Allied 1v1 Dominace

And I want to add, the reason for that Brits don't have very powerful mid/early part of the game is they don't have light vehicles like rest of the allies. They don't have vehicle like T-70 or M20. AEC? Its like puma. But worse. Vet1 ability is bugged because doesn't work in most cases. Bren carrier? The one early counter for snipers and for buildings (both in one vehicle!) is bugged by pathing (in most cases its drives backwards) and its countered by one Faust and few shoots by Kar98k.

The OP stated that he is talking about tournament high skilled play(~top 20 automatch)

How can the people in this topic agree/ no agree if they DONT play at that level themselves? Some people that dont agree dont not even play 1v1's ffs. Should be able to lock a topic based on playercards or something

I've watched a lot of tournament play/ high level play and based on this I see what OP means. Axis is, and always has been the side "to prepare or get rekt early game" If you are not ready for m20 at 4:40 you lost the game in most cases. Their will be no "fast luchs" when there is a m20 at ur cutoff at 4:40.

^
+1

I'd like to address to issue with Allied factions in 1v1 - particularly soviets and USF.

I wouldn't call them OP, per se, but they have noticeable advantages in the early game that can quickly allow them to snowball and heavily contain the germans from establishing any sort of foothold.

I'll quote myself from another post to explain:

[...]

TL, DR: Allies have early game advantage that puts the game in their initiative (a fact shown in their dominance in tournament games among high skilled players).

agree with almost everything in it. i think i made most if not all of those points at some point in time.

but one major thing that is missing imho is the P2W DLC whoring, which in my opinion is not only one of THE biggest balance issues, it's so "integrated" by now that even a single P2W commander of a weak faction can make that faction "OP" in the eyes of the community.

someone said it (somewhat) right when they said "go meta or die". what they meant was "p2w or die", since all these commanders are DLC.

just as an example: with ostheer, commanders that are considered strong or OP atm are Osttruppen, Elite Troops and Mech. Assault. I don't own any of these. And because i am unwilling (or unable) to pay for those commanders i don't deserve a balanced game? no fighting chance? what about the argument with the "20 vs. thousands"? are you trying to tell me only 20 guys do NOT have those P2W commanders?

also vindicare: just ignore those "forum warrior trolls" that spam every thread with insults and ridicule without any arguments of themselves...

Man, I don't know much about 1v1, I played 1v1s but I do mostly 2v2s and sometimes 3v3s. But even from that perspective, from my middling player / bad player position if you like, I am now even more convinced that is much harder with Axis.

Let me share a little from my bad player experience:

You know that superbe hollidays discount? I bought brits, because of the big discount. So, me and my friends, who are playing mostly axis (having a decent number of games with allies too) we decided to make an allied "campaign".

I must confess that the outcome was not unexpected, though quite relevant for us (and I am talking about team games, where Axis is supposed to be "stronger" by definition!)

In 2v2 AT with a soviet mate, we reach a marginally better position that we reached before with axis (this position with axis was reached after an incomparable higher number of AT games) after a few AT games.

In 3v3 AT the difference is even higher. We have only 13 games compared to 137 games with Axis, and we reached position 670 compared to over 1400 with Axis.

I am not claiming here OP or not OP, but looking at these figures and our performance, we cannot draw other conclusions that is more difficult to play Axis, OKW or Ostheer. And I am playing brits from just 2 weeks ago.....I don't even know the faction to well....

I'm just curious why USF teching is rewarding so much? you get tier + sants gift with Lieutenant or Captain with free muni weapon and faster vet gain, why USF can get 3 rifles + T1 tech with free lieutenant with bar and thompson and fast m20 in 5 mins while axis barely struggle to fight back rifles and they already must think of stuff to counter M20? Why USF and Brits have weapon racks with which you can make your infantry like terminators and axis can't? Why USF sherman is the only non doc unit that uses HE shells that rekts infantry left and right? Why Ostheer teching and tanks like stug, ostwind, brumbar are so expensive or so lame that people NEVER gets them while Allies can use all of their stuff because they are so good? and finally... Why Ostheer/Soviet doctrines are so lame and DLC armies doctrines are so good?

I don't know Barton. Why do OKW get free medics, grenade unlock and panzerschrek unlock with their t1 building? All that costs USF over 600mp while it is only 300 for OKW and they start with 50mp bonus.

