Im not saying Germans are OP, but....

-Smaller squads
-more likely to be wiped
-fuel & popcap concentrated on less units, means losing them is a bigger setback than losing one as allies.

Hence, what you say is not true.

Balance in even match ups (by rank) in 3vs3+ depends mostly on the map.
If you have less flanking options : Axis favored
Big, wide open maps: Allies favored

Says the guy who's player card indicates his greatest success are as axis random in large games....


Popcap is absolutely a disadvantage for USF particularly at low-mid level skill. Late game is dominated by vehicles and a small number of robust vehicles are easier to micro and keep alive than a large number of paper vehicles. And "late game" comes quite quickly in large game formats.

As to squad wiping... It takes a real moron to loose vet5 squads. Not that it doesn't happen, and more so now with the vet5 nerf, but they are still super robust. And the MG buffs in large games will shut low skilled allies down hard. To set it up so that someone needs 2 months to L2P and has to find mates to do it is a FLAWED game design unless the intent is a small but more elite player base. I don't think it is.

Randoms should NOT be matched up with AT. Not ever and player waits be damned. To allow it sacrifices the long-term goals (more new players) with short-term gratification (players shouldn't have to wait so long).

Says the guy who's player card indicates his greatest success are as axis random in large games....


Popcap is absolutely a disadvantage for USF particularly at low-mid level skill. Late game is dominated by vehicles and a small number of robust vehicles are easier to micro and keep alive than a large number of paper vehicles. And "late game" comes quite quickly in large game formats.

As to squad wiping... It takes a real moron to loose vet5 squads. Not that it doesn't happen, and more so now with the vet5 nerf, but they are still super robust. And the MG buffs in large games will shut low skilled allies down hard. To set it up so that someone needs 2 months to L2P and has to find mates to do it is a FLAWED game design unless the intent is a small but more elite player base. I don't think it is.

Random 3vs3+ games have only ONE balance problem, HORRIBLE matchmaking.
When you play axis, you always get good team mates in your rank rage, due the fact that there is a bigger player base. As allies, even if you are high ranked, you get just shit mates.
Most match ups look like this in 3vs3 for me as OKW

3 12 118 vs 311 9102 24758 - I WONDER WHO'S GONNA WIN.
Matchmaking decides games in 3vs3+ random games, not balance. I use CELO since it came out, that's the only reason for those absurd winning rates for axis in 3vs3+.
I really hope the Brits will significantly increase the allied playerbase, otherwise it will be still frustrating to go on 3vs3+ as allies.

If you are so keen on my playercard you'd might notice that I'm also successful playing allies in a 3vs3 team, that means with equally skilled players ( that carry me ).

You lose all the time squads in late game due Artillery, rng one shots or lag nades, you don't have to be a moron for that.

Also always easy referring to playercards while not showing the own.

Randoms should NOT be matched up with AT. Not ever and player waits be damned. To allow it sacrifices the long-term goals (more new players) with short-term gratification (players shouldn't have to wait so long).

I agree, it's frustrating for both sides and I already asked relic in the past about this. Answer: they want to avoid long waiting times

Random 3vs3+ games have only ONE balance problem, HORRIBLE matchmaking.
When you play axis, you always get good team mates in your rank rage, due the fact that there is a bigger player base. As allies, even if you are high ranked, you get just shit mates.
Most match ups look like this in 3vs3 for me as OKW

3 12 118 vs 311 9102 24758 - I WONDER WHO'S GONNA WIN.
Matchmaking decides games in 3vs3+ random games, not balance. I use CELO since it came out, that's the only reason for those absurd winning rates for axis in 3vs3+.
I really hope the Brits will significantly increase the allied playerbase, otherwise it will be still frustrating to go on 3vs3+ as allies.

If you are so keen on my playercard you'd might notice that I'm also successful playing allies in a 3vs3 team, that means with equally skilled players ( that carry me ).

You lose all the time squads in late game due Artillery, rng one shots or lag nades, you don't have to be a moron for that.

Also always easy referring to playercards while not showing the own.



I agree, it's frustrating for both sides and I already asked relic in the past about this. Answer: they want to avoid long waiting times

Non-sense, if there is so few players searching a game as Allied it is simply because Allied is much more difficult to play in large team game, it is all about decision making and taking initiative, something really hard to do naturally for the majority of the humankind. From that point the amount of players is reducing by itself and leads to irrelevant matchmaking.

