Allied 1v1 Dominace

I don't understand it myself, especially as a business model.

It appears that only 22% of games played are 1v1. Which sounds like about 5% of player base playing 1v1 at any time. Balancing that for only the top 1% of players makes about as much sense as try to sell a word processor which only supports the Welsh language.

If I have read the tone and content of the posts which seek to prioritise 1v1 balance for the top players correctly then this only relates to a tiny percentage of all games played.

I don't understand it myself, especially as a business model.

It appears that only 22% of games played are 1v1. Which sounds like about 5% of player base playing 1v1 at any time. Balancing that for only the top 1% of players makes about as much sense as try to sell a word processor which only supports the Welsh language.

If I have read the tone and content of the posts which seek to prioritise 1v1 balance for the top players correctly then this only relates to a tiny percentage of all games played.

It's actually makes sense, Relic wants CoH 2 to become an e-sports game. Pretty much all e-sports RTS is being played 1vs1. If they would succeed making it to e-sports status, it would mean a lot of attention and free advertising for the game => $.

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?

because 1v1 is most competitive. it's sad but it is. it is 90% due to Relic not committing to the modes 99% of the time.

10% is because of all the naysayers who just dismiss the idea of competitive team games CoH2 style RTS, saying "it's never done before". lol. Who happens to be non team game players for some mysterious reasons.

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?

Because the game is designed for 1v1.

2V2 is fine, but 3v3 and 4v4 any kind of balance is thrown out of the window.

The game is made in for 1v1. Just how SC2 is designed for 1v1, and Dota 2 is designed for 5v5. Relic has stated that 1v1 and to a lesser extent 2v2 are supposed to be the competitive "balanced" modes. They could of made 3v3,4v4 balanced instead and made 1v1;2v2 not unbalanced. But they decided to do 1v1. This is how the game was designed, and this is how the balance of the game WILL continue to be changed catering to 1v1 and 2v2 specifically. (Unless relic changes their minds, anything can happen )

Team games simple cannot be properly balanced in coh 2 without redesigning the entire game.

And yes, catering to the top 50 (top players) IS how every single competitive game is done.

Why?

Because at low skill level, you can simply IMPROVE and all balance issues are completely irrelevant everyone plays very poorly.

In a top player enviroment, they cannot improve as easily because they are already so good, because they are so good , balance issues QUICKLY become apparent and top players who play specific factions QUICKLY dominate the other players who play the faction which is not as strong.
If it was a low skill game, the other player could of simply won by playing better, he probably did basic mistakes.

In a top player enviroment, improvement is not an option because they are ALREADY playing very well.


Anyways, balance isin't really a major issue in coh 2. It never really was aside from some major fuckups (OKW, Brits, march deployment, okay there were quite a lot of major fuckups but still )

The current general trend is that allies tend to win 5-10% more than axis in 1v1s. That's completely fine.

Gameplay being shallow has always been the problem in coh 2. The fact that theres always 1-2 "meta" builds that overshadow everything else and make the gameplay very boring because everyone that wants to win spams the same boring strats over and over again.

This is what needs to change. Useless units that have no use need to be buffed in order to be atleast somewhat viable.

because 1v1 is most competitive. it's sad but it is. it is 90% due to Relic not committing to the modes 99% of the time.

Good joke, constant commander cheese and map hack abuse (relic still has no anti-cheat) is very competitive ))))

Infact I think we should all take a leaf out of the top 20 1vs1 book and only let all knowing top 20 players like QUENTIN and KIM JUNG UN post. I'm sure they know soooo much more about balance, it would make the forums such a better place ))))

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"

Game design. Why USF and SU are design as early aggresive factions which lack lategame while Axis depends on positioning and surviving early on to later win with a better late game.
Aggresive tends to result on you having the initiative and the other faction been on the defensive/reactive.

Because the game is designed for 1v1.

2V2 is fine, but 3v3 and 4v4 any kind of balance is thrown out of the window.

