Operation Brass Leopard

Great direction! Relics development plan is tackling all the challenges.

Comp stomp vs AI was a major factor for the old COH titles - important to push this too.

Of course no ones satisfied with the speed of things, but everyone was aware that this game is going to take some time post-release to be great.

If you already accuse others of selective perception and biased opinions, at least fact check your own stuff. You base your pro Axis 60/40 split on coh2stats.com data for top200 games from January, March and April 2023 with a total of about 250 games. February (140 games) shows 55% winrate for Allies and May so far is balanced with 70 games.

What do we learn from that? This number of games is way too little. Most imbalances occur after coh3 release and if you look to either all data or the top200 data for all of 2022, you'll see a pretty even split. If Axis arty constantly wipes your 7 men Cons, you're just bad at dodging and counterwiping.

Wow - you're an alleged moderator and you respond to a post about statistics by attacking my personal skill level? That says a lot about you.

In long games, you'll always hit the point where you don't have a choice except to keep a squad on a VP, even when you hear the sound of the rockets. There isn't a lot of dodging within that circle.

Also, even if I go back all the way to the start of the last patch, the Soviet win rate is 45.5%. While that's looks a little better, it's still not even close to balanced. The number of games is 2757.

As for May being balanced, it shows a 42% win rate for Soviets. If that's your idea of balanced then ok.

Wow - you're an alleged moderator and you respond to a post about statistics by attacking my personal skill level? That says a lot about you.

In long games, you'll always hit the point where you don't have a choice except to keep a squad on a VP, even when you hear the sound of the rockets. There isn't a lot of dodging within that circle.

Also, even if I go back all the way to the start of the last patch, the Soviet win rate is 45.5%. While that's looks a little better, it's still not even close to balanced. The number of games is 2757.

As for May being balanced, it shows a 42% win rate for Soviets. If that's your idea of balanced then ok.

You complained about Axis having an alleged 60 win rate, not about Soviets being bad in 4v4. I've shown that the statistics you provided are biased because you only look at a few selected months. Soviet's win rate this may doesn't matter, the whole point of the paragraph was that win rates in single months jump like crazy. The point you make with sometimes not being able to dodge is true for all Allied factions, not just Soviets. So why do we see see the assumingly worst winrate in only one faction and even the only one that has stock rocket arty on its own? No, I am not attacking you personally, but the data and conclusions you provide don't make sense. This one occasion in the game where you have to hold the circle at all cost and lose a squad because of it, therefore ticking down your last 5 VPs are not the reason why you lost the whole game. It's rather been a chain of suboptimal engagements and potentially even Soviets being too weak overall that forced you into that situation. This means that there's probably a multitude minor tweaks needed, but attributing it to only one effect that we apparently only see in 4v4 (but never in any other mode) is absurd. If not dodging rocket arty constantly costs you the game, this IS a skill issue. I am not talking about the overall loss, that might have occured regardless.
Another effect could be that the player base shifted unevenly after CoH3's release and for some reason better Axis players prefer coh2 or something. Whatever the reason, win rates in 4v4 are fairly even with probably a slight advantage to Axis. I wouldn't put this on balance team though. They've asked for giving USF and UKF nondoc rocket arty but Relic said no. The other option is to nerf Axis rocket arty, but this would affect the balance in all other modes where win rate actually looked fairly even, and they openly stated that they didn't know how long Relic allows them to patch the game. Given that situation, choosing to nerf Axis arty and being forced to rebalance three others modes (given that this change fixes 4v4 in the first place) would be honestly a dumb decision. Shit would have hit the fan if that patch game out, fucked up the game and then Relic decides this would be the last patch. I don't blame them for doing that, especially since the price is a minor imbalance overall. The balance team has done some dumb decision too, and the game overall has definitely lost its 'crazy moments' and become overall more homogenized. But criticizing them based on a single stat in one of multiple modes while neglecting the complexity of the problem is just cheap. Especially if you top it off with accusing them of doing it on purpose.

So no-one gonna mention how new promised map is a bridge map for skirmish? I mean this fucking priorities are insane.

Bot stompers already play on x10000000 shitty bridge maps from workshop, but HEY this one is official. Its probably remake of this idiotic 2v2 map, with terrain lowered making middle bridge the only available path.

Sorry but I really want to smack someone who works for relic in the face.

Operation BRuh ASS.

So no-one gonna mention how new promised map is a bridge map for skirmish? I mean this fucking priorities are insane.

Bot stompers already play on x10000000 shitty bridge maps from workshop, but HEY this one is official. Its probably remake of this idiotic 2v2 map, with terrain lowered making middle bridge the only available path.

Sorry but I really want to smack someone who works for relic in the face.

Operation BRuh ASS.