Second non-sense is looking at ranking. The game is too old now and there is too much people not playing but still in the ranking system to make it relevant. I'm 250 in 4vs4 as USF when I didn't play it since long before the last patch. The "new" Relic leaderboard shows 1 really useful information, the last time the player actually played the faction. I let you check the number of player TOP1000 in USF 1vs1 who didn't touch it since at least 1 month. And compare it to Ostheer.
Since less people are playing USF faction, ranking as it is today is showing irrelevant information.

Axis factions are noob friendly, like it or not, it is. And it match perfectly 4vs4 when majority of average/low players are going.

Now you can argue that team vs team, it is balanced, yes but still it requires teamplay for a side while the other no.

Also always easy referring to playercards while not showing the own.



I agree, it's frustrating for both sides and I already asked relic in the past about this. Answer: they want to avoid long waiting times

I don't show my card because basically I am a old fart who doesn't set up every option when I join a website and also because of that, though I can understand what I am supposed to do, I seem to be incapable of teaching my left hand to micro. I also haven't played COH2 in forever since I am getting better at, and enjoy more, COH1.

But I want Relic to succeed. And one thing I do understand is business and consumers (I have two that make consumer products). It is always tempting to give a consumer what they say they really really want more than all other things (a short wait, for example). But the experts of the business are supposed to be those that run it. If short waits are cancerous to your player base. If people quit, and I mean quit, as in delete COH2 as I did, then you are not doing the playerbase, and hence the matchmaking, any good.

While your example works in all situations, a game should NOT be started under those circumstances. Not ever. Better a few more minutes of wait and a good gaming experience for all. But we also know that this state got there because those players who want to play allies learned not to play large team games as random.... Or they quit. And this was the case even in the days when the matching was more even, because it isn't balanced, not at low and mid levels.

But sounds like you are ok with losing a substantial number of early players since you aren't recommending fixes.

I have said it many times; to make this much asymmetry is a cancer. It was with OF units and it is now with these factions. Too much difference for difference's sake.

average/low players are going.

Now you can argue that team vs team, it is balanced, yes but still it requires teamplay for a side while the other no.

Yes it's easier to micro a HMG42, likewise it's easier to micro 2 960 hp units instead of 3 640hp units.
Likewise it's harder to overwatch 4 men squads with less hp that encounter more RNG wipes during the whole game. So it's harder to micro USF, but not soviets, soviets don't have micro taxes like USF do. Their units are as durable as the Axis ones. Only maxims are harder to micro on OPEN maps, that's the only thing that comes in mind when I think about hard soviet micro.

But this all doesn't matter when you are top 200 because at this level microing factions properly is not the problem, it's more of a nuisance but nothing that stops you from winning.
It doesn't matter if you are Axis or Allies, if you have no teamplay in 3vs3+ At you gonna lose. AT is balanced. With proper matchmaking random would be also balanced.
Therefore, brits increase the allied playerbase and we actually will have balanced match ups. I would play far more often allies in 3vs3+ if it wouldn't be so frustrating that your mates are ALWAYS, always noobs who don't know how to use their units.

Come Brits, i am very sure many people will be playing Allies...

hahahano.gif

People always prefer to play the bad guy. Apparently there is something very appealing about fascism.

Who had the most fancy armor in Star Wars? Darth Vader or Obi One?

I would play far more often allies in 3vs3+ if it wouldn't be so frustrating that your mates are ALWAYS, always noobs who don't know how to use their units.

Maybe that it coz ppl drop out or start playing axis in 3s and 4s. If there is a way to.retain people, it would help everyone.

Who had the most fancy armor in Star Wars? Darth Vader or Obi One?

Its all about force choke anyway.

Allies requires much more micro than German armies
I'm pretty sure that at equivalent ELO level, an allied player has like 15 more IQ points than his German opponent.

Relax dude, it's just a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Well, I reckon the forum bullshit has dulled my sense of sarcasm. After all I think with this forums' demographics many people mean stuff like this seriously. Apologies then.

Who had the most fancy armor in Star Wars? Darth Vader or Obi One?

Boba Fett?

Axis is easier to micro until you face someone skilled. It isn't hard to engage stuff with a long range advantage. They are also less stressful in team games.

As Allies even against bad players I am constantly thinking about flanking routes and getting my guys in close somehow so they don't take too much damage. No matter what game you cue for as allies your APM is going to have to be high. Sometimes I am just not in the mood for that. Sitting behind OP42s and using LMGs in green cover is more relaxing to me than playing allies.

Who had the most fancy armor in Star Wars? Darth Vader or Obi One?

Jar Jar Binks, obviously.

