Profile of Esxile

Because reworking all of this would take a shit load of balance tweaking plus factions have different howitzer types (UKF and USF only in one commander, the rest only have static ones). The units have been balanced in their current role within their faction (that is, the StuKa for example is meant to be a wipe machine because OKW is built to need it more than a rocket suppression platform). Throwing that overboard will not only lead to reworking "just" the rocket arty and howitzers, but probably larger parts of the all factions and especially late game units as well.

We don't know if Relic will support the game further after this one balance patch, meaning we'd have a 99% chance that a lot is broken in the first implementation and then there will be no hotfix afterwards.



The Burratino would like to have a word with you.

Nobody knows but you know many companies that upgrade their game after so many years just to let them die the months after?

Coh2 could be the Coh3 everyone is hoping for.

No need to be so upset because someone disagreed with your point mate.


I was actually referring to your statement saying that you rank up by playing vs lower ranked players and not vs higher ranked players. Provide data or at least reasoning on that.
Regarding the rest: Ranking is one motivational factor and I never said otherwise even if you insinuate that. Still this is a game and people play games for fun. Dismissing that as nonexistant would be at least just as naive. Check some Twitch streams and you'll see that even high rank players often play just for fun.
You also hopefully do realize that there is no casual mode in CoH2, so your only "choice" is to play ranked even if you just play for having a nice evening.



If you're only skilled in English and your competitor is skilled in English + 3 other languages, why should you competitor not just veto English in the competition and win?



This data is from overall 1,2 million games and we see some maps played 4-6x as often. There seems to be a general consensus that some maps are "better" or at least liked more than others, and as I explained above I don't think this comes down to what you can grind the best. It comes down to that people apparently like that camp/arty fest through all skill levels, because this is why they enjoy 4v4.

Arranged game exist outside of ranked games you'll be surprise by the quantity of games you find there. Ranking isn't opposed to fun but I don't know many players having fun in losing repetively their games, I mean a simple check on Coh2 subreddit shows enough topics of players desesperate by their winrate and lack of fun being owned the majority of time. Then yes, you rank up by owning lower level players and that's not big news here, it doesn't mean you can't win vs better players but that not from where you earn most of your rank.

This data shows that lower tier players are more likely to play on every maps because they're still learning the game and have little understanding on what each map provides or allows you to do better. Coh2 learning curve is hard and requires many hours invested but there some few first steps well known here: blobbing and big guns management. Once players known that and how to use them, they will simply use it vs those who haven't yet learnt it, and yes that's fun because you win and yes that means vetoing maps where blobbing and big guns have lesser impact.
Then that's just a classic bottled vision, because you only know to do that and gave you good result so far you're less likely to reach the further steps. and on 4vs4 that's enough to hit the top50 for each faction.

The rules are rigged by the vetoing, you don't play ranking for having fun but for competition and having fun throught that and you use your vetos on map that doesn't suit your best way to win. Nobody likes being destroyed in game because their partner wanted to have fun over winning. You hardly see troll teams made from high level players doing stupid and fun things that have 0 chance of success but are fun to watch. Usually the fun come from the fact it works and lead to a success.

This does not make too much sense. Yes, artillery works very well on large modes. But it also works very well against you. If all factions are balanced, then there is no reason to chose an arty heavy map over another one since you will be hit by arty just as hard. In this case you veto the maps you personally do not like to play because of preference.
If factions are not balanced and one side has the arty advantage, the other side will veto arty heavy maps and they will be played less. In that case vetos are distributed according to the current meta as well as personal opinion. Still, the trend of each map is very consistent through all ladder ranks although the meta heavily changes. But since we are unlikely to see heavy reworks for CoH2 anymore, it actually does not matter: We can just choose based on what people like to play on the current meta.

Not making sense to you isn't either an argument. Ranking objective isn't playing fun games or on good maps but winning games and ranking up and artillery+super heavy on lane map or chock point maps are the best way to do it today on 4vs4. Almost all player on ranking matches are ranking up beating lower "skilled" players, not better "skilled" players, which invalide the question of artillery being used by both side, you win because you're better at using those tools until you face better players using them, until you get better etc... the classic learn and re-try.

Open maps or funniest map are opening too much uncertainty for a strategic ranking play, firstly because they involve more skills than the Arty/super heavy combo. "New" mechanisms like flanking, poking left to hit right, different BOs, different commanders etc... You can't just rush and sit on chock point while you build you arty behind. Super-heavy are much less relevant because more easily overcomed by their counters.
Too much to learn while you can just ban some maps and ensure only Arty/SuperHeavy are the relevant tools and skill you need to win games and rank up.

USF mechanized fit better the ChaosKrieg rules than Ostruppen and that's not a question of jeep vs ostruppen but a mid-tier transition from them.

You need the T4 and BrumB/Panther to fully support your Ostruppen transition while USF only need a pair of sherman. Thus USF able to close the game faster.

That's not a question of balance here but variation in powerspike for factions/commanders designed around 500vp matchs.

On a personal note, even if the idea felt more exiting at the beginning, it has been the most boring tournament to watch.

Movement speed penalties for Ostruppen is pretty dumb,and unprecedented, honestly. Making them buildable instead of a callin (as all units should be, in my opinion) and slowing down their building so they don't reach critical mass as quickly would be a better solution. Their combat performance is not their issue.

Removing Fausts from 5man Grens is kind of an absurd nerf. It does nothing to what people complain about regarding 5man Grens, while making them completely defenseless vs light vehicles, and obviously vs heavier ones. Reducing or removing, dependent on how much a difference it really makes, their RA bonus would be better.

I think Pgrens primarily cause issues due to their synergy with the currently overperforming (in 1v1) Ostruppen. I'm not sure they particularly need moving, nor their Shreck upgrade. Feel free to provide a counterargument for this.

What's the logic on pushing back BP3, anyway? Is it widely considered that OST get their mediums too quickly? I wasnt really aware of it being particularly faster or cheaper than other armies.

Im not sure why the OST sniper specifically needs its ROF at vet toning down, either. I'm testing it in cheatmod right now, and while a vet3 OST sniper fires more quickly than a vet3 Soviet sniper, it really doesnt seem to be egregiously faster.


What are the winrates like for Ostruppen and VSL builds, anyway? They certainly seem to get used a lot, but I haven't seen any statistics on how they actually fare.

My proposal was a debuff while out of cover, there still plenty of cover on maps to let them run at normal speed.

But the capture rate nerf or speed debuff only on neutral/enemy territory are also something interesting to dig in.

I stand with the idea to remove 5men gren the pfaust. I see the 5men gren squad as an elite variant of the squad and as any elite infantry squad: no pfaust/atnade available to them.

As for Pzgren, they also synergy too well with Grenadiers simply because they hit the field too early for Soviet and USF to have the same firepower from their infantry. Soviet are stuck with Cons and USF need to pay to unlock BARs.
I didn't say shreck should be lock behing BP2 but T2 built so you must spend fuel if you want to use them. So Ostheer cannot have it all just with pfaust/mines and shreck and skip T2 even if their opponent build light vehicle.