auto-win start as often as the auto-loss), meaning the pool of games where you can outperform your rank is very small. In most games at this level, your best chance of winning is to have your three team mates quit at the start, because 95% of players at rank <6 are completely outmatched by CPU Easy and can't deal with the CPU capping and applying map pressure.

As Aerafield says, if you're above average and play tryhard, over a long period of time you can probably drag yourself out (I'm sure it's straightforward for top 1000 players), but for most players, once you're in those ELO brackets, you're not getting out.

What would be great in coh3 would be to have a provisional re-ranking window available every few months. Being in ELO hell in coh2 is one of the occasions where I had some understanding of what it must be like to grow up in crap circumstances: it's really hard to escape from your situation when everyone around you is a low achiever / troublemaker and there are very few opportunities for you to shine in the eyes of the system.
Obviously at a minimum coh3 needs to have afk / team killing punishments, as it seems most players alt+tab when searching and only return to actually play the game if they remember, or are bored with the other activity they were doing.

[I'm an average player within overall player base of coh2. Rank 13-15 in 4v4 with 3 factions, but ELO hell rank 1-3 with a couple of factions where you simply can't get out because EVERY game is a total mess].

...
Some of these things are just BAD LUCK. And I have horrendous luck. But some things could easily be fixed by those cucks at Relic.

1) Calc an estimated ELO for premades.
2) Dont play the same map twice in a row.
3) Adjust ELO based on current win rates for the factions and mode.
4) Dont play with the person who just crashed the last game.
5) Adjust ELO on faction performance per map.

...

Is it really luck when I play in a different timezone and have the same experience?

Suggestion #1 would be hugely beneficial to matchmaking. Games aren't fun even when you're on the premade that is playing against players with 12k rankings. It seems like that change would be beneficial.

Having ranked and unranked would help. People could mess around with off-meta builds in unranked matches. Players should have to beat an Expert computer in 1v1 in order to play ranked. I've had several games in the last week where someone didn't have enough games to even have a CELO ranking but were playing multiplayer.

As for #3, the only faction that really needs an adjustment is UKF. I think if you took the CELO of the average UKF player, doubled it, then added a 0 behind that, then it would reflect the skill level of a player of any other faction.

As for #3, the only faction that really needs an adjustment is UKF. I think if you took the CELO of the average UKF player, doubled it, then added a 0 behind that, then it would reflect the skill level of a player of any other faction.

That is the general rule of thumb for Brits, add a zero to their rank

In my view Brits are very strong in 4v4 with:
1) Strong early infantry.
2) Fast MGs.
3) UC is sometimes hard to deal with.
4) Bofors
5) Mortar pits

None of these require massive skill to be effective. So brit mains are never forced to be great tacticians. So their skill level may be lower than other players. My brit rank is always my highest rank even though I never play them and rarely play them correctly.

The real problem is that Brit players will drop if they lose any emplacements. If anyone loses a 300 mp squad they dont even blink, just keep playing. A brit loses a bofor and they will drop immediately after pinging their team mate.

So as a low rank soviet you get two types of games where you should just drop immediately:
1) All soviets.
2) All brit team mates.

Dont even bother playing that garbage.

The "problem" with COH2 matchmaking is actually a playerbase issue disguised as a matchmaking one. Even in 1v1, where you only need to match two players, we often see top 50 streamers getting players in the 300s and 400s. For 4v4 you need 8 people, and the elo needs to roughly add up on both sides. COH2 simply never had and never will have a sufficient playerbase for regularly well-matched 4v4 games.

Statistically, escaping elo hell is obviously possible if you're better than the players you're matching with.

Realistically, you just have to grind through thousands of hours to get out of it. Just like in any team game (whether PC or sport), one player can only do so much, but if you are significantly better than the other players in your elo bracket, you will have 50+% chance, maybe even 55% chance to win. Add in the fact that you may only get a balanced/fair match half the time, and I can definitely see why it's a gruelling and frustrating journey.

This is of course why I don't like playing team games. With 250 to 300 ping, a potato PC, and being at the constant mercy of RNG, why would I want to add a random teammate, or 2, or even 3 into the mix?

This is just false in 4v4. May be true on 2v2.

I only play for fun. Dont care about rank.

When maxims were OP I was level 14 sov. After the nerf I went to about level 12 and held there ever since.

Recently I went from Level 12 to level 4 in a week of bad match making, afks, bug splats, etc. And cannot get past level 6. I win about 1 out of 4 games generically. And if I win, the MM immediately puts me against much higher ranked opponents and the win is erased.

