What should Relic do to increase allies-players?

the answer to all of your questions is because its a team game. in 1v1, you have to use your mp to build infantry. if you dont, youll get overrun. in large team games, a player can get by with very few squads while he fast techs/builds caches/drops fuel/ etc.

rushing a walking stuka, for example, means the okw player builds the mechanized tier first. in 1v1s, a lot of players like to start with the med truck because it helps their infantry a lot more. in team games, an early med truck is less important. that means in team games they can start converting to fuel right away and get out a fast stuka. thats not even counting if a wehrmacht player builds an early fuel cache.

im a little unclear what your suggestion is based on your last post. you say fuel income should be like 1v1s (and not x4). so for example say a player is getting 20 fuel per minute in a 1v1, are you suggesting in a 4v4, the team as a whole should get only 20 fuel (5 fuel per player per minute)?

Just a bit more resources balancing is needed.

The Allie's factions aren't the real problem.

Americans are fine : They are just a lot more harder to play. But when one master them, he become a real killer. Versatility,subtlety and smoke are the key here.

Soviets are fine : They are a bit easier to play, but also a bit less fun too. Raw power of the numbers,bombardments and doctrinal's choices are the prevalent here.

The real problem is: Too much fuel. (Exacerbated by the number of players and the size of the map.)

1-The fuel's income increase resulting from the resources being shared in team and aggravated by the fuel caches.(major effect)

2-The great Axis's synergy with the fuel resource. (major effect)

3-Bunkers without pop cost helping to standoff without diminishing the numbers of tanks available to be build. (lesser effect)


Those facts lead to the current meta in 3vs3 and 4vs4 : (With teams of the same level of ability)

The Axis must standoff Allies until they have enough fuel to build walking stukas and the likes and/or heavy tanks. (Bunkers + mgs + mortars + paks + panzershreks and Flak truck)

The Allies to win, must break that standoff before it's too late .(The Axis heavies tanks start rolling out and blobbing).

If the Allies are to succeed at breaking that standoff, they must use all resources available to build theirs armies strength and thus wont build as many resources caches as the Axis.

Currently. Allies don't have enough time to break the standoff before the walking stukas an/or Heavies tanks come in.

Proposed solutions :

1-The logic to have the same resources ration balance in (4vs4/3vs3/2vs2) than in 1vs1 would be to divide the resource income : By the number of player or by a map's predetermined factor.

(OR)

2-Just reduced the part of fuel resources coming from fuel caches that is shared with the team. only the part coming from the cache. (Maybe not enough ?)

(OR)

3- Disable resources caches or reduce their effect the more there is build.(Diminishing return)

That could reduce the systematic caches building, lead to more infantry play and give a bit more time for the allies to prepare for the inevitable tanks.

Thank you.
Comments ?

Good analyzed! ;-)

the answer to all of your questions is because its a team game. in 1v1, you have to use your mp to build infantry. if you dont, youll get overrun. in large team games, a player can get by with very few squads while he fast techs/builds caches/drops fuel/ etc.

rushing a walking stuka, for example, means the okw player builds the mechanized tier first. in 1v1s, a lot of players like to start with the med truck because it helps their infantry a lot more. in team games, an early med truck is less important. that means in team games they can start converting to fuel right away and get out a fast stuka. thats not even counting if a wehrmacht player builds an early fuel cache.

im a little unclear what your suggestion is based on your last post. you say fuel income should be like 1v1s (and not x4). so for example say a player is getting 20 fuel per minute in a 1v1, are you suggesting in a 4v4, the team as a whole should get only 20 fuel (5 fuel per player per minute)?

Same or the closer possible fuel income per players as 1vs1 (not for the whole team) 20 fuels in 1vs1 mean the closer possible to 20 fuels per player in 4vs4. That would be 80 fuels for the whole team.

Thanks for your comments !

I you are interested, we could discuss the matter over the coh2.org's mumble.

i am available all today pm (eastern time) see you !

I like it the way it is right now. OKW is proverbial "noob faction" as going random 4v4 or 3v3 as Axis is asking to get idiots and children as your teammates.

