Balance Data Since The Patch

don't balance for AT please....

like van voort said:

1. AT has more more communication
2. ATs face randoms
3. Some of the people who are in AT play both Axis and Allies.

we need "random" sampling

I'll repeat. The problem CoH2 has had, is not attracting new players, but retaining them for the perceived axis/allies balance.

CoH2 has sold an awful lot of units.

Define "accessible"?
Is AoE accessible?
Is SC2 accessible?
Is C&C accessible?
Grey goo certainly is accessible and pretty balanced if you ask me.
The three before it? Well, C&C isn't rocket science either, but AoE and SC2 aren't that accessible.
SC2 most certainly isn't accessible, yet millions play it and its balanced around the 1% top players and its quite e-sporty.

CoH2 doesn't have economical macro management, you don't have to count and manage army of workers, you don't have constant base expanding or ever going unit production. It doesn't have unavoidable abilities that obliterate whole armies, doesn't have dozens of units you need to constantly watch over and micro, doesn't require 300+ APM to be competitive, most of coh2 top players do not even use control groups.

I'd say coh2 is one of the most accessible RTS games out there, it becomes hard when you want to get into actual mechanics, but other then that its pretty logical, you won't kill a tank with rifle, you won't cap a point with vehicles.

CoH2 is also one of the most entertaining RTS games to watch, because its nature means you'll never know who wins, situations that result in GG in all other RTS games, in coh2 you can pull a comeback, that keeps people interested.

CoH2 is one of the most accessible RTS games out there, it doesn't even take that much to master it, you don't have to be tactical genius, or korean clicker to be good at it. Just look at Quentin, he isn't brightest bulb when it comes to understanding the game or its balance, yet he is one of the top players.

But there is one more completely mandatory thing that relic completely ignores.

Marketing.

No game will become "accessible" or "e-sporty" if you do NOT actively engage with the community, organize tournaments, advertise the game-show to people that you've made this game and show them that you want them to play and have fun with them.

As a COH1 player who has played a little COH2, watched a hellaton more of it, and kept up with the various forum posts on balance, patches, etc. (I am waiting for COH2 to be in a state where I would like to play it.) here is some feedback which is worth what you paid for it:

COH2 is all of those great things with one problem, the 3v3 and 4v4 ranked match situation. The problem is twofold, the balance (as seen in the huge imbalance between Axis and Allied wins), and that AT teams are allowed to compete with randoms at all.

That an arranged 3v3 or 4v4 team is allowed to go up against unskilled randoms almost guarantees a bad experience for new players. Why would you want to do that?! Why must they find 3 friends, learn the game, and then learn to play as a team before they can start to enjoy a win? Someone needs to play weeks or months before they can enjoy a win? Or switch to playing Axis so they can join the multitudes learning to spam and stomp noobs?

While a "true" balance in 4v4 needn't be achieved, a lot of the design of the current COH2 is to blame. That the VP counter moves at essentially the same pace as in COH1 (3 points, 500 VPs to win, etc.) but the early, mid and late games all come faster, and with a decided imbalance in late game strengths, means team games are bound to be imbalanced. Without changing the balance of the teams you could slow down the progression. That would also possibly solve the call-in meta.

That 1v1 balance is a priority doesn't mean that you should ignore the 4v4. It just means that you work harder on 4v4 balance while watching the 1v1 and 2v2 closely. A more balanced 4v4 is achievable. COH1 was certainly more balanced in 3v3 and 4v4 than COH2 while probably also being more balanced in 1v1.

4v4 balance will retain more players. That is a decided "good" for the franchise. It should not be ignored. ATs should not play randoms. Probably ever. Good game experience > fast bad game experiences. And if there are more good game experiences you get more gamers... and so less wait.

As a COH1 player who has played a little COH2, watched a hellaton more of it, and kept up with the various forum posts on balance, patches, etc. (I am waiting for COH2 to be in a state where I would like to play it.) here is some feedback which is worth what you paid for it:

COH2 is all of those great things with one problem, the 3v3 and 4v4 ranked match situation. The problem is twofold, the balance (as seen in the huge imbalance between Axis and Allied wins), and that AT teams are allowed to compete with randoms at all.

That an arranged 3v3 or 4v4 team is allowed to go up against unskilled randoms almost guarantees a bad experience for new players. Why would you want to do that?! Why must they find 3 friends, learn the game, and then learn to play as a team before they can start to enjoy a win? Someone needs to play weeks or months before they can enjoy a win? Or switch to playing Axis so they can join the multitudes learning to spam and stomp noobs?

While a "true" balance in 4v4 needn't be achieved, a lot of the design of the current COH2 is to blame. That the VP counter moves at essentially the same pace as in COH1 (3 points, 500 VPs to win, etc.) but the early, mid and late games all come faster, and with a decided imbalance in late game strengths, means team games are bound to be imbalanced. Without changing the balance of the teams you could slow down the progression. That would also possibly solve the call-in meta.