So I am playing with people who just bought the game and I am level 15 in OST and BRITs. Seems about right.

Well OP complained about 2v2 and imo there is only one thing to blame if you stuck in "elo hell" in 2v2 - yourself. 4v4 has too much RNG. Starting from drops and drunk players ending with constant bad matchmaking

I would guess that the main issue with elo system is that arranged teams enter the normal ladder.

That is not so much an issue because arranged team have better teamwork but because they are unranked for the first 10 games.

That creates a number of "virtual new" players who are "smurfs" that can cause massive lose of elo to other players.

One major issue right now is playing soviets in team games.

Currently in team games soviets are under performing badly.

Axis factions are easier to play. Your infantry works great and you have an early presence.

Any map you get with an OST and OKW player on the same side, you lose. By the time you get to the fuel they have already locked it down. So you lose ELO.

Now your ELO is worse, so you get stuck with noobs who dont even try to get the fuel. They run to the middle and camp out. Then get run over with blobs and early vehicles. So you lose ELO.

Now you are not only playing with noobs, but noobs that just bought the game. Meaning most of them do not have ALL of the allied factions. Which means you now get all soviet games against mixed axis teams.

GG ELO Hell.

Now add this all to premades, AFKs, bug splats, bad spawns, axis favored maps, etc. Playing soviets right now is a joke.

And that is where the MM sucks hard.
1) Getting premades 4-5 games in a row.
2) Games where the enemy is even remotely better than your team = loss because allies crumble after about 12 minutes.
3) Getting the same afk or bug splatter on your team 2 and 3 times in a row.
4) Playing the same map several times in a row. And getting the shit spawn every time.
5) Always getting the worst player on the team in your next match.

With the current state of the game and MM, I /L out of about 3 out of 5 games. Stuck in ELO hell just due to the MM.

Some of these things are just BAD LUCK. And I have horrendous luck. But some things could easily be fixed by those cucks at Relic.

1) Calc an estimated ELO for premades.
2) Dont play the same map twice in a row.
3) Adjust ELO based on current win rates for the factions and mode.
4) Dont play with the person who just crashed the last game.
5) Adjust ELO on faction performance per map.

There are probably 3-5 more things that could easily be added by any competent programmer in about 20 minutes. But here we sit...

Yes I agree, the Soviets are quite a pain in the ass. And although the Soviets are my favorite faction, but they quickly drop me from the 16th rank of the random game for the Soviets, the Soviets have disgusting starter infantry and the early game the USSR has a lot of commanders, but they are unnecessary due to the fact that without elite command infantry playing Soviets is suicide, so that this greatly limits the choice of commanders. But recently I decided to switch to USA. It's so damn easy in random and in most cases I don't even take a commander. I quickly earned the 16th rank and keep it.

Again, completely false. I have played games where I am 2v1 all game long and have my side and we still lose badly.

Just played a game on White Ball where all 3 of my team went middle at the start and were losing. How can anyone win this game?????? And our team ranks were much better then the enemies.

So me as soviets with only 3 squads on the field will beat an OST and an OKW who each have 4 squads and MGs??? In what universe?

But this affects ALL players and is not Soviet specific, which was your original point. What happened to you in your anecdotal game will happen to your Axis opponent too: They just end up with one buffoon throwing the game, leaving you the win. If this buffoon plays on the other side of the map, you probably won't notice. You're busy holding your own part, you will at some point get more support from team mates and win. However, you'll probably not have enough time to find out if the enemy player is indeed an idiot or just got outplayed. On the other hand, if the buffoon is in your team, you will notice because even if you're holding on, other enemies will flush you out while you get no support at which point you'll probably check what is actually going wrong with your team mates.

Anyway, if Axis are easier to play in 4v4 (which according to 4v4 data they slightly are and I am not even debating, although it would be interesting to get more info on the low rank side specifically), then all average skilled Allied players will lose to similarly skilled Axis players and downrank. You will end up with similarly skilled Allied players. The real problematic region in this case will be the low ranked portion of Allies, since player ELO will get compressed. This could be "real" ELO hell, but we have no real indication of how large this problem is. Especially since it is hard to tell apart from subjective and anecdotal experience.
Obviously, the larger the mode and the worse the matchmaker, the worse your match to match experience will be. But again, this will go both ways: Undeserved losses and undeserved wins.

The main issues in my opinion are:
1. No ELO compensation for arranged teams. As a random, you'll always oscillate between your actual skill level (when playing other randoms), and being outmatched (when playing against AT).
2. The duration of games in CoH2. If you get matched with an idiot, your game will still last 30 minutes. If by pure chance you get idiotic match ups, this can cost you 1-2 evenings of gaming. Obviously this is HUGELY frustrating, especially if all you have time for is maybe only 1-2 gaming evenings a week.

