UKF on Life Support

I ignore the majority of 2v2+ players because none of them have any idea what they are talking about. Again, you play one faction 90% of the time, why should anyone give you the time of day?

I think the issue remains, that you don't ignore, because you respond to them (us?) in posts, and you do so in what comes across as a very rude way.

You have no right to say your game mode (1v1) is more important, its not. We all have a right to play a balanced and fair game, we paid for COH2 as well.

The issue with this patch, balance-wise, is how bad it is for those larger game modes. The difference in win rates is as high or higher than it has ever been, making those larger game modes mostly a test of patience. I understand and support changing OKW, but not releasing it in such a state as to destroy 3 other game modes to help 1. Especially when those 3 account for the majority of the population.

I think the issue remains, that you don't ignore, because you respond to them (us?) in posts, and you do so in what comes across as a very rude way.

You have no right to say your game mode (1v1) is more important, its not. We all have a right to play a balanced and fair game, we paid for COH2 as well.

The issue with this patch, balance-wise, is how bad it is for those larger game modes. The difference in win rates is as high or higher than it has ever been, making those larger game modes mostly a test of patience. I understand and support changing OKW, but not releasing it in such a state as to destroy 3 other game modes to help 1. Especially when those 3 account for the majority of the population.

A sage answer

I think the issue remains, that you don't ignore, because you respond to them (us?) in posts, and you do so in what comes across as a very rude way.

You have no right to say your game mode (1v1) is more important, its not. We all have a right to play a balanced and fair game, we paid for COH2 as well.

The issue with this patch, balance-wise, is how bad it is for those larger game modes. The difference in win rates is as high or higher than it has ever been, making those larger game modes mostly a test of patience. I understand and support changing OKW, but not releasing it in such a state as to destroy 3 other game modes to help 1. Especially when those 3 account for the majority of the population.

My point is, the issue in team games (and 1v1 and 2v2s) for OKW stems from the pop cap bugs, and in team games possibly the KT lack of CP limit. A reasonably good player will realize that those are the problems, will say them, and move on.

Team game players on the forums are knee jerking and pointing to statistics that hardly support their argument (read this thread, people were claming UKF has always had the worst 1v1 win rate, what??) and start claiming that things like 100% resource rate, luchs rush, and a multitude of other "problems" that don't exist are the reason the game is going to be dead. Half of these people don't even play OKW, or haven't played them in over a month, judging by all the "H"s on their playercards. So if the majority of good 1v1 and 2v2 players are playing all factions fairly equally, and team game players aren't, where is the validity in their argument?

Ok then, I guess Aimstrong won $1300 playing the worst 1v1 faction just for kicks right?

A top player can win with any faction he wants; he used units that are now patched (Centaur, sniper).

I ignore the majority of 2v2+ players because none of them have any idea what they are talking about. Again, you play one faction 90% of the time, why should anyone give you the time of day?

The way you worded this makes you sound quite arrogant unfortunately. I do admit a lot of casual players probably don't understand what's going on, but there are a lot of high-level players too and it's foolish to ignore what they try to say (e.g. a number of people in this thread).

And are you trying to say that League of Heroes was more popular than 1v1 tournaments? The OCF final had over 2000 people watching, League of Heroes hardly broke 500, which is par for the course for a normal stream at peak hours.

This is easy to dismantle. OCF was a highly-advertised crowd-funded tourney with a large cash pool (for COH2 at least) that was announced for a long time. Heck, the Russians didn't even stream in English for an English-majority game. Also the nature of 1v1s make it easier to cast with famous casters, etc. Whatever. The balance patches are mainly for the players, not the spectators. Point is more people play the large team games.

If balance was changed on popular demand from people that play one faction and think they know everything, then this game would have been dead long ago. Just because one patch fucks up team games doesn't mean that balancing for 1s and 2s is the wrong way to go.

I agree with the first sentence. But why not balance with all game modes in mind? If something may not be a problem in 1s and 2s, but is clearly a problem in team games, then let's put that as a priority too.

All I'm pointing out here is that even though your arguments may be true, you come off as a bit hostile to those who enjoy the larger team games. The goal is to have a balanced game for everyone and when balance messes up other modes, you should see that as a problem for the community as a whole.

