With regards to balance

A patch could come out right now that makes the game wildly imbalanced in favor of the allies and those numbers would still be the same.

Whether or not any of the things you just said are true is not in any way related to those numbers.

Therefore it is absurd to attempt to argue all of your points using those numbers.

If you modified your argument to say that over the course of the game's lifetime it has tended to favor the axis, then the numbers would support you.

If you want to argue over the state of the game RIGHT NOW, the numbers mean nothing.

Wrong. The state of team games, especially 3v3 and 4v4 have been in the favour of axis teams since the original beta. Those numbers are indicative of it.

The current state of the game remains exactly the same as it was 6 months a go, or a year, or any date you like to put forward.

Why? Because the same fundamental problems persist in team games, no matter if a kubel costs no fuel or five fuel.

Calm down.

Also Kubel is not nearly as bas as it was before, in fact it is very close to balanced now. Larger target size means it doesn't last to mid game and fuel cost prevents spam. It relives a lot of early game pressure that multiple super Kubels posed for Allies before.

So yes stats do matter depending on which patch they are tied too.

A patch could come out right now that makes the game wildly imbalanced in favor of the allies and those numbers would still be the same.

Whether or not any of the things you just said are true is not in any way related to those numbers.

Therefore it is absurd to attempt to argue all of your points using those numbers.

If you modified your argument to say that over the course of the game's lifetime it has tended to favor the axis, then the numbers would support you.

If you want to argue over the state of the game RIGHT NOW, the numbers mean nothing.

And I'm saying, just like in my previous reply, that minor changes may have been made between unit>unit interaction over the lifespan of the game thus far, though nothing has been done to the address the fundamental problems that have persisted since the original beta, in regard to team games. Here are the numbers to prove it. Happy?

broodwarjc, I don't need to calm down brother, I'm chill, I'm chill. Also, the kubel was just an example in my argument, I'm indifferent to it.

And I'm saying, just like in my previous reply, that minor changes may have been made between unit>unit interaction over the lifespan of the game thus far, though nothing has been done to the address the fundamental problems that have persisted since the original beta, in regard to team games. Here are the numbers to prove it. Happy?

broodwarjc, I don't need to calm down brother, I'm chill, I'm chill. Also, the kubel was just an example in my argument, I'm indifferent to it.

Ok so because they are #1 in both factions they are just a good team, but balance is an issue for everyone else? You can't have it both ways. And for the record, they are currently active on both ladders and constantly play both factions to keep themselves at the top. You are only solidifying my point. You will skew and bend the numbers to whatever you want, constantly deflecting culpability onto something rather than yourself.

Ok so because they are #1 in both factions they are just a good team, but balance is an issue for everyone else? You can't have it both ways. And for the record, they are currently active on both ladders and constantly play both factions to keep themselves at the top. You are only solidifying my point. You will skew and bend the numbers to whatever you want, constantly deflecting culpability onto something rather than yourself.

So basically, what you're saying is: Axis players>skilled - Allies players>not.


Because, that's what the numbers suggest, given that your argument is correct, of course. It baffles me then, why Relic has finally admitted there is a problem, and that in the future they will be looking to correct it somewhat.

Maybe you should mail them, and tell them not to bother, as Allies just need to get gud.

There is no skewing to be done with the 4v4 W/L ratios. The gap between Allies and Axis win rates is so large a flock of King Tigers can drive through it. If you are unable to accept this than there is no point in continuing the discussion.

For those still reading my now closed threat summaries my take on the 4's game mode. Linky.

This is all off topic though.

The topic is that balance is either not a priority at Relic or they do not have the resources available to work on it right now.

A patch could come out right now that makes the game wildly imbalanced in favor of the allies and those numbers would still be the same.

Whether or not any of the things you just said are true is not in any way related to those numbers.

Therefore it is absurd to attempt to argue all of your points using those numbers.

If you modified your argument to say that over the course of the game's lifetime it has tended to favor the axis, then the numbers would support you.

If you want to argue over the state of the game RIGHT NOW, the numbers mean nothing.

As far as i know it has been like that since July, Romeo. Throughout the many balance patches, the numbers have been fairly consistent. Probably (im inferring), that there is a fundamental problem in those modes.

But im going off topic

This is all off topic though.

The topic is that balance is either not a priority at Relic or they do not have the resources available to work on it right now.

Ah, so this thread was made to address Rlic's comment on "the coming months" as how long it is going to take them to get to balance. I assume they are going to have their patch team on stand-by to fix any problems in AA which is about to release (at least they better make it run smooth and close to perfect for $40). Then they will switch over to balance patches.

Once again I would like ot bring up the point that multiple polls and posts by community members pointed to optimization and bug fixes as their number 1 grief with the game. So Relic is focusing on that and once that is sorted out they will turn to balance. Consider that it took them over a month just to come out with this last patch and they even had a beta for it, so I would not expect the next patch for 1+ months, especially if they need to fix any problems in AA.

Keep in mind our focus over the last two months has been gameplay improvements such as the modifications to squad cover behaviour, team weapons, buildings, etc. We'll be shifting back to competitive gameplay/balance in the coming months

Good, Good to hear!

After one year and a half of abysmal performance, bugs and glitches Relic is finally taking the right priorities.
Also, many players, myself included are experiencing increasingly worse performance/memory leaks with each new patch since WFA came out.

At the moment I could not care less about balance, I'd rather have them fix this damn game so I can finally run it on low settings above 28-30 fps in 4v4s, knowing my gaming rig largely exceeds the minimum requirements.

