Allies is hurting this game for new players.

In this context, fett = bold.---> Especially the words in bold script, or, especially the emboldened part

Hope that clarifies.

I'm going to take the side of the OP on this one. I just got WFA on sale and you can see on my player card that my experience with USF has been painful. I'm still provisioning some game types, but I have yet to win a 4v4 LOL. I can't do anything but laugh at that. I'll play soviet and win and I'll play Axis and hardly ever lose. I play USF and the bigger the game gets, the more frustrating it is. The difference is, I'm not playing stupid like the guy in the videos, I'm actually outscoring everyone in the game in damage and often time kills too.

Well, your 3v3 with random mates says 60% win rate. Is there really that much of a difference to 4v4?! I really can't imagine... (last time I played 4v4 was vCoH2 beta)

I think there are a few reasons that combine here to make USF such a pain in particular, but overall hard for newbs. We need newbs in this game or it doesn't grow. If it doesn't grow, Relic won't make money and Relic won't be able to make new shit or keep the lights on. So please cast out all that bullshit about how bad this guy played. That's what newbs are supposed to do.

Instead of focus on his bad play(which he acknowledged in the game is partly responsible), listen to what he is saying. I actually kind of like him, because he's very aggressive, which I find is often a problem with newbs. He wants access to more diverse units at the start. I don't think this is too much to ask for. The teching tree for USF is all over the place with a lot of basic shit being locked behind a substantial fuel wall. There is no standard mortar(unless you want to count the pack howitzer, which costs a lot of fuel to get access to), the basic MG is behind a fuel payment that is not given at the start, unlike everyone else. There is no sniper, lol.

The really sad part is that it feels like fixing the USF will actually require design level changes and Relic has yet to ever go back on design. What's here is here.

Well, they didn't want to make simple copies of the other armies, which is good IMO. US is hard hitting, but they can't take much of a punch (their vehicles). Therefore their late game units need more micro, while the slow axis heavies can take more hits and therefore are easier to keep alive for noobs. But on the other hand, OH early game needs more micro than US IMO, because you need to reposition your HMG often or get rushed by riflemen. The only option would be to make every stage of the game require equal micro, which would probably lead to armies beeing too similar to each other. But even then there would be the same problem we have now (which will never change): the grass will always be greener on the other side for people playing only one army / faction, as they never the game from another perspective.

The other major point I would bring up is the matchmaking logic. I oppose it greatly. The idea of adding up rank and trying to make allies equal axis as close as possible among all players is dumb. This tends to result in extreme skill mixing making for frustrating experiences for ALL players not in 1v1. I feel all the game should try to get players of equal rank as close as possible into the same game, instead of grabbing a newb here and there to complete the addition method. If you join the matchmaking pool for a 3v3 and your prestige 1 rank 1, the game should try to pull you 2 allies and 3 opponents where all those players are also prestige 1 rank 1. If it cannot find an exact match, then it can expand up or down from that point by say 5 or 10 ranks. With this method you will of course still have varying skills in the games, but you will not end up with some that are well versed in gameplay and others that are fumbling around trying to keep up.

Wouldn't it be much better if the noobs play the noobs and the vets play vets? It would make ranking happen perhaps a little slower, since some of these unfair games pay out a tremendous rank increase if you win the handicap, but each individual game would be much more satisfying to play.

I completely agree with you on that. But the problem here is the same problem that leads to the searching % we see: the playerbase is too small for such a game to allow this. It already takes a while to find a game the way it is now, but changing from team-ELO = const to player-ELO = const would make searching a game a PITA, even as allies.

What I understand from that topic is that USF faction is far more difficult to take in hand. Nothing new from the heaven.

But I have to admit that Relic made it easier than for CoH, thanks to smoke gren.

Now the main issue is the addition of design for USF

1- You have to lead the game, take decision to win early game which is not easy when you are a noob. This is not properly a design issue but put a lot of pressure as USF player since you cannot do like other factions, defend and counter attack.
2- You have to win early game, 15 minutes, or it's over. Even more when you are a noob.
3- So this means, you have to understand quickly some concepts like flanking when, while playing as Axis or Soviet there is always the option to wait, defend, and counter attack when you have your elite infantry.
4- Your early unit pool is the poorest from all factions, rifles, rifles rifles, if only RE were not that useless.
-5 Playing USF is less forgiving since if you lose a rifle squad, you have to build a new one from scratch, when with all other factions, you can replace it with a elite infantry squad - unless you choose Paratroop doctrine.
-6 Playing Soviet or Axis help you little since those factions does not have this imperative to understand that simple concept of flanking at noob - low level.

