Allied 1v1 Dominace

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.

I think you've both missed my point. I'm not the one making the rules of criteria. I agree with both of you (you could probably add Paul into the weird idea pot too), I'm simply saying that based on the "elitists" criteria, they are the people we should only be listening to.

simple make axis elite actually elite so buff sotrm,panergrendaiers,falls and obers they have been either nerfed to hard or just were plain bad from start to fight hordes of terminator rifles and tommies.

simple make axis elite actually elite so buff sotrm,panergrendaiers,falls and obers they have been either nerfed to hard or just were plain bad from start to fight hordes of terminator rifles and tommies.

Ummmm.... and the point of this would be......? (serious question.)

German factions skill cap is lower than Allied one.
That's why for the average guy, German seems stronger, because with let say 60 APM you are more effective at micro than an Ally with 60. but for top players, high APM player with good micro, allies shine more than axis

I feel the same thing playing as Ost vs USF for the early game. The pay off for the struggle is T4 though. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this thread is though? If the top 20 players feel like this game needs adjustment for their tiny segment perhaps a mod maker can make a competitive mod for tournament use.

German factions skill cap is lower than Allied one.
That's why for the average guy, German seems stronger, because with let say 60 APM you are more effective at micro than an Ally with 60. but for top players, high APM player with good micro, allies shine more than axis

I fail to see where skill cap is lower, do you have arguments ?

I feel the same thing playing as Ost vs USF for the early game. The pay off for the struggle is T4 though. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this thread is though? If the top 20 players feel like this game needs adjustment for their tiny segment perhaps a mod maker can make a competitive mod for tournament use.

Miiiraaaaaaaaaaaaaageeee flaaaaaaaaaaaa

OP: problem is not the message you want to transmit, rather than the title of the thread. People will just read allies OP.

The thing is, this is how the allied factions were designed and are meant to be played at the moment. If you want things to be changed, then you'll have to mirror the factions even more. Remove whatever aggro tools allies have early on, while improving drastically the scaling and late game, while buffing early game while nerfing the late game scaling. This is not worth doing IMO.

Point is: allies (not UKF) are aggresive by nature, and aggresive play means you have initiative. Point is, there's no reason to not play aggro as the alternatives are worst.
Same can be said for the opposite side, mostly OH. They are not designed as aggro factions, and benefit the most of dragged games.

I fail to see where skill cap is lower, do you have arguments ?

More like APM required to perform at certain level above average. By nature, it's easier for 95% of the population to play on the defensive with small number of stronger troops than control several more weaker units and be aggresive.

Interesting, as I play all factions especially in 1v1 I notice the advantage of Allies in early game come swiftly in the early stages of the game, however I always assumed that it's the result of faction design. Usually around the 15-20 mark if the allies player (exception UFK) fail to achieve any meaningful advantage my faction (either german) inherently by design is simply overpowering my opponents as each new engagement occurs to eventual victory.

I always assumed this was the case OP, are you sure you just haven't had a bad run? Any sort of changes to this could severely hurt the balance we have now, while not perfect, in the realm of lowest win ratio UKF 40% and the greatest win ration OkW %60, it's surely more preferable to days of old of okw dominance of 70-85% win rate?

Perhaps I am not understand your argument correctly. It has occur to me that you propose a change based on your skill bracket, claiming that only that a certain group uses the tools available, however those tools are available to all and of that's the case wouldn't it be wiser to advise and change those people instead changing the game?

It's wise to balance the game from the top bracket of players, it's been like that since dawn of competitive gaming, it's simply smart to have individuals who understand the game as a compass.

OP: problem is not the message you want to transmit, rather than the title of the thread. People will just read allies OP.

The thing is, this is how the allied factions were designed and are meant to be played at the moment. If you want things to be changed, then you'll have to mirror the factions even more. Remove whatever aggro tools allies have early on, while improving drastically the scaling and late game, while buffing early game while nerfing the late game scaling. This is not worth doing IMO.

Point is: allies (not UKF) are aggresive by nature, and aggresive play means you have initiative. Point is, there's no reason to not play aggro as the alternatives are worst.
Same can be said for the opposite side, mostly OH. They are not designed as aggro factions, and benefit the most of dragged games.



More like APM required to perform at certain level above average. By nature, it's easier for 95% of the population to play on the defensive with small number of stronger troops than control several more weaker units and be aggresive.

Nice synopsis of the current state and of the disparity in skills needed at lower levels.

That said, there could be a whole lot more similarities thrown in before you even come close to "mirroring" the factions and it would make it easier to balance across the timeline.

There should also be a cost at some point of having the game draw out too long past the point of heavy Axis advantage, such that allies, if they survive that long, aren't still assured a loss. In COH1 this came in the form of veterancy. It wasn't actually easy to get several riflemen to vet3, but it the reward was a unit that could slug it out with vet3 Wehr. And I don't think I have ever seen a vet3 Ranger in 1v1. But having a whole bunch of vetted US troops and vehicles took a lot of time (40 min+) and at that point they gave you a fighting chance.

Should US top be even good/better but cost much more so the balance shifts again? This could also help in 3's and 4's. (As could better resource model and maps.)

VindicareX is an excellent player. But if you don't want to trust the opinion of one guy, there're several high level players in this thread like Siuking, Lemon, Ciez, ItzDusty agreeing with Vindicare. Sadly the guys with 3,000,000 forum posts are frothing at the mouth disagreeing and making personal insults.

I think balance is the best it's been right now, the game's really fun. But every time I watch replays and casts I see certain things sticking out for the allies. Demo, Calliope, riflespam, maximspam (vs OKW), and various other things. I think they need a slight tweak.