The game is made in for 1v1. Just how SC2 is designed for 1v1, and Dota 2 is designed for 5v5. Relic has stated that 1v1 and to a lesser extent 2v2 are supposed to be the competitive "balanced" modes. They could of made 3v3,4v4 balanced instead and made 1v1;2v2 not unbalanced. But they decided to do 1v1. This is how the game was designed, and this is how the balance of the game WILL continue to be changed catering to 1v1 and 2v2 specifically. (Unless relic changes their minds, anything can happen )

Team games simple cannot be properly balanced in coh 2 without redesigning the entire game.

And yes, catering to the top 50 (top players) IS how every single competitive game is done.

Why?

Because at low skill level, you can simply IMPROVE and all balance issues are completely irrelevant everyone plays very poorly.

In a top player enviroment, they cannot improve as easily because they are already so good, because they are so good , balance issues QUICKLY become apparent and top players who play specific factions QUICKLY dominate the other players who play the faction which is not as strong.
If it was a low skill game, the other player could of simply won by playing better, he probably did basic mistakes.

In a top player enviroment, improvement is not an option because they are ALREADY playing very well.


Anyways, balance isin't really a major issue in coh 2. It never really was aside from some major fuckups (OKW, Brits, march deployment, okay there were quite a lot of major fuckups but still )

The current general trend is that allies tend to win 5-10% more than axis in 1v1s. That's completely fine.

Gameplay being shallow has always been the problem in coh 2. The fact that theres always 1-2 "meta" builds that overshadow everything else and make the gameplay very boring because everyone that wants to win spams the same boring strats over and over again.

This is what needs to change. Useless units that have no use need to be buffed in order to be atleast somewhat viable.

You make a good point, hadn't thought of balance like that. Makes sense.

Team games simple cannot be properly balanced in coh 2 without redesigning the entire game.

Why?

Good joke, constant commander cheese and map hack abuse (relic still has no anti-cheat) is very competitive ))))

Infact I think we should all take a leaf out of the top 20 1vs1 book and only let all knowing top 20 players like QUENTIN and KIM JUNG UN post. I'm sure they know soooo much more about balance, it would make the forums such a better place ))))

CoH2 does have anti-cheat - it uses CRC to check if any detours/memory has been changed, only problem is it runs this CRC check at time intervals that are well documented, so a map-hack only has to disable during the CRC check to be undetected.


CoH2 maphack doesn't use D3D hacking, it just edits fog offsets, easy way for Relic to add Esports anti-cheat is just to send screenshots to them at random intervals and maphacks will be easily spotted. Obviously there are ways around that too, but far more difficult for shit-kids to evade.

They can if you got reasonable counters

Good point, like if scout vehicles could wipe snipers like they should instead of firing 4 volleys and missing on retreat until the inevitable AT snare hits.

Good point, like if scout vehicles could wipe snipers like they should instead of firing 4 volleys and missing on retreat until the inevitable AT snare hits.

Well, to be fair, that still sounds problematic. We'd then have the dichotomy of "Sniper never dies and inflicts free MP bleed constantly" or "A light vehicle shoots at the sniper and instantly removes 360 MP from the adversary and any of its vet", which is probably a noticeable snag for "Game being fun" unless you particularly fuckin' love playing rock-paper-scissors.

Well, to be fair, that still sounds problematic. We'd then have the dichotomy of "Sniper never dies and inflicts free MP bleed constantly" or "A light vehicle shoots at the sniper and instantly removes 360 MP from the adversary and any of its vet", which is probably a noticeable snag for "Game being fun" unless you particularly fuckin' love playing rock-paper-scissors.

It's one of those reasons why snipers are problematic design wise. In a RTS like CoH2, being able to bleed your opponent of ressources constantly without suffering damage in return is a big deal. Whereas ordinary infantry combat and vehicular clashes often involve both players sacrificing something, with the better player coming out on top.

At least it's not as ridiculous as in CoH1 where snipers are so OP that large portions of the 1v1 meta revolve entirely around them. But I still think snipers should be more fragile to small arms. It's depressing to Oooorah conscripts next to an Ostheer sniper, your opponent notices it too late, but still manages to get away even if you pursue it.

We must first nerf/rework all Snipers,then move that power to other units (grenadiers,UC,Penals),as for late game a simple solution would be to give vehicles side armour.