Initially I advocated that we should wait until things stabilise, but if the patch has generated such a negative reaction, and affected the enjoyment of large portion of the community, then there is a problem.

All I'm pointing out here is that even though your arguments may be true, you come off as a bit hostile to those who enjoy the larger team games. The goal is to have a balanced game for everyone and when balance messes up other modes, you should see that as a problem for the community as a whole.

Initially I advocated that we should wait until things stabilise, but if the patch has generated such a negative reaction, and affected the enjoyment of large portion of the community, then there is a problem.

Yes, I agree, I'm quite hostile on these forums when it comes to larger games. Though, thats from experience with trying to reason with the majority of the casual players.

I don't really think there needs to be a lot of explaining on why 3s and 4s are a balance shit show, the nature of the many variables makes some dumb things work.

Lol just showed you have no clue about 4v4s Dusty

i haven't seen a single "informed" comment from you either. what does that say about you? :-)

also for all "team games are most played" etc. comments:
and still: team games, especially when you have 5 factions and a plethora of commanders to choose from are inherently hard to balance. i also play mostly 2v2+, but still: if the game is unbalanced in 1v1, it almost certainly is in team modes. you always try to balance 1v1 first, and when you have achieved reasonable balance there, you go on fixing whatever is making team games unenjoyable. trying it the other way around is almost impossible, since after you change 1v1, team games will get messed up again, since every change is amplified in team games.

Invissed two posts, back to topic please.

There is so much cancer in this thread I don't even know where to operate.


@ everyone

It is impossible to doubt that team games are the most popular game mode. Here are the statistics on the front page.
http://coh2chart.com/

If you wish to refute this argument, you must discredit these statistics. Simply giving your own counter-statistics does not accomplish anything. This is self-apparent to anyone who has done any form whatsoever of academic research in absolutely any field; your theory must acknowledge and either accommodate or explain away existing theories to be accepted by the general academic population.

Having said that, I will now explain why OCF had 2000+ viewers despite being a 1v1 tournament.
- COH2.org had months of advertising for it
- Relic advertised it within the COH2 game.

Looking at the viewership of one tournament with mass advertising (in COH2 standards) and claiming that therefore 1v1s are popular among the majority of players is a poor argument.


Assuming the hypothetical situation that it is impossible to balance both 1v1 and 4v4, Relic would lose less by disabling the ability to queue for 1v1 games than 4v4 games. Of course, one must also remember that 4v4 games have 4x as many players as 1v1 games.


@Dusty
You continue to insist that, by virtue of your 1v1 skills, your judgements and theories about the problems and workings of 4v4 are automatically correct. This argument implies, and relies upon, the "elitism" of 1v1 over other game modes; that is, a 1v1 player requires more skill than a 4v4 player.

This argument is innately flawed because it fails to define what is meant by 'skill'. One can easily identify a 'skilled' saxophone player, or a 'skilled' baseball player, because only one set of abilities is being compared. However, it is far more difficult to judge who the better "skilled" musician, or "skilled" sportsman is, if you are given two musicians who play different instruments, or two sportsmen who play different sports.

Skill in 1v1 games undoubtedly requires larger map awareness and higher APM/Micro. However, having these skills does not make you a 'skilled' 4v4 player, any more than being a skilled baseball player means you can play cricket.

Not once do you even accept the possibility that 4v4 game modes require different types of skill or awareness. You must prove this if your arguments are to be valid.


At the same time, however, you yourself acknowledge that 4v4s are innately different than 1v1 games, albeit in a derogatory way

I don't really think there needs to be a lot of explaining on why 3s and 4s are a balance shit show, the nature of the many variables makes some dumb things work. [implied] that wouldn't work otherwise [/implied]

However, at the same time you continually insist that your experience in smaller team games allows you to recognise and judge the value of arguments and concerns in 4v4 games from 4v4 players. Furthermore, you are openly hostile to 4v4 players who have a different opinion on balance issues as you do.


