About why axis have higher win rate in 4vs4! :
1.in random vs random axis are most of the time better. But in premade vs premade allies are stronger. Allies random don't know how to counter a mg or killing a tank.
This is Top200 games. People in Top200 random games don't know how to kill a MG? I'm not Top200, I only was close to beeing Top200, but I know how to do it.
2. Matchmaking is fail atm. When you search axis you get top 100 mates but only facing 1k to 6k allies. So ofc axis wins. Just look last streams from duffman. Shows the same. And when duffman played random allies, he got friendly snipes.
So yes atm something is wrong in 4vs4. But imo its not the unit balance self. Something in the matchmaker is not working. It wasn't so worse in past. Ofc there were days where you faced as top 100 1k-6k but it happend on axis and allies sind. Now its only on allies side.
So ofc axis has higher winrate.
As said look duffmann stream, or rosebone thread, or ask aerafield. He tried in the last week to play random allies and no chance at all from matchmaking.
We are an arranged team and our 3vs3/4vs4 allied winrates dwindled from 50% to 60% to below 50% over the course of the last year while 2v2 stayed pretty much the same above 50%. I don't think matchmaking got so much worse suddenly. At the same time we are doing good with Axis with way less experience.
3. As allies random: Ban redball, port of hamburg. Snow maps are not that bad. Lower your settings or get better pc if you have still problems.
I don't have a bad PC, ressource inflation exists on all maps independently of snow.
fftopic you guys saw the wins from allies in 1vs1? 3 time 52 % allies faction. poor wehrmacht 44 % lol.
Brits with the highest. But on the other side you don't see brits in 1vs1 Cups, because people know how to counter it.
If you look at my post #45, you'll see I said this already. Allied early should get nerfed slightly too.
|
Yeah we in the BT have everyone self an opinion. And then we discuss and vote about stuff. We saw this thread and discussing it. But there are factors in this all, which are not shown in the stats!
Yeah, i do understand that. But if you have a difference that is always at least about 10 percentage points each week and that reaches up to 19% in the given time at that side, there is something more than factors that are not shown in that stats.
You can't put it aside like that.
|
Basically this thread is just nerf axis buff allies.
Did you looked at the graphs?.
Do you think this is how it should be?
It is about buffing allied lategame, because the winrate differences stretch up to nearly 19% in some weeks (UKF at 3vs3 in comparison to OKW in 3vs3 for example).
At the same time allied factions (especially Soviet/AEF) are always some percentage points above axis in 1vs1.
I would nerf allied early game slightly (infantry/light vehicles) and buff late game units distinctly (with cost/timing and limit adjustments). I can't understand that the upcoming patch will bring further nerfs to allied lategame units like Calliope without a compensation. That is irresponsible if you look at those graphs. |
UKF lack a lot of tools that are basically required in 4s.
Yeah thats right, if I think about our arranged 4vs4 teams it comes basically down to this:
One player goes for AEF for nondoc recon plus either...
1) Jackson + Calliope or...
2) Jackson + Priest + ToT (Howitzer-counter).
After this patch with multiple Calliope nerf it will be most probably only the second choice, how refreshing.
The other three go for Soviet since UKF has NOTHING valuable to add that three Soviet plus one AEF don't have in an overall better or more cost efficient way. |
Originally, it felt like Ostheer vs Soviets could be close at all stages of the game. IS-2 or the ISU being incredibly dangerous vs a Tiger or Elephant. They seemed to push this concept away as USF was "hyper early game" and okw was "hyper late game" designed which probably bled to the other factions.
It is sad but the DLC cash cow screwed the balance in multiplayer.
Ignoring balance, UKF was originally designed too to compete with late game.
Instead of adjusting these units in price/population/timing and by introducing limits, they decided to just nerf them until they were no match on an eye level anymore. Failed chance to save allied lategame.
|
Like A. Soldier said - this is the way it has been for 15 years. It was never addressed and never will be.
I'm sure that if CoH3 ever comes out, it will be the same.
No, there was like a 3 month timed window before release of OKW / AEF where you could play Soviet lategame tanks on eye level with Ostheer lategame tanks, sadly the addition of OKW / AEF screwed it totally. |
...The longer the match goes, the more veteran heavy tanks come out for the Axis and thus it turns into a snowball...
I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying how it's been since 2006.
