Profile of Hannibal

Yep that is one of the issues. Large squads that do not lose much of their DPS when they lose entities.
(and vice versa see falls/pgs)

We are describing a different thing. The problem I pointed out is fairly specific to Pfusies: They are not only a large squad, but also carry mixed weapons that concentrate most of their moving DPS on three models. Other squads that focus on assault and moving DPS usually carry fairly homogeneous weapons, meaning that a dropped model strongly translates into less DPS both static and on the move. Therefore, you need to pick your assaults carefully. This is different from what I described above.

(Imo DPS on the move should also be compared in absolute values and not just as percentage.)

Depends what you want to show. The point of this comparison was, that the moving penalty is not as harsh to Pfusies as to many other squads, and this point is most clearly shown by normalizing to the respective static DPS. It obviously assumes some knowledge about the general weapon performance (an SMG retaining 100% moving DPS long range does not mean anything, while a rifle retaining 70% DPS is quite good), but I took this as given knowledge for the discussion. My posts are usually long, if I bloat them with more data, even less people will actually read them.

Here's your data. Less than 10% of the players of the game are arranged teams.

Hence, putting them in different queue will make life harder ONLY for them. Do I care that I will make 10% life harder if that means 90% will have better quality games?

Nope.

There's your reasoning.

That's also not data, that's a claim.

Anyway, I think a reasonable one. According to stats that SiphonX posted a couple of years ago, there's huge differences between modes. 2v2 features probably around 40-50% or AT, that mode would absolutely be hit hard unless player counts stably grow to at the very least double the number.

3v3 has approximately 20%-ish of AT teams, although bear in mind that his data is actually biased towards having a higher ratio of randoms, so it could be more. Nevertheless, 3v3 could probably take the hit if the game grows a little.

4v4 surely can take it, there's apparently not many ATs, although I assume there is a high ratio of 4 people just playing a couple of games before being ranked, but overall the majority will be randoms.


Since the majority of my games are AT games, obviously I am biased towards keeping AT games playable. However, claiming that just splitting the playerbase will make it better for the majority is oversimplifying quite a bit.
Most complaints at least here on the site are mostly about 3v3 and 4v4, and not necessarily about AT vs RT. This makes inherent sense, since these are the largest mode regarding player counts, but it is also a sign that the matchmaker itself is the major problem. Second, AT win rates are definitely higher, but not "unwinnably" higher. This definitely needs fixing, but can be tweaked by just artificially upweighting the ELO of ATs so that they get matches with more skilled randoms.
Next, even having only 80% of the player available in the case of 3v3 (assuming similar player counts as current CoH2, and CoH2 has never been in better shape player wise than now), will diminish the player base overall. Matchmaking in 4v4 can be very shoddy already, despite mostly randoms being around there. That's again mostly a matchmaking issue. And finally, it is doubtful if splitting the modes would overall help the player base. You'd likely get more randoms into the games since they are overall less frustrating, on the other hand many players probably would play the game less or not at all if some modes they like are basically dead. At least for me I can guarantee that I would not play CoH3 if I knew that 2v2 and 3v3 AT are functionally dead modes, I wouldn't buy the game for the random games I do.

Splitting consequences of splitting the modes is mostly speculation, but the easiest way to go about it is probably really to just upmatch ATs until their winrate matches the ones of RTs. There will still be odd issues at both ends of the ladder, but those already exist now, so no harm done.

...

You're claiming a lot of stuff without providing data or at least some reasoning behind it. I can make a lot of counter claims without any back up as well. Doesn't make for a discussion, let alone for a counter argument.

There is no way to achieve "fairness" in randoms vs arranged. It is inherently massively unfair no matter the player skill involved. It should not effect a competitive ladder whatsoever. I honestly don't care if this leads to massive drops at the start. Random teams should not have to fight arranged (if they don't want to).

Also, metas come and go, at times you can have severely cancerous synergizing metas dominating that will skew things even farther in the direction of arranged vs random, IE the current state of 4v4 with pathfinder shit.

Purely logically speaking, there is definitely a way to do adjust the picked ELO for arranged teams and randoms. The question is just, if the data Relic has is enough to adjust for the tons of variables that come with a normal CoH match.

CoH is not big enough to split the community any further, we cannot separate randoms from arranged teams and let them play on different ladders. Match maker fuck ups aside, there is currently just enough players to get a decent match up during prime time. And my experience mostly comes from 2v2 and 3v3 with 2 similarly skilled friends, which makes it way easier for the match maker to find opponents. Most matches here are fine, but some games are really unfair in skill in one or the other way, even despite this already being an "easy" mode for the matchmaker to find suitable opponents. Other modes and randoms have it harder, and then try playing outside of prime time...

There is no feasible way for CoH to create even more separately handled ladders without killing the game outright. The only option is to somehow get 5x or so the player base on a constant basis, and that's not going to happen.

As with any other game:
Don't pre-order, I guess?