6 consecutive losses against arranged teams

Don't take allied games seriously, or play with friends, or play axis and have fun. Allies just too limited in strategy choices and too dependent on all players to know what they doing in any moment of the game.

He has a point, playing Allies with randoms is 100X more difficult than playing Axis with randoms. Playing Allies in 3 v 3+ takes more coordination with your team mates. I would suggest playing adding some really good players that you can be friendly with and play with them. To be honest, Inverse is right about wait time compare to COh1 and COh2.

Don't play team games.

He has a point, playing Allies with randoms is 100X more difficult than playing Axis with randoms. Playing Allies in 3 v 3+ takes more coordination with your team mates. I would suggest playing adding some really good players that you can be friendly with and play with them. To be honest, Inverse is right about wait time compare to COh1 and COh2.

It doesn't take more or less coordination, allies players are only more sanctioned by matchmaking due the smaller playerbase. You end up with shit mates more often than when playing axis.

It's not LoL with 30 MILLION players. You can expect separate ques for AT/Randumb. If you are really inclined to play 4v4, just find 3 competent players.

Do not underreport, LoL has close to 65 players

In pub games, try supporting your buddy instead of expecting your partner to support you. You'll see a totally different outcome.

+ 1

I disagree since i prefer waiting some more minutes over getting matched with a random mate vs an arranged team. For the random team this is nothing but frustrating because you will most likely get stomped while a cheap victory is simply boring for the AT team. I have seen this problem from both perspectives and this made me stop playing any mode involving more than 2 players.

Just by the way, I never had any problem finding a 2v2 AT or 2v2 random game in CoH 1 and i played thousands of hours. I quit playing a few months ago because of the boring sniper spam meta game and the rising amount of bar counting players which lead to a CoH2 like situation in CoH1.

Then you're in the minority. Like I said, 2v2s were fine in CoH1 during peak hours, but if you didn't play on Europe time it was impossible to find AT games, and the ones you did find were terribly mismatched. I remember practicing for 2v2 tournaments with Peacekeeper and waiting nearly an hour in AT automatch for games because we were on the west coast and Europeans were sleeping when we were trying to play.

3v3s and 4v4s were even worse. I don't think I ever saw a single person queuing for those modes because it was so pointless. Load up the CoH1 Steam version and take a look at stats for games played in each mode right now. When I last checked there had been 3 4v4 automatch games played this month, versus 100,000 1v1 automatch games and 200,000 or so custom games.

It doesn't take more or less coordination

Double kubels openings against allies without m3 player who knows he should concentrate on countering them? Any openings without sov t2 for support weapons and vital early at gun? No double katys or isus to counter blobs? I wish you luck.

Axis is extremely straightforward and strategy rich faction in 3v3/4v4, due to all their strategies being decent on their own. Open with med hq, spam volks with sturm officer, support them with fast jagdpanzer to bathe in mp. Open with double kubels into whatever you want to end game in first 5 minutes. Volks spam again into 2-3 mg 34 into raketens into pak 43 into kt turtling. Kubel double sturmpio into fusiliers spam. Standard 3 volks into rushed luchs and double obers, even jli blobs supported by 2-3 raketens viable. I did all of this, and can assure you that you can do even more, pretty much whatever you want, and if you do it right, you will win. I will not continue on wehr, because wehr have even more possibilities. If you played any serious Axis games post march deployment and prior to wfa, where you can not survive against isu without elefant and against b-4 without bombing-focused doctrines such as cas and luftwaffe supply, you should understand.

On other hand, bad strategy choose for allies is lost game from begining even if they manage to outplay Axis in early-mid game on all fronts considering equal skill. Allies need strong infantry from usf player (browning paras) to deter volksblobs foolowed by jacksons, sov player to deal with blobs (double katys/isu), sov players for early pressense and trucks harassment (double t2), sov player with strong t1 and sniper play to counter kubels and elite infantry later, and PROBLEM IS, they need all of this in one match, and they STILL will be in dire struggle to counter vetted infantry, superior tanks and tds.

