Faction Imbalance

but all maps have the same number of points.



first of all, you need to stop with the hyperbole if you want to have a real discussion. even IF what you just said was true (its not), removing 1 fuel point wont help anything. having only 1 fuel point would make the game extremely boring. right now, when a team camps a fuel point, you can focus on the other. your suggestion would make that impossible.

whoever took the fuel first would just build defenses and camp, the other team would be forced to keep attacking a heavily fortified area if they dont want a significant fuel disadvantage.



again, hyperbole. you shouldnt be losing jacksons to schrecks. how are su85s able to do something, but jacksons arent?

Sorry it wasn't what i meant. My bad.
I mean reducing the fuel production of all strategic points by 1 unit. Not removing one strategic point.
Su-85 feel tougher... Jackson move fast but die fast. Maybe it's only an impression.
Thanks for the comments.

Sorry it wasn't what i meant.
I mean reducing the fuel production of all strategic points by 1 unit.
Thanks for the comments.

ah. i get it. thats my bad, i misread what you wrote.

im still not convinced that will have a positive effect though. this would just indirectly buff caches/opels as well as okw munitions conversion (if munitions arent changed, okw will gain the same fuel bonus from conversion, but other factions will now have relatively less fuel).

even ignoring that, im not sure what lowering fuel will solve the issues you are having with allies. this would lower fuel income for both sides by about 5 fuel per minute, which would delay tanks roughly a minute or two. it actually wont even delay heavy tanks at all since those are already delayed by cps more than fuel costs in team games. the issues you brought up were jacksons dieing to schrecks and su85s not being mobile. im not sure how less fuel changes anything.

but all maps have the same number of points.



first of all, you need to stop with the hyperbole if you want to have a real discussion. even IF what you just said was true (its not), removing 1 fuel point wont help anything. having only 1 fuel point would make the game extremely boring. right now, when a team camps a fuel point, you can focus on the other. your suggestion would make that impossible.

whoever took the fuel first would just build defenses and camp, the other team would be forced to keep attacking a heavily fortified area if they dont want a significant fuel disadvantage.



again, hyperbole. you shouldnt be losing jacksons to schrecks. how are su85s able to do something, but jacksons arent?

A long 4v4 game with allied is harder than axis. I dont care if u dont agree. its just a fact. play the game and look at the axis % vs allies. in 2v2's and above its almost allways 70% and above.

Even very skilled usf players are sure to lose in a long 4v4. Soviets are the only hope in large games.

Whitout playing any 3vs3/4vs4 game in months I've raised from place ~#1800 in the rank to #200.

So, I suspect that soviets are losing horribly since last patch in those gamemodes.

can u explain to me how your rank change means soviet is losing? not criticizing you, i don't really understand your sentence. I am a pure soviet player too

A long 4v4 game with allied is harder than axis. I dont care if u dont agree. its just a fact. play the game and look at the axis % vs allies. in 2v2's and above its almost allways 70% and above.

Even very skilled usf players are sure to lose in a long 4v4. Soviets are the only hope in large games.

Cant believe you still think that % of players is because of balance issues, rofl

A long 4v4 game with allied is harder than axis. I dont care if u dont agree. its just a fact. play the game and look at the axis % vs allies. in 2v2's and above its almost allways 70% and above.

Even very skilled usf players are sure to lose in a long 4v4. Soviets are the only hope in large games.

well then i guess theres not much to discuss if you dont care. why even bother posting? your "evidence" is simply the number of players playing axis/allies. beyond that you just state your opinion as fact.

looking at your playercard, you have only 29 games played as axis with only 13 wins. thats a 44% win ratio overall. you actually havent even won a game in 3v3 or 4v4 axis. sorry, but your stats arent matching up with your claims.

If I may, I am taking this chance to draw a big, black line, over which you should not tread.

It has been difficult to persuade Strategists to post on the Balance Forums. Let me try to explain why: Strategists spend a lot of their time learning the game, the tricks and the stats which go with it. Put bluntly, they have invested a lot more time in the game than you or me

Whereas on the Balance Forums here,we have,too often, seen an enraged poster (often a greenhorn) who flees here,having been butt-kicked in a game, The commensurate thread he posts is often, frankly, appalling in terms of balance and expression .e.g. I am still reeling from "fucking parthing" (sic)

Accordingly, I know we can only keep Strategy Specialists coming here to the "Latrine" (sic), if we show respect. And that means not taking silly points with a Strategy Specialist. However much it may hurt with some of you newer posters, you have to understand that if a Specialist tells you that x=y, then for your purposes, that is so.

It may be that you think you have a fact which contradicts what you read:in that instance,politely, put forward your counter-theory w/o insult. And all will be fine.