That 1v1 balance is a priority doesn't mean that you should ignore the 4v4. It just means that you work harder on 4v4 balance while watching the 1v1 and 2v2 closely. A more balanced 4v4 is achievable. COH1 was certainly more balanced in 3v3 and 4v4 than COH2 while probably also being more balanced in 1v1.

4v4 balance will retain more players. That is a decided "good" for the franchise. It should not be ignored. ATs should not play randoms. Probably ever. Good game experience > fast bad game experiences. And if there are more good game experiences you get more gamers... and so less wait.

nice analysis and i agree with what you said.

however, i want to point out that the latest patch did remedy some of the call-in problems with the limiting of one heavy tank. However, the winrates are still extremely lopsided in 4v4

nice analysis and i agree with what you said.

however, i want to point out that the latest patch did remedy some of the call-in problems with the limiting of one heavy tank. However, the winrates are still extremely lopsided in 4v4

On this I am on even less expert grounds but is it possible this is entirely WFA related? I am not sure the call-in meta was what breaks 4v4s. It is the late game imbalance that exists in infantry as well. In fact any asymmetry in balance at late game will affect it here the most.

1 - OKW has great late game (vet 5, "unlimited" heavies)

2 - US has weak late game, particularly in a multi team format where it is harder to use mobility/flank.

3 - points 1 and 2 at the same time that the late game comes much quicker and in game formats that will be lasting longer.

4 - OKW's big deficiency in resources doesn't exist in larger team games.

None of these have anything to do with heavy call-ins since neither of these factions relies on them.

Fix the late game balance and 4v4 becomes a bit more balanced. Slow the progression through game stages and I think it becomes more fun in general. There just doesn't seem to be a "mid-game" in COH2 like there was in COH1. 8 minute mediums and 14 minute heavies doesn't feel right in a 40 minute game.

On this I am on even less expert grounds but is it possible this is entirely WFA related?

1 - OKW has great late game (vet 5, "unlimited" heavies)

2 - US has weak late game, particularly in a multi team format where it is harder to use mobility/flank.

3 - points 1 and 2 at the same time that the late game comes much quicker and in game formats that will be lasting longer.

4 - OKW's big deficiency in resources doesn't exist in larger team games.

None of these have anything to do with heavy call-ins since neither of these factions relies on them.

OKW late game isn't great because of the KT, it's great because all of your units scale better and have good synergy.

On this I am on even less expert grounds but is it possible this is entirely WFA related? I am not sure the call-in meta was what breaks 4v4s. It is the late game imbalance that exists in infantry as well. In fact any asymmetry in balance at late game will affect it here the most.

Not entirely WFA related, this issue was around in vanilla because OKH Panthers are very survivable so will gain vet and suffer less attrition than most Sov armour

Most of what you say isn't untrue though, though Alex is also correct

Ostheer is the easiest faction to play because it's the most straight forward, personally the game would be much better off if all teching was linear and call in's didn't exist. Commanders just added more units to your buildings.

I am not only thinking of cosmetic changes like that. If all the factions were well thought out like OH, that would help

Now, where did that 18000$ dollar ESL tourney go?

The head of Relic's business insights team lost the 18 grand down the toilet.

However, the winrates are still extremely lopsided in 4v4

They sure are

This notion needs to stop. Not only is it untrue, but its giving fodder to newer players to cry balance rather than attempt to do a self evaluation. The perception of balance and actual balance are completely out of whack, IMO. Are there balance issues? Yes. Will there always be balance issues? Yes. Am I losing because of balance? NOOOOOOO.

Balance is not affecting 99% of the 4v4AT games being played. People just want to assume they are losing because of balance; its an easier pill to swallow than looking at ones own faults.

This brings me back to my original point. So when one loses, they say I lost because of balance and therefore what I did during the game was the correct approach and its the game that needs to change and not me. This stifles creativity and learning. This has been one of the most prevelant contributing factors to the toxicity of this community, and the worst part is - its an unwarranted self manifestation.

Not entirely WFA related, this issue was around in vanilla because OKH Panthers are very survivable so will gain vet and suffer less attrition than most Sov armour

Most of what you say isn't untrue though, though Alex is also correct

Doesn't that part just get exaggerated by the heavy limit? Axis still get Panthers which are at least super mediums if not heavies in their own right. There are no double IS-2s to counter.

All of this would be less of an issue if the heavies were 100-150 VPs later in the game.

They sure are

This notion needs to stop. Not only is it untrue, but its giving fodder to newer players to cry balance rather than attempt to do a self evaluation. The perception of balance and actual balance are completely out of whack, IMO. Are there balance issues? Yes. Will there always be balance issues? Yes. Am I losing because of balance? NOOOOOOO.

Balance is not affecting 99% of the 4v4AT games being played. People just want to assume they are losing because of balance - its an easier pill to swallow than looking at ones own faults.

This brings me back to my original point. So when one loses, they say I lost because of balance and therefore what I did during the game was the correct approach and its the game that needs to change and not me. This stifles creativity and learning. This has been one of the most prevelant contributing factors to the toxicity of this community, and the worst part is - its an unwarranted self manifestation.

Way to miss the point.

The problem isn't in AT games. It is in 4v4 randoms and ESPECIALLY in 4v4 AT vs. random.

