If I understand these charts correctly:
1) You can't compare rank of players BETWEEN modes, because those numbers show rank in PARTICULAR mode.
You can't say that there are more top 250 players in one mode than another. There are exactly 250 top players in each mode.
2)
1v1 game is played by 2 players.
4v4 game - by 8 players.
Current numbers for games where 1-250 ranked players have participated:
8059 1v1 games = 16118 players.
7234 4v4 games = 57872 players.
What? It doesnt count the players, you know? It counts the games played. |
Thank for you comments, but the team formats are most popular.
And 4vs4 is the still most popular by far.
According to CoH2 charts they are not within the top 250, only when you go to lower tier players you find this mode more often played. But thats why it is seen as a noob mode I guess. |
Those are the best formats, it's where the feeling of war is the best. it's also the hardest mode (4vs4 + automatch alone) because you have to cope with all kind of teammates.
It's just that all sides need to have the same tools to fights (some have better tools, some come faster but every one has something for any situations. All of this balanced to be fun.
We are not far from the good balance, just a bit more tuning on the more problematic units (The one being the most used and those that killed too easily without efforts)
Just keep doing the good job at balancing your are doing, til all formats are done.
Some more maps would be fun too.
It's not for everyone, but still those formats are the most popular.
That will keep COH2 alive and kicking !!!
Well, I understand your point of view about the feeling, but still: this game is made for 1v1 and 2v2, the resource design doesnt work properly in higher team games. Thats why they have the reputation of being noob games, since you hardly need micro or unit preservation, but rather spamming tanks is the norm. Maybe that is what players want, but it cannot distract from the underlying problems of these modes. Oh, and according to coh2charts, 3v3 and 4v4 together are played less than 1v1 and 2v2 combinded (around 45-55). |
|
Those two game modes are lost anyways, there are structural flaws that will never allow decent balance. The problems are:
1) maps are too large, meaning infantry play usually becomes obsolete at some point, it encourages blobbing and factions with a forward retreat point have a massive advantage in terms of infantry play
2) too many units on the field, which means that it is really hard to keep track of what's happening. With more players/units, unit preservation gets way harder. Also, more units = more cheese.
3) resource income is totally broken, gaining like 50 fuel or 70 ammo per minute leads to spam of tanks (which makes infantry obsolete) and call-in arty/loiters. In those categories the axis usually have an advantage, when one side brings elefants/JTs plus stuka bombs en masse, while the other side has to rely on comet spam and cancer cover.
Imo these points lead to difficulties in balancing those game modes. These modes should be seen "for fun" when you play with friends. I dont understand why people would play those modes on their own, maybe because they like those huge battles of attrition, dont know. |
Hi VoltarDark,
You're probably hoping that people would look at the move in the averages and undo some of the changes. It's not going to happen. The GCS balance mod testing will continue, followed by multiple nerfs to UKF armor, crush removed from both the M10 and Cromwell, artillery cover nerfed, etc.
What you will get out of this thread is some awesome theories. My favorite is the claim that Axis top 250 play more games, because somehow 1815 + 1619 is more than 1695 + 1525 + 1405 (1v1 data). Nobody has pulled out the awesome uniform theory yet but I'm sure it is inbound.
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to do any real analysis on this. We don't have any actual data on matches and can't control for player, faction, map, etc. Also, win/loss is a type of nominal variable. You'd have to get additional data like margin of victory and game length. Then you'd have to analyze those and try to infer something from it. If you could do all of that, you'd probably have a great future in sports betting. I'm going to stick with my day job.
Thank you so much, it seems that most people cant read statistics properly. Actually the statistic that we are presented with tells nothing about balance, but merely which factions are most played. This might be connected to balance issues, but the correlation cannot be proven with those charts, its mere speculation. |
I was thinking about the USF tanks. And no, the game should not become Deathrace 2000 … It would just be a bit fairer. I know, i know, asymmetric warfare … but the gameplay mechanisms, like the soldiers crushing or the weapons that magically appears in the hand of axis troops don’t make a lot of sense.
Calliope are tanks, so it’s kind of logical that they are (marginally) tougher than halftrack (WS). But i think that they should also be limited and adjusted. I said it in my initial post.
Overpowered indirect fire is kind of ruining (or limiting) the rock, paper, scissor gameplay. If the enemy can drop a nuke on your terrain, then you have to go for very mobile troops. So basically, I think that the so called “blobs” (when more than 1 riflemen unit is moving together. For the axis it’s called a division) are a response to over the top indirect firing units.
Well, it becomes obvious that you are either an allied fanboy or an axis-hater. Where in God's name do the axis have better indirect fire overall? And doesnt "blobbing" or using a "division" actually defeat the purpose of escaping indirect fire, since a blob is the first thing to be fired upon? To quote Saving Private Ryan: "Five men is a juicy opportunity, one man is a waste of ammo."
I agree with the statement that indirect fire is too good and kind of a no-brainer atm (no micro needed, high kill reward), but this does not only aplly to one side, it does to both sides... |
|
How can you read anything out of this chart, except that OKW is the most popular faction right now? It doesnt say nothing about balance, since it doesnt show the win rate of any faction. I remember the time when Allies were broken and still people played Ost, so I dont know if this necessarily means that the axis are more powerful right now... |
Do not underestimate 4 (i've seen way more than that) T34/76's though. The other day a swarm of these took out my vet 2 and vet 1 Panthers with the loss of only 1 T34. They can be incredibly mobile and take a fair number of hits from a panther.
Thats because of the low dps of Panthers, Stugs just have a much higher damage output (plus target weakpoint). Ok, a Panther can take more hits, but Stugs are cheap af, if you lose one, it doesnt matter (similiar to a t34-76).
I think the panther doesnt necessarily need a buff, but rather other tanks including the comet, cromwell, JP4 and stug need a nerf. Atm, I dont see why I should get a Panther as Ost (only if you have really good map control and tons of fuel, while your opponent hasnt) over stug spam, or why I should get a panther over a jp4 (maybe if the map is bad for long range fights, like Trois Point or smth). |
|
Please what? Do you try to troll? Axis tanks are extremely bad at crushing compared to crombourghinis and comerraris, even the t34 is pretty decent at crushing.
And for the Stuka, I dont know. That thing can be very powerful, but it costs a lot and easy to destroy, unlike the Calliope. As for the range, I dont think that the Calli has less range (maybe less effective range), but you also need more skill to hit smth that isnt a stationary support weapon with a stuka. |
|
Well, I think the call-in problem (of not only USF) has been discussed previously and will be discussed in the future, too. But it's not only USF with that problem (and I dont consider the Pershing being OP), nearly every faction has those cheesy call-ins, especially the Command Panther that you see nearly every game because it is so powerful. The Soviets basically live off of call-in heavies (if they decide not to go t34-85), and also Ost enjoys a good Tiger. The faction less reliant on call-ins are probably the Brits since they already have the super-Comet plus the strong Firefly-TD. But I think it is merely a problem of only USF, the m10 call-in is mostly a counter to t3, but sucks against heavies if you cant swarm. The Pershing gets snacked by the Command Panther or Stugs on Vet1. |
Relic Entertainment