Tell me, 'you guy' when did anyone in the movies used the Obi-Wan trick besides him. Tell me why the stormtroopers win only when they are just spamming through the battlefield using numerical advantage. Also, in the movies every good hero (maybe w/o Luke) also counts as rebel

You're just going off movies I see then. No wonder your view is skewed. The canon books tell you a much better story of the things that the movies could not show (i.e in ep 3 palpatines movements are actually faster than the normal human eye can see during that saber duel with Mace and the other jedi. another i.e dark force users have used the mind trick before. Just as even a jedi can use the lighting but majority don't cause it is an emotional channel. The storm troopers in the opening of ep iv had the number disadvantage at first before mowing down the rebels (who were fortified before the breach mind you) they did have more numbers total but that number was not present in the initial breach. A lot of imperial tech also trumped rebel tech without the force/return of jedi the alliance would have failed (even though they eventually do fail if you read the books, not as the alliance but the new republic.) If you want to go off the movies alone they do a very poor representation of many aspects. Also you can not discount hero armor man thats movie 101.

People doesn't like playing Axis, they like easy win. So they play Axis. In 3vs3 and 4vs4.

End of the story.

On topic @ Esxile that logic about axis is what creates many issues on the forums. As i said in my earlier post and I know im not alone, I've played mostly axis since coh 1 through ALL patches. People like what people like. Axis has an appeal. To each his own but to assume that most of the axis player base is in it for easy then there should have been a point where at least once the allied had that percentage and axis was low because the easy win ppl would have all switched over. Axis has been the majority percentage (on searching) since release.Axis needs tweaks but can we stop this "percent high only because axis is super easy". By that same logic most of the allied fan base must be masochist.

People always prefer to play the bad guy. Apparently there is something very appealing about fascism.

Apparently there's something quite appealing about the furry fandom with certain members of this community now that you mention it

That argument has at least two logical flaws:

- The first simple one is that the Sith aren't nearly as bad as the Nazis were. Aside from Annikin's killing of the kids we don't actually know of anything particularly bad that they do. (As opposed to industrial death camps, mass slave labor, and the subjugation of entire countries and all that which the Nazis did.)

The sith are just as bad as the nazi's were... if not worse... Pretty sure the wiping out of entire planets is abit of a step further than just targeting jews.

20 Billion kills just here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6aY0mz5m-4 Sorta dwarfs the deathcamps.

- the second is that you don't know that playing-the-side-that-easily-wins isn't the issue becaue we KNOW that the balance in 4v4 randoms is totally f--ked.

Not really... my win ratio as allies in 4's is like 90%

MOST IMPORTANTLY: This is not good for the game. It means that people who come to COH2 to play Allies are discouraged from staying while those who come to play Axis or don't care are encouraged to play only axis. How is that good?

How does no waiting times in ques discourage people?

Last week there are almost 3 x player-games (games x players) playing 3v3 and 4v4 (33100) than playing 1v1 and 2v2 (12866) and that is despite the pain allied players experience and the waits axis players must endure. The least played format, 3v3, had 60% of the 1v1 and 2v2 total compbined.

Meaning people prefer the look of tigers than the ass ugly sherman.

Considering how much of the matchmaking problems come from the low player base, how does driving away ANY players help the game?

I dont see why this would be driving anyone away. Either have cool looking tanks and uniforms, or short wait times. Both sides are good. Soviets are arguably the strongest faction atm.

Fix 4v4 some and more will stay. Do it well and you will also make for a better 3v3 and probably 2v2 experience. I would bet 1v1s could stay the same, maybe even improve because if you fix the things that allow an OKW to abuse in 4v4 you can probably give it more tools to use in 1v1.

Lol first off... OKW are probably the weakest faction in 1v1, since they have the worst early game base infantry and resource income disadvantage doesn't even NEARLY pay off because of the amount of QQ about this faction which has seen them nerfed into the ground. The fact you dont realise how bad OKW are in 1v1 and think even there theyre "OP" just shows how clueless you are about balance in this game.

No doubt there will will be Axis fanbois tears.

I dunno, your allied ones are kinda flooding the forum too much to tell.

We're freakin' talkin' Star Wars in here?

Carry on.

We're freakin' talkin' Star Wars in here?

Carry on.

Ye Star Wars.
You know, the comically evil, sinister Sith vs the comically inept, insufferably paternalistic Jedi. Whoever loses, we win. Now with more CGI and gimmicks.

Apparently there's something quite appealing about the furry fandom with certain members of this community now that you mention it

Who could resist this?

Show Spoiler