Allied 1v1 Dominace

Including this thread, presumably?

The difference is that Vindicarex is actually a top player, so he is a player that fully understand coh2 mechanics (but this doesnt make all his argument biblic words, but at least he is credible), he doesnt masturbate in theorycrafting, Some player here have 10X more post than games played, thats funny

I would love to see more side grades in the game like UKF have. An Ost option to spend some manpower and fuel to get 5 man Grens/pios would be awesome.

I am wondering if such an option - even if it will cost mp or mp+fuel - will not put soviets for instance in disadvantage. If such an option will be available in a tier (2, 3 or 4), imagining a vetted gren squad that made it to late game which will receive an extra model sounds like curtains for soviets and will have the same impact: if you made it with axis to late game, you have the first chance. And there will be more than one I guess.

If it's a side upgrade UKF style that can be given from the beginning, this may create another problem. It is largley believed around here (and I assume it is correct) that the 4 models DPS should be spread among the 5 members of the squad which will automaticaly imply that the initial squad (which will still be 4 models) will actualy have less DPS than now. So this upgrade won't be a side but a mandatory one, translating into the fact that if you chose not to give it, you will be at a great disadvantage. So this solution will actualy translate into a suplementary cost for Ostheer right from the bath. This can be achieved by other meanings, like making the squad more expensive, initial start resources, etc.

I am wondering if such an option - even if it will cost mp or mp+fuel - will not put soviets for instance in disadvantage. If such an option will be available in a tier (2, 3 or 4), imagining a vetted gren squad that made it to late game which will receive an extra model sounds like curtains for soviets and will have the same impact: if you made it with axis to late game, you have the first chance. And there will be more than one I guess.

If it's a side upgrade UKF style that can be given from the beginning, this may create another problem. It is largley believed around here (and I assume it is correct) that the 4 models DPS should be spread among the 5 members of the squad which will automaticaly imply that the initial squad (which will still be 4 models) will actualy have less DPS than now. So this upgrade won't be a side but a mandatory one, translating into the fact that if you chose not to give it, you will be at a great disadvantage. So this solution will actualy translate into a suplementary cost for Ostheer right from the bath. This can be achieved by other meanings, like making the squad more expensive, initial start resources, etc.

He said more side upgrades for all factions, and he used an exemple for Ostheer, he never said SOV would be excluded of "more side upgrades for all factions"

The difference is that Vindicarex is actually a top player, so he is a player that fully understand coh2 mechanics (but this doesnt make all his argument biblic words, but at least he is credible), he doesnt masturbate in theorycrafting, Some player here have 10X more post than games played, thats funny

Understanding coh2 machanics doesn't make you a top player in this game. It is a definitly a good part of it yes, but micro skill far outways good planning in this game. A player with noob level planning and godly micro skill can easily get into the top 50 in this game.

I've seen plenty absolutely terrible choices and builds by sopposed top level players, I honestly would way top level players opinions as just as good as those in the rest of the top 250.

Need I reminder you of a certain top level player, who thought truck pushing with free base trucks was actually interesting and balanced.

Show Spoiler

Then let's make Grens equal stronger than Rifles and RE equal stronger than Sturmpio and etc... You are calling for the wrong decision of homogenization of the game, not balance.

Top players want to win because they have outplayed their opponent in some fashion. Not because they were able to cram Rifles and an M20 down their Ost opponent's cutoff for 12 minutes until the Sherman comes to seal the deal.

In that case, ask Relic to create a league of top20 each faction only. Because right now, if I look into Top10, I see only people with +10 win streak and it is not difficult to deduct from it Top players aren't, almost never, playing together in auto-match. They are only playing vs random top200.
So question: How can they know better about balance if 90% of the time they are only winning because they naturally outclass their opponent. They know what unit is strong, what is not, they have a better understanding of game mechanisms, but have they better opportunities to test them in a balanced match than average players? not at all in my opinion.
In this department, average players have a better vision on balance simply because they have 90% more chance to match someone with a similar skill and knowledge level.