The reason I cannot accept any of your arguments, and the same reason I encourage everyone else to disregard your arguments, can thus be summarised;
- you ignore the fact that 4v4s are the most popular game mode
- you believe, by virtue of your superior 1v1 abilities, that your judgements are automatically superior to those of a 4v4 player, and thus
- you refuse to acknowledge most complaints brought up by 4v4 players about 4v4 specific to 4v4, because you believe they are complaints by a bunch of unskilled idiotic retarded casual crybabies who don't know how to play the game, despite the fact that they actually play 4v4s and you don't
- you are openly hostile towards those that disagree with you regarding 4v4 game mode




In further summary, in case you refuse to read my post because I am a 4v4 player;
- I view your arguments about 4v4 in the same light you view my arguments about 1v1
- Your entire justification of the superiority of your arguments lie in the fact that you play 1v1, and I play 4v4.




Finally, to get back on fucking topic;
One must remember in 4v4 game modes, that the allied team can have potentially all three factions. Therefore, if UKF has a significantly lower win% than USF and SOV, there must also be a larger # of games with either only UKF or 3UKF (+EITHER USF OR SOV).

This does not necessarily mean that UKF cannot be played in team games. Perhaps 1/2 UKF with proper mixed allies remains quite powerful.

This also does not necessarily mean that UKF is "fine". We cannot know, hypothetically, if UKF was deleted tomorrow, how the USF and SOV win rates would adjust (assuming all UKF players would play either USF and SOV with the same skill)

@Dusty
You continue to insist that, by virtue of your 1v1 skills, your judgements and theories about the problems and workings of 4v4 are automatically correct. This argument implies, and relies upon, the "elitism" of 1v1 over other game modes; that is, a 1v1 player requires more skill than a 4v4 player.

This argument is innately flawed because it fails to define what is meant by 'skill'. One can easily identify a 'skilled' saxophone player, or a 'skilled' baseball player, because only one set of abilities is being compared. However, it is far more difficult to judge who the better "skilled" musician, or "skilled" sportsman is, if you are given two musicians who play different instruments, or two sportsmen who play different sports.

Skill in 1v1 games undoubtedly requires larger map awareness and higher APM/Micro. However, having these skills does not make you a 'skilled' 4v4 player, any more than being a skilled baseball player means you can play cricket.

Not once do you even accept the possibility that 4v4 game modes require different types of skill or awareness. You must prove this if your arguments are to be valid.


At the same time, however, you yourself acknowledge that 4v4s are innately different than 1v1 games, albeit in a derogatory way


However, at the same time you continually insist that your experience in smaller team games allows you to recognise and judge the value of arguments and concerns in 4v4 games from 4v4 players. Furthermore, you are openly hostile to 4v4 players who have a different opinion on balance issues as you do.


The reason I cannot accept any of your arguments, and the same reason I encourage everyone else to disregard your arguments, can thus be summarised;
- you ignore the fact that 4v4s are the most popular game mode
- you believe, by virtue of your superior 1v1 abilities, that your judgements are automatically superior to those of a 4v4 player, and thus
- you refuse to acknowledge most complaints brought up by 4v4 players about 4v4 specific to 4v4, because you believe they are complaints by a bunch of unskilled idiotic retarded casual crybabies who don't know how to play the game, despite the fact that they actually play 4v4s and you don't
- you are openly hostile towards those that disagree with you regarding 4v4 game mode




In further summary, in case you refuse to read my post because I am a 4v4 player;
- I view your arguments about 4v4 in the same light you view my arguments about 1v1
- Your entire justification of the superiority of your arguments lie in the fact that you play 1v1, and I play 4v4.




Finally, to get back on fucking topic;
One must remember in 4v4 game modes, that the allied team can have potentially all three factions. Therefore, if UKF has a significantly lower win% than USF and SOV, there must also be a larger # of games with either only UKF or 3UKF (+EITHER USF OR SOV).

This does not necessarily mean that UKF cannot be played in team games. Perhaps 1/2 UKF with proper mixed allies remains quite powerful.

This also does not necessarily mean that UKF is "fine". We cannot know, hypothetically, if UKF was deleted tomorrow, how the USF and SOV win rates would adjust (assuming all UKF players would play either USF and SOV with the same skill)

did you seriously just try to compare 1v1 and 4v4 as two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPORTS WHICH HAVE LITERALLY NOTHING IN COMMON, I think you just proved his point

holy shit, how delusional are you

4v4s are nothing but arty spamfests blobbing paradise and a fuel race to who gets more tanks faster, you can play those modes without your keyboard, there is no "special skill" involved, it's a bumrush to the fuel point every game

4v4s imbalance is pretty much based on imbalance in smaller gamemodes being even more problematic when multiplied, or just shitty maps.

did you seriously just try to compare 1v1 and 4v4 as two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPORTS WHICH HAVE LITERALLY NOTHING IN COMMON, I think you just proved his point

holy shit, how delusional are you

4v4s imbalance is pretty much based on imbalance in smaller gamemodes being even more problematic when multiplied, or just shitty maps.

