Bulletins barely affect anything, and i dont see how premium doctrines are negatively affecting the competetive aspect of the game as long as they are properly balanced.
1v1 and 2v2 automatch werent really different. If you had a high ELO, you had better opponents, that means "hardcore" players. Same goes for COH2. As soon as i got in the top 100, or rather top 75, i got "hardcore" players matched with me aswell.
1v1 or 2v2 were never reserved for super hardcore players, they were and are for everyone. The opponents you get is caused by your ELO. You get a high ELO, you get matched with better players. Simple as that.
Missing the point. The atmosphere was much more friendly because the players were more constrained (but not too constrained) since they had few doctrine choices and no bulletins. The game's balance always also seemed to be focused on 1v1, followed by 2v2.
My main issue though is that, without all doctrines available to experiment with and practice, you cannot learn them and thus learn how to fight against them. It's like facing a left handed pitcher in baseball. It ruins competitive play until everyone has them. Rifle and Mech companies are far far different than the others. If I could play Rifle, I might say it's OP (but I really have no clue). It seems to fit with the American faction the best though. That can't be discounted. It's the primary/staple doctrine for USA.
I disagree on the bulletins. Tripling on your main infantry unit is quite effective and can lead to lasting positional advantages stemming from winning the first fights.
@up
You do realize that doctrines is exactly what allows to exponentially surpass CoH1 depth by giving a much, much more options to the players and opening much more tactics then vCoH had across its whole life, right?
You don't need to agree with it, but you can't really deny it, unless you don't understand what doctrines do for the game.
Did I say doctrines in CoH 2 are bad? No. I said the implementation is bad because what I just said above