Ive not read the whole second page, but if its not already been mentioned, ELO is heavily effected by what time of day you play.

When you play at peak time you get much closer ELO matches, and games are much more likely to be in your bracket.

Playing at trash times of day, with randoms, you are much more likely to experience poor ELO and bad matchmaking. Game can only work with the pool of players it has.

The "problem" with COH2 matchmaking is actually a playerbase issue disguised as a matchmaking one. Even in 1v1, where you only need to match two players, we often see top 50 streamers getting players in the 300s and 400s. For 4v4 you need 8 people, and the elo needs to roughly add up on both sides. COH2 simply never had and never will have a sufficient playerbase for regularly well-matched 4v4 games.

Statistically, escaping elo hell is obviously possible if you're better than the players you're matching with.

Realistically, you just have to grind through thousands of hours to get out of it. Just like in any team game (whether PC or sport), one player can only do so much, but if you are significantly better than the other players in your elo bracket, you will have 50+% chance, maybe even 55% chance to win. Add in the fact that you may only get a balanced/fair match half the time, and I can definitely see why it's a gruelling and frustrating journey.

This is of course why I don't like playing team games. With 250 to 300 ping, a potato PC, and being at the constant mercy of RNG, why would I want to add a random teammate, or 2, or even 3 into the mix?

That is true. No matchmaking system can surmount lack of players.

Yes I agree, the Soviets are quite a pain in the ass. And although the Soviets are my favorite faction, but they quickly drop me from the 16th rank of the random game for the Soviets, the Soviets have disgusting starter infantry and the early game the USSR has a lot of commanders, but they are unnecessary due to the fact that without elite command infantry playing Soviets is suicide, so that this greatly limits the choice of commanders. But recently I decided to switch to USA. It's so damn easy in random and in most cases I don't even take a commander. I quickly earned the 16th rank and keep it.

Allow me to disagree please. The vanilla factions, Soviets and Wehr play perfectly due to them having all the tools to solve the game from the get go (maybe the starting choice between t1 and t2 gives the edge to Wehr).

The point is not in faction design, it is in the way higher skilled players get matched indiscriminately with lower skilled players.

Being in ELO hell in coh2 is one of the occasions where I had some understanding of what it must be like to grow up in crap circumstances: it's really hard to escape from your situation when everyone around you is a low achiever / troublemaker and there are very few opportunities for you to shine in the eyes of the system.

Damn that hit me hard.

Totally unrelated but this thread almost makes me want to be masochistic and try OST 3v3. I only played that mode when I first got the game a million years ago and have a 1-11 record. I'm guessing that would be a firsthand look at true ELO hell. LOL

But this affects ALL players and is not Soviet specific, which was your original point.

The soviet specific point was:
So me as soviets with only 3 squads on the field will beat an OST and an OKW who each have 4 squads and MGs???

Meaning it is hard to carry (when mate goes middle) as soviets when the enemy will outnumber you and have MGs.

The whole point of this topic is:
- The game has too much RNG
- Certain factions and maps are insta-loss situations
- Match making sucks bad

The easiest to fix is the match making. It will also have the greatest impact.

Does anyone here see an issue with the server? Maybe not get 4 games on the same map and not have 3 of them be in the worst spawn in the 4v4 map pool? North East spawn soooo goooooood.

LOL idk that its all RNG. Its a fact by design ost heat seeking mortar has a much better chance of wiping your squads then any of the allied ones, the usf and brit copy is just a glorified smoke machine. Its also not rng werfer fires all it rockets at once making it much better at wiping squads and the same with a direct hit of any stuka rocket then any other allied rocket arty that was all designed to do the opposite making it much more likely you wont get wiped in fact it really is half rng. See how that works theirs dosent use rng yours does.

Does anyone here see an issue with the server? Maybe not get 4 games on the same map and not have 3 of them be in the worst spawn in the 4v4 map pool? North East spawn soooo goooooood.

The north east strategy to beat port of hamburg:
(with default camera settings in mind
for the north spawn of port of hamburg, have two (or three if 4v4) of your allies cluster their forces and strike the western fuel point, once its secured you relocate to middle VP. The most eastern spawn player goes to the east fuel and tries to contest it's capture as much as possible. If the attack (likely) fails, then this weakside player entrenches the middle vp east flank and defends territory points.


use some pings and team chat to TRY and direct some coordination, it does not matter if the enemy micros better than your team, because four idiots with a plan beat 4 normal people