Since most of the new players are going to be in random, and since the vast majority of play hours are in 3v3 and 4v4s, then it is entirely likely (I don't have the #s but Relic must) that 4v4 Random is the format most newbies play. If they don't like the experience they will leave. No argument about AT or L2P or other balance aspects will change that.

You can balance all you want for top players in 1v1 top-tier. But if you don't get more players playing then your community atrophies. Many have left COH1 for the simple reason that so many others had left COH1. it is still a great game and better than almost all others out there. These are basic is a network effects and esports won't change it.

Doesn't that part just get exaggerated by the heavy limit? Axis still get Panthers which are at least super mediums if not heavies in their own right. There are no double IS-2s to counter.

All of this would be less of an issue if the heavies were 100-150 VPs later in the game.

Panthers can be countered by AT guns, their frontal armor can bounce shots but the Panthers very poor performance versus infantry at least gives it a weakness the generalist heavies don't have. Panthers also have very low DPS meaning it's not particularly hard to survive an encounter with one unless your alone with no support.

The issue with the Panther is that the Ostheer one comes way to late in 1's and 2's proportional to when the other factions get access to their best tanks. The high cost of the Panther combined with the steep price of T4 makes it a hard sell for any Ost player. Now this doesn't really matter as much since T3 become top tier with the StuG III buff.

IS-2 spam was hard to deal with because the IS2 is fast on top of having 375 frontal armor, wereas the KT is slow enough to chase down.

4v4 balance will retain more players. That is a decided "good" for the franchise. It should not be ignored. ATs should not play randoms. Probably ever. Good game experience > fast bad game experiences. And if there are more good game experiences you get more gamers... and so less wait.

Nailed it. I really do hope Relic notice this. I really think the "Marketing", sponsoring tournies and balanced for most played game type 3v3 and up should keep NEW & Existing players happy.

Nailed it. I really do hope Relic notice this. I really think the "Marketing", sponsoring tournies and balanced for most played game type 3v3 and up should keep NEW & Existing players happy.

I do get that it is harder to balance 4v4 so that it also balances 1v1. But that is not an excuse for not working on it. In fact, if you manage to get it right (or even pretty close like in COH1) you will be repaid in $$, which is what really counts.

I do get that it is harder to balance 4v4 so that it also balances 1v1. But that is not an excuse for not working on it. In fact, if you manage to get it right (or even pretty close like in COH1) you will be repaid in $$, which is what really counts.

I really like the idea of pacing the game for 3v3 and up. Another addition, minor modifications such as income distributions between 4 players could solve this as well. I am pretty sure Relic can tweak things here and there to the balance.

They sure are

This notion needs to stop. Not only is it untrue, but its giving fodder to newer players to cry balance rather than attempt to do a self evaluation. The perception of balance and actual balance are completely out of whack, IMO. Are there balance issues? Yes. Will there always be balance issues? Yes. Am I losing because of balance? NOOOOOOO.

Balance is not affecting 99% of the 4v4AT games being played. People just want to assume they are losing because of balance; its an easier pill to swallow than looking at ones own faults.

This brings me back to my original point. So when one loses, they say I lost because of balance and therefore what I did during the game was the correct approach and its the game that needs to change and not me. This stifles creativity and learning. This has been one of the most prevelant contributing factors to the toxicity of this community, and the worst part is - its an unwarranted self manifestation.

the winrates have been lopsided for a long time. there are statistics to back it up. everyone is talking about 4v4 randoms not AT. Some issues can be avoided with ATs but it is important to balance the game for people who solo queue or with or two friends.

you are acknowledge that balance issues do exist, so why not advocate a more balanced game? If balance issues exist, why do you tell people to just suck it up? This makes no sense. I

Way to miss the point.

The problem isn't in AT games. It is in 4v4 randoms and ESPECIALLY in 4v4 AT vs. random.

Since most of the new players are going to be in random, and since the vast majority of play hours are in 3v3 and 4v4s, then it is entirely likely (I don't have the #s but Relic must) that 4v4 Random is the format most newbies play. If they don't like the experience they will leave. No argument about AT or L2P or other balance aspects will change that.

You can balance all you want for top players in 1v1 top-tier. But if you don't get more players playing then your community atrophies. Many have left COH1 for the simple reason that so many others had left COH1. it is still a great game and better than almost all others out there. These are basic is a network effects and esports won't change it.

exactly

4v4 is the most played game mode. it edges out 2v2 by a little bit.

You can't balance for the fact AT's will always beat randoms in 3v3 and 4v4. There will also be issues so long as the 3v3 and 4v4 maps are utter unrelenting shit because they allow players to win by dog piling 2 VP's.

You can handwring about Axis being OP in 3's and 4's because of this unit and that, but the culprit 99% of the time is the fact Ostheer has excellent defensive tools and when the game is "who can dog pile and entrench the VP fast enough" the faction with the best defensive tools will do the best.

Balance is not affecting 99% of the 4v4AT games being played.

While I would agree with you that many people should examine their game


However, I'm afraid that is:



Also irrelevant because AT balance is not the way forward