PM me,if you do not understand what I have tried to say.

can u explain to me how your rank change means soviet is losing? not criticizing you, i don't really understand your sentence. I am a pure soviet player too

Because if even without playing I've went up to position #200 from #1800, it should mean that a large number of soviet players that are actually playing are losing positions in the rank. What has happened then with the 1600 guys that were ahead of me in the rank?

That's what I suppose. Correct me if i'm mistaken.

oh makes sense haha. im a noob

well then i guess theres not much to discuss if you dont care. why even bother posting? your "evidence" is simply the number of players playing axis/allies. beyond that you just state your opinion as fact.

looking at your playercard, you have only 29 games played as axis with only 13 wins. thats a 44% win ratio overall. you actually havent even won a game in 3v3 or 4v4 axis. sorry, but your stats arent matching up with your claims.

not tryna defend his comment (it was kinda rude), but 4v4 allies (at least soviets for me) are very difficult once the game reaches the end stage. It is like fighting an uphill battle once the tigers start rolling out




but back on topic:


not sure why its so lopsided at times. Some times it is pretty even but i never see a huge allied:axis ratio. It is either equal or a bunch of people searching as Axis usually 70-80 percent

Cant believe you still think that % of players is because of balance issues, rofl

I love it when die-hard axis players apologize for the nightly 80%v20% player disparity. It really is the height of delusion.

It may take 10 minutes or so, but I jump in the axis queue anyway because I know that if me and my teammates can survive the opening snipers/maxims/riflemen, then we have effectively won the game thanks to axis late-game dominance.

That more players are axis has nothing to do with balance, axis is always more popular than allies. It was like this in vcoh when axis was concidered the harder faction to play. Its like this in red orchestra too (FPS game and almost mirrored factions in terms of equipment).. again axis is always full. People just enjoy germans more.

That more players are axis has nothing to do with balance, axis is always more popular than allies. It was like this in vcoh when axis was concidered the harder faction to play. Its like this in red orchestra too (FPS game and almost mirrored factions in terms of equipment).. again axis is always full. People just enjoy germans more.

Axis consistently beat allies in team games 3v3+

Axis consistently beat allies in team games 3v3+

Even if that is true and allies would be for the sake of argument buffed, Axis would still be atleast 75% of playerbase. I mean who wouldnt want to be the underdog with superior technology and equipment? And Tigers, obersoldaten(yeah stupid name), fallschirm and pgrens look really cool. Name one allied unit that looks awesome.

I love it when die-hard axis players apologize for the nightly 80%v20% player disparity. It really is the height of delusion.

Ok Putin. In fact there is only 50% of both sides played overall, since mirrors are not allowed in this game. Players wo are already in a game don't appear in the matchmaking queue.

Since there are more Axis players than Allied players, Axis players have to wait until they find a game while Allied players get nearly immediately a game because there are already Axis players in the queue. Those Allied players disappear then from the queue quickly, so that explains why there appear to be nearly only Axis players. In reality though the disparity is probably a lot smaller than you can actually see from the machmaking numbers shown. It is impossible to know from the numbers shown in matchmaking how many more players actually try to play Axis rather than Allies, we only know it is more players for Axis most of the time.

Even if that is true and allies would be for the sake of argument buffed, Axis would still be atleast 75% of playerbase. I mean who wouldnt want to be the underdog with superior technology and equipment? And Tigers, obersoldaten(yeah stupid name), fallschirm and pgrens look really cool. Name one allied unit that looks awesome.

i guarantee you that if allies had a late game equivalent to axis. the numbers would be 60% axis and 40% allies

Yes axis will likely have more in most cases. But in 2v2's its 80% most of the time, and 3v3's and 4v4' many times show 0% allies. (many times when im playing)

the game will always have an axis majority, But many players playing axis is because of balance issues.

The this game lauched it was about 60% axis and 40% allies. Now that people know how to play. Most know not to bother. ( unless its a 4v4 or 3v3 all sov team)

but all maps have the same number of points.



first of all, you need to stop with the hyperbole if you want to have a real discussion. even IF what you just said was true (its not), removing 1 fuel point wont help anything. having only 1 fuel point would make the game extremely boring. right now, when a team camps a fuel point, you can focus on the other. your suggestion would make that impossible.

whoever took the fuel first would just build defenses and camp, the other team would be forced to keep attacking a heavily fortified area if they dont want a significant fuel disadvantage.



again, hyperbole. you shouldnt be losing jacksons to schrecks. how are su85s able to do something, but jacksons arent?

All maps don't have the same number of strategic points :

Steppes = 11 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 15 points (13 producing fuel)
City 17 = 9 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 13 points (11 producing fuel)

Effect on removing 1 unit of fuel production applied on all points with a fuel income :

Normal point produce = 3 fuel/minute
Fuel point produce = 7 fuel/minute
Mun. point produce = 0 fuel/minute

Fuel production normal rate:
Steppes = 11 normal x 3 + 2 x 7 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 47/minute.
City 17= 9 normal x 3 + 2 x 7 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 41/minute.

