Numbers that show that something is wrong in team games

Idk how you are even putting this as debatable. Are people completely denying numbers? Is raw data not enough to convince someone? This is just denial:

OKW Winrates from http://www.coh2.org/ladders/index/2/4/0:
Everyone has around 85% winrate with streaks up to +52

USF Winrates from http://www.coh2.org/ladders/index/3/4/0:
Everyone has around 57% winrate with streaks up to +8

May I repeat that NUMBERS AND STATISTICS show that Axis winrates are staggeringly high and its right in front of your eyes waiting to either be embraced or completely ignored. Not only does http://coh2chart.com/ justify my case, the leaderboards do as well.

And of course, personal experiences. You can check my playercard as well

I never said Axis win rates weren't high in randoms. When you have 2 AT's facing off against each other whoever has the superior team work and coordination will win. This was shown dozens of times were individually good players lost their teams 3v3 and 4v4 games because they lacked the coordination of more dedicated team game players who knew how to fight as a unit.

If you want to make things easier for Allied randoms then you need to increase the player base so it's not a constant parade of top ranked player beating the shit out of low ranked players AND you need to map the maps not unrelenting shit camp fests (as camping is very easy to do at a low skill level and Axis is good at it).

Having played in a competitive tournament that included 3v3 and 4v4 no matter what faction people played with the team that combined good individual skill with planning and team work won regardless of being Allies or Axis. Yes USF is worse in team games outside of abusing gimmicks and similarly OKW is undesirable when compared to Ostheer because it's lot easier to counter OKW (Point and click with Katyusha's or Priests) with strats you know the enemy can't actually DO anything about.

hence why i only play 1v1 XD

Sadly those numbers are completely subjective.
These stats do not include which kind of enemy each top150 player is facing, therefore the whole meaning of winratios is absolutely useless.

Do you really think that 3v3 / 4v4 random players on Axis side are so much better, or their faction that much more OP?
Why are the top ATs next to similar in winratios? (btw.: even though on average a top allied team would face more decent axis enemies)


Stats from 62 games, some food for thought:

a year ago it looked similar in 4v4
Edit, sides included


So... right, every win was by this superior late game of Axis.

i wish this would be an exception... it's not


There are certain issues in large team games, no doubt about it (i could fill a whole topic with that), but most of these win ratios are quite simply explained by the insanely bad match making.

I understand, so matchmaking has much to blame for this. But that is assuming ranks are even accurate. I've been jumping around the Allied ranks so much because I get paired with new players. I went from like #3 to #700 to #5000 back to #128 then to where I am now.

There aren't even that many top 500 players searching because they all realized the likelihood of getting paired with noobs.

You can flip it around and note that Axis players are forced to win more for an equivalent rank because they get barely any ELO from the terrible match-making. I'm not sure that's even an advantage - it's true you get a bigger win ratio but that doesn't mean much when they weren't good games. And then you try to maintain that +20 streak to be eligible for the decent match-ups, meanwhile the game randomly crashes/disconnects all the time which can easily undo 5 hours of ranking.

Basically everyone wants more good players in the random Allies pool.

not sure what all those crazy excuses are pointing at, should we all just believe team games are 50% 50% completely balanced so you fanboys can keep playing easy mode with okw forever?

not sure what all those crazy excuses are pointing at, should we all just believe team games are 50% 50% completely balanced so you fanboys can keep playing easy mode with okw forever?

And there is our usual fool who doesnt read

4v4?

I don't understand how axis can meet noob allies while matchmaking because of 80/20. There just cannot be more noobs in those 20% over 80%. And yes, i know this digits only shows queued players. But long queue means there are more players actually. However, like mentioned before, turning 4v4 in 4 * 1v1 are more survivable for axis. And well-coordinated allied teams can end game before it turns to lategame.

I understand, so matchmaking has much to blame for this. But that is assuming ranks are even accurate...

They are in the long run.
If ELO screws up and rates you Top10 super fast, possibly even with first rank, then something went wrong to begin with.

I don't understand how axis can meet noob allies while matchmaking because of 80/20. There just cannot be more noobs in those 20% over 80%. ...

As i said a year ago:
without any hard cap limit on the search, you will sooner or later face ANYONE as an enemy. Over time MM even considers some rank 30.000+ as some decent matchup - now guess what happens if everyone is top250, but one Allied guy has such a rank.

Now the few remaining decent players are sick of this, and gonna stop playing random - everything snowballs to the worse.

Brits may change this disparity, but without any fixes on match making we still gonna see lot's of games that are predetermined by bad matchups. For one side, or the other.
And sadly they're often just decided by that one guy, who's in the completely wrong match.


just my 2 cents.

I don´t want to offend anyone who enjoys team games but i think the mechanics (Resource System, asymmetrical maps, asymmetrical factions) that make CoH CoH got some side effects. One is that team games with more then 4 players will probably never be balanced. Even 2v2s maybe never will be. This was the case in CoH1 and from all i can see it´s the same in CoH2.

