"balancing" discussions are ALL pointless

The game is so substantially different across all modes and for different skill levels that it's never going to be balanced enough for everyone.

Brits are borderline OP in 2v2, but in 1v1 they suck. Why? Not because of the units, but because of how the resource income ends up working out for a faction that only does well in cover or hiding in garrisons. Players facing defensive Brits in 1v1 can just go cap the map somewhere else until they can dislodge them. That's not the case in 2v2 or larger game modes. Hell, 3v3 and 4v4 could even be balanced if the maps were twice as big with far lower resource income per point, but the game engine would no doubt have to be completely redone to allow that.

As it is right now I notice from my own horrible Axis ranks, and those of other players in top 200 2v2, that it seems to be a LOT easier to win as Allies. That's because at intermediate-upper intermediate skill levels, Allies are just easier to play, with fewer wipes and micro that doesn't require as much skill as Axis. I can't get MG or raketen micro right, and that's what causes me to lose a lot of games. I see plenty of other people with the same problems and who I would otherwise say are competent players and that's a different form of imbalance. The old 4-man vs 5 or 6 man squad problem is also still an issue in game modes where there is a ton of indirect fire, ie., Axis squads just end up losing health faster or getting RNG wipes, and you have to retreat a lot faster and be smarter about picking your battles when playing as Axis.

But for the top 25, I suppose it's balanced? I don't know, I tend to think top 2v2 teams would still rather play Allies than Axis if they want a sure victory, primarily because of how much less dependent Allies are on infantry preservation late game.

Exactly, that is the whole point I'm trying to make. The results of a tournament of top 20 players doesn't dictate what balance should be for the rest of the game because the average player doesn't play like a pro. The winrates are not that skewed in lower level games. Because if it were, you'd see 90% axis 10% allies for automatch wait times.

Contrary to you, I was actually missed.

And probably hated a lot more than u were missed.

In other words, don't buff brits or USF. Pretty much what op is alluding to.
If it were the other way around though...

Only balance discussions with people like you are pointless. You insult people more than you actually discuss balance, so it's no wonder you would think this.

Only balance discussions with people like you are pointless. You insult people more than you actually discuss balance, so it's no wonder you would think this.

Are you talking about Me or someone else?

Not sure I can do it on the weekend. And the way you talk, it's obvious u haven't tried using them in the patch, that's why u don't understand why most people want to keep the stgs. And you don't need to care about them since the only factions you're ranked in are 1v1 USF and UKF.

I can also do Friday evening.

I have used them in the patch and I like them much better than the old stormtroopers in most ways, especially because the old ones were basically ambush camo pgrens with tactical assault, which had its uses but also had too much overlap and a very expensive upgrade to use stgs. I actually plan on playing much more ostheer once this patch goes live solely because of German infantry doctrine. I really like the abilities in it and want to start seriously playing ostheer because of it and because of the new stormtroopers.

You kept attacking me for supposedly not using facts or whatever but then you just make conjectures based on “the way I talk”. Seems a little hypocritical to me to say the very least.

EDIT: on the topic of the thread, I think pro players as they are being referred to do have the best notion of what balance should be like. They actually understand the real mechanics behind the game and don’t have misconceptions about a lot of the more nebulous stuff that others do because they have more experience. We don’t base medicine off what the average joe believes is healthy, we base it on empirical study and professional expertise. We don’t have the “average” soldier lead squads, we have NCOs distinguished by experience and/or apparent skill for that. Why shouldn’t we approach balance for Coh2 in the same way?

That doesn’t mean that the average joe’s opinion is worthless or always bad. Less skilled players can have great ideas and legitimate grievances but we shouldn’t rely only on them for balance just like we shouldn’t rely only on pros for balance. There’s a reason Andy even bothers with this website (it’s a community organization and relic doesn’t have to interact with it at all if they don’t want to, but they do). Things are a little more three dimensional than “only this group should have a say in balance because x or y reason”.

Bottom line: how much does anyone want to bet that the automatch winrate for USF is around 30% for ANY gamemode. Exactly, because if that was the truth THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY USF PLAYERS LEFT. (kinda like whats happening with UKF at least in 1v1). Hence UKF is getting massive buffs. USF on the other hand, should not be getting the same treatment.

The sample size for USF and UKF in GCS is awful.

I can also do Friday evening.

I have used them in the patch and I like them much better than the old stormtroopers in most ways, especially because the old ones were basically ambush camo pgrens with tactical assault, which had its uses but also had too much overlap and a very expensive upgrade to use stgs. I actually plan on playing much more ostheer once this patch goes live solely because of German infantry doctrine. I really like the abilities in it and want to start seriously playing ostheer because of it and because of the new stormtroopers.