We must first nerf/rework all Snipers,then move that power to other units (grenadiers,UC,Penals),as for late game a simple solution would be to give vehicles side armour.

While side armor would be a lovely design that allows for more intricacies in gameplay (Panthers had at best mediocre side armor on both body and turrets - only 40-45mm, whereas a tiger had great armor on the sides and only weak in back), you have to consider the software.

Side armor entails not only redesigning the game, but then also rebalancing the game, practically from scratch.

Likewise I am not sure tech trees in place of linear commanders can be easily coded. Certainly they would look like a different game.

It's one of those reasons why snipers are problematic design wise. In a RTS like CoH2, being able to bleed your opponent of ressources constantly without suffering damage in return is a big deal. Whereas ordinary infantry combat and vehicular clashes often involve both players sacrificing something, with the better player coming out on top.

At least it's not as ridiculous as in CoH1 where snipers are so OP that large portions of the 1v1 meta revolve entirely around them. But I still think snipers should be more fragile to small arms. It's depressing to Oooorah conscripts next to an Ostheer sniper, your opponent notices it too late, but still manages to get away even if you pursue it.

One sniper, maybe two with a radius of negative zeal, could have made sense in COH1. One could be used to scout, as a counter to support weapons, etc. But they became a force that was on par, or greater, than your armor, arty, etc. The problem with that isn't balance but design. A strategic war game that becomes all about microing the snipers, over and above concern for infantry, armor, AT, support weapons, etc. just doesn't feel like a WW2 based wargame.

One sniper, maybe two with a radius of negative zeal, could have made sense in COH1. One could be used to scout, as a counter to support weapons, etc. But they became a force that was on par, or greater, than your armor, arty, etc. The problem with that isn't balance but design. A strategic war game that becomes all about microing the snipers, over and above concern for infantry, armor, AT, support weapons, etc. just doesn't feel like a WW2 based wargame.

The sniping concept introduced with JLI and Pathfinder is interesting, sniper could only kill models under % of health. It could be easily implemented with Sov/Brit/Osth with different stats and you decrease their prices. They could share Pathfinder stats if they keep their camo.

Game design. Why USF and SU are design as early aggresive factions which lack lategame while Axis depends on positioning and surviving early on to later win with a better late game.
Aggresive tends to result on you having the initiative and the other faction been on the defensive/reactive.

Probably all true, which leads to the next question. When was the last time you watched an ESL match where a caster said "Player xxxx didn't win in the first 10 minutes. Now he's gardened and is going to slowly lose, but we're going to watch it and pretend to enjoy it anyway."

Probably all true, which leads to the next question. When was the last time you watched an ESL match where a caster said "Player xxxx didn't win in the first 10 minutes. Now he's gardened and is going to slowly lose, but we're going to watch it and pretend to enjoy it anyway."

Casters "job" isn't to predict the result of the game, but to comment on what currently happens in the game, just like sports commentators do not predict football match after the first goal for one team or another.

You won't hear any caster saying something like this, because its pointless.

Topic is so absurd that doesnt even worth reply.
Last tourney axis won almost all games at the end of it. In the final without any counterplay. Such a faking allied dominanc

Casters "job" isn't to predict the result of the game, but to comment on what currently happens in the game, just like sports commentators do not predict football match after the first goal for one team or another.

You won't hear any caster saying something like this, because its pointless.

His point isn't ab out it being pointless and I think you know that. It is that if it is true that this could be said (even if it isn't said) then there is something wrong with the game design that allows for that. COH1 had a bit of the same feel but that moment when a contested game was 90% won or lost didn't seem to be apparent until 20-25 minutes in, not 10.

His point isn't ab out it being pointless and I think you know that. It is that if it is true that this could be said (even if it isn't said) then there is something wrong with the game design that allows for that. COH1 had a bit of the same feel but that moment when a contested game was 90% won or lost didn't seem to be apparent until 20-25 minutes in, not 10.

And when 2 good players are dishing it out, you won't see any of them getting advantages in 10 mins.
At best/worst it will be constant back and forth with them pushing each other in turns, there aren't really any situations when you KNOW before 20th minute which player might win or lose.