Then you're in the minority. Like I said, 2v2s were fine in CoH1 during peak hours, but if you didn't play on Europe time it was impossible to find AT games, and the ones you did find were terribly mismatched. I remember practicing for 2v2 tournaments with Peacekeeper and waiting nearly an hour in AT automatch for games because we were on the west coast and Europeans were sleeping when we were trying to play.

3v3s and 4v4s were even worse. I don't think I ever saw a single person queuing for those modes because it was so pointless. Load up the CoH1 Steam version and take a look at stats for games played in each mode right now. When I last checked there had been 3 4v4 automatch games played this month, versus 100,000 1v1 automatch games and 200,000 or so custom games.

Maybe they should let players decide whether they want to play vs randoms or not ? I would rather wait 20 minutes for a challenging 40 minute game instead of playing 3 15 minute stomps in the same time but I do understand that not everyone feels this way.

That's not how it works though, because when you give people that option you segment your automatch pool and it just turns into the CoH1 situation all over again. Sure, maybe they could do it for 2v2s and still have decent match times, but if you let people make that choice for 3v3s and 4v4s it'll kill automatch. What do you think the chances are of two full 4v4 teams of similar skill queuing at the same time? With CoH2's tiny player numbers it's essentially zero. And how many people are going to solo queue and say they're fine playing against a team of 4? Also going to be essentially zero. It's no different than explicitly creating separate AT and random queues.

Dota 2 used to have two separate queues: one for solo players, and one for parties and solo players who didn't mind playing against parties. When they added ranked matchmaking, they removed the solo queue because they were afraid further segmentation would increase wait times beyond what they consider to be acceptable amounts. This is a game that easily has 500,000 players online at any one time, and even then they were worried about segmenting their matchmaking too much. CoH2 has 1% of those player numbers. The current system, while not ideal, is absolutely the best possible solution given the game's player situation.

Just...play 1v1?

Strange how hard people defend the current system that is turning off new players by saying the playerbase is too small...

Realy bizarre.

I would recommend to not play 4v4 or even 3v3, because as it was already mentioned: either you get crushed with random mates or you crush with arranged teams.

Play 2v2s, many random players are still quite ok'ish to play with and even if you find a good mate, matches will often get interesting because there are quite a few arranged teams to play against.

Strange how hard people defend the current system that is turning off new players by saying the playerbase is too small...

Realy bizarre.

What evidence do you have that it's turning off new players more than unreasonably long wait times would? The fact that games far larger than CoH2 go to similar measures to reduce queue times suggests that the industry as a whole believes shorter wait times are more important than more balanced matches. What evidence do you have to contradict that?

What evidence do you have that it's turning off new players more than unreasonably long wait times would? The fact that games far larger than CoH2 go to similar measures to reduce queue times suggests that the industry as a whole believes shorter wait times are more important than more balanced matches. What evidence do you have to contradict that?

What evidence do you have? Other then guessing and assumption...

I don´t think any company will give their statistic data about pvp-population in relation to matchmaking and wait-times, maybe you have more luck with that...

I came back to try the patch, and I have to say I think I may finally be done with this title.

The patch did wonders for balance but the dwindling community and lack of any separation between pub matches and arranged teams is just the straw that broke the camels back.

Game 1:3 UEF clan memebers vs random pubs and me. Game ends in 20 min.
Game 2: CBZ clan, one of our guys leaves instantly. Game over in 30 min.
Game 3: Actual decent match with pub players. Game over in 40 min.
Game 4: Same 3 man team as game 2. Game over in 15 min.
Game 5: 4 man team on Steppes. Game over in 20 min.
Game 6: Same 4 man team on Steppes again (lol). Game over in 20 min.

I mean I respect the fact that the devs are trying to improve the game, and the reason for doing that is a viable community. But quite honestly this has to be stupidest thing I have ever seen in any online multiplayer.

Mechwarrior online had exactly the same problem until they changed the automatch to only allow random pub players to play together. It basically got to the point where the title almost died completely as new players were so turned off to the game they just quit. Now if you want to play with your friends you are placed in a separate pool of players, which makes complete sense. It's actually a blast to just drop in and play against random opponents online knowing you aren't going to get completely decimated by people with headsets. Conversely if you join a team match you are probably playing against 4-8 man drops on teamspeak who will completely fuck you up.

