Patch notes 29 Oct

Yet is still somehow the worst faction lol.

Not in 3v3/4v4 according to the charts lel.

Not in 3v3/4v4 according to the charts lel.

Not that I really care for noob game modes. I'm not looking for perfect balance in a gamemode I troll around in with my friends, where 90% of the players are straight trash. 3v3/4v4 is such a bad argument its funny how you people try to pull that one out to try and justify keeping axis shit lol.

Not that I really care for noob game modes. I'm not looking for perfect balance in a gamemode I troll around in with my friends, where 90% of the players are straight trash. 3v3/4v4 is such a bad argument its funny how you people try to pull that one out to try and justify keeping axis shit lol.

So you are saying that the top 150 who play 3v3/4v4 are trash then? Even when taking both Axis and Allies win rates into account?

So you are saying that the top 150 who play 3v3/4v4 are trash then? Even when taking both Axis and Allies win rates into account?

Yes, being a "pro" at 3v3 and 4v4 is just wasted effort. Those ranks don't impress anybody. You might impress someone on the coh2 subreddit or steam forums though. The bigger the game mode, the more variables, and the less the win or loss actually having anything to do with your own personal skill, on top of the majority of the 3v3/4v4 playerbase being trash.

Yes, being a "pro" at 3v3 and 4v4 is just wasted effort. Those ranks don't impress anybody. You might impress someone on the coh2 subreddit or steam forums though. The bigger the game mode, the more variables, and the less the win or loss actually having anything to do with your own personal skill, on top of the majority of the 3v3/4v4 playerbase being trash.

Yes there are more variables. Tinker with the variables and you complicate things even more. Its the same variables expanded into larger game modes. Just because you want something changed, it doesn't mean you merely discount 1/2 of the game modes (which are the most popular) and deem it "trash". That's a very selfish way to think, which I guess is quite common in competitive PvP games such as CoH2.

I mainly play 1v1/2v2 myself, and while I do agree somewhat with your sentiment, I don't discount the effects of any changes made that could affect 3v3/4v4 because it's "noob mode" or whatever. Very tunnel-visioned of you to think so.

Yes there are more variables. Tinker with the variables and you complicate things even more. Its the same variables expanded into larger game modes. Just because you want something changed, it doesn't mean you merely discount 1/2 of the game modes (which are the most popular) and deem it "trash". That's a very selfish way to think, which I guess is quite common in competitive PvP games such as CoH2.

I mainly play 1v1/2v2 myself, and while I do agree somewhat with your sentiment, I don't discount the effects of any changes made that could affect 3v3/4v4 because it's "noob mode" or whatever. Very tunnel-visioned of you to think so.

Whats tunnel visioned is people who only play 4v4s that can't possibly manage to micro more than 2 units at a time.

Whats tunnel visioned is people who only play 4v4s that can't possibly manage to micro more than 2 units at a time.

Again, a stigma. The fact of the matter is, CoH2 just doesn't have the playerbase to exclusively cater to the few who class themselves as "pro" or "elite" because they play more competitive modes. It's the kind of mindset that is devastating for the longevity of the game.

So you are saying that the top 150 who play 3v3/4v4 are trash then? Even when taking both Axis and Allies win rates into account?

It takes incomparably less skill to be top 100 4v4 then top 1v1 or 2v2.

Yes, being a "pro" at 3v3 and 4v4 is just wasted effort. Those ranks don't impress anybody. You might impress someone on the coh2 subreddit or steam forums though. The bigger the game mode, the more variables, and the less the win or loss actually having anything to do with your own personal skill, on top of the majority of the 3v3/4v4 playerbase being trash.

lol are you playing 1vs1 to impress someone (except your ego?). How can you even talk about personal skill and at the same time whining ISG now requires more skill and isn't anymore a let itself win the game for me unit.

Whats tunnel visioned is people who only play 4v4s that can't possibly manage to micro more than 2 units at a time.

Mote and Beam like said Jesus long time ago.

Projectiles for 17pdr variant when???

BTW, please fix the firefly gun mantlet, it's wrong and ugly

Shrink sdkfz size.....

My point is that Brits need to maintain field presence, and they have a lot of tools to do this. (IS Healing, cover bonuses, trenches, mobile reinforcement, emplacements etc) Losing field presence should be quite punishing for them.

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make - surely all factions are punished by losing field presence?
Equally, all factions have ways they can reinforce, heal and make cover on the field.

Yes, being a "pro" at 3v3 and 4v4 is just wasted effort. Those ranks don't impress anybody. You might impress someone on the coh2 subreddit or steam forums though. The bigger the game mode, the more variables, and the less the win or loss actually having anything to do with your own personal skill, on top of the majority of the 3v3/4v4 playerbase being trash.

How can you not get tired of trying to claim winning against good players in a team game is not due to skill. It's such blatant bullshit from people looking for cred to their own 1v1 rankings.

It takes incomparably less skill to be top 100 4v4 then top 1v1 or 2v2.

It depends on the opposition. If good players team up, it's laughably ridiculous to claim that it would be easy to win against them. Such black magic rationalism you have going there.

