Balance Data Since The Patch

....which are directly related to maps. USF late game is very mobile and hard hitting, but when all the maps are small and easy to lock down then USF late game is shit. Soviet late game isn't in as dire straits due to indirect fire but still you get my point.

Fixing maps should be the top priority.

It's easier to set up a defence that perform a multiple front attack and flank.
It's easier to control 2 tanks, than make use of 4-5 mediums. The average joe won't be able to make use of them and it's a problem when the games goes arounds tanks and pios mostly. Alpha damage during late game can get really scary.
3v3+ CAS is really broken. Resource inflation + global presence on big maps, makes retreats really punishing.

Mid to high level of play is balanced. Unfortunately mid to lower isn't (higher modes).

-------------------------------

@ElSlayer the game is not designed for 3v3+, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be balance changes to make it more enjoyable. Some of the reasons this modes are imbalanced are due to the things people likes about them:
-Resources
-Amount of units
-Capping

If every map was like Vaux Farmlands or Kolodny the USF and Soviets would wreck. Balance disparity is too dependent on map design because the factions aren't well rounded enough.

It's easier to set up a defence that perform a multiple front attack and flank.
It's easier to control 2 tanks, than make use of 4-5 mediums. The average joe won't be able to make use of them and it's a problem when the games goes arounds tanks and pios mostly. Alpha damage during late game can get really scary.
3v3+ CAS is really broken. Resource inflation + global presence on big maps, makes retreats really punishing.

Mid to high level of play is balanced. Unfortunately mid to lower isn't (higher modes).

-------------------------------

@ElSlayer the game is not designed for 3v3+, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be balance changes to make it more enjoyable. Some of the reasons this modes are imbalanced are due to the things people likes about them:
-Resources
-Amount of units
-Capping

agree !!!!

It's easier to set up a defence that perform a multiple front attack and flank.
It's easier to control 2 tanks, than make use of 4-5 mediums. The average joe won't be able to make use of them and it's a problem when the games goes arounds tanks and pios mostly. Alpha damage during late game can get really scary.
3v3+ CAS is really broken. Resource inflation + global presence on big maps, makes retreats really punishing.

Mid to high level of play is balanced. Unfortunately mid to lower isn't (higher modes).

+1
Nothing more to add here really.

@ElSlayer the game is not designed for 3v3+, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be balance changes to make it more enjoyable. Some of the reasons this modes are imbalanced are due to the things people likes about them:
-Resources
-Amount of units
-Capping

True. It is quite obvious if you play like 20 games for both sides (any faction). I just don't get it, why it is not so obvious for developers.

Well, maybe that isn't exactly true. They implemented some changes based on 4v4 balance, like reverting OKW muni penalty. That helps, but that isn't enough.

inb4 fanboyism accusements - I don't really trying to push some nerfs to Axis factions through forum wars. I don't think that 4v4 RANDOM MM favours Axis through unit stats or their efficency to cost ratio.

The main problem is in horrific imbalance of effort input and result output. If you are experienced enough you can exploit strong side of Allied factions just fine. If you're not, you'll have really hard time playing 4v4 as Allies, but in the same time quite easy games as Axis if you know just the barebones.

You know... I don't even understand why I'm visiting these forums and arguing with other guys on balance. I think that I've grown beyond "in 4v4 T-34 is UP" level as soviets and all that kind of thing. I can handle any situation with just stock units of every faction. I don't even care about how it tough to break brick wall of Allied 4v4 for new players. I think that I can adapt to any balacne changes no matter what.

Maybe the reason is in that I play team games with my friends. They have hard time playing Allies, while playing as Axis is much more easier for them. They are noobs in CoH2 because they can't invest so much time in game as I do, but I know that they smart guys cuz we've played other games like DotA and WoW (2v2 and 3v3 arena) and I saw that they are capable of gathering information from their losses and adapting their playstile according to it.

After that when I read something like "Allies 4v4 win ratio is so low beacause they need to L2P"...
Well, I just can't stay silient when people saying heresy. Heresy should be gunned down no matter what.



OK. Now... question.
Please, explain again, why the hell some players that have good understanding of game (according to their playercard) think that data on 4v4 win/loss ratio is invalid? I've reread all thread, but couldn't grasp it.

Seriously, can someone explain it to me with some basic examples?

OK. Now... question.
Please, explain again, why the hell some players that have good understanding of game (according to their playercard) think that data on 4v4 win/loss ratio is invalid? I've reread all thread, but couldn't grasp it.

Seriously, can someone explain it to me with some basic examples?

Because most people here that do 3's and 4's a lot do it in AT's, adding onto that AT's eliminate RNG matchmaking as a intervening factor and thus for some the most "pure" data is top 200 AT. I'm not saying they are absolutely right per say; only that they do have some legitimate reasoning.

Elchino explained it pretty well already; pro's don't have micro issues (and allies like USF take a lot of micro!) thus it is easier to manage large hectic situations as Axis versus Allies. But on a higher level were micro isn't an issue Allies do fairly well.

The chart is still moving from the last patch. Don't know how you can say the game is now balance just because win rates cross each other while the chart isn't stabilized itself. Today USF has now the lowest win rate and I don't see any stabilization in this evolution.

Actually allies win rates go up compared to last week. That means Player adapted and those who were abusing certain strategies that were nerfed got out because they inflated elo they lost by now.