Allied 1v1 Dominace

The amount of micro needed to be able to play USF is an exaggeration honestly.

I am much more comfortable in a top ranked game fighting with USF than being ostheer against USF because of the decision making and contemplation's you have to do on how many snipers you need/when you get your pak/if a 222 is necessary/getting tellar or lmgs/etc. Even if I get to play on the best maps for ostheer like crossing in the woods.

It's not hard to shift recrew your USF vehicles when they are done repairing. Maybe if relic let you move them after they've been crewed with shift commands; it could help people who forget about their vehicles sitting in the back(like me). But it's not that big of a issue.

Those are subtle mechanics that should be there (at least in my opinion) to distinguish good players from great players, there were actually a lot of those in vCoH, the first example that comes to mind is the motorcycle micro that you needed to make the MG Bike combo work, you needed a lot of control for that kinda like the one you need to do that fast repair on the tanks. That, however, does not mean that if you balanced the game from the top players that it would mean you had to micro more to make a faction work, those are little things envolving the outcome of the game. Assuming the factions are well balanced AND designed, design being key, means that each factions has its little "secrets" and perks that only top players will make most use of by being faster but that does not mean that the faction as a whole will be unplayable for players with less micro. Again ill refer back to US vs WM on vCoH since I believe it was done to near perfection, US was a faction that needed most micro to make it work at a top level that doesnt mean that at a lower level of play the faction was better or worse because you still had the things you needed and those easier to use units or whatever you might call them, just that as a player gets more efficient playing a faction they can diverse from that type of play and make more use or better use of riflemen for example (big part of US gameplay both in Coh1 and Coh2, that requires a lot of micro to perform well).

I won't disagree. I still play COH1 with most of my game time. But there you had factions that by COH2 standards would be considered "mirrors" since everyone had a scout vehicle, mg, mortar, infantry, sniper, arty, TDs, flamers, flame vehicles, bunkers, etc. etc.) And that is aside the veterancy. Even if Wehr had earned veterancy instead of bought, those factions would play differently because the units had differences in how they functioned and in which tiers they arrived.

But they were so balanced that the balance of "ease" shifted from one to the other as your learning grew.

It might surprise you that top players are there because of their game knowledge rather than micro, it's actually quite funny that micro is such a heavy topic when in CoH2 it hardly matters past a certain point (which isnt hard to reach btw).

O_W has a point even if he overestimates the importance of micro. I play around 50apm or less btw, and manage to reach well into the top 100s with sometimes less than 10 hrs / week of playtime.

But as I was saying, O_W has a point in that balancing purely from the top could create a situation where there is simply too much game knowledge required to reach the intended balanced state.

It's not enough to make the top x% happy and tell the rest to "Git gud!". The majority of people don't have the time, or desire to work hard for a game. So if the game balance is broken for a large number of people they'll leave before they're invested enough to buy all that precious DLC Relic needs to survive.

Bottom line is, a "balance from the top" policy could oversimplify matters and alienate a large portion of the playerbase.

Don't forget that some of us ( who might well be on their way to 1000s of games with a 20% win rate ) aren't going to get to know the mechanics as we can't play as the other factions.

Come to think of it I'd be interested to see the stats for UKF only players as well as the balance stats for all players across all factions.

Simple database query no?

I would argue that the game is always balanced with the top players in mind since when relic points out a strat or unit to use they point out how those players use them. Heck every time a new unit is introduced its op and its assumed that everyone will learn to play to compensate. Any time there is a calliOP just get a tank to flank it and its np that its wiping squads left right and center.

Come to think of it, and consider this a suggestion too.

Give all players ELO ratings as in chess. There are parallels here, though clearly chess is balanced over two games but different openings do have different effects depending upon level.

King's Gambit for instance is quite deadly up to about 150 ( effectively the third level as losing to a player 50 ranks below you is regarded as nothing but a fluke). Above 150 it is rarely played and easily countered. Similar story with many weird and wonderful openings, Grandmasters understand them whereas novices wouldn't know whether they were in a good position or not!

For instance if you took a hypothetical rook away from one player but gave him 5 extra pawns would that be balanced? It might depend upon rank, Grandmasters might trounce international masters more heavily than normal due to early game power, novices who rarely got to the late game might prefer the extra defence just to stay in the fight and losing a unit they hardly used.

I work in stats and can tell you categorically that only showing stats for the top x players is statistical garbage. I have no idea whether the game is balanced or not as I suck rather badly but if you were going to take a cross section of the data the top x percent is almost willfully dishonest.

A balanced game would allow novices, intermediates, good players and tournament players to compete on an even keel across factions. I recently found that one doctrinal ability had been nerfed in 4 different ways which is a massive change, an almost balanced game would only require tiny changes, though the latest patch notes don't give much confidence that it is anywhere near that state.

Note however that I'm not complaining about balance or OPness as people seem to call it. Merely that the proof is in the stats and therefore those stats should be published and sliced only across different ability levels ( seems there are 20 levels of ability defined in the game?).

All players have a hidden ELO rating.

