You can't balance for the fact AT's will always beat randoms in 3v3 and 4v4. There will also be issues so long as the 3v3 and 4v4 maps are utter unrelenting shit because they allow players to win by dog piling 2 VP's.
You can handwring about Axis being OP in 3's and 4's because of this unit and that, but the culprit 99% of the time is the fact Ostheer has excellent defensive tools and when the game is "who can dog pile and entrench the VP fast enough" the faction with the best defensive tools will do the best.
Changing it so randoms do not match with AT is completely conceivable.
New maps would be beneficial too. The original maps in COH1 were horrid. Hochwald Gap, Achelous, Scheldt (yes, it was automatch once)... just horrid. |
Nailed it. I really do hope Relic notice this. I really think the "Marketing", sponsoring tournies and balanced for most played game type 3v3 and up should keep NEW & Existing players happy.
I do get that it is harder to balance 4v4 so that it also balances 1v1. But that is not an excuse for not working on it. In fact, if you manage to get it right (or even pretty close like in COH1) you will be repaid in $$, which is what really counts. |
They sure are 
This notion needs to stop. Not only is it untrue, but its giving fodder to newer players to cry balance rather than attempt to do a self evaluation. The perception of balance and actual balance are completely out of whack, IMO. Are there balance issues? Yes. Will there always be balance issues? Yes. Am I losing because of balance? NOOOOOOO.
Balance is not affecting 99% of the 4v4AT games being played. People just want to assume they are losing because of balance - its an easier pill to swallow than looking at ones own faults.
This brings me back to my original point. So when one loses, they say I lost because of balance and therefore what I did during the game was the correct approach and its the game that needs to change and not me. This stifles creativity and learning. This has been one of the most prevelant contributing factors to the toxicity of this community, and the worst part is - its an unwarranted self manifestation.
Way to miss the point.
The problem isn't in AT games. It is in 4v4 randoms and ESPECIALLY in 4v4 AT vs. random.
Since most of the new players are going to be in random, and since the vast majority of play hours are in 3v3 and 4v4s, then it is entirely likely (I don't have the #s but Relic must) that 4v4 Random is the format most newbies play. If they don't like the experience they will leave. No argument about AT or L2P or other balance aspects will change that.
You can balance all you want for top players in 1v1 top-tier. But if you don't get more players playing then your community atrophies. Many have left COH1 for the simple reason that so many others had left COH1. it is still a great game and better than almost all others out there. These are basic is a network effects and esports won't change it. |
Not entirely WFA related, this issue was around in vanilla because OKH Panthers are very survivable so will gain vet and suffer less attrition than most Sov armour
Most of what you say isn't untrue though, though Alex is also correct
Doesn't that part just get exaggerated by the heavy limit? Axis still get Panthers which are at least super mediums if not heavies in their own right. There are no double IS-2s to counter.
All of this would be less of an issue if the heavies were 100-150 VPs later in the game. |
Being in Germany, I'm honestly surprised at how much open hostility I have seen among some circles in German towards the Greeks atm.
Many Greeks, even before Syriza, were working 40 hour weeks for only 1000 Euros per month, hardly enough to live on when you need to pay weekly rent.
Even if they could somehow afford food, their children, etc will have no chance for any savings or inheritance.
Syriza may not necessarily be doing anything right, but they are doing something different. And when so many Greeks have been struggling to literally survive in the past two years, even with slight economic growth figures under New Democracy, their recent defiance against the EU is hardly surprising.
I honestly and earnestly recommend to every north European who believes that Greece must "be responsible" and "stop overspending on luxuries while being lazy and unemployed" to visit the streets of Attica or walk around Thessaloniki for a week. You very much have the right to feel annoyed that the Greeks won't pay you back, but surely you will understand that they simply cannot pay you back.
In the mean time, direct your anger to your national governments who kept giving Greece bailouts this whole time despite it being increasingly clear that Greece was a terriblyrisky investment 
As to how much one is paid and whether htat is "enough" has a lot more to do with Purchasing Power Parity than with the actual salary. 1000 Euro may be too little or too much but without knowing more I can't tell from just the #.
The problem many have with Greece is that so much was more wrong than the salaries and amounts borrowed. In Greece huge portions of the population were able to retire at 50 or 55 to a pension (I forget which) if their job was labeled as hazardous. But this came to include categories like hair colorists. Government workers got 13th and 14th monthly payments (on pensions too I believe) as a matter of course. Taxes are nigh uncollectable. The society was never geared around a German monetary policy, yet the dollars were borrowed.
The Germans on the other hand have a different problem. They are benefiting from a Euro that is weaker than a Deutschmark would have been but they aren't owning up that any of their success is due to that.