For a 25 minutes game this equal : 25 min. x 47 = 1175 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 25 min. x 41 = 1075 total fuel.(City 17)

For a 50 minutes game this equal : 50 min. x 47 = 2350 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 50 min. x 41 = 2150 total fuel.(City 17)


Fuel production reduced rate (-1 fuel/strat. point):
Steppes = 11 normal x 2 + 2 x 6 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 34/minute.
City 17= 9 normal x 2 + 2 x 6 fuel + 2 x 0 mun. = 30/minute.

For a 25 minutes game this equal : 25 min.x 34 = 850 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 25 min.x 30 = 750 total fuel.(City 17)

For a 50 minutes game this equal : 50 min.x 34 = 1700 total fuel.(Steppes)
" : 50 min.x 30 = 1500 total fuel.(City 17)

Steppes : (Absolute fuel reduction)
25 min game : 1175 fuel - 850 fuel = 325 fuel
50 min game : 2350 fuel - 1700 fuel = 650 fuel

City 17 : (Absolute fuel reduction)
25 min game : 1075 fuel - 750 fuel = 325 fuel
50 min game : 2150 fuel - 1500 fuel = 650 fuel

Result it mean only 1 or 2 less tank... is it enough to make a difference ? maybe not.

Now let's compare both of those tanks destroyer :
M-36 Jackson :
Su-85 :

As we can see the Su-85 is (with the exception of being slower) is better at surviving panzershreks and is a lot better overall.

Maybe reducing all fuel producing points by 1 point on the largest 6-8 maps are not enough (see above. So Relic will have to see. But it think it worth a test.

Thanks for your comments.

Axis consistently beat allies in team games 3v3+

in american 4v4s you have a .495 win ratio. on the other hand with axis in 3v3 and 4v4 you have .000 win ratio. from your games, if anyone is getting beat consistently it looks like its axis.

All maps don't have the same number of strategic points :

Steppes = 11 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 15 points (13 producing fuel)
City 17 = 9 normal +2 fuel + 2 mun. = 13 points (11 producing fuel)

ok youre right. there is a slight amount of variation in points. but the point i was trying to make was even 1v1 typically have that many points. 14 points is the norm for the vast majority of maps regardless of size. so you can make the claim that large team games should have reduced income because it is multiplied by the number of players, but to reduce fuel because large maps have more points is inaccurate.

Result it mean only 1 or 2 less tank... is it enough to make a difference ? maybe not.

thank you for using real numbers and taking the time to make a factually accurate post. i wish more people would do the same.

while your changes would reduce tanks by 1-2 per player (which i would actually welcome), i think the negative consequences would outweigh this.

changing fuel incomes by such a big amount would impact early game timings for every faction other than soviets. for example, the germans pak and 221 would be delayed making soviet t1 harder to counter.

my original point about okw munitions conversion also still stands. reducing all fuel incomes by about 6/min indirectly buffs the munitions conversion relative to other factions. but on the other hand, these changes would also have to be lessened for okw because of how their income was designed. you would have to take less than 1 fuel away from each point for okw players since they already only get 2 fuel per point. then okw is getting a weird fraction like 1.4 fuel per point...

another negative effect this change would have is to make call ins even more attractive. people already dont tech because of the high fuel costs. if you lower fuel income, theres even less reason to tech for tanks. youre not only delaying non doctrinal tanks and making them come out closer to the call ins, but youre also making teching costs have a larger impact. so you either have to redesign teching costs and/or change CP requirements for team games as well.

the point im trying to make is, while having less tanks in team games would probably be a good thing, its not nearly as simple as cutting fuel income. that would have a lot of side effects beyond just what you intend to change.

Now let's compare both of those tanks destroyer :
M-36 Jackson :
Su-85 :

As we can see the Su-85 is (with the exception of being slower) is better at surviving panzershreks and is a lot better overall.

i think a lot of people would disagree on this point. the jackson may be harder to use, but its one of the best tanks in the game when used well. 60 range, 240 damage td with high speed and a turret and for a low cost as well. its also more accurate than an su85. once it hits vet1, its able to further increase its accuracy by 10% and penetration by 40% with its ability. really the only drawback this thing has is its durability. just keep it at long range and away from infantry (which is where tds should be anyway).

in american 4v4s you have a .495 win ratio. on the other hand with axis in 3v3 and 4v4 you have .000 win ratio. from your games, if anyone is getting beat consistently it looks like its axis.

Sorry, dude. He's generalizing and not giving proved facts, but your reply is just as wrong as his.
The fact that he has lost all his games as axis doesn't prove that axis are weaker in 3vs3+ games.

Just comparing lategame units, I would say that axis has the upper hand, but probably only Relic know the true stats.

(And it would be great that someday they gave us some kind of report of average daily games in each game mode and which faction is better)