At least the guys from Game 5 and 6 were polite about it, and when I asked if they enjoyed stomping pubs all day the replied it wasn't their fault and they didn't particularly enjoy it either. Personally I don't see the challenge of having an overwhelming advantage and just winning over and over again, but to each their own.

I guess I'll have to finally bid farewell to this title, it's a shame really as I think the new changes were halfway decent for the gameplay, but this constant pubstomping just disgusts me, would it really be so hard to just program a button in that says "random team mates"?

Yes. I got the same problem in 3v3 4v4, so i switched to 1v1 2v2 (with my cousin). In 3v3 4v4 got rekt by clans. So, i think you're right...but we cant do anything, just play against CPU or quit playing this game...sad though...

Learn to play issue, atleast for 3v3 and 4v4 games. The Arrange teams in those gamemodes are often of so low skill you can easily carry your team. 2v2 is more problematic with randoms because the arranged teams often are of much higher skill.

What evidence do you have? Other then guessing and assumption...

I don´t think any company will give their statistic data about pvp-population in relation to matchmaking and wait-times, maybe you have more luck with that...

I have the fact that Valve, in spite of their massive player base, actively worked to prevent segmentation of their matchmaking queues in much the same way that Relic is doing right now. That suggests very strongly that they feel shorter queue times are more important than more balanced matches, since their actions explicitly sacrificed balanced matches for less waiting. That right there is evidence that the developers of one of the largest multiplayer games around believe shorter queue times are most important when it comes to maintaining the health of the game.

Learn to play issue, atleast for 3v3 and 4v4 games. The Arrange teams in those gamemodes are often of so low skill you can easily carry your team. 2v2 is more problematic with randoms because the arranged teams often are of much higher skill.

I'd agree the larger team game ATs are often of a lower standard, but it's very difficult to carry your team when you have level 7s and 12s on your team, who are literally playing their 3rd or 4th coh game ever.

Regularly you can be matched against an AT with 4 level 300 players on voice chat, when you have 3 team-mates who are sub-level 30, and the opposition take the entire map, up to the base sectors, within 5 minutes.

2v2 is a far more satisfying experience, in general.

I have the fact that Valve, in spite of their massive player base, actively worked to prevent segmentation of their matchmaking queues in much the same way that Relic is doing right now. That suggests very strongly that they feel shorter queue times are more important than more balanced matches, since their actions explicitly sacrificed balanced matches for less waiting. That right there is evidence that the developers of one of the largest multiplayer games around believe shorter queue times are most important when it comes to maintaining the health of the game.

I would not put Valve and Relic at the same level of awareness of what's good or not for their playerbase. Its a bit offending for valve or at least the team inside valve managing dota2 and all the work they are doing to make their game enjoyable.

At least Valve tries on regular base to overcome those situations and patch their game asap when there is something wrong or not meeting their quality requirements, unlike Relic.

Now I join you on the segmentation issue. coh2 has a primary segmentation dota2 hasn't. Factions. And from what I see many teams and random are more likely interested in playing Axis than allied. And since it took Relic around 6 months bring a first change into the 1st root cause of this situation, balance issues more evident in large tramway, we're not going to see any improvement anytime soon.

I have the fact that Valve, in spite of their massive player base, actively worked to prevent segmentation of their matchmaking queues in much the same way that Relic is doing right now. That suggests very strongly that they feel shorter queue times are more important than more balanced matches, since their actions explicitly sacrificed balanced matches for less waiting. That right there is evidence that the developers of one of the largest multiplayer games around believe shorter queue times are most important when it comes to maintaining the health of the game.

Hmmm... According to this it would be the best idea to get rid of any kind of elobased or whatever matchmaking because then we could have the lowest waitingtimes...

"Every match is totaly unbalanced, but damn I love the short waitingtime in the matchmaking."

Just match available players to maximize the enjoyment!


I do like short wait-times, but I love balanced matches. Good to know I am a weirdo.