Very funny. Instead of accepting what stands black on white, no we have to do math lel it's fan fiction what are you doing right now.
The idea is to simply try to understand how you reach that black on white result. Too bad majority of people prefer to believe what they see as evident that trying to understand what lies beneath. But again, i know i'm wasting my time. |
Did you even read what I wrote? You will get ~51/49, probably less, if you consider everybody playing and searching, which is what you have to do to calculate percentage for each faction. Which shows that there is almost no difference in player base. (Even less than) 51 out of 100 people prefer axis.
I guess I should have listened to SlaYoU, some people are not good enough with numbers to understand the basics... 
I told you, it is a lost cause, let them believe what they want. One day, Relic will release the official stats and all those maths ignoramuses will probably fall from their chair when they see it is closer to 55/45 than the 80/20 they believed was "real" for so long. They can't understand how numbers work in a case of a bottleneck (my first thoughts were it was working as a stack, but since ELO has a role in matching players, it is more of a bottleneck with the players of the 55% side accumulating in the queue; which implies your calculation is correct).
PS: Since it seems we are having a discussion with someone that actually can use some numbers, i'll just add this: the only way of knowing exactly the % of each faction players, would be to log in right after a server restart, and log the searching %. If, as i and bambabam think, it is something like 55/45 (even less maybe), it should start at these %, then slowly increase in axis favor until we reach that constant 80/20 ratio. From the rate at which it increases, we can roughly estimate what the real discrepancy is, but not until then. The easier way is still to ask Relic (if they are ok to provide the numbers). |
Nobody seems to have mentioned Complexity's trick, by using the truck as an early bulldozer on vital buildings. Is this an exploit?
To quote another game's balance team, i would say it is "clever use of in game mechanics". I don't think it is breaking balance that much. Sure you can crush a few green covers leading to the points you intend to secure, but it could backfire greatly if you lose that spot and end on the trying to recover side of the problem. If anyone has a different opinion on the matter, i'd be interested to hear  |
You can't prevent that... I was once called an MG spammer for buying a second MG42 to counter his 4 shocks... wtf?! 
And btw (to keep people from believing that) : not 80% of the players play axis, it's only 80% of the people searching. Massive difference [/quot
Mostly I see 80% axis so you´ll get a rate of 80 % of axi players
INB4 someone is kind enough to step in the thread and explain you how it works. Don't waste your time guys, people like this never learn, and don't understand numbers.
|
a horrible bug, just like all other 249 bugs that are'nt being fixed, ever, because ppl rather cry about balance.
More bs please. |
Touche, and well explained.
You're welcome |
"I'm most comfortable with OBW"
With what?
Sorry but sort of makes it look bad when you misname the faction, especially in this context 
If he is an history geek, i think he is using the correct name for the faction.
OberBefehlshaber West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OB_West
I can clearly understand why Relic decided to use Oberkommando, which sounds more non-history geeks friendly, though.
There was no Oberkommando West (with that name), and OKW would refer to Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, which was something completely different that what it is in CoH2.
Oberkommando des Wehrmacht:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberkommando_der_Wehrmacht
|
|
What difficulty are the bots replacing dropped players (i mostly play with my friend list and we never had a drop so far)? I found that depending on the maps, sometimes the AI performs rather good, sometimes it seems stuck in some sort of limbo where it just builds blobs 2 screens away from the frontline, and doesn't move them until you attack yourself. But when it does perform good, it looks like the standard AI is on steroids and plays more like a Hard or Expert AI, which could very well be problematic for newer players. |
|
Every goddamn perk the axis have are subject to a whiny thread, i mean seriously ? You guys want mirror matches so badly ? Maybe try another game which allows it ? The more i read here, the angrier i get, guess it's time to visit another website. FJs are OP, Puma is OP (well, listen, because of it's AI being too good, lol), meanwhile every allies player seems to have enough time to pop in the much needed Wehrmacht T4 balance discussions and say that "Panther is fine, l2p". And if someone dares to complain about US AA HT's AI prowess, or ISU, then, you know the story, "l2p".
|
Are they 9 pop? Coh2Stats shows 2 pop per man, which would be 8. I think 8 is a good value for them. 9 is a too much.
Do they have a received accuracy bonus now before vet2?
If they get a survive-ability bonus on an equivalent level of 1.5 armor, they should be priced at 360 once again.
Yes they are at 9 currently. I didn't make PG since a long time, but the ingame tooltip still lists them as 9, so i guess they are. From what woof said, they start at 0.87 received accuracy, then receive a further 29% (multiplicative -> *0.71) at vet2, which puts them at ~0.62.
I kinda agree with you there, give them decent survivability, and if need be, price them at 360, even more if they scale too well.
5 Man would be too much, imagine Panzergrenadier blobs+Panzerschrecks, zomg.
Reduce it to 3 men-
Nice troll, 10/10. |
ezerkeman
![Mr.Noob [PL] flag](/images/replay/usf_flag.jpg)
Mr.Noob [PL]
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
