Profile of kamk

.... but the cost of that many squads in sheer manpower should have bled him dry to the point where you could have easily overwhelmed him with your infantry.....

Had a few minutes, and that's pretty much what happened.

Though there were quite some leaks on OPs side.

Hmm to try this a different way then. Two simple examples.

Would Soviet players care if tomorrow there was a patch which gave the OKW players access to the T70? Some may care a little, most would not give a hoot.

Would OKW players care if tomorrow the Walking Stuka was accessible to the soviets? All would vent their spleens.

One unit, no one cares. Why? Underpowered.
One unit, everyone cares. Why? Overpowered.

My contention again is that, as a rule of thumb, the more you don't want the enemy to have a unit, the more overpowered you know it is.

That example doesn't make any sense.

Why would i care if OKW gets a T70, they already got the Luchs, and plenty of their infantry is for AI purpose.

Also: why would i care if SOV gets the Stuka. With tech cost at OKWs income that's 210 fuel for the first Stuka, or 150 for another one. And in which Tech would you put it? T3? Sure, move the T34 out of it (OKW has no generalist medium tank, remember), and i wouldn't mind playing against that any day.

No offense, but i hope you do realize that certain units are just specialized to fill a gap of a certain faction.

I really wish there would be ONE heavily moderated sub-forum. I'm not sure what all this historical shit chat and one line "xyz is OP" replies have to do with balancing... AT ALL.

(And now i went OT myself, because there's no point to reply to the few on topic replies that appear once per page)

@ OP

Noun's ELO explanation

Would you mind to elaborate your input?
(i can't see any context with the issue i'm trying to describe)

...
-Always automatch arranged team vs arranged team and random team vs random team; (Can be disable with a check box for solo players)...

Please don't separate randoms and ATs. That would limit overall games too much.
ATs just should have an ELO penalty when they play vs randoms, meaning they will face slightly (!) better random players on average, or obviously other ATs in their skill range.

Btw.: does anybody have more information on how new ATs get rated? Seems like they often start with a way too low ELO.
There should be some sort of personal AT rank, which de- / increases the initial ELO of the new AT in a way more agressive way than it currently seems to do (without the penalty though, because it's a new team).
> might be also a good thing for the leaderboard.



In my opinion the perceived balance is more broken than the actual balance - at least for the majority of players (not talking about pro vs pro here).
There's no point in granting some top players free wins, but alienate hundreds of others, who will stop playing before they ever become decent.

Small pre-text:
A while ago PE, eh OKW, finally arrived, and i played them. Upon release everything was fine. I had long and good games. Pretty much no matter which patch. Watched some streams, L2P a bit more, all in good fun.

Recently:
But there's something seriously wrong with my games in the past two weeks. I had games were i literally built only 2 Volksgren the whole game, and still won, and my other mates were often not doing anything either.
Rank too high, no similar ranked opponents maybe?
Since i loved USF in COH1 i obv. went back and tried them in their current state, this time without an arranged team, and guess what happened in the majority of the games:
http://i.imgur.com/uik7mcT.jpg

So Axis got slightly higher prestige, but it's just XP anyways.
Guess it must be the balancing, and 4v4 is just screwed, right?
And maybe i'm just a noob and need to L2P more, which wouldn't explain though why i don't have any issues in arranged teams (!), at all, or maybe i should blame faction balancing... yeah, it's the balancing.

Hello match making:
A while ago, when i was playing OKW, i started checking all ranks after nearly every game, and the spread often (mostly always) looks like this:

Allied:
1. ~20, #6710
2. 20+, #573
2. 100+, #8311
4. 200+, #4950
Axis:
1. ~300, #45
2. ~300, #12
3. ~250, #67
4. 300+, #54
Approx number of games (without AT) with same faction, ranking in 4v4 (+/- 2% for anonymity, no particular order)

And this is actually one of the more "fair" ones.

On OKW side i had it even worse, i got mixed with another top10 player, and 2 top50 players against... guess... right, none of the enemies had any higher rank than 12k. Yes, there's a k, for thousand.
4 axis players from 3-40 face 4 allied newbies in the 12.000-28.000 range, and that wasn't the first time, it happens like every game.

Or maybe let's chill a bit and only spam Luchs?
http://i.imgur.com/srMRECj.jpg
"gg"




TL;DR, get to the point noob:
There's no point in having "top players" face some people who barely know how to play a faction. It's boring and utterly retarded for both sides.

But worse: besides the even more retarded "searching as" feature, stuff like this is letting a player believe the factions are highly unbalanced, or even certainly unplayable in team games, while this isn't the case, or at least not to the degree some people make you want to believe it.
(Yes, there's balancing issues, but that doesn't even matter in such games, nor would it matter for the average player).

Sadly though every game i see someone writing "omg, xyz OP!", then i check his rank later, and he got like 20 games and is rank 20.000 something. Great... a game full of wolves, and you throw some sheep into it. Must be certainly fun for the sheep. MM wise i was at least lucky when i started this game, but it starts to become absolutely ridiculous.