Absolutely, but I think it doesn't have to be like that. There are a lot of commanders that will never be competitive in 1vs1 at all and there are a lot of doctrinal tank choices for Allies in these commanders. Why not giving up the illusion that all have to be somehow competitive in 1vs1? Why not turning some of them with some choosen doctrinal tanks into late game options for fighting axis tanks?
We had the most epic tank battles at steppes shortly before OKW/AEF hit the field. IS-2 got a long deserved buff, overperforming Panther was finally toned down and Opel Blitz was finally changed to give its ressource bonus only to the player it belongs to. Multiple IS-2 with support dueling with multiple Tigers and Panthers with support (since none had a limit of 1). I wish this tank battles would come back, never again we had such epic tank battles... :-/ |
Great post.
I couldn't have described it better myself in regards to the Panther.
I play about 90% arranged team, so I don't loose to random teammates with idotic behaviour or missing arrangements. Our three typical allied loose scenarios are:
1. We loose ground early because walking stuka made some good wiping hits at crowded 4vs4 maps. Walking Stuka really comes way to early in 4vs4 when it is no disadvantage for one axis player to go directly for it (this thing needs more consistent damage over a wider area and less wipes). I play this a lot by myself to be honest, but thats no excuse ;-)
2. We get grinded to death slowly by LefH in midgame, because we can't manage to kill all of them (last patch made it harder by removing some of the IL-2 bombing runs).
3. We get snowballed to death in lategame by multiple Panthers once the critical mass is reached and partly vetted. |
|
This corresponds with my personal experience. Despite having played a lot more allied factions than axis factions my winrate with OKW (that i usually play if playing Axis) is higher in bigger gamemodes. My winrate is pretty similar at 2vs2, but going to 3vs3 and 4vs4 I tend to loose more with Allies and tend to win more with Axis. One thing is map design and ressource inflation just in bigger game modes which gives Axis an advantage in comparison to 1vs1. The other mechanic that kicks in is the unit population count. At some point of the game when you are reaching 100 popcap it is way easier to control two Panther than it is to control 3-4 M10. You end up loosing one of that M10 in the engagement, while Panther escape with low health. That is a typical scenario, simply because micro skills are limited and more bundled survivability (health+armor+speed) will lead to a higher chance to escape in that situations. At some point of the game in a 3v3 and especially 4vs4 it gets hard to beat that 2-3 Panther backed up by Brummbär.
I do think this is strange. It seems to me especially Soviet and AEF are winning more than 50% overall in 1vs1, so why allied late game units than don't play a big role in 1vs1 get nerfed in last/current patches? This heavily impacts the late game in 3v3 and 4vs4 but doesn't change a thing in 1vs1 where Allies should get nerfed.
Shouldn't allied early units like T0/T1 infantry and light vehicles getting a nerf but late game units get a buff?
- why nerf Calliope without giving AEF other late game buffs that make up for that?
- why not giving Pershing or IS-2 some more punch?
- why nerfing ISU-152 range without buffing other soviet late game tanks?
- why not making E8 and KW-1 more expensive but turn into real late game alternatives which can take on Panthers in a situation with multiple tanks on both sides?
- why not limiting Comet and Churchill to 1 tank, increasing cost and turn into a real powerful tank (sharing limit with Avre/Croc)?
Most of this are doctrinal units, making that commanders interesting for 3vs3/4vs4 picks, having no impact at 1vs1 at all. Churchill/Comet would give UKF a nondoctrinal late game choice like OKW Kingtiger. Which would be okay since UKF misses crucial units in their nondoc roster.
At the moment KW-2 is the only real powerful allied late game tank if you ask me. The only one which really annoys axis opponents (it annoys me at least if I have to play against it).
|
It's better than the Luchs, particularly at chasing. And USF already has superior infantry, it really does not need an earlier AI vehicle. It would instantly dominate the 1v1 meta. The buffed M20 already does (again).
So if it is really not possible to put it into an appropiate tech place, then you could buff its late game performance to give players a reason to take this company in multiplayer. Some exmaples:
- good recon ability that is locked by T4 or vet
- a rebuffed canister shot that is locked by T4 or vet
- combat upgrade locked by T4
- something like a forward spawn basis locked by T4
- ...
I do think a Greyhound with some late game functionallity plus the option to call Reserve Paras without howitzer would do a lot already to have a selling point in multiplayer. The reserve Paras and IR Pathfinders are quite good already, but not worth it on their own. Especially because Paras are bound to howitzer always, resulting in a huge munition drain for upgraded Reserve Paras. The company is kind of a munition sink.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
