Profile of Mittens

Jump back to quoted post6 Dec 2014, 09:03 AMGreeb

Rupert, you are assuming too much things and your only answer is L2P.

And that's precisely what I'm complaining about. An average player shouldn't learn to play until mastering all lame strategies to be able to win a match again a equally skilled enemy. When you can't win a match against someone of equal skill following the proper teching tree of your faction and using stock units, then balance is fucked up.

Instead, the game forces you to read forums, see replays and learn which commander and what combination of units work together. That's fine in high level games, but the average player doesn't see replays, and doesn't register in forums.
They only see that their elite penal squads or their mighty guards can't do anything against cheaper units, and their tanks must flee at the sight of a single panzerschreck. So, the only option is to avoid playing multiplayer (which happens) or switch to axis with which is easier to play and win at low skill games (which happens too)

Soviets being the most powerful faction in 1vs1 and 2vs2?? Yes, I can believe that. What I don't believe is that they managed to do that without abusing stupid strats like no-teching and wait for call-ins, spamming B4s, or sniper starts.

Well it seems that in your fantasy world balance is perfect and everyone who loses a game is because he got outplayed, and stupid units like ISU152, JT, Obers, King Tigers, etc, doesn't mean anything in the outcome of a game.

By the way, in team games is perfectly possible for a player to blob mercilessly and still not losing cap power.

Jump back to quoted post5 Dec 2014, 20:05 PMGreeb

Well, to begin with, balance should be more focused toward team games, as they are the gamemodes played the most by new players. What fun does a game have knowing beforehand that your chances to win are lower than your enemy's just because faction design? That's why you always see more axis players than allied ones.

I prefer to see changes to help the casual player to have fun, even if that means that the top players will abuse them. I was going to lose equally against them, so I don't care, but at least I won't lose against a less skilled player just because his faction is better than mine in teamgames.

I play soviets, yes, and my playercard shows how this game balance has changed, as I have been usually between top 100-300, and after WFA was released I've been plummeting till #3000. I've noticed that allied random players are way more noobish than the axis ones, as if experienced players avoided playing allies because they know they are harder to micro, boring and less probable to win with. Having that in account (a more novice player pool) and refusing to play cheesy strategies like sniper+guards or B4 spam, makes playing as soviet a sure loss against equally skilled enemies (usually even againts less skilled ones).

OKW is just the last nail in the coffin. A faction that allows brainless blobbing without combined arms at all. All soviet T3 units can be screwed by just a couple of volks+schrecks, and all T4 units can be destroyed easily by an immortal Puma or even volks (again), and I won't talk about reinforcing and repairing near key points.
All soviet infantry is a joke except shocks, and they are doctrinal, and they became useless too when Obers take the field.

Although factions shouldn't be mirrored, they should have equal power in all stages of the game. Making a faction more powerful early or late in the game just creates imbalances impossible to avoid in bigger games. Relic should start by that. Probably making USF weaker early game, but improving their lategame units.
OKW main weaknesses are useless if their reduced economy enables them to field armored vehicles as fast as any other faction, and their lack of medium tanks doesn't mean anything if their cheapest infantry can destroy T34s face to face.