OKW got medics that can be killed or sth and it is in one place, USA have mobile radius healing ambulance

Maybe mg42 should be more powerful like it is in coh1? Remove free lmgmg42 or riflenade and make them researchable to compensate

Shame this thread went down a drain. It could be one of best threads we have here long long time.



I think it is very hard to balance between 1v1 and 4v4 game modes. If relic favors to 1v1 balance , they will get hate from 4v4 and thust majority of player will leave. If they hovewer buff axis so they are on par with allies in 1v1 where micro and tactisc mind , then axis will be really strong in 4v4 so again majority will be unhappy.

Hovewer if they nerf axis so 4v4 players with lack of skill (camparing to top 1v1 players) will be more balanced , but 1v1 will be snowball train for allies.

It is really hard to have whole goat and full wolf.

I think balance right now is best we ever had (look at one year ago - t34/85 packs vs triple tigers in 1v1).

Yes toruney play is not completely balanced , but we can say top 250 is somewhat balanced and also 4v4 is playable and it is not axis instawin.

I want to agree with vindi and I know balance is not perfect on high level of play , but If we further buff axis , we will have big tears from 4v4 players and this will lead only to another sledgehammers and this wont help 1v1 balance either

I want to agree with vindi and I know balance is not perfect on high level of play , but If we further buff axis , we will have big tears from 4v4 players and this will lead only to another sledgehammers and this wont help 1v1 balance either

I'm not really disagreeing with him, but his methodology if flawed.
W/L ratios from and between top 20 will never give accurate balance representation.
Feedback from these players should be taken into account, NOT wins between them as sample size is way too small to represent anything but statistical randomness.

Moreover, any kind of early game change for axis would have to be counter weighted by equally meaningful nerf for the late game as axis tend to start slower, but thanks to incomparably better scaling, end up on top in long games(last nights Barton's OKW vs Jesulin's USF anyone?), unless all the cheeze and abuse known to a man is applied on allied players part just to balance out scaling and armor difference.

On top of that, pretty much always more aggressive player have the lead, because you put the tempo of the game instead of reacting to it and 2 allied armies as well as OKW do exactly that, you don't do what you want, to react to what they do.

The long and short of my thoughts on the matter: its not just allies, but allies are best suited for it.


It all revolves around the "proto" strat: heavy inf, followed by light vehicle.

General rule: get 4 or more inf units (ostruppen, 3 rifles+lt, cons and volks).
Then you get map by force of numbers and use resources for fast light vehicle (flame ht, m20, m5 or luchs)

The result is as follows: enemy is on backfoot, forced to choose: invest in AT, to counter light vehicle or invest in AI, to counter infantry which leads to enemy losing either to light vehicle, or losing large portion of map, which is then used for fast tech, after which the same choice is forced upon enemy again (AI or AT?) and with the same consequences (lose map or lose the game).

This proto strat is most suiteble for sov and USF, since their inf is short-mid range orientated, and thus best suited for taking the map (ostruppen deserve recognition here, for being so damn spammable, their long range/cover focus is not a hinderance in the execution of this strat), and since high level players have the micro to use all the inf+light vehilce to maximum potential, the sov and USF dominance (with their top notch light vehicle's) is therefor a thing.

To make matters worse, one uses the call-in commanders since they allow you to keep forcing the enemy to chose AT or AI.

How to fix this? i do not know, but the recent increase of the light vehicle phase by relic, may just have made this proto strat stronger.

Anyways this is my take on the problem of allied dominance in 1vs1.

This is hilarious. First it was top 200. Then it was top 150. Then 100, then 50. Now we're at top 20...

Vindi and all you other coh "pro's". If you're really right, and balancing should only be based upon the top players, then most of you should also be disqualified from talking.

Why? Because you always get rekt by the best players (all the time, every time), so, using your own argument, you are not in a position to talk about the game, as you're simply not good enough at the highest level.


Basically, using your own gauge, the only players that should be listened to and post are (in no particular order):

Barton
Luvnest
Helping Hans
Jesulin
Jove
Paul.a.D


There would be others, but they aren't around anymore it seems. The rest of you need to get out imo (based on your own criteria), until you start consistently beating that list of players with Allies (as they are clearly better players than all of you, thus showing an imbalance). This includes the OP.

can we lock this thread?

It's just a 1v1 fight me irl m8 penis waving battle royale.

OR

Why don't we just balance the game around the top player? I'm sure the 1v1 pros would find that idea orgasmic in its appeal and would be x20 easier/

You realize that the majority of players, so non-top 20 by your definition, face other problems?