You kept attacking me for supposedly not using facts or whatever but then you just make conjectures based on “the way I talk”. Seems a little hypocritical to me to say the very least.

Well, I see that people who have actually used a unit will tell you how they perform to enemy counterparts, specific tactics used to get the upper hand, how they think the dps profile of the weapons feel, SPECIFIC stuff, while you just said that u can use them "like commandos" and that they're "great" or "wayyyyyyyyy better." Whereas I talked about how exactly they've compared to commandos, cost efficiency, inadequate dps at midrange, difficulties of getting optimal range, all specific points about commandos. I'm sorry that I'm getting the impression that you haven't used them, I'm just inferring from the way u describe the new storms.

I feel like the most telling stat from GCS2 is that notorious "mains" of factions dropped them completely, Devm barely played USF and Refero barely played UKF. Considering both are well known for being some of the best USF (Devm basically made the USF meta at one point) and UKF players respectively yet barely played those factions shows something isnt right.

USF doesn't need unit buffs. All their units work well in a vacuum. The only thing they really need fixed is teching. How to fix it is a much more complicated issue.

UKF is getting most of the buffs it needs. I expect them to be much better after the commander buff.

Bottom line: how much does anyone want to bet that the automatch winrate for USF is around 30% for ANY gamemode. Exactly, because if that was the truth THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY USF PLAYERS LEFT.

Except thats blatantly false. When a faction is underpowered, matchmaker just puts you against someone of a lower skill level. It wont put the rank 300 player of an underpowered faction against the rank 300 player of an overpowered faction, it would try for rank 300 vs 500 or something of the sort. The only area where win rate is likely to significantly deviate from normal is at the top of the leaderboards where matchmaker would struggle to find something of a similar absolute ranking.

Matchmaker works with absolute rankings and not relative rankings. Relative rankings are based on player skill. Absolute rankings are a combination of player skill and faction strength. MM using the latter means that you should find an even match (when available) and that factions would trend towards a 50% win rate except at the very top and (for underpowered factions) at the very bottom.

Edit: whoops, I meant to say that its besides the point because factions are likely to trend towards a 50% win rate regardless of their balance state

Except thats blatantly false. When a faction is underpowered, matchmaker just puts you against someone of a lower skill level. It wont put the rank 300 player of an underpowered faction against the rank 300 player of an overpowered faction, it would try for rank 300 vs 500 or something of the sort. The only area where win rate is likely to significantly deviate from normal is at the top of the leaderboards where matchmaker would struggle to find something of a similar absolute ranking.

Matchmaker works with absolute rankings and not relative rankings. Relative rankings are based on player skill. Absolute rankings are a combination of player skill and faction strength. MM using the latter means that you should find an even match (when available) and that factions would trend towards a 50% win rate except at the very top and (for underpowered factions) at the very bottom.

Edit: whoops, I meant to say that its besides the point because factions are likely to trend towards a 50% win rate regardless of their balance state

Just wondering, wouldn't a percentile system make a bit more sense. For example rank 200 Ost is not the same as 200 Brit as there are significantly less ranked Brit players. I think in CoH3 a percentile ranking should be used to give a better sense of player skill/rank.

Just wondering, wouldn't a percentile system make a bit more sense. For example rank 200 Ost is not the same as 200 Brit as there are significantly less ranked Brit players. I think in CoH3 a percentile ranking should be used to give a better sense of player skill/rank.

Most games have had success with divisions and groupings (you know, the bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond stuff). Obviously percentiles will exist alongisde those (transparent or not), but I think theres no reason not to go with the previously mentioned divisions.

If we're on the topic of GCS2 games and winrates, when I watched that tourney I saw every faction that wasn't UKF in there making wins, comebacks, throws, and losses. UKF never saw play. USF on the other hand most definatly had their moments where they were strong and were pushing wins.

Most games have had success with divisions and groupings (you know, the bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond stuff). Obviously percentiles will exist alongisde those (transparent or not), but I think theres no reason not to go with the previously mentioned divisions.

Divisions are imo the best way to have rankings. Its easy to understand and concise without having a lot of the dumb different ranks mean different things per faction. I hate now a rank 50 Brit is completely different form a rank 50 Ost or Sov.

Now would those division rankings be by player or by faction? I'd say by player would be easier.