Relic have so far been very tight lipped regarding stats, probably because there's nothing good to show. What we have is gleamed by collecting ladder data and their service allows us to look only at the top 200 players.

Come to think of it, and consider this a suggestion too.

Give all players ELO ratings as in chess. There are parallels here, though clearly chess is balanced over two games but different openings do have different effects depending upon level.

King's Gambit for instance is quite deadly up to about 150 ( effectively the third level as losing to a player 50 ranks below you is regarded as nothing but a fluke). Above 150 it is rarely played and easily countered. Similar story with many weird and wonderful openings, Grandmasters understand them whereas novices wouldn't know whether they were in a good position or not!

For instance if you took a hypothetical rook away from one player but gave him 5 extra pawns would that be balanced? It might depend upon rank, Grandmasters might trounce international masters more heavily than normal due to early game power, novices who rarely got to the late game might prefer the extra defence just to stay in the fight and losing a unit they hardly used.

I work in stats and can tell you categorically that only showing stats for the top x players is statistical garbage. I have no idea whether the game is balanced or not as I suck rather badly but if you were going to take a cross section of the data the top x percent is almost willfully dishonest.

A balanced game would allow novices, intermediates, good players and tournament players to compete on an even keel across factions. I recently found that one doctrinal ability had been nerfed in 4 different ways which is a massive change, an almost balanced game would only require tiny changes, though the latest patch notes don't give much confidence that it is anywhere near that state.

Note however that I'm not complaining about balance or OPness as people seem to call it. Merely that the proof is in the stats and therefore those stats should be published and sliced only across different ability levels ( seems there are 20 levels of ability defined in the game?).

There is an ELO system out there for the ladder rankings.

Also didn't know if you knew this site existed: http://coh2chart.com/

Yeah I've seen that site, as I say though top150 ( sure it was top250 when I first saw it which is strange) is statistical garbage. Less than 1% of player base?

As I say it would be interesting to see the overall balance and the balance between factions for under rank 5, 10 etc.

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,

Nice reply, thanks.

I agree with you on a couple of things. Nobody should be automatically disregarded because they play at a lower level. The game has to be fun for everyone. And yes, there must be times when 3v3+ players spot a weakness in the game that could be fixed to improve the game for everyone.

Also, just being a top-20 player doesn't automatically make you right. I agree with you there too.


All I was saying is that when the top players take the time to think things through and write out a text on what they think, people should give it more time and more credit. You'll see in this thread a lot of people automatically disregarding what the top players have said because it clashes with their opinion. They haven't even taken the time to think it over or analyse.


Lastly about your F1 analogy:

If you were a team manager and there were two people you could choose from to organize setting up the car, who would you choose:
1. Alonso, a driver who lives and breathes the sport and who spends time outside of driving analysing the sport and his performance and the car's performance.

2. The guy who occasionally drives but not competitively.


Essentially what the manager needs is a team comprised of the driver, pitstop mechanics, technicians, etc. But in the abscence of that, who would you choose? I;d go with Alonso. He might be wrong but the statistical chance the he'd be right is much higher.

For those saying I want homogenization, that's not what I want. SC2 has well distinguished races that are also well balanced at each phase of the game.

I don't want grens and rifles to have the same stats in different uniforms, I just want grens to be able to keep up with rifles early game in some way just like I want USF armor to keep up with Tigers and Panthers late game. You don't have to copy and paste units to do this. But creating factions with a more equal balance of power at each game stage should help balance all game modes.

I would also like to reiterate that balance should come from the top down but the game needs to be fun for everyone which is where you look at the middle and out. Top players care about winning more than fun, but other players need the game to be fun. I believe we can have both.

I agree with a majority of your posts, but Snipers and the "Game being fun" can never live together lol.

I agree with a majority of your posts, but Snipers and the "Game being fun" can never live together lol.

They can if you got reasonable counters

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,

+

I have the same feeling but I cannot tell what should be fixed or wrong.
It's funny how many noobs contradict VindicareX who is one of the best in the community. Most of them don't even play enough games as OH or OKW.
lol

I still remember how Paul.a.D defended OKW truck pushing saying that it required high amount of skill so it is fine and should stay in the game.

What's the point of this thread again ?

What's the point of this thread again ?

The point was explained in several posts by Ciez and Vindicarex. Don't try to discredit one of the best threads until now in COH2.org. Oh, wait, manny concepts explained by them could hurt your beloved side (Allied that is).

The point was explained in several posts by Ciez and Vindicarex. Don't try to discredit one of the best threads until now in COH2.org. Oh, wait, manny concepts explained by them could hurt your beloved side (Allied that is).

British side*

I want honourable Axis and Strategists to explain to me the point of this thread and not Axis lovers like you who only know to insult others and cause "fire"

So i check the stats, Vindi now are not top20 player 4Head.

I really hate 1v1 elitism, and its so evident on this website. Why do people look down on someone who prefers team games? I don't get it. These people need to get over themselves. So Relic should forget about everyone else and focus on, not only 1v1 players, but the top 50 1v1-ers? Lol are you real?