I don't get this either. Some actual mappers correct me, but I guess comp stomp maps are also pretty easy to make. There's at least no need to make the map balanced and even approaches to certain points don't have to follow as strict guidelines to keep the map competitive. The map mostly has to look pretty. Unfair design could even be positive. Worse players can take the easier side and put the bots on the more difficult one. Experienced players pick the difficult spawn instead.

I don't get this either. Some actual mappers correct me, but I guess comp stomp maps are also pretty easy to make. There's at least no need to make the map balanced and even approaches to certain points don't have to follow as strict guidelines to keep the map competitive. The map mostly has to look pretty. Unfair design could even be positive. Worse players can take the easier side and put the bots on the more difficult one. Experienced players pick the difficult spawn instead.

I tell you more, they could be even re-shuffled from the campaign, the way they did it with 4v4 map which is copy paste of last Italian campaign mission.

...[it] could be that the player base shifted unevenly after CoH3's release and for some reason better Axis players prefer coh2 or something...

I would be highly surprised if that was the case.

Actually, now that I think about it, waiting 10 minutes just to play the game probably would... encourage them to go back to CoH 2, wouldn't it?

Marco and DevM weren't involved in CoH2 patches. They are CoH3 only devs.


On the other hand, SturmPanther and other Axis main 4v4 players were the patch guys in CoH2 end life.

Yep !

You complained about Axis having an alleged 60 win rate, not about Soviets being bad in 4v4. I've shown that the statistics you provided are biased because you only look at a few selected months. Soviet's win rate this may doesn't matter, the whole point of the paragraph was that win rates in single months jump like crazy. ...

This is absolutely not true. You're making up things that you think I said, ignoring what I did say, throwing out all types of extraneous arguments, then calling the things that you think I said absurd.

The 60/40 number came from the early days of the patch. I specifically said "in the range of" which tells normal people that I didn't look up the exact numbers. It turns out that I was off by about 5-7%, depending on the faction. Had I taken the time to look it up for all 2757 top 200 game, I would've averaged it to 46/54, which still isn't balanced. If my being off by 5-7% is absurd, your 5-8% error in claiming it is balanced is even more absurd.

I made a very specific complaint about the Walking Stuka, and the fact that they ignored complaints about it. I know that several of us complained specifically about the Walking Stuka and it's effect on Soviets. I'd have to question if you've ever played all three Allied Factions if you really think that it doesn't hit Soviets harder. Specifically, it hits Soviets harder in 4v4's where units are a lot more clumped together and maps are more lane-like. They could have changed it to a larger AOE while capping the number of models killed to 5 which would've had a huge effect on Soviets.

You keep trying to dismiss the effect of Soviets being worse. If you had bothered to look at all of the data, that you accuse me of cherry-picking, you'd see that teams of 4 Soviets have a win rate of 28% in 4v4 over the entire range of this patch. In general, the win rates for Allies get better with fewer Soviets, with Brits being pretty good if they're not teamed with two or more Soviets.


I seemed to have touched a nerve here. My guess is that some of the people on the balance team are your friends. I don't know who they are, or if they're actually biased. To be fair to them, the did an excellent job in balancing 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3. Most of the win rates are 50+/-1 % (exception being Soviets in 3v3) which far better than Relic ever did. They listened to a lot of suggestions, and a couple of mine even made it into patches. However, I am more than a little salty about the Walking Stuka complaints being ignored.

So no-one gonna mention how new promised map is a bridge map for skirmish? I mean this fucking priorities are insane.

Bot stompers already play on x10000000 shitty bridge maps from workshop, but HEY this one is official. Its probably remake of this idiotic 2v2 map, with terrain lowered making middle bridge the only available path.

Sorry but I really want to smack someone who works for relic in the face.

Operation BRuh ASS.

It is the next stage of video game failure. Community is in the far better shape when people are being negative/raging on social media. Things go really wrong when nobody cares anymore, just some token activity of bot-level news/videos/discussions. Gamers, as the average player, are getting far better at abandoning trash and moving on, developers have to work harder to retain players/attention now.

Some people on this forum are still beliebing in CoH2 story, things will get better because it worked out once. Nope, we are 10 years later now, it will be DOW3'ed.

A game as complex as CoH2 with so many moving pieces needs active balancing to prevent fatigue. It gets stale, and this is none of the failure of Sturmpanther or whoever was making decisions for the community-driven patches. You just reach the point of diminishing returns without further updates: more repetitive, more people aim for the most efficient/OP playstyles, nothing new to discover. CoH2 got shelved (by devs) 4 years ago, only through the community effort it got extended as far as updates/patches go. I am thankful, but Relic fucked us all with abandoning CoH2 unofficially long before their 10 year plan, and then producing the stinker of CoH3 which needs one more year in development at the very least.