Well, I see that people who have actually used a unit will tell you how they perform to enemy counterparts, specific tactics used to get the upper hand, how they think the dps profile of the weapons feel, SPECIFIC stuff, while you just said that u can use them "like commandos" and that they're "great" or "wayyyyyyyyy better." Whereas I talked about how exactly they've compared to commandos, cost efficiency, inadequate dps at midrange, difficulties of getting optimal range, all specific points about commandos. I'm sorry that I'm getting the impression that you haven't used them, I'm just inferring from the way u describe the new storms.

Obviously having a strong, offensive, and mobile cqc unit as brits is amazing in and of itself, but all the things you listed about camo are great and act as serious force multipliers, especially in combination. The fact that they have sniper-type camo allows you to use them way more offensively than falls, stormtroopers, or paths and you can really come in from unexpected angles with it. Gammon from camo is some pretty cheesy bs that’s almost guaranteed to wipe support weapons and can easily wipe squads your opponent isn’t paying attention to (especially in 1v1s when most of the fighting is currently going on in other areas and you know he’s microing there). I think I played against Luciano once (who is much higher rank than me, blame matchmaking I guess) and got totally slaughtered, but I did manage to wipe a decent amount of grenadiers with sneaky gammons. I believe they still get accuracy bonuses at vet0 from camo but the speed boost requires vet2. Both are extremely useful and can allow your stens to wipe squads almost as fast as gammons and let you to win fights against far larger forces, even without other support sometimes. They can be really good in conjunction with other troops, too. Having a vickers suppress a giant blob (in teamgames usually) and then popping commandos out of camo with a gammon bomb usually results in an immediate retreat or massive casualties/wipes for them, and they do a great job of low-risk sneaky spotting for your vickers. They also work great as supporting elements in large attacks in the mid/late game and can really throw a wrench in the enemy’s defense by popping out behind their lines and wiping support weapons or retreating infantry. Being able to throw smoke is also very useful for escaping mgs and helping you attack as brits since smoke is really limited until you get tanks or a mortar pit (the latter of which usually isn’t a great idea IMO), and since they can heal out of combat and hardly lose models if used right, they are able to stay on the field for a lot longer than most infantry, especially if you have gliders to reinforce them (they usually get blown up since they’re so big though) and tend to inflict a lot more casualties than they receive.

Honestly, aside from their efficiency and power, one of the most appealing things to me is just the style and finesse they offer and how satisfying it is to pull off some crazy moves with them. I like pumas and the aec for the same reason. There’s my entire essay on commandos lol.

Since you want me to be more specific I guess, that’s a quote from an old thread on what I like about commandos. Some of it doesn’t apply to stormtroopers, such as the parts about the gammon bomb and ambush bonus. They can be used in the same fashion tactically though. You can sneak behind enemy lines completely undetected and then pop out and ambush a support weapon or retreating squad and fade back into the fog of war/camo without losing a single man, and offensively or defensively ambush enemy infantry squads from camo. Tactical assault is a powerful offensive ability that can be used when you get between an infantry squad and its retreat path to maximize your chance of wiping it as well, somewhat making up for/offering a different flavor of the ambush bonus commandos get. Obviously, it increases their target size and slows them down so it has to be used with caution. Camouflage allows you o close with the enemy without taking fire at all and surprise them in almost any situation you’re using stormtroopers, and can be taken advantage of for every engagement you start with them. The flamenade is nice for sneaking up to and clearing garrisons and heavily damaging caches (it does extra damage to them, not enough to kill them on its own though) behind the lines. Having one range where they have a very high maximum damage with their weapons (current revamp mod mp40s) is IMO better than a compromise at all ranges (live stgs) because that lets you actively seek, using camouflage, to engage on the terms you know you will win on, which is breaking camo and opening fire on units at very close range to maximize dps there, which takes a lot of micro, but is literally exactly as doable as with commandos, as they have the same camouflage. I hope you consider these specific enough tactics. I have used them a good amount in the revamp and in live (I play teamgames with friends who like axis and often use elite troops because I like g43s, stun nades, and storms even in live) and prefer the newer version much more than the live version.

Are you talking about Me or someone else?

The OP, sorry. Should've realized there were a few pages of responses already and specified.

The following will be off topic:
People can debate whether or not new storms are stronger than old storms, but I don't think there could even be an argument about which version is more fun to use and more unique compared to the rest of ostheers unit roster. I said this before, when I read your post, I thought it was great that even though you said you faced a much more skilled player and got slaughtered, you still had fun using the unit.

