So how does matchmaking work exactly? We don't know, because it keeps hidden. Relic isn't very transparent here. If you have a team of USF/UKF in 3vs3/4vs4 for example playing versus mainly Ostheer. Does matchmaking means that their 2000K players are playing versus 2000K players. That woul be a bad thing already, because there are less UKF/USF players, so you can assume that a 2000K Ostheer players should have higher skills than a 2000K USF/UKF player.
well i don't have any details either, especially not for team games. i remember there was at least a well-written guide somewhere here on .org that sheds some light on how matchmaking works for 1v1s, but i can't find it right now.
EDIT: this one. a bit outdated but still a good read |
So you agree with him to call them trash? Fair games should happen at any level, not only at top level, that's the purpose of the matchmaking but how the matchmaking can even work properly if the skill requirement for each faction is so different?
As I said, I don't necessarily agree with his choice of words, but there are certainly a lot of people who are just bad at the game due to various reasons (limited tactical/strategic understanding, micro/APM deficits, etc.). And balance won't fix any of these - only the ability and willingness to improve will. That's the part I agree with.
As to the matchmaking, I also agree that the most important function should be to produce fair match ups that are fun for everyone. And this should be totally possible if the game is balanced from top down, desite potential skill gaps between individual factions. The latter can simply be evened out by pairing lower-skilled players using an easier-to-play faction with higher-skilled ones using a more difficult faction to master.
This will of course only work for maybe 80% of the playerbase, as for the highest/lowest 10% there are simply no better/worse players available to draw from. And that is also the reason why the game needs to be inherently balanced for the top 5-10%, for anyone below this threshold matchmaking can take effect (well, minus the bottom 10% I guess).
|
Every time I read your entries, I have the impression you're a Asperger person. This or having a serious superiority complex.
Most/all people blame on their faults on opponent or mechanisms because its human nature to do that. It takes a lot of self reasoning to pass through it.
He's absolutely right though (even if I'd probably not put it so bluntly). Also, blaming your faults on others being human nature doesn't invalidate his argument even the slightest - on the contrary, this is exactly the problem at hand. And it gets exacerbated by the fact that the lower people's general understanding and ability to play the game is, the more they overestimate their own knowledge and skill. The classic Dunning Kruger effect.
This inability to recognize and accept own faults and shortcomings instead of projecting it on some higher force, paired with blatant and totally unwarranted overconfidence is why 90% of the balance suggestions made here on the forums are mostly worthless.
How on earth could someone that plays one faction exclusively in the 1k digit ranks even come to an informed opinion on the overall state of balance when they not only lack the skill/knowledge that would be required but also have an inherently narrow and restricted vantage point on the game as a whole?
Let's remember that because people playing all factions on a high level considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because people playing all factions on a high level considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have people playing all factions on a high level considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.
Took the liberty to just fix that for you.
In all seriousness, I do get your point that allies (USF in particular) may be more difficult and less forgiving to play well that axis at the moment. But that is an issue that begins to vanish at high skill levels and seems to be most pronounced in the lower to middle skill bracket - the area where matchmaking has the biggest leverage to guarantee fair games with equally-skilled parties on each side. At least in theory that is what should happen - if axis is easier to play at a certain level, then the matchmaking algorithm will pair the players with an allied team of higher skill to keep things even and vice versa. That this approach isn't perfect and gets exponentially more difficult the more players in a team are involved is of course another story altogether. |
[...]If something is actually imbalanced then being better at the game doesn't suddenly make it balanced. All that would happen in reality is that better players would be able to use broken (overpowered) units even more effectively, and would simply not use broken (underpowered) units.
Imbalance is magnified at higher levels of play, not made less obvious. If the game trends to being better balanced at higher levels then that means that the game is well balanced.
If the argument is that the game is more balanced at higher levels of play then the solution really is to simply learn to play better.
This exactly. I think the problem here is that many people seem to confound actual balance and "easiness to play". Two factions can be completely balanced in terms of chance to win, yet both can also require substantially different skill levels to play well. This is also nothing unique to CoH2 or RTSs in general; for example, SF5 has vastly different tier lists for different skill brackets and even though I have no idea how the situation looks like in, say, SC2 I'd be surprised if it were any different.
Obviously it would be great to have each faction in CoH2 require a similar degree of micro, tactical awareness and strategic understanding, but this is hard to achieve if you want as much asymmetry in faction design as possible. Nonetheless, it seems that at least at a very high level where these differences begin to blur the actual balance of the game is quite good indeed. And, frankly, this is where it matters the most since for anything below high level play matchmaking should even things out. Learning how to play the game obviously helps a lot, too. |
let me guess..you dont understand what a unique faction bonus ist, right?
let me explain:
a unique faction bonus is something like:
5vet lvl on OKW
jump out crews from USF armor
7 models on standrd infantry
howitzer on base
mortar emplacements
OKW setup truck bases
free squads on teching from USF
all this is uniqe.
and no...ost has not the strongest AT mines. ever heard from the mines from the USF light vehicle? no? see. you are uninformed or forgetti.
and no light tank and only 4 model squads is not a unique..its a disatvantage.
ah well... the grass is always greener on the other side. that is, of course, only until you actually make it over there. but then again, how could you possibly know? |
|
so the op's complaint is that someone used the pak43's ability to shoot through world objects to... let it do exactly that and, hence, use it more effectively? or that allowing your opponent to cache up their entire section of the map without using the mp difference to your advantage will eventually backfire? |
|
a really good suggestion imho. while most players should have gotten used to this by now already, i can imagine the confusion of people who picked up the game fairly recently. should also not take too much to implement. |
|
interesting, i always thought the scatter values would only define the area in which the damage is spread around the targeted model. so if i got this correctly increasing scatter by a fair amount would actually increase the damage output quite significantly via the additional accuracy rolls? that would be interesting to play around with for sure.
|
|
but... why not just open a new thread then? there's a good chance that most of the info in a 6 y.o. thread is outdated by now, plus 90% of the people that posted here have long since moved on. |
Mostly fair except for the insanely wrong "similar AI performance" between Puma and Stuart. Puma has almost no AI, Stuart has okay AI stats, but it feels bad because everyone compares it to the T70 which has insane AI.
The real problem is that the Stuart falls into the same type of generalist trap that several other vehicles fall into - they never feel good enough but actually they're quite balanced for their cost. They provide modest AI and modest AT for a modest price. A huge difference between the Stuart and the T70 is that Stuart kills Luchs and flak HT a lot easier and faster, and comfortably beats 222s without any risk. Stuart stands up very well to Ostwind and its abilities are insanely good (albeit micro-intensive). Personally I don't like EZ8s because they're not as good as HE Shermans vs infantry, and I prefer to use Jacksons for AT, so I do feel the same way about the Stuart.
But for its super cheap cost it is definitely good enough for its price and timing. Targeting actual USF issues late game makes more sense than over-buffing a unit which is already picked virtually all the time in 1v1 games.
This is absolutely spot on. The Stuart is a jack of all trades and, as such, does of course feel quite a bit underwhelming if you compare it with more specialized light tanks in areas where these excel. Still, it has much better AT than a T-70 as well as much better AI than both the Puma and AEC, making it extremely versatile in most scenarios.
This versatility may arguably get more and more redundant in teamgames where other players can easily cover the weaknesses the more specialized lights leave in your roster, but in 1v1s the Stuart is no doubt a great unit. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