I would agree that USF is a bad faction to start off playing CoH2 with. The problem is, some people don't want to buy games like this until there is a faction that appeals to them for some reason. In this case, the guy likely just wants to play as American troops. He isn't the only one like this too. These steep and steeper learning curves are not good for business, imo.

These videos are annoying. I hear the dude talking on left ear and the game sounds on both sides. It's extremely annoying to listen to.

Also, he sounds like a whiny bitch. Not sure if I'll watch the entire video.

Thats absolutely wrong!!! Especially the fett marked part !!!!
I have other Experiences and 1300 Game Hours!!!

May I ask you if you are the GeneralSteiner from HQ-CoH?

May I ask you if you are the GeneralSteiner from HQ-CoH?

Nope.

There are many Steiners out there

Ok I watched the first video. Not only is he wrong about every fact he mentions, but he also is an idiot.

Even if you're a newbie and you're playing your first game, if you have half a brain you should know that approaching a heavy machine gun frontally is a bad idea. You should know that dudes carrying fucking bazookas will rape a super light vehicle like a Dodge car. Hell, at the very least you should know that you cannot win when you engage one squad against two.

He's just a complete moron that doesn't even try to think of what he could do better.

"I built that AT gun as fast as I could", he says like 12 minutes in. I couldn't stop laughing.

I would also add to this and say the USF is definitely NOT the faction to start Company of heroes 2 with. If I had to show one of my CoH-Ignorant friends how to play,id show them with the ostheer. since they are the most normal most basic non gimmicky faction in the game. Easiest to learn and explain too. The rest of the factions are just awkwardly designed IMO.

Allies are OK once you really know what you're doing and what you're up against..

But if you start out your first game of coh2 as americans..you're gonna have a bad time.

My advice to the guy from the video...Dont go both field officers unless its apart of your strategy. I dont think he knew that you could skip the LT or CPT,and that threw me off from my first game as US too.

The problem I think the OP is addressing is multi-fold and I think highlights a flaw in the game, which is worse because the designers have expressed that the current design is not an accident but intentional.

One SHOULD NEVER design balance asymmetrically over time. Just don't. It can't work and it can't be satisfying to the players. If OKW is designed to ROFLstomp the US (only the highest level of play and in 1v1 can US hope to stop this) then the design says that US is stronger early game. But if that is the case then US must will ROFLstomp early, which is unsatisfying to the winner and frustrating to the loser. This will lead to (and has) axis saying US is too OP early, and it will seem that way because their wins will look like early game ROFLstomps. So US gets nerfed a little. Not so bad, still stronger early game, but now you have to know how to win fast or mid game while axis still ROFLstomps in end-game. But end-game stomps won't feel like they were cake walks since you had to get to that point by playing well early on. (you don't need to play THAT well since all you have to do is survive. Few factions can deal a killing blow in early game, they have to attain an adcvantage AND know how to keep and exploit it.)

If USF is so hard to play, don't sell it by itself. Don't sell it without a tutorial that teaches strategies needed for PvP. And since most people join to play with friends, don't design around 1v1 and not 3v3 4v4 since most of the community, particularly new players, play those.

The problem I think the OP is addressing is multi-fold and I think highlights a flaw in the game, which is worse because the designers have expressed that the current design is not an accident but intentional.

One SHOULD NEVER design balance asymmetrically over time. Just don't. It can't work and it can't be satisfying to the players. If OKW is designed to ROFLstomp the US (only the highest level of play and in 1v1 can US hope to stop this) then the design says that US is stronger early game. But if that is the case then US must will ROFLstomp early, which is unsatisfying to the winner and frustrating to the loser. This will lead to (and has) axis saying US is too OP early, and it will seem that way because their wins will look like early game ROFLstomps. So US gets nerfed a little. Not so bad, still stronger early game, but now you have to know how to win fast or mid game while axis still ROFLstomps in end-game. But end-game stomps won't feel like they were cake walks since you had to get to that point by playing well early on. (you don't need to play THAT well since all you have to do is survive. Few factions can deal a killing blow in early game, they have to attain an adcvantage AND know how to keep and exploit it.)

If USF is so hard to play, don't sell it by itself. Don't sell it without a tutorial that teaches strategies needed for PvP. And since most people join to play with friends, don't design around 1v1 and not 3v3 4v4 since most of the community, particularly new players, play those.