Even more off topic:
A lot of the arguments against the storm changes were that they felt storms would be weaker (not that their stats were even set in stone...). Again, their power level is debatable, but I think the point is that storms didnt need a raw power increase. Complaints/issues with stormtroopers were never that they were too weak, but that they people would usually rather just use pgrens since they do a lot of the same things. Thats why arguments based on powerlevel for new storms being bad never convinced me the changes werent good (and honestly, most of the reasons were power level arguments), esepcially when the numbers were hardly even decided on. My point is, I think people focused too much on power level and not on how much fun the unit was to use.

Imo, if we stuck with the old storm design, we could make them viable, but not fun. The new storm design gives us the chance to do both, and given recent feedback (once most of the numbers were actually worked out; also, camo walking, took so long for that to finally go through, but it was more or less planned since the beginning...), we're probably close to it.

I said this before, when I read your post, I thought it was great that even though you said you faced a much more skilled player and got slaughtered, you still had fun using the unit.

I've tested it myself and so did Imperial Dane. Dane and I have found it lacking. If you have to keep the mp40, can u please buff the tacticall advance. That was the best thing on the old storms and now its almost worthless against infantry, only ok vs support weapons that can't shoot back. The problem is that once we click the ability, the enemy unit retreats and due to much lower mid-range dps than stg, the mp40s can't hit anything vs a retreating squad. The whole point of old storms was the wiping power. Now even the bundle is gone. Or if the enemy unit is well equipped, it can just duke it out and if your storms aren't 100% healthy, they may actually lose. Or the enemy can throw a grenade. It's very dangerous using hte ability now since u need point blank. Risk is high but return is minimal.

The following will be off topic:
People can debate whether or not new storms are stronger than old storms, but I don't think there could even be an argument about which version is more fun to use and more unique compared to the rest of ostheers unit roster. I said this before, when I read your post, I thought it was great that even though you said you faced a much more skilled player and got slaughtered, you still had fun using the unit.

Even more off topic:
A lot of the arguments against the storm changes were that they felt storms would be weaker (not that their stats were even set in stone...). Again, their power level is debatable, but I think the point is that storms didnt need a raw power increase. Complaints/issues with stormtroopers were never that they were too weak, but that they people would usually rather just use pgrens since they do a lot of the same things. Thats why arguments based on powerlevel for new storms being bad never convinced me the changes werent good (and honestly, most of the reasons were power level arguments), esepcially when the numbers were hardly even decided on. My point is, I think people focused too much on power level and not on how much fun the unit was to use.

Imo, if we stuck with the old storm design, we could make them viable, but not fun. The new storm design gives us the chance to do both, and given recent feedback (once most of the numbers were actually worked out; also, camo walking, took so long for that to finally go through, but it was more or less planned since the beginning...), we're probably close to it.

Yes yes yes. For sure. I even said in this thread I’m goig to start playing ostheer just because of the new German infantry doctrine and stormtroopers XD

I've tested it myself and so did Imperial Dane. Dane and I have found it lacking. If you have to keep the mp40, can u please buff the tacticall advance. That was the best thing on the old storms and now its almost worthless against infantry, only ok vs support weapons that can't shoot back. The problem is that once we click the ability, the enemy unit retreats and due to much lower mid-range dps than stg, the mp40s can't hit anything vs a retreating squad. The whole point of old storms was the wiping power. Now even the bundle is gone. Or if the enemy unit is well equipped, it can just duke it out and if your storms aren't 100% healthy, they may actually lose. Or the enemy can throw a grenade. It's very dangerous using hte ability now since u need point blank. Risk is high but return is minimal.

So maybe don’t engage with tactical assault till they’re occupied elsewhere or you’ve cut the off of their retreat path. That was one of my whole points about the new changes being so good, you don’t have to attack up front at all with them now. You can use them with a little more finesse and make sure you maximize your close range dps and flanking potential by being invisible till you pop out to kill a squad that never even knew you were there. Textbook use of commandos that translates very well to storms with a slightly different ability. You read the Thompson para thread, you saw what people said they were for when using tactical assault and that’s what it is, except instead of the ludicrously comically high dps of Thompson paras you have camouflage and still very high close dps. This is why their camo is so good. You don’t have to limit yourself by not taking advantage of it. What does it matter if they hit retreat once they realize you’re there if you’re 7 meters behind them and they have to retreat through 17 meters of max dps mp40s with tactical assault once they figure out their squad is flanked (which usually takes enough time that you drop a couple models before they hit retreat). You wanted real tactics to get the upper hand, there you go. Reliable way to knock off a ton of models or wipe squads with a bit of careful planning and finesse.

Also, are we going to rematch or not? I’d like to show you what I mean.

I said something similar and got perma banned

This is why i don't want to have any kind of advice or conversation with "pros". Everything comes around "learning to play"