Faction Strength

While I agree that 1 v 1 is harder, there are different 'types' of skills involved in 3 v 3 and 4 v 4.

Very often, these games are long as hell and it requires the management of a 70-100 popcap army which is actually quite a lot of things to keep track of. Before I play one of these, I plan out various 'fleets' that I will consider making.

1 v 1 is more about resource calculation, mind games, and individual micro of small number of units, often below 50 pop cap.

This is why I think kill ratio and total kill counts are important in team games, because they show one's share of contribution to the victory or loss. The way the team games are measured are not competitive focused, and using just win/loss is wrong.

While I agree that 1 v 1 is harder, there are different 'types' of skills involved in 3 v 3 and 4 v 4.

Very often, these games are long as hell and it requires the management of a 70-100 popcap army which is actually quite a lot of things to keep track of. Before I play one of these, I plan out various 'fleets' that I will consider making.

1 v 1 is more about resource calculation, mind games, and individual micro of small number of units, often below 50 pop cap.

This is why I think kill ratio and total kill counts are important in team games, because they show one's share of contribution to the victory or loss. The way the team games are measured are not competitive focused, and using just win/loss is wrong.

agree.

I totally disagree. Imho it's a lot harder to earn an equal team game rank, because the diversity in team games is a lot higher. Many more things have to be considered (tactics, individual micro etc.) so that it's much more challenging. I think it's really narcisstic of those people claiming their game mode the one and only

while the last part of your statement holds some kind of truth, the rest about getting a higher rank in team games being difficult is utter bullshit. most competitive (good) coh2 players dont even play them, hence you dont need to fight these players to get to a high rank in those modes. now try playing 1v1 without eventually getting matched up vs some pretty though opponents ( speaking out of my own experience: i basically went from top 100 okw to 300+ after getting really strong soviet opponents 10+ times in a row, but in 3v3,4v4 that wouldnt happen, ever. most of these games youre matched you up vs some random casuals who just love big games, which is totally fine imo)

Double OKW is a nightmare...I should hate myself though for playing 90% 2v2.

I'd bet $100 that you could take any player from the top 100 3v3/4v4 (AT or RT), have that player go 1v1 against OMGPOP, Jesulin, Luvnest, Cata, Barton, etc and they will lose a best of three.

This is of course assuming that the player in question is not already top 100 1v1. Like Jesulin is ranked super high in 1v1 and 2v2.

I'm not trying to come off as egotistical or narcissistic for claiming that 1v1 requires more skill - I, admittedly, play way more 2v2 than I play 1v1. I happen to find 2v2 to be more fun, but I do not delude myself into thinking that 2v2 requires more skill - it simply does not.

There are way more things to consider in a 1v1. Map control is more important, doctrine choice is more important, you have to fight on numerous different fronts constantly - which is rarely the case in mid/late game 2v2s, mistakes are punished harder and your build order has to be a lot more solid - plus you have to be much more aware of timings because individual units have a lot more of an impact in a 1v1 - meaning if you don't counter the 9minute T70 - you lost.

Furthermore you could pick 3 random top 10 1v1 players, put them on a team and they'll win 90%+ 3v3/4v4 games - and likely mop the floor with the "top" players that play 3v3/4v4 exclusively. For example my 3v3 team went 42-2 (one loss was a disconnect and one was us trolling with Ostruppen) before we got bored =/

There are way more things to consider in a 1v1. Map control is more important, doctrine choice is more important, you have to fight on numerous different fronts constantly - which is rarely the case in mid/late game 2v2s, mistakes are punished harder and your build order has to be a lot more solid - plus you have to be much more aware of timings because individual units have a lot more of an impact in a 1v1 - meaning if you don't counter the 9minute T70 - you lost.

this. so much. take OKW as an example. with 2 players you can get t1/t2 out very soon covering early anti-vehicle measures (a puma) and at the same time get 1-2 ISG to handle weapon teams + a healing station which both players can use up and running. then only one player needs to go t3 first the other can sit on his t1 and help out with a jadgpz IV. also doctrines can be choosen so that they nullify each others weak spots (1 could go for mgs the other fusseliers or scavanger for, my personal favorite atm, light jaegers, breaktrough is perfect for the t1 player if he want to get a jagdtiger after his J-PZ, which wouldnt be possible in an even 1v1 game)

in one 1v1 (as okw especially) your pretty fucked, if you get certain units too early without being aware of what your enemy is getting

The thing about team games is That any premade 3v3 or 4v4 team has a huge advantage over random teams.

also team games are more a matter of concentration of forces than micro.

For me personally i think Russians are OP

For me personally i think Russians are OP

For someone with that name, avatar and sig, I'm not surprised at all you do

Wow, youre right! Im in the top 100 1v1, currently top 60, for Soviets! Meanwhile you are proud of your rank 70 in 3v3 AT. Its a totally different skill level required, you are right.

I wonder how anyone can take you seriously..