I understand, so matchmaking has much to blame for this. But that is assuming ranks are even accurate. I've been jumping around the Allied ranks so much because I get paired with new players. I went from like #3 to #700 to #5000 back to #128 then to where I am now.

There aren't even that many top 500 players searching because they all realized the likelihood of getting paired with noobs.

Not the match making per se, but the abundance of Axis players I think. Axis are more "appealing" in team games since Axis factions need less micro, thus creating this ELO gap (at least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong). So if people are encouraged to play Allied more (which might happen with UKF), I think it will even things out.

You can flip it around and note that Axis players are forced to win more for an equivalent rank because they get barely any ELO from the terrible match-making. I'm not sure that's even an advantage - it's true you get a bigger win ratio but that doesn't mean much when they weren't good games. And then you try to maintain that +20 streak to be eligible for the decent match-ups, meanwhile the game randomly crashes/disconnects all the time which can easily undo 5 hours of ranking.

Basically everyone wants more good players in the random Allies pool.

Sorry. I don't by it. Else each allied buff/axis nerf (or the introduction of Brits) wouldn't bring on a fountain of tears.

Do they want more allied players? Yes, they don't want to wait.

Do they want their win ratios to go to 50/50 to get their rank? Nope. They are playing axis 4v4 because they don't want to lose.

Not the match making per se, but the abundance of Axis players I think. Axis are more "appealing" in team games since Axis factions need less micro, thus creating this ELO gap (at least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong). So if people are encouraged to play Allied more (which might happen with UKF), I think it will even things out.

The problem really stems from the stupidity of thinking faction strength over time should be asymmetrical. By calling it "asymmetrical balance" it sounds like it is about balance and just needs a delicate touch when really it isn't about balance at all. If it means Axis that gets to late game wins the predominant amount of time then Allies should win the predominant amount of early games. But this leads to tears (and unsatisfied allied players who feel like the win was too easy) so allied early game gets nerfed until the most games make it to "mid".

This is exacerbated in 3v3 and 4v4 where the early game is shorter and the late comes faster.

Balance the late game (no, don't ask me how. I am not the professional game designer) and you can balance the early game and more will play each.

It would be really interesting if someone had statistics on how long allied win games lasted as compared to axis win games. Short games just aren't very satisfying even if you do win. Even if it might have been a close match up, your outplaying the opponent in the early game feels like a stomp.

Soviet don't really have any issues scaling into late game (outside of some gimmick commanders). The biggest culprit for lack of late game power is USF which falls apart like a house of cards unless you stick to a very set amount of gimmicks like spamming Para's w/ P47's or Priests + Jackson and 1919 rifles.

Hopefully UKF will help widen out the Allied player base and make up for USF's lack of reason to exist.

Its a well known problem that axis is powerful in team games because:

a) team games have quicker late game
b) axis triumphs in lategame right now.

The devs have stated that they are aware of this and working on it.

This is what bothers me.

Either it took them over a year to figure it out it is a problem or it is taking them over a year to solve it. Neither bodes well.

That bothers me because I want the franchise to thrive. To do so it has to be popular BEFORE it is esports competitive, not vice versa. 4v4 and 3v3 make up the vast majority of player hours even with the current balance. And we know the problem is balance of some sort.

So if you want the game to be more popular (and more played), and if you are a COH fan then you do, you need to make playing allies more attractive than it currently is.

4v4?

tru dat

This is what bothers me.

Either it took them over a year to figure it out it is a problem or it is taking them over a year to solve it. Neither bodes well.

That bothers me because I want the franchise to thrive. To do so it has to be popular BEFORE it is esports competitive, not vice versa. 4v4 and 3v3 make up the vast majority of player hours even with the current balance. And we know the problem is balance of some sort.

So if you want the game to be more popular (and more played), and if you are a COH fan then you do, you need to make playing allies more attractive than it currently is.

Be patient my friend. The sad truth of the game dev industry is that most resources are devoted to new projects rather than patching existing ones. Its simple: the devs need to eat, and its not like anyone pays for a patch. But we all pay for new games/content.

Its why getting it right the first time is so important. Nobody can sell a patch. And Relic have been busy with new content pretty consistently (WFA, then AA, now UKF; and who knows what else they have in the pipeline (DoW3 etc.)).

I am like you too. I love this game and want it to thrive and become better and more popular.

Soviet don't really have any issues scaling into late game (outside of some gimmick commanders). The biggest culprit for lack of late game power is USF which falls apart like a house of cards unless you stick to a very set amount of gimmicks like spamming Para's w/ P47's or Priests + Jackson and 1919 rifles.

Hopefully UKF will help widen out the Allied player base and make up for USF's lack of reason to exist.

Would that the developers fix the lack-of-reason-to-exist.

Would that the developers fix the lack-of-reason-to-exist.

It would actually be fairly simple; just remove gimmicks like they did with OKW. OKW's popularity used to be like 1/5ths of Ost's but the recent changes make the faction just as popular. If you want USF to be popular/well liked you got to get rid of the dumb gimmicks.