I'm flattered

This is exactly the problem of this meta right now. I made a post on the 1st week of this patch about how you literally cheese to win in 2v2 atm.
Double US LMG Bazooka blob into Pershing Calliope.
Soviet maxim spam into Calliope and Call ins.
Double OPKW with infantry horde.

Sure it's balanced in a way that 1 year ago each side has its own OP cheesy units to win, but it's bloody boring to watch #Esport

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that more aggressive factions do better in the hands of highly skilled players. But you yourself say that balance is in a good place, but then then talk about nerfing heavily factio dependent units like maxim and rifles. How do you plan on doing that without ruining balance. Every single unit's effectiveness in USF depends on rifles, and we have already seen what happened when they had weaker vet and maxim is the only reliable way to deal with infantry other then doctrinal elite infantry. Nerf these things and balance will crumble.

USF in particular would need to be rebuilt from the ground up to make them less reliant on rifles. And we are going to do all this for what? So that a couple of dozen players can have a perfectly even winrate against each other.

Besides the vast majority of vindicares points are only really about ostheer (who is actually doing the best in 1v1 overall). OKW has a really good early game and light vehicles. Ostheers early game would mostly be fixed with making the 222 a little beefier.

Nerf it and do a revamp. What's the problem? Sure it's balanced on the edge of a razor right now.
But then how is fixing the bullshit units and make it more fun for everyone a wrong direction?

If you read my post, you see I was mostly referring to high level (more like top 20) play. IMO, anyone not top 50 is basically not high level. Even so, ladder rankings are not a perfect indicator of skill, as anyone who plays enough and is somewhat good can achieve a high rank.

This high level play applies to tournament play, where those advantages actually matter in even match ups.

Are you suggesting we balance a game that thousands of people play, so that 20 of them can be happy?

Is that a bad thing tho, we have always known ost have a weaker early game as a trade for a stronger late, makes them perhaps the hardest faction to play but doesnt make them weak.

Since when Ostheer has a stronger late game?

Soviet has better Elite infantry.
USA has terminator vet on rifles with 2 weapons slots which completely outscale and outgun all Ost inf.
British Inf wins at vet 0 in equal cover.

Support Weapons:
Soviet has 6 men team weapons, super cheap and fast to reinforce, nearly unwipable. 2 men sniper.
USA 50 cal > MG42, Pack Howitzer > GrW
British Vicker, Sniper, AT Gun on par with Ostheer, has better light vehicle AEC.

Soviet has better medium T34/85, better heavy IS2 and Squad wiping ISU, which are in every fucking possible marginally OP commanders. (Shock Rifle is even free to play)
USA has OPish light vehicles, M20 comes with bazooka, Stuart can stun and kill any other light vehicles; worse tank, but better support tanks: Cheap M10 outclassing StuGs, Easy8 outclassing Pz4. + OP Calliope and Pershing.
British has even better Stock tanks. Comet > Panther.

Tell me how Ostheer has any better late game?

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.

Aimstrong and DEvM does not exist ?

Just keep it civil guys..

Fighting each other won't help balane much either. Everyone's opinion should be respected and treated as valuable information (apart from trolls).

My two cents:
Allies dominate the early game fairly easy, since most maps favor their style of play. Once the mid game comes, the field becomes more even. During the late game, Soviets (IS2) and UKF (Comet) can compete with Axis late game. (that is if you can get UKF to the late game...)

A lot of people, including myself simply don't have the knowledge and game awareness to counter everything a player can throw at them. Mostly this is the reason for imbalances. Surely there are some actuall balance issues, but mostly it is just a matter of lower game knowledge.

Well that went south quick...

Quoting myself here:

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...?

Several other guys already elaborated on what the problem is when you are an average player:
Axis are defensive fractions while Allies are offensive.
However, the amount of micro required to have an early advantage with allies is very high. An average player simply cannot achieve this. I play about 10-15 hours per week because I can't spent more time on CoH. As a resulut I'm a medium player at best.

I know I will never have a win chance of much more than 50%. That is totally fine.
The only thing I really care about is to not have frustrating game experiences. Unfortunately playing as Allies you get these a lot. A few examples:

• Axis MGs have a very wide arc and good suppression. My cons get pinned all the time (serious issue on narrow 2v2 maps - just not enough space to pull off flanks)
  
• OST Sniper? I try to counter it with a scout car - which is what they are supposed to do. When you drive by a Gren you get hit by Faust. Scout car pretty much gone...
  
• Shrek blobs are a serious problem - probably the biggest one for medium players. You wouldn't hear that many complaints about them otherwise. They just walk up to you and kill everything. (Demo's get destroyed by the odd mortar or LEIG round too often, 1 MG is not enough, 2 sometimes are but you run a serious risk of Pwerfer or Stuka (you see these a lot more in multiplayer mode)
  
• Event though it's an old issue but it describes the whole top 150 vs rest issue the best: The LEIG-Fest. Maybe it wasn't an issue for good players but damn how often did I set up an assault from multiple angles that got stopped dead because the LEIG suppressed several units even though they weren't even close together.
  

I know that all these issues can be resolved with better micro but if you don't/can't put in the hours, you're just stuck. Does this mean you don't deserve a game that is fun to play - not just for a very few number of excellent players?


I never insulted anyone here. I don't see the point of doing it. Just because you are good at something does not mean you get to be impolite!

Are you suggesting we balance a game that thousands of people play, so that 20 of them can be happy?

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.

Amen CieZ. Now we can close this topic in peace.

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.

If the highest levels of play perceives a balance issue, it's probably imbalanced.

If only the lower levels of play perceive a balance issue, it's probably a gameplay design problem.