Allies are 1337 right now and generally yield better random teams so that's where I am for the moment.

Also if you play as Axis the wait time is so long someone will be afk by the time the game starts anyway...

Anyways, even if there truly is a significant preponderance of Axis players (which I dont believe and havent seen evidence for tbh), then whats the problem for Allies?

It just means as Allies you spend less time searching for a match.

Surely thats a good thing for Allies?

I´ve seen a lot of complaints about 80% axis players searching, 100% axis players searching..but I haven´t seen a lot of complaints about 80% or more allied players....so , do you need more proofs????

when 80% players searching are axis players, is gonna take 4x time to get a game as axis than as allied....so there a is big problem there...

yeahhh, sure than maybe there 40000 games running at a time an only 8 guys searching as axis and 2 searching as allies, but that doesn´t matter, becuause the problem is the same, you need 4x time to get a game as axis....

who cares if there are 10.000 players already in a game, if only 8 guys are searching, and all of them are axis players, the problem is the same that if only 2 games are running at that time: Not enough allied players searching, no balance at all in factions of people searching for a game...

Really funny those explanations like : "no no, there are 200 players already ingame, and only 10 players searching, so its 52%-48% balance...", ok, 52%-48% but no one is getting games because only axis players searching....is helping that 52%-48% to get a game faster?? NO!

you are blind if you don´t want to see the problem here.


Sorry for my bad english.

For all our clan it's only 3vs3 and 4vs4 that matter.

The difficulty level derived for the human factor and the unit's synergies is high, it's challenging. Those modes are more for people who like team based sports... Please try it with some pals and a good voice chat.

The defeats are more catastrophic but the win are more epic !!! and it's beer's time after while discussing of the game.

They are 2 different beasts. 1vs1 is like single tennis or boxe and (2+ vs 2+) are more like American football, soccer, hockey or double tennis e.t.c. One is solo , the other is team based.

Both modes of play need the same love from the devs.

Thanks you.

I do understand you. 2v2 is my favorite mode in this game but this doesn't change the fact that this game was designed and balanced with 1v1 in mind. Also 1v1 is far more demanding than any of the team modes as you don't have team mate to cover your flanks and fix your mistakes or simply support your back. The game itself changes as well into more position fighting with more people involved due to the maps size mostly.
Resource system in CoH2 allows you to tech up easier in team games as well hence heavy tanks spam in 3v3 and 4v4. Something you won't see in 1v1. To be honest medium tanks spam in 2v2 is bad enough.

3vs3 and 4vs4 allow to specialize yourself in a sector of team play, capping, resource generation, inf, support, tanks etc...

The problem is by game design, specialized factions are Axis one. So they benefit more of it than USF and Soviet ones.
If you can found some synergies in a mix of Soviet and USF, this is definitively not the case in USF only in a 3vs3 or 4vs4.

USF/Soviet need more synchro and knowing what each other is doing between players so the gap tend to reduce when having a good understanding of his faction and playing AT matches. But still, the investment is higher to reach that team skill level playing ally.

That's why you see more people playing Axis in those match-up, cause it is simply more intuitive, less stressful, you always know you can comeback if you hold the minimum, same if your opponents are a bit more skilled.

The underlying problem with that is less and less people will play Ally at random, because you get mixed with people with complete different level in order to create a match with that poor players pool. Who likes to be associate with what he estimates to be a pure noob or being in a game that is completely higher level than his. Nobody, not fun at all.

The counter part is that as a team playing AT, Ally players will tend to win more games simply because they'll raise their skill faster (more games, more stressful at equal skill level so learning more and faster...) and since Axis playing those match-up only see their own face of the coin, they tend to believe that factions are, at least, perfectly design, or that Allied factions are broken in those game modes because they get rapped when before being able to call their heavy tanks. when in fact they are just playing better players for their skill level.

1vs1 is almost balance in term of player, we can definitively argue that the 60/40 favoring Axis faction is due to faction design, playing badboys etc...