Red Ball Express

Updated with the latest changes from the community members

*crosses fingers* x)

You and your mates are hereby challenged by The Angry Bears. Round up three players and add me to steam. Let us celebrate by playing the heck out of this awesome map.

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make - surely all factions are punished by losing field presence?
Equally, all factions have ways they can reinforce, heal and make cover on the field.

Sure, but brits are punished moreso due to how they are designed. Infantry sections are best in cover and on the move they are abysmal. Their emplacements are all extremely weak when not defended and are capable of dying to any small arms, which is quite different from the other factions who stand up quite well to such things. They're not a good mobile fighting force, compared to say USF which can't dig in very well due to their paper fighting positions and lack of sandbags/mines outside of doctrines but have all sorts of fast, mobile units. Brits don't really have mobile firepower until tanks start hitting the field, save for specific units like commandos.

So as a result, retaking the field is more difficult for brits to do than the other factions imo and far more punishing due to how weak their emplacements are when not defended.

This is also why they have early and easy access to a forward reinforcement/retreat point, among other things.

No auto facing = fail of relic. Sten is perhaps a huge decrease in dps for stens. Commandos now are crap.

You forgot to add 'kappa' to your post. Now it's not even official.

I would flank more if I was him.

Not in 3v3/4v4 according to the charts lel.

Stop meming.

Also, these stats mean nothing when you consider how terrible pubbing is with this game. If you play against a team of randoms you're usually getting a free win and if you solo into 3v3, 4v4 you're probably gonna get somebody that drops, trolls or is just terrible.

Again, a stigma. The fact of the matter is, CoH2 just doesn't have the playerbase to exclusively cater to the few who class themselves as "pro" or "elite" because they play more competitive modes. It's the kind of mindset that is devastating for the longevity of the game.

as a fellow 3v3+ hero, I understand your feeling.

but these "pros" have a point due to several facts.

coh2's competitiveness only extends to 1v1 and 2v2 max. look at maps for example. 4v4 heroes once only had 4 maps and 1 veto to tinkle with. now we have more maps but they are terribly small; going from 1v1 - 4v4, in all maps but general mud, you have less than half of the space individually as you did in 1v1 setting. look how the mud tech was introduced: on hill331. look at one of the new 3v3-4v4 map (the one with 5 vps). look how it has the huge castle that might as well be a competitiveness cancer. why do these new shits kept on being introduced first to the 3v3+ maps?

look how caches and initial open blitz were designed. completely designed only for 1v1 and 1v1 only.

which relate to cheeseness. the cheeseness of units/tactics only gets worse as game mode gets larger. again, because relic designed this game to be a competitive 1v1 game and not competitive 1v1-4v4 game.

and generally speaking, more casual players (therefore worse players) play 3v3+. i means, if you are like me and you switch from 2v2 to 3v3 and vice versa frequently, the difference is unmistakable.

which is not to say that a really intense 3v3+ games where pro players coordinate and play to the max are not competitive matches. i have had those games from time to time since 2013. but only in like 1 in 40-50 games. while when i play 2v2, i get skilled opponents almost 1 out of 2 to 5 games.

as a fellow 3v3+ hero, I understand your feeling.

but these "pros" have a point due to several facts.

coh2's competitiveness only extends to 1v1 and 2v2 max. look at maps for example. 4v4 heroes once only had 4 maps and 1 veto to tinkle with. now we have more maps but they are terribly small; going from 1v1 - 4v4, in all maps but general mud, you have less than half of the space individually as you did in 1v1 setting. look how the mud tech was introduced: on hill331. look at one of the new 3v3-4v4 map (the one with 5 vps). look how it has the huge castle that might as well be a competitiveness cancer. why do these new shits kept on being introduced first to the 3v3+ maps?

look how caches and initial open blitz were designed. completely designed only for 1v1 and 1v1 only.

which relate to cheeseness. the cheeseness of units/tactics only gets worse as game mode gets larger. again, because relic designed this game to be a competitive 1v1 game and not competitive 1v1-4v4 game.

and generally speaking, more casual players (therefore worse players) play 3v3+. i means, if you are like me and you switch from 2v2 to 3v3 and vice versa frequently, the difference is unmistakable.

which is not to say that a really intense 3v3+ games where pro players coordinate and play to the max are not competitive matches. i have had those games from time to time since 2013. but only in like 1 in 40-50 games. while when i play 2v2, i get skilled opponents almost 1 out of 2 to 5 games.

True, but pandering to a select few won't be successful for this game. It never will be included in E-Sports and trying to be won't get anywhere, not with the size of this playerbase.

"Professional" competition can destroy games imo. If you want to be a "pro" and give "pro" advice, go and play DoTA or CoC as far as I'm concerned. That's where the activity and money is..

It takes incomparably less skill to be top 100 4v4 then top 1v1 or 2v2.

Top 100 AT 4v4? Almost entirely a matter of playing enough matches with the same 3 people

Top 100 Random 4v4? I'll let you know if I ever get there, but it mostly seems an exercise in masochism and persistance