Baseball and cricket both have a bat. Your subsequent claim that I am delusional because I have compared two completely unrelated sports is thus invalid.

Furthermore, I have never made the argument that 1v1 and 4v4 are completely different. This is something that you yourself imply, however.

4v4s are nothing but arty spamfests blobbing paradise and a fuel race to who gets more tanks faster, you can play those modes without your keyboard, there is no "special skill" involved, it's a bumrush to the fuel point every game

Unless you argue that 1v1s are also "arty spamfests blobbing paradise", you thus imply that 1v1s are not 4v4s.


Your argument therefore contradicts itself

You'd have been better served comparing streetball to the NBA. Or hell, college ball versus professional leagues. Either way, there are ways that people can disagree with you, which is the ultimate point, rather than reach a solution. None of us are game developers. Unless we're building a mod, constructing a proposal that will taken into account by Relic, or are developers of this game ourselves, these heated debates over whose opinions are valuable are mostly inane nut-flexing.

And as far as I can tell, any game of CoH2 is a fuel race. It's not like there are different forms of veterancy or anything to make it so people aren't all fighting over tech.

Baseball and cricket both have a bat. Your subsequent claim that I am delusional because I have compared two completely unrelated sports is thus invalid.

Furthermore, I have never made the argument that 1v1 and 4v4 are completely different. This is something that you yourself imply, however.



Unless you argue that 1v1s are also "arty spamfests blobbing paradise", you thus imply that 1v1s are not 4v4s.


Your argument therefore contradicts itself

Kubel, his logic is undeniable. (Sorry had to say it)

Using 1vs1 and individual tournaments and leaderboard rankings as proof for a faction not being UP is just dumb. Especially as those tournaments in question have nothing to do with current balance and the fact CoH still has no viable anti-cheat against map hacks almost three years in

"Muh 1vs1 superiority" posters are getting old

team game players just want team games to be balanced. is that so hard to ask for? why can't 1v1 and 4v4 modes be balanced? It's okay if you only care about 1v1 mode, but you should acknowledge that a lot of players player larger modes as well.

so how is this all related to UKF in particular? ofc, if one faction is weak, its team game win ratio will be even lower... not because it is "worse" in those modes, but because it is more likely that two players of the same faction will lose the same game, thus adding two loses to the stats (also, if the faction in particular is "weaker", the chances of winning drop as well the more players are playing the particular faction in the same game).

thats why argueing with team game win ratios is flawed in the first place (or should at least taken with a grain of salt). balancing 1v1 will automatically make team games more balanced as well. now, please, back to topic.

The greatest comment ever

Oh my god yes. I as sick and tired of 1v1 players thinking they know what about 4v4's that they never play.
Sure it can get complicated with the different numbers of unit combos and things that can happen. But it is by no means some crazy mode where 95% winrates should be seen as okay.

It's not as impossible to balance as many people try to claim. That's just what people say when they don't want Relic to nerf their favorite faction.

so how is this all related to UKF in particular? ofc, if one faction is weak, its team game win ratio will be even lower... not because it is "worse" in those modes, but because it is more likely that two players of the same faction will lose the same game, thus adding two loses to the stats (also, if the faction in particular is "weaker", the chances of winning drop as well the more players are playing the particular faction in the same game).

thats why argueing with team game win ratios is flawed in the first place (or should at least taken with a grain of salt). balancing 1v1 will automatically make team games more balanced as well. now, please, back to topic.

Balancing 1vs1 doesn't take into account inter-faction balance with regards to unit combinations, overall team unit availability and differences in teching structure (like Ostheer superior Team Crew Weapons + Oberkommando 4 Minute Luchs rushes/Volk Infantry amassing at cheap cost)

This, needs to be examined as well.