Moreover, fixing and tweaking most maps would improve gameplay so much! Nearly half of the current map pool is unbalanced such as Oka River, Pripyat, Rostov, Don River, Stalingrad, Hill 331, City 17 winter,Rzhev Summer, Langreskaya Winter, Lanzerath ambush/city 17 (only for 3v3s). I don't get why Relic releases new maps when half of the current ones are vetoed or undesired.

Lastly, if they could let us remap the hotkeys it would be great, my mouse's thumb buttons feel lonely when I play CoH2. Can't imagine how frustrated Razer Naga users must be

So basically, what you're saying is: Axis players>skilled - Allies players>not.


Because, that's what the numbers suggest, given that your argument is correct, of course. It baffles me then, why Relic has finally admitted there is a problem, and that in the future they will be looking to correct it somewhat.

Maybe you should mail them, and tell them not to bother, as Allies just need to get gud.

All you did was look at his W/L 4v4 AT and started throwing toys out of the pram. Have you even looked at the allies 4v4 AT leaderboards?

All you did was look at his W/L 4v4 AT and started throwing toys out of the pram. Have you even looked at the allies 4v4 AT leaderboards?

Out of respect for Napalm, I'm not going to go into this again. If you look on the first page, you'll get your answers.

Gdots first post in this thread

Agreed. Balance is a whole lot better now and the lategame is alot of fun since the last patch. SU-85s, Zis guns, T-34s, Panthers, Tigers, KTs, PIVs, stugs having a massive slugfest with infantry dodging tanks and trying to one up eachother.

I remember trying firecly to keep my 3 Vet with no health Su-85 in the battle without dying in a battle that had 10 tanks fighting eachother. That tank lived. Afterwards 2 tigers, 2 panthers 2 Su-85s and 3 T-34/85s aswell as assorted limbs from infantry lay blown up around the battlefield after It was intense, that game was loads of fun.
4v4 is alot better now than before.

Issues now are a couple of commander synergies that just ruins everything. *Hrrm*, Luftwaffe, *Hrrm*. That is the only problem I've had in 4v4 the last couple of weeks. Just make it so luftwaffe supply drop can only be picked up by the player that drops it. Seriosuly wasn't the exact same type of mechanic a problem with Opels?
Why add it back when we know it has been a problem in the past. I sort of remember hearing that stupidity is doing the same thing twice and expecting diffrent results.


Tl/Dr

As a prospecting member of the Soviet Whine Hydra collective: 4v4 is better than before now, some issues exist but overall it has improved greatly.

Earlier flame post invised. Please do not

Tl/Dr

As a prospecting member of the Soviet Whine Hydra collective: 4v4 is better than before now, some issues exist but overall it has improved greatly.

But how so? Last patch nerfed the pak a bit, and buffed USF a little bit. I think it has been almost the same.

Out of respect for Napalm, I'm not going to go into this again. If you look on the first page, you'll get your answers.

I wanted you to note that the same #1 team in axis 4v4AT is also able to achieve #1 in allies 4v4AT - to show you that its possibly good teamwork and some skill that which has made them successful, not just 'axis op'. You somehow took that as me telling you L2P. Even though that was my not what I was saying, but so what if I was? Are you really that insecure that you're going to lash out like a teenager because someone may think its in the realm of possibility that it may be you and not balance? You can tell me l2p all you want, and ill say thanks - can you give me an idea of what I could do differently to improve. The point of the comment was to look at yourself before you constantly cry balance. There are players who are able to be successful with both factions and of course there are balance issues that need to be addressed - always have, always will. You can go ahead and wait for some magical ground-breaking patch that will revolutionize the game and you'll be sooooo sweet. In the meantime, I will keep playing and keep improving - no matter the game state.

Well as i said previously, the factions now, aren't that far apart in term of balance. (Stukas and Obers are still a bit OP)

The performance improvements + the new grouping/cover system added a lot of help to the allies micro intensive units, so they perform a bit better now.

The Us faction still need some need cmdrs to add play variety and the Soviets still need some love in regard of the Su-85, so they can rely more on those instead of only call-in.(AKA ISU-152, IS2 or T34/85)

In 4vs4 or 3vs3 and surly 2vs2 having good partners matter more then the factions balance as it is now. Having said that i must precise that the Allies are still somehow harder to play the Axis, so they are harder to come by especially if you play those mode alone with random teammates.

It's time to play folk, the game is better the ever.

Thanks

But how so? Last patch nerfed the pak a bit, and buffed USF a little bit. I think it has been almost the same.

I think it has to do with the changes to the jagdlol and isu. I've noticed earlier that when non of these units where built balance and the games were alot more fun.

I guess you are talking about the JT and ISU buff on it's secondary abilities ?

Issues now are a couple of commander synergies that just ruins everything. *Hrrm*, Luftwaffe, *Hrrm*. That is the only problem I've had in 4v4 the last couple of weeks. Just make it so luftwaffe supply drop can only be picked up by the player that drops it. Seriosuly wasn't the exact same type of mechanic a problem with Opels?
Why add it back when we know it has been a problem in the past. I sort of remember hearing that stupidity is doing the same thing twice and expecting diffrent results.

Except that fuel drops are relatively inefficient.

Using fuel drops like that makes my list of Top 3 noob traps

The others would be:

Building Flak Turrets

Using elite troops to buy vet for OKW

yea im sorry, if u ever play axis and allies in 2v2+

you will know its easier than playing allies

#1 we have stats to prove this

#2 relic has admitted that allies are tougher to play

with axis I can just sit, camp,and wait for heavies and win literally 80% of the time.

qs allies I must refine my strat to almost perfect ti ing to deafeat most campy axis players. As Allies I must be HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE. as axis not so much.