Balance isn't something on the top of what you want to achieve but in the middle. If you only balance by the top, you'll lose unskilled players, if you balance a new time even more by the top, you'll lose average players and the lower population of your actual TOP will become the average, do it again and you'll lose them leaving you a population of 100-200 top players. Enjoy your game now.
Balance is always something you do from the middle with visibility on how it will impact TOP and Bottom. If you balance well from the middle, TOP will not become suddenly unbalanced because it will mostly be a skill gap balance and unit easiness skill adjustment isn't something that unbalance TOP.

So a synthesis must be done every time we speak about balance between what average players say and Top players know, just saying to someone: The counter exist so it is balanced isn't the right behavior, you also need to think in skill level, is the counter easy to use at any level?
What is easier to use to counter light/medium vehicle play? A blob of shreck roaming on the map (supported by 1 or two shadow raken) or a Sherman/Jackson/Atgun/Capt supported by a stuart you need to bring close to your target to use its ability?
from a pure game stat, understanding, mechanisms, both methods exist and work perfectly but are they balanced in term of skill requirement?
You want to make volks shreck blob more difficult to use => increase the skill requirement and maybe lower the skill requirement to use 2 or 3 combined units Stuart+capt+ATgun/jackson/sherman. This will not impact high level players but balance average brackets.

So no, balance isn't something you do from TOP to Bottom, but from the Middle to TOP and Bottom.

'Symmetric' game balance will take away the fun factor from the game.



However I also find the "6min Stuart+Pack" meta quite boring. Free dedicated AI+AT units should be removed as well.

Anyone having trouble against Maxims and T70 needs to L2P strongly. Con spam is more frustrating than any of these.

The difference is that Vindicarex is actually a top player, so he is a player that fully understand coh2 mechanics (but this doesnt make all his argument biblic words, but at least he is credible), he doesnt masturbate in theorycrafting, Some player here have 10X more post than games played, thats funny

I think its a little myth that top players perfect understand game mechanics. Just remember waht thay write after last patch, so its personal opinion that have different.
And what that some player have 10x posts ? Player can wrong and with 10 post and with 10k. This sit was create to speak about game, strategy and another.
Let's check my theory, create a thread where top players (we con vote who are top it will be more cool ) write there opinion about game and balance ? Coz we speak in vacum about top players and dont know there opinion .

The difference is that Vindicarex is actually a top player, so he is a player that fully understand coh2 mechanics (but this doesnt make all his argument biblic words, but at least he is credible), he doesnt masturbate in theorycrafting, Some player here have 10X more post than games played, thats funny

maradona was the best football player at his time, and now he is a completely failure as a football trainer soooo, no, not always top players have the best knowlegde and capabilities to balance a videogame.....


not saying that Vinidcarex is wrong here, but your argument fails....

If you balance the game from the top down, the rest will inherently be balanced because any perceived imbalances at lower levels are, almost always, rooted in a lack of some form of skill. Not trying to offend anyone, but that is just the way it is.

At lower levels you can overcome "imbalances" by playing better, but at the highest echelon of play this is not possible because the skill difference is too marginal.

For example, what happens if I get automatched against some rank 10,000 1v1 player and I beat him with nothing but Pios and AT guns. Does that means Pios are OP? He might think so, but it was his inability to counter my strategy, not Pios being imbalanced, that caused him to lose.

Top level players generally have the game knowledge to counter, react to, theorycraft, and ultimately overcome most things by playing well. When a particular strategy sticks out as unbeatable (or nearly so) (current CalliOP and M1919A6 I'm looking at you) then we have an issue in the game - because player skill cannot overcome something that is simply too strong from a design point of view...

Hopefully this post makes sense, I am typing it while formulating a better post in response to the OP but that is the way I see it. Everyone in the community matters, especially when it comes to the game being fun or not as well as if certain strategies are way harder to counter than pull off (also a potential problem). But the bottom line is that the game needs to be balanced from the top down so that, ultimately, it is balanced for everyone.