2vs2 requires less specialization, both players need to control ground and points and push. Here again Axis design favor them but a good mixed push from a double USF can also make the difference. But still, I believe at equal skill level, playing Axis gives more natural advantage than playing USF/Sov which are really specific play styles. Argument of playing badboys etc... cannot alone explain the usual 80/20 Axis/Ally in queue.

I´ve seen a lot of complaints about 80% axis players searching, 100% axis players searching..but I haven´t seen a lot of complaints about 80% or more allied players....so , do you need more proofs????

when 80% players searching are axis players, is gonna take 4x time to get a game as axis than as allied....so there a is big problem there...

yeahhh, sure than maybe there 40000 games running at a time an only 8 guys searching as axis and 2 searching as allies, but that doesn´t matter, becuause the problem is the same, you need 4x time to get a game as axis....

who cares if there are 10.000 players already in a game, if only 8 guys are searching, and all of them are axis players, the problem is the same that if only 2 games are running at that time: Not enough allied players searching, no balance at all in factions of people searching for a game...

Really funny those explanations like : "no no, there are 200 players already ingame, and only 10 players searching, so its 52%-48% balance...", ok, 52%-48% but no one is getting games because only axis players searching....is helping that 52%-48% to get a game faster?? NO!

you are blind if you don´t want to see the problem here.


Sorry for my bad english.

Dont worry. I didnt read it. I dont care about your rant at all. Sorry.

I´ve seen a lot of complaints about 80% axis players searching, 100% axis players searching..but I haven´t seen a lot of complaints about 80% or more allied players....so , do you need more proofs????

when 80% players searching are axis players, is gonna take 4x time to get a game as axis than as allied....so there a is big problem there...

yeahhh, sure than maybe there 40000 games running at a time an only 8 guys searching as axis and 2 searching as allies, but that doesn´t matter, becuause the problem is the same, you need 4x time to get a game as axis....

who cares if there are 10.000 players already in a game, if only 8 guys are searching, and all of them are axis players, the problem is the same that if only 2 games are running at that time: Not enough allied players searching, no balance at all in factions of people searching for a game...

Really funny those explanations like : "no no, there are 200 players already ingame, and only 10 players searching, so its 52%-48% balance...", ok, 52%-48% but no one is getting games because only axis players searching....is helping that 52%-48% to get a game faster?? NO!

you are blind if you don´t want to see the problem here.


Sorry for my bad english.

You do hopefully realize that it is technically impossible to have 50/50 searching with such a player base? (edit: regarding its size)

edit2: As mentioned before, by definition there are as much allied players as there are axis players (in games), this whole topic is quite useless. And as you don't have as much total players like e.g. StarCraft 2, you have fixed sides and no mirror matches (which is absolutely fine for this setting), nothing will ever change about searching percentage.

Dont worry. I didnt read it. I dont care about your rant at all. Sorry.

Thanks for your reply. really constructive one.

No random faction option.

Also, I think the issue lies more in why people don't want to play Allies over why they do would want to play Axis. People can give reasons all day long why Axis might get some kind of treatment as opposed to another, but it doesn't change the fact that people just don't want to play Allies as an alternative.

That is a real issue.

I know I don't like playing Soviets, and I'm not going to pay any money just to play as Americans. (Or OKW for that matter.)

Also if you play as Axis the wait time is so long someone will be afk by the time the game starts anyway...

...just when I read that I realized that I am afk in a game...

A couple of things i hope u all like, and i hope someone up in relic will see.

Rear echelon squads: upgradable strike package. increase squad to 5, vet2 squad increase to six. weapon upgrades: 5x Thompson's/ 2x Springfield's. maybe smoke grenade. conscript ability to merge with other squads. maby strike package negate there ability to build.

riflemen: permanent multirole mine, from the start. at vet three option to upgrade to ranger squad. 6 men. possible m1 scope upgrade. Sandbags at vet one.

assault engineers: replace grease guns with thompsons. 5 man squad + possible grenade upgrade close range flame thrower, 50% more damage but 50% less range.

m3 half track: purchasable on tier 1 building, upgrades with 57mm at gun with ability to dig in, increasing survivability but permanently removing mobility. or anti-infantry upgrade with either multiple machine guns or a more tortoise-style covered mg with suppression while not moving.