The skills that enable you to do well in 3v3 are not the same as those that let you do well in 1v1.

Doesn't mean that there is no skill involved.

1v1 rank is a lot harder to attain than AT/RT rank. Plus 1v1 should be the most balanced mode, because it will always be the most competitive - and it will drive the truly competitive community.

I don't have a problem with the idea that 1v1 balance is the most important

This usually tends to lead to the idea though that people who play 4v4 are utter peons and their skills are derided

In the same way that "OKW early game is weak" gives us Vetlolcake

I'd bet $100 that you could take any player from the top 100 3v3/4v4 (AT or RT), have that player go 1v1 against OMGPOP, Jesulin, Luvnest, Cata, Barton, etc and they will lose a best of three.

Not sure what that would prove, people who are better at 1v1 win at 1v1?

There are way more things to consider in a 1v1. Map control is more important, doctrine choice is more important, you have to fight on numerous different fronts constantly - which is rarely the case in mid/late game 2v2s, mistakes are punished harder and your build order has to be a lot more solid - plus you have to be much more aware of timings because individual units have a lot more of an impact in a 1v1 - meaning if you don't counter the 9minute T70 - you lost.

There I would disagree

1v1 you only have 2 things to worry about, you and your opponent


In 4v4 you have 7 other people to keep track of

Furthermore you could pick 3 random top 10 1v1 players, put them on a team and they'll win 90%+ 3v3/4v4 games - and likely mop the floor with the "top" players that play 3v3/4v4 exclusively. For example my 3v3 team went 42-2 (one loss was a disconnect and one was us trolling with Ostruppen) before we got bored =/

Well, this is a challenge I might accept.


However I am not that good to be on such a team and we might need to lower the requirements a bit



However, in 3v3 or 4v4 AT beats RT most of the time

There I would disagree

1v1 you only have 2 things to worry about, you and your opponent


In 4v4 you have 7 other people to keep track of

But each player plays a much smaller role in the battle. In a 1v1 you are completely reliant on yourself and your own skills, in team games you can put some of that weight on your partners.

Not sure what that would prove, people who are better at 1v1 win at 1v1?

If the claim that team games require more skill is true, then it would seem logical to assume that team game players are more skilled, and therefore able to compete with 1v1 players in a 1v1 setting because of having more skill.

I believe that this claim is false, for reasons previously stated plus the fact that almost every top 1v1 player that dabbles in team games, is highly successful in team games - while there are many "top" AT/RT players with, frankly, pathetic 1v1 rankings/win ratios.

Of course team games DO take skill, and they require teamwork, at least at the highest levels, which is something not present in a 1v1, but 1v1 requires a deeper understanding of the game and significantly more solid game play (micro, build orders, map control/cutoff moves, and general multitasking).

Regardless, it is somewhat of a silly argument. Players should play the mode that they find to be the most fun. There's nothing inherently better about being a 1v1 player or being a team game kinda guy. We play games to have fun. If you're not having fun just because you want to play the mode that "TAKEZ DA MOST PR0 MLG420NoSCOPEBOOMHEADSHOTMOTHERFUCKER skillz" then you're doing it wrong.

TLR - Who cares which mode requires the most skill? Play whatever mode you enjoy.

For someone with that name, avatar and sig, I'm not surprised at all you do

For someone with your name, I'm also not surprised that some kind of reply came.

Especially since i mostly play US Forces. Still i think Russians are OP. Sorry that i engage your beloved faction.

I don't have a problem with the idea that 1v1 balance is the most important

This usually tends to lead to the idea though that people who play 4v4 are utter peons and their skills are derided
...

this kinda +1. This forum gives a very strong feeling of 'only 1v1, may be somewhat to 2v2 matter and 3v3+ can fuck all'.

maybe that is why relic just doesn't give a shit (or at least behave this way) about 3v3 balance at all...almost.

-why hasn't opel blitz nerfed earlier? it was the biggest issue in team games since like launch.
-i am happy that many maps got rebalanced but what about 3v3+ maps? rostov? many 3v3+ maps are one sided noticeably.
-jagdtiger in lazur factory? lol. thanks a lot relic.

it is pathetic that ppl like me, who enjoy big team games, have to wish that balance patches made to serve 1v1 minority somehow positively effect 3v3+.

p.s. I enjoy the game very much btw. just frustrated. and thanks for adding a lot of new 3v3+ maps in WFA.

Mmmm, this poll is a bit off in terms of how good a faction is early/mid/late game. OKW is perfect late game with vet. Ostheer with tanks. U.S. is good early to mid-game. Soviets are good early-mid-late game. So it goes like this: Early game: US>SOV>OST>OKW. Mid game: US>SOV>OKW>OST Late game: OKW>OST>SOV>US. So I would say the strongest faction right now overall is the Soviet faction. Weakest would be OKW mainly due to it's early game disadv. However if you can survive early game and get the right counters out into mid-game you should be solid as the OKW.