Profile of AvNY

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 862

General Information


Thread: Numbers that show that something is wrong in team games31 Aug 2015, 13:11 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2015, 14:51 PMJunaid Its a well known problem that axis is powerful in team games because: a) team games have quicker late game b) axis triumphs in lategame right now. The devs have stated that they are aware of this and working on it. This is what bothers me. Either it took them over a year to figure it out it is a problem or it is taking them over a year to solve it. Neither bodes well. That bothers me because I want the franchise to thrive. To do so it has to be popular BEFORE it is esports competitive, not vice versa. 4v4 and 3v3 make up the vast majority of player hours even with the current balance. And we know the problem is balance of some sort. So if you want the game to be more popular (and more played), and if you are a COH fan then you do, you need to make playing allies more attractive than it currently is. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Numbers that show that something is wrong in team games31 Aug 2015, 13:03 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 12:06 PMRMMLz Not the match making per se, but the abundance of Axis players I think. Axis are more "appealing" in team games since Axis factions need less micro, thus creating this ELO gap (at least that's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong). So if people are encouraged to play Allied more (which might happen with UKF), I think it will even things out. The problem really stems from the stupidity of thinking faction strength over time should be asymmetrical. By calling it "asymmetrical balance" it sounds like it is about balance and just needs a delicate touch when really it isn't about balance at all. If it means Axis that gets to late game wins the predominant amount of time then Allies should win the predominant amount of early games. But this leads to tears (and unsatisfied allied players who feel like the win was too easy) so allied early game gets nerfed until the most games make it to "mid". This is exacerbated in 3v3 and 4v4 where the early game is shorter and the late comes faster. Balance the late game (no, don't ask me how. I am not the professional game designer) and you can balance the early game and more will play each. It would be really interesting if someone had statistics on how long allied win games lasted as compared to axis win games. Short games just aren't very satisfying even if you do win. Even if it might have been a close match up, your outplaying the opponent in the early game feels like a stomp. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Numbers that show that something is wrong in team games31 Aug 2015, 12:52 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 05:12 AM_underscore You can flip it around and note that Axis players are forced to win more for an equivalent rank because they get barely any ELO from the terrible match-making. I'm not sure that's even an advantage - it's true you get a bigger win ratio but that doesn't mean much when they weren't good games. And then you try to maintain that +20 streak to be eligible for the decent match-ups, meanwhile the game randomly crashes/disconnects all the time which can easily undo 5 hours of ranking. Basically everyone wants more good players in the random Allies pool. Sorry. I don't by it. Else each allied buff/axis nerf (or the introduction of Brits) wouldn't bring on a fountain of tears. Do they want more allied players? Yes, they don't want to wait. Do they want their win ratios to go to 50/50 to get their rank? Nope. They are playing axis 4v4 because they don't want to lose. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Getting back into COH2, info?30 Aug 2015, 22:58 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2015, 11:10 AMUberHanz http://coh2chart.com/ Consistently so for some while now. If we dont believe in data, then its still at least one of the stronger 1v1-factions and not to be advertised with "still sucks, don't use them". Why did they switch to "Top 150" from "top 200"? How come we never get #s for top 1000 or 2000 (those would all be active players)? That isn't necessary for balance, but it would mean something about the marketability, playability and popularity of a faction. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: General World War 2 Discussion Thread27 Aug 2015, 15:53 PM Jump back to quoted post23 Aug 2015, 20:23 PMsomenbjorn And my payday is tomorrow.. fuck. I guess have have to buy a new couch later Come now... what do YOU think will get you more tail, a new couch or a nerdy tome on the details of the Battle of Kursk? (Actually, the truth is that if you have gotten to the point the girl is in sight of the couch, that game is already won, and just yours to lose.) In: The Library
Thread: First Review British Forces25 Aug 2015, 20:24 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Aug 2015, 15:06 PMSwonVIP yeah sure it is counterable nothing to argue about it... but keep in mind it is undoctrinal (compared to the Pak43) and will hardcounter every german tank on the field (imo allies have enough letal counters against Heavy Tanks (vet tds (Sus), Jackson, Firefly, ISU, vet AT Guns). A 17.pounder + mark target will probably kill a KT in 4-5 shots... I think the British Forces/ the 17. pounder will be very strong in team games (probably too strong) but well lets see I have been thinking of reloading this game because I heard the exact same thing, that Allied AT is so effective Axis tanks now seem to be made of paper. (Have we achieved examples of Poe's Law so quickly? Brits aren't even out yet.) In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Issues with OKW21 Aug 2015, 12:43 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2015, 19:10 PMQbix Can't we simply establish the rule that units are not to be balanced due to problems that only arise in games bigger than 1v1? Imagine you just add a 10v10 mode in League of Legends and Champs now scale up to level 30 instead of 18. Suddenly, certain mechanics that are very balanced become extremely op and annoying, although they aren't really a problem in 5v5 and max level 18, the standard game mode. Every slight advantage gets amplified exponentially in team games. Please don't balance units around it. That is an admission of lack of imagination and ingenuity. Even among the "top 200" players in COH2 charts there are about 8 times more people playing 4v4 than 1v1. At lower levels the numbers probably skew even more heavily. COH2 is paid for by the team players so it makes marketing sense to care about those modes. Can they be balanced and make 1v1 balanced? I have no idea. I also know that ignoring them means you will never find out. Can they be made more balanced without affecting 1v1? many have made some pretty good suggestions that sounded like they would help. Larger formats in COH1 were not this imbalanced. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The struggle against is real ©®™20 Aug 2015, 15:22 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2015, 14:42 PMNEVEC Faction still not realesed, no one british soldier was killed by opstheer sniper yet, but you claim it OP. This shows the dangers of having too many forum threads open at the same time. MajorBloodnok - ruining forum fun everywhere. In: Scrap Yard
Thread: Cruzz's The More You Know20 Aug 2015, 14:25 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2015, 13:59 PMCruzz Latter, nearly everything in the game is multiplicative, the few instances of additive bonuses are generally screwups that haven't been fixed. So it is still pretty good assuming there are other tanks around, no? And even better on an E8. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Cruzz's The More You Know20 Aug 2015, 13:37 PM So is the 3x "stacking buff = to a 30% reduction in fire rate (10 + 10 +10) or a 27% reduction (100x.9x.9x.9)? Either way that is actually a pretty good buff for vet1... equals the fire rate of 1.33 or 1.3 Shermans, thus each vet1 Sherman is 33% more Shermans shooting. Or is there something I missed? In: COH2 Gameplay