Sherman: buy-able upgrades: 76mm gun , but still slightly weaker than easy eight. tier 1 armor upgrade expediant Jumbo "EXJ" armor. tier 2 jumbo armor upgrade, jumbo armor requires crew to exit to manually upgrade in captured territory, they will be just as vulnerable as strum tiger reload. These should cost fuel.

Pathfinders: non doctrinal first of all. upgrade one .30 cal lmg. 5 men at vet Three. effected by grenade upgrade at hq, same as riflemen(smoke only).

Artillery. US should have build-able howitzer, all the time. homes. late-game. non-doctrinal.

major: vet 3 squad increase to five. or install ability, allows major to garrison inside base. creating at gun in base. size depending on how op this ability is....

And all together, op. but maby we mix and match. Iam sure we can find the proper power working together. I would love some feed back, improvement suggestion and the like.

1 German uniform, weapons and veachles are so beautiful and stylish
2 Soviets always need doctrines, you must think more about them
3 Hard late game for America, because no heavy tanks and it needs a lot of micro
4 I think America is know very hard faction that needs a lot of micro
5 OKW intresting and a little imba faction.
6 Only two real good tactics for soviets. It is t1 with snipers and guards or t2 with maxim, shocks, zis.
7 Wermacht more easy to understand for new players.

A couple of things i hope u all like, and i hope someone up in relic will see.

Rear echelon squads: upgradable strike package. increase squad to 5 or six. weapon upgrades: 5x Thompson's/ 2x Springfield's. maybe smoke grenade. conscript ability to merge with other squads.

riflemen: permant multirole mine, from the start. at vet three option to upgrade to ranger squad. 6 men. possible m1 scope upgrade. Sandbags at vet one.

assault engineers: replace grease guns with thompsons 5 man squad + possible grenade upgrade closs range flame thrower, 50% more damage but 50% less range.

m3 half track: purchasable on tier 1 building, upgrades with 57mm at gun with ability to dig in, increasing survivability but permanently removing mobility. or anti-infantry upgrade with either multiple machine guns or a more tortoise-style covered mg with suppression while not moving.

Sherman: upgrade to 76mm, but still slightly weaker than easy eight. tier 1 armor upgrade tier 2 jumbo armor upgrade, jumbo armor requires crew to exit to manually upgrade in captured territory, they will be just as vulnerable as strum tiger reload. These should cost fuel.

Pathfinders: non doctrinal first of all. upgrade one .30 cal lmg. 5 men at vet two. effected by grenade upgrade at hq, same as riflemen(smoke only).

Artillery. US should have build-able howitzer, all the time. homes. late-game. non-doctrinal.

major: vet 3 squad increase to five. or install ability, allows major to garrison inside base. creating at gun in base. size depending on how op this ability is....

HOLY SMOKES! I love USF, but thats op.

Just give usf pershing relic. IT IS NEEDED IN TEAMGAMES. (id like it to be non-doc, to decrease allied reliance on commanders. But thats unlikely)

Also usf needs late game elite troops. either make paras available for many commanders OR add rangers with new commanders.

I think Relic should stick to the "soft" stuff by adding maybe skins, faceplates, cosmetic items for allies. THis could get more people to play.

However, it is also important to look at unit imbalance in order to see if that is a cause for people not playing allies.

If it seriously is faction preference then there is really nothing you can do. It is annoying for people who want to play as Axis though,.

No random faction option.

Way things are in most time zones, random faction would mean "Allies"

Maybe if winning a game while getting in the automatch queue with a random faction button would give a bit of more (rank points) that would help ?

Thanks.

I wouldn't mind seeing fuel income in team games reduced. I don't play 1v1, but I imagine resources change hands much more than in team games, where you cam safely build fuel caches on your naturals and have them feed your team all game.

In any case team games should get attention from Relic. So few people play 1v1 it doesn't make sense to devote all your energy to a mode no one's playing.

Posting in stealth buff-allies thread.

But seriously, the matchmaker % is situational and we cant infer preference, much less imbalance, from it.