Quentin :"OKW is the weakest faction"

Crazyman : haha, 0 people beated me after 7 min for 1 year maybe. If someone beat me, he needs minimum 1 hour Keepo ? With my smurf account i have maybe 75-3 ( others defeat i losted the connection ). Stephenn : I like you but nope for me you can't be in top 10, really not Kappa. The skill of player, mouvement, micro, tactic choice, etc is 95 % more important that a simple stug e at 6 cp. Before 6 cp you have all the time to show "who is the boss" too.

arrogance and ignorance makes for a great cocktail...

i wonder how a player can be top 10 with all factions, yet be able to live without having a simple clue about what decides most games. ofc micro and execution is pretty important, but with the current state of the game commander choices and playing the meta are way more important.

regarding the original topic: yes, youre right and the biggest part of the community is wrong.

arrogance and ignorance makes for a great cocktail...

i wonder how a player can be top 10 with all factions, yet be able to live without having a simple clue about what decides most games. ofc micro and execution is pretty important, but with the current state of the game commander choices and playing the meta are way more important.

regarding the original topic: yes, youre right and the biggest part of the community is wrong.

It is all about Feeling...

If you have a opinion ... You défend your opinion ... Ofc i have the feeling than I'm right BUT ofc it's maybe not the truth. I didn't say strats for he can't say : OLOL look stug e is important.

If you have a opinion ... You défend your opinion ... Ofc i have the feeling than I'm right BUT ofc it's maybe not the truth. I didn't say strats for he can't say : OLOL look stug e is important.

youre french, arent you? Jules Renard said (or more likely wrote): "If you are afraid of being lonely, don't try to be right."

i play this game at a skill level that puts me somewere between 200 and 1500 on the ladder depending on practice.

as of this fact i feel that i have very little to say about the balance of this game. the skill range of my opponents is variating so much in my ladder game that it is just impossible for me to judge wich part of the outcome of a game comes from imbalances and wich comes from luck, strategy or differences in skill.

if i was able to judge the balance of this game it would automaticly put me in a way higher position on the ladder. it is simply impossible to have such a deep knowlage of this game that you are able to notice the nuances that diferenciate the factions in terms of strength and still and be ranked below lets say position 50 on the ladder.

my guess would be that a lot of people that have posted here might be as incompetent judging balance in this game as i am - making most of the ongoing discussion pointless.

Who is Quentin?
He is that guy who say OKW is underperforming.
Now everybody knows who is Quentin.

i play this game at a skill level that puts me somewere between 200 and 1500 on the ladder depending on practice.

as of this fact i feel that i have very little to say about the balance of this game. the skill range of my opponents is variating so much in my ladder game that it is just impossible for me to judge wich part of the outcome of a game comes from imbalances and wich comes from luck, strategy or differences in skill.

if i was able to judge the balance of this game it would automaticly put me in a way higher position on the ladder. it is simply impossible to have such a deep knowlage of this game that you are able to notice the nuances that diferenciate the factions in terms of strength and still and be ranked below lets say position 50 on the ladder.

my guess would be that a lot of people that have posted here might be as incompetent judging balance in this game as i am - making most of the ongoing discussion pointless.

thanks for the elaborate explanation of why you cant judge balance.

i play this game at a skill level that puts me somewere between 200 and 1500 on the ladder depending on practice.

[1.]as of this fact i feel that i have very little to say about the balance of this game. the skill range of my opponents is variating so much in my ladder game that it is just impossible for me to judge wich part of the outcome of a game comes from imbalances and wich comes from luck, strategy or differences in skill.

[2.]if i was able to judge the balance of this game it would automaticly put me in a way higher position on the ladder. it is simply impossible to have such a deep knowlage of this game that you are able to notice the nuances that diferenciate the factions in terms of strength and still and be ranked below lets say position 50 on the ladder.

my guess would be that a lot of people that have posted here might be as incompetent judging balance in this game as i am -[3.] making most of the ongoing discussion pointless.

1. so nobody should be able to judge balance, because everyone has to play vs the occasional (actually its quite frequent) rank 1000+ guy, even the ppl on the top of the ladders (although for them even rank 100+ should be considered unevenly matched)

2. what? how? so, refrees cant judge sports (including e-sports) matches because their unable to perform on the same level as pro sportsmen/gamers...

3. yep, just close coh2.org to everyone who isnt top 50

other than that -> what dasheepeh said

thanks for the elaborate explanation of why you cant judge balance.

1. so nobody should be able to judge balance, because everyone has to play vs the occasional (actually its quite frequent) rank 1000+ guy, even the ppl on the top of the ladders (although for them even rank 100+ should be considered unevenly matched)

2. what? how? so, refrees cant judge sports (including e-sports) matches because their unable to perform on the same level as pro sportsmen/gamers...