You make some really good points!

I think Allies in big team games are a lot more difficult to play, especially in random teams. Obviously having an arranged team will give you a huge advantage, but i think this is more evident for the allies. Since the allied factions are focused on attacking, it requires a lot more coordination and planning than the Axis factions. This problem is magnified in random-player team games. The coordination and communication isn't there to allow allied players to capitalize on their early-game advantage.

I think the biggest problem is late game with vetted LMG grens, big armor(tigers,KTs,Panthers), and elite inf(OKW). Riflemen don't stand up to a lot of the stuff out there, even at vet 3 with lmgs or bars equipped, as well as conscripts and maxims. Not saying we should nerf late game OKW inf and LMG grens, and buff maxims and cons, but I'd like to find a way to balance out the early/mid/late game a little better. It's a problem that certain factions shine early game, suck late game, or rock late game, and are okay early game, etc..

I think the biggest problem is late game with vetted LMG grens, big armor(tigers,KTs,Panthers), and elite inf(OKW). Riflemen don't stand up to a lot of the stuff out there, even at vet 3 with lmgs or bars equipped, as well as conscripts and maxims. Not saying we should nerf late game OKW inf and LMG grens, and buff maxims and cons, but I'd like to find a way to balance out the early/mid/late game a little better. It's a problem that certain factions shine early game, suck late game, or rock late game, and are okay early game, etc..

Speaking as a lower level player, I couldn't agree more. If you're playing random team and you're not both excellent players, maintaining the constant early game pushing needed to win as allies is frustrating.

Also, the game-stage asymmetry can make the game more repetitive. You pretty much know what you're going to be doing in early game based on which faction you are. At least that's what I find.

I think the biggest problem is late game with vetted LMG grens, big armor(tigers,KTs,Panthers), and elite inf(OKW). Riflemen don't stand up to a lot of the stuff out there, even at vet 3 with lmgs or bars equipped, as well as conscripts and maxims. Not saying we should nerf late game OKW inf and LMG grens, and buff maxims and cons, but I'd like to find a way to balance out the early/mid/late game a little better. It's a problem that certain factions shine early game, suck late game, or rock late game, and are okay early game, etc..

+1

I would like to see all factions setup like OKW where there is really no way to go wrong. Sure there are some strats better than others but it's a lot harder to totally gimp yourself by picking the wrong tech or doctrine.

Guy in the vid fucks up royally, then blames the game.

I don't see anything "enlightening about new players experience" in that at all.

I just see a drunk, rather biased, impatient, annoying, whiney, uncooperative guy ranting at the game and blaming it for his own mistakes.

This basically sums up that guys video.

That being said, I agree with the overall sentiment that playing allies without a good understanding of the game is a challenge. New players are typically a little bit more timid, and in order to win with americans you have to play balls to the wall and push every advantage you have throughout the entire game, especially in larger game modes. It's much easier to sit back, play defensively, and rely on the stronger axis late game.

I think Allies in big team games are a lot more difficult to play, especially in random teams. Obviously having an arranged team will give you a huge advantage, but i think this is more evident for the allies. Since the allied factions are focused on attacking, it requires a lot more coordination and planning than the Axis factions. This problem is magnified in random-player team games. The coordination and communication isn't there to allow allied players to capitalize on their early-game advantage.

But yet you haven't played even a single match as Axis...
Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

I don't know where I found the motivation to watch allmost that entire video but this seems clearly like a LTP issue...

But yet you haven't played even a single match as Axis...
Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

observations from the general sentiment of 4v4 players, and I also said "I think" ..really just my opinion

But yet you haven't played even a single match as Axis...
Where are you drawing these conclusions from?

There is an thousands year old Jewish proverb that goes something like: "If everyone tells you that you're drunk, best not to argue, just get to sleep."

Allied players are in decline. Full stop. Those who want to play allies are saying it. Those who play both say they now choose allies only because the wait times are less. And others just don't say anything because they have left and moved on to other games. So there is a problem. To argue with the perceptions of those who don't play or have left misses the point. Perceptions are reality to each individual.

You can say that the perception is tantamount mis-perceiving the problem, but objective statistics and all the anecdotes say that the problem exists. You can shout "it is just an L2P issue" as loud as you want, but the more successful you are in getting the game designers to look away from the complaints, the longer your wait times will get when you play Axis.