Now, should relic make the game more enjoyable for 20 guys or several thousands...?

+100

Too many people are talking about balance in a vacuum.

The first criteria, and most important, is that there IS a game. If that means tales of War, Ardennes Assault, or 4v4 balance exists, then so be it. Without a Relic you don't have a game, without the game, balance is of zero use.

Is it harder to make a game balanced in 1v1 that is also balanced in 4v4. Definitely. It might even be impossible. But there had better be game modes that are selling big numbers of COH2 copies or there is no one around to balance 1v1 (whatever level of play) and no one around to pay for hosting the multiplayer.

I don't know the sales figures. No one else here does either (unless they work for Relic, and even those may not know relevant P&L information). So it behooves us to come up with ideas that create balance (or something like it) across as many game modes and skill levels as possible. Even if ToW or AA are enough to pay the bills, the game can't suffer if the player base of 2's 3's and 4's increases.

My own opinion (business opinion) is that we are 3 years on and it is unlikely COH2 will become some huge esports success. But playerbase and sales still matter. Working on more creative ideas, and learning from the developers what types of changes are or aren't possible, might allow us to offer the kinds of changes that would balance 3's and 4's without damaging 1's.

Or maybe P2W commanders, AA, and ToW really are enough to pay the bills? And only balance at the top 100, 50, or 20 (or 10?) in 1v1 is what matters? In that case PvP 1v1 still becomes a special snowflake of game design where you will only get the attention of the developers when they feel like it.

I'm probably going to achieve the impossible and piss off both camps in this discussion but here goes.

Regarding certain extremely-high level of play factors, I cannot vouch for them as I only once caught a whiff of top 100 1v1, at least in CoH2. So I am going to trust Vindi and the high-end players on that one. Vindi's post is actually timeless, some of these problems with allied aggressiveness held true even in CoH1. To that end I support any efforts to make the game more balanced at all levels of play.

However, if the argument is that Relic should balance the game for top 20 (which is the reason this thread is so heated right now), I say, why stop there? Why not top 10? Why not top 5? Why not just make Jove the supreme balance guy and bar everyone else from posting in the balance forums, ever?

Why is 20 the magic number? Could it be because Vindi is playing at that sort of level and therefore only has that sort of perspective?

If anything, Relic needs to balance the game for top 1000 players, not top 20. The game also needs to be balanced for 4v4s, Relic should not lock themselves into 1v1 mentality.

People using Starcraft as the yardstick are barking up the wrong tree, even Blizzard couldn't replicate the success of SC1 even though they built SC2 from grounds up to be cast-friendly. The most popular games in existence are all coop/team games.

It is natural that more skilled people will gravitate towards 1v1s so I don't blame them for that but there is nothing wrong with the top 500 or top 1000 players, or hell, even the 4v4 players. So do not act like they do not exist.

Wow. 4 posts arguing that top 20 1v1 might not be the only game mode that matters all while I was writing my own.

It can't possibly mean that there are differing opinions among the game players as to which modes to balance, can it?

(Note, none of them offered an opinion about balance issues themselves, nor argued they were in a better position to make those arguments. Nevertheless their opinions do matter, and since there are 1000's to 10,000s more of them, and hence their $ count more than those of top players if they choose to continue playing or buying content.)

This is hilarious. First it was top 200. Then it was top 150. Then 100, then 50. Now we're at top 20...

Vindi and all you other coh "pro's". If you're really right, and balancing should only be based upon the top players, then most of you should also be disqualified from talking.

Why? Because you always get rekt by the best players (all the time, every time), so, using your own argument, you are not in a position to talk about the game, as you're simply not good enough at the highest level.


Basically, using your own gauge, the only players that should be listened to and post are (in no particular order):

Barton
Luvnest
Helping Hans
Jesulin
Jove
Paul.a.D


There would be others, but they aren't around anymore it seems. The rest of you need to get out imo (based on your own criteria), until you start consistently beating that list of players with Allies (as they are clearly better players than all of you, thus showing an imbalance). This includes the OP.

although I agree with 90% of what you say, there are surely people in top 100s that could talk here. Although most if not all people are biased with a favourite opinion to their favourite faction even if they're equally skilled in all factions.

although I agree with 90% of what you say, there are surely people in top 100s that could talk here. Although most if not all people are biased with a favourite opinion to their favourite faction even if they're equally skilled in all factions.

Except for HelpingHans, I find him to be extremely objective and unbiased.

Show Spoiler
Show Spoiler