3. yep, just close coh2.org to everyone who isnt top 50

other than that -> what dasheepeh said

dasheepeh: your welcome.


spam.r33k:

1: well even for a player that understands this game very well and so gets to the top, it still is not easy to judge the balance i suppose.

2: it is not necessary for referees to know the involved tactics/ strategy of their sport. they just got to know the rules. but good coaches and commentators often have a backround as players themselves. also there is a difference between sports:

let take chess: you can only talk as meaningfull about it as good you are. a bad chessplayer has absolutely nothing meaningfull to say about a pro chess game.

lets take football: you might know everything there is about the involved tactics and strategies even if you never played good yourself.

now chess is 100% strategy 0% execution (might call it micro)
football is more like 10% strategy 90% execution

in coh i would say its 70% startegy and 30% execution
if jesulin was sitting next to me while i played and told me what to do the whole game i would get far in most tournements even with my poor micro skills.

3: well there are plenty of other things to discuss are there not?

The thing is that every people have a different feeling, opinion about the game.

But to be honest the difference that we can see, a clear difference is the rank.

Between a guy top 2 in ladders and a guy top 500 ...

I don't say that i have more the truth than him for exemple but maybe His feelings of the game are more bad because he loose.

And my feelings are good because i win and win, win, win, lost the connection, win Kappa

feeling = opinion for me Kappa

for exemple : you choose to go at-gun because you think that a tank coming.

it's a feeling.

All your choices and mouvement is base on your feeling.

Like last time : I had the feeling that i have 240 mp ... it was the case and i called mg42 just in time.

F E E L I N G Kappa

dasheepeh: your welcome.


spam.r33k:

1: well even for a player that understands this game very well and so gets to the top, it still is not easy to judge the balance i suppose.

2: it is not necessary for referees to know the involved tactics/ strategy of their sport. they just got to know the rules. but good coaches and commentators often have a backround as players themselves. also there is a difference between sports:

let take chess: you can only talk as meaningfull about it as good you are. a bad chessplayer has absolutely nothing meaningfull to say about a pro chess game.

lets take football: you might know everything there is about the involved tactics and strategies even if you never played good yourself.

now chess is 100% strategy 0% execution (might call it micro)
football is more like 10% strategy 90% execution

in coh i would say its 70% startegy and 30% execution
if jesulin was sitting next to me while i played and told me what to do the whole game i would get far in most tournements even with my poor micro skills.

3: well there are plenty of other things to discuss are there not?

valid points. all of them. Though id probably disagree about the bold stuff. since theres only a few viable strategies at the moment, it all comes down to execution in my opinion (which is why i suck so hard)

After playing all 4 factions to top 10, I have to agree with FMA.

Ostheer would be the weakest, but currently Stug-E is broken and Redistribute Resources are more than enough to survive.

OKW are 1-dimensional and are easily exploited. There are very little strategies a good player can execute that a poor player cannot.

A lot of it comes down to map selection, and OKW have 3 critical flaws:

1. They cannot play melee maps. Assault Engineers, Thompsons, PPSh and Shock Troops are auto-win on those.
2. They cannot play building-heavy maps. They don't have a flamethrower or spare munitions for grenades.
3. They cannot play maps where munitions are easily cut off. No munitions = no mines/shreks and you bleed to death from the first t34/sherman that hits the field.

I'm sure there are a lot of 2v2/3v3/4v4 players voting here, but its sad to see people are so blind towards the 1 faction they play.

On Relic's stream, it was stated multiple times that their internal data shows OKW as the faction with lowest win rate at higher skill levels. Hell, just look at the win %'s on the 1v1 leader boards for OKW.

Could it be that more "good" players are taking the time to learn the allied factions? I myself am seeing more and more allied AT teams then ever in 2v2 and above.

arrogance and ignorance makes for a great cocktail...

i wonder how a player can be top 10 with all factions, yet be able to live without having a simple clue about what decides most games. ofc micro and execution is pretty important, but with the current state of the game commander choices and playing the meta are way more important.

regarding the original topic: yes, youre right and the biggest part of the community is wrong.

You can't deny the fact that he is an extremely good player. There are like 5-6 people on a similar skill level but that's it.
Strategy in coh2 is extremely overrated imo. It's all about having a "feel" for the game and the speed +tactical decision making that comes with it. In that sense CoH is more comparable to CS GO than to games with a lot of actual strategic depth like EU4 or Wargame.

You can't deny the fact that he is an extremely good player. There are like 5-6 people on a similar skill level but that's it.
Strategy in coh2 is extremely overrated imo. It's all about having a "feel" for the game and the speed +tactical decision making that comes with it. In that sense CoH is more comparable to CS GO than to games with a lot of actual strategic depth like EU4 or Wargame.

he is, i totally agree with you there, yet his statement that proper micro compensates for poor commander choices is one i cant agree with (if the vs-ing players are on par. if quentin was playing against me he'd probably beat me with german infantry doctrine)