Your posts are always great and It is always pleasure to read them

If you balance the game from the top down, the rest will inherently be balanced because any perceived imbalances at lower levels are, almost always, rooted in a lack of some form of skill. Not trying to offend anyone, but that is just the way it is.

At lower levels you can overcome "imbalances" by playing better, but at the highest echelon of play this is not possible because the skill difference is too marginal.

For example, what happens if I get automatched against some rank 10,000 1v1 player and I beat him with nothing but Pios and AT guns. Does that means Pios are OP? He might think so, but it was his inability to counter my strategy, not Pios being imbalanced, that caused him to lose.

Top level players generally have the game knowledge to counter, react to, theorycraft, and ultimately overcome most things by playing well. When a particular strategy sticks out as unbeatable (or nearly so) (current CalliOP and M1919A6 I'm looking at you) then we have an issue in the game - because player skill cannot overcome something that is simply too strong from a design point of view...

Hopefully this post makes sense, I am typing it while formulating a better post in response to the OP but that is the way I see it. Everyone in the community matters, especially when it comes to the game being fun or not as well as if certain strategies are way harder to counter than pull off (also a potential problem). But the bottom line is that the game needs to be balanced from the top down so that, ultimately, it is balanced for everyone.

I sincerely hope that the people who posted in the first 4 pages or so get to read this.... although some who are already lost in a whirlpool of bias would never get it.

maradona was the best football player at his time, and now he is a completely failure as a football trainer soooo, no, not always top players have the best knowlegde and capabilities to balance a videogame.....


not saying that Vinidcarex is wrong here, but your argument fails....

What's being discussed here is not management of players but the rules of the game. Maradonna was a player who became a trainer/manager, not a football rule-maker.


There are 10 top players in this thread who agree with Vindicare. Ciez has made some incredible posts. What I think you should do is stop, listen to the pros and then think over what they said. Don't rush to draw conclusions and create inaccurate analogies.



There's no harm in questioning "the best players", but there's a ton of harm in automatically disregarding what they say.

I read many good posts in this thread describing the issues with balancing in general (i.e. snowballing) and in specific for COH2 (OP Rifles vs Grens etc.). What is the solution or in a more broader context: What is the process to tackle the issues?

My proposal:
I suggest a balance tournament or a balance week in which Relic dedicates its balance team to playing COH2 with the community in order to systematically generate replays for analysing balance issues and to identify solutions for how to fix them.

I read many good posts in this thread describing the issues with balancing in general (i.e. snowballing) and in specific for COH2 (OP Rifles vs Grens etc.). What is the solution or in a more broader context: What is the process to tackle the issues?

My proposal:
I suggest a balance tournament or a balance week in which Relic dedicates its balance team to playing COH2 with the community in order to systematically generate replays for analysing balance issues and to identify solutions for how to fix them.

High level play tournaments is a big place to analyze this

What's being discussed here is not management of players but the rules of the game. Maradonna was a player who became a trainer/manager, not a football rule-maker.


There are 10 top players in this thread who agree with Vindicare. Ciez has made some incredible posts. What I think you should do is stop, listen to the pros and then think over what they said. Don't rush to draw conclusions and create inaccurate analogies.



There's no harm in questioning "the best players", but there's a ton of harm in automatically disregarding what they say.

Thanks for your reply mate, I wasn´t dsregarding to what pro players are saying here, I was just quoting bladlord because I think his argument was wrong (indeed, I don´t think bradlord is top10 player so why you Think that I automatically disregard whatever a top player says????).

Of course, the wrong one here could be myself, but I was just explaining my opinion.

But I think my analogy is not so bad.....A top player skills are a mix of APM, ability to adapt to enemy tactics and RNG outcomes, knowledge about maps and units, and a bunch more of them. You can be the best one in APM department, the best one adapting to what happens in the battlefield and being not so good at others areas (example: Alonso is the best F1 driver but he is not the fastest one at one lap, nor the best one setting up the car, nor the best one......) So, being the fastest one don´t imply you are the best one setting up the car for each track.

I think here is the same, generally top players are the ones with better knolegde of the game and thus, the ones with more capabilities to balance this game, buuuut this is not always the case, and that is the only thing I was trying to say....I hope now, you can see my point, even if you disagreee with me.

In the same way, I don´t agree with those that discard other´s opinions just becasue they are 4v4 players or they aren´t top100 at any faction-game mode....most of the time, it is true that 4v4 players are less skilled and has less knowledge about this game, but this is not a reason to automatically discard their opinions.....sometimes, a 4v4 player can find a solution for a balance problem, why not???

why shouldn´t they participate in this forum jsut becasue you are a better player and becasue you play 1v1 (the "pro" mode") ????????


Regards,

What's being discussed here is not management of players but the rules of the game. Maradonna was a player who became a trainer/manager, not a football rule-maker.

There are 10 top players in this thread who agree with Vindicare. Ciez has made some incredible posts. What I think you should do is stop, listen to the pros and then think over what they said. Don't rush to draw conclusions and create inaccurate analogies.

There's no harm in questioning "the best players", but there's a ton of harm in automatically disregarding what they say.

I am going to respectfully disagree.

If the response of pros amounts to "it will be balanced when we say it is balanced and the fact that you can't enjoy it at lower levels is an L2P issue" then you are not dealing with the game.

It is MORE IMPORTANT that the game be fun with different factions and at different levels. Yep. It is. Not to the 50-100 people who are at the top, but really, the game is not designed for them. I promise you it really isn't. It is designed to sell lot to a lot of people. Promise. Ask Relic.

Is it harder to balance across skill levels? Yes. Is it going to be harder to balance across game modes (1s, 2s, etc)? Yes. So try harder. Maybe add strategic depth? There shouldn't be huge APM differences between the factions. That just makes the learning curves more frustrating than even all the intricacies of the game. In that sense the top tier players DON'T know how to balance (or "design") the game. APM disparities aren't something they probably even understand.

I want COH2 to succeed. I really do. and a lot of the recent changes are in more of the right direction. But mostly I just don't want to play it or watch it. It feels like [build counter unit] -> [micro counter unit].

In COH1 I was able to make up for a lack of APM (I am older) with game knowledge (ie, L2P). With COH2 i feel like APM is more important by an order of magnitude and the meta so restricting that you can't use strategic decisions to try and make up for APM.

High level play tournaments is a big place to analyze this

Don't get me wrong but I think in order to have a fair tournament that is really fun to play and to watch, the game should be balanced prior to it.

While I do agree with vindicatex, I also believe that there are plenty of players outside the top 20 with a great understanding of the game.

When it comes to the top echelon of the leaderboards, micro is usually the most important component. Having a solid knowledge of game mechanics and theory can get you to top 150-200.

While players below level 20 are important, you are needlessly constricting yourself from other important opinions if you don't also take into account other knowledge able players, IMO.

While I do agree with vindicatex, I also believe that there are plenty of players outside the top 20 with a great understanding of the game.

When it comes to the top echelon of the leaderboards, micro is usually the most important component. Having a solid knowledge of game mechanics and theory can get you to top 150-200.

While players below level 20 are important, you are needlessly constricting yourself from other important opinions if you don't also take into account other knowledge able players, IMO.

I absolutely agree. Dictators be it through a person or a party argue in the same manner as the "pro top 20" faction: "Don't take the burden to think for yourself, give up your rights and freedom, I (or we) know it best."

The top players should be heard as consultants, but the rest of us should be heard as well.

Lets say like allies are harder to learn to play, but if you learn to play with them, it will be easier to play against players. Axis are easier to understand and learn but harder to play.
In this meta I dislikee 2 things about okw, buff of volks and cheap mg34/stg for obers. If you think that usf is op, just change thier tech tree, because factions based only on 1 unit kinda meh. Ukf trash. Sov and ost are fine.

I think everyone should be on board with closer balance throughout the course of a match, rather than allies strong early, axis strong late.

Does anyone think that would make 4v4 play worse?

in 4v4, only problem is that german late game gets only stronger and stronger as time goes. if only allies had super expensive end game global upgrade that makes late-late-late game even, it's A-OK.