Margaret Thatcher predicted all of this would happen when she did her best to engineer that the UK stay out of the Euro:
[ http://www.businessinsider.com/margaret-thatcher-on-the-euro-2013-4]  |
Im intrigued by the one sided-ness of the Greek crisis here in nothern parts of Europe. Well it goes without saying the situation comes from an ineffective civil society and shit poor politicians the past several decades.
And Greece does need to pay debts. But as I understand they want to do that do, they are just saying that the current plan and the proposed one would lead you know, to starvation.
Its not only "buckling down and working for less" its "How the fuck do you get money for food?"
Writing debt off is not a workable solution, but neither is Merkels Hungerplan. I mean we cant really demand that the Greeks put their own people out in the streets begging for scraps can we? And I don't think people worried about food and shelter are effective workers.
Just my two cents.
There is no question that it is a huge mess. The problem is one of moral hazard. If you permit one country to get away from its obligations then what does that mean for the rest of them? Greece is tiny in comparison and its 90 bill in debt is not market crashing. But Portugal and Ireland are much bigger, and Italy and Spain decidedly more so. If one country gets a big break then everyone will want one and that is unmanageable.
The problem is the acceptance of the Euro by these countries in the first place. but undoing that mistake is not easy though it does solve a lot of the country's problems. Is the asnwer that they have to break from the Euro but that that process must be seen by others to be extremely painful? Enough so that they wouldn't consider it except under truly dire circumstances? |
nice analysis and i agree with what you said.
however, i want to point out that the latest patch did remedy some of the call-in problems with the limiting of one heavy tank. However, the winrates are still extremely lopsided in 4v4
On this I am on even less expert grounds but is it possible this is entirely WFA related? I am not sure the call-in meta was what breaks 4v4s. It is the late game imbalance that exists in infantry as well. In fact any asymmetry in balance at late game will affect it here the most.
1 - OKW has great late game (vet 5, "unlimited" heavies)
2 - US has weak late game, particularly in a multi team format where it is harder to use mobility/flank.
3 - points 1 and 2 at the same time that the late game comes much quicker and in game formats that will be lasting longer.
4 - OKW's big deficiency in resources doesn't exist in larger team games.
None of these have anything to do with heavy call-ins since neither of these factions relies on them.
Fix the late game balance and 4v4 becomes a bit more balanced. Slow the progression through game stages and I think it becomes more fun in general. There just doesn't seem to be a "mid-game" in COH2 like there was in COH1. 8 minute mediums and 14 minute heavies doesn't feel right in a 40 minute game. |
Define "accessible"?
Is AoE accessible?
Is SC2 accessible?
Is C&C accessible?
Grey goo certainly is accessible and pretty balanced if you ask me.
The three before it? Well, C&C isn't rocket science either, but AoE and SC2 aren't that accessible.
SC2 most certainly isn't accessible, yet millions play it and its balanced around the 1% top players and its quite e-sporty.
CoH2 doesn't have economical macro management, you don't have to count and manage army of workers, you don't have constant base expanding or ever going unit production. It doesn't have unavoidable abilities that obliterate whole armies, doesn't have dozens of units you need to constantly watch over and micro, doesn't require 300+ APM to be competitive, most of coh2 top players do not even use control groups.
I'd say coh2 is one of the most accessible RTS games out there, it becomes hard when you want to get into actual mechanics, but other then that its pretty logical, you won't kill a tank with rifle, you won't cap a point with vehicles.
CoH2 is also one of the most entertaining RTS games to watch, because its nature means you'll never know who wins, situations that result in GG in all other RTS games, in coh2 you can pull a comeback, that keeps people interested.
CoH2 is one of the most accessible RTS games out there, it doesn't even take that much to master it, you don't have to be tactical genius, or korean clicker to be good at it. Just look at Quentin, he isn't brightest bulb when it comes to understanding the game or its balance, yet he is one of the top players.
But there is one more completely mandatory thing that relic completely ignores.
Marketing.
No game will become "accessible" or "e-sporty" if you do NOT actively engage with the community, organize tournaments, advertise the game-show to people that you've made this game and show them that you want them to play and have fun with them.
As a COH1 player who has played a little COH2, watched a hellaton more of it, and kept up with the various forum posts on balance, patches, etc. (I am waiting for COH2 to be in a state where I would like to play it.) here is some feedback which is worth what you paid for it:
COH2 is all of those great things with one problem, the 3v3 and 4v4 ranked match situation. The problem is twofold, the balance (as seen in the huge imbalance between Axis and Allied wins), and that AT teams are allowed to compete with randoms at all.
That an arranged 3v3 or 4v4 team is allowed to go up against unskilled randoms almost guarantees a bad experience for new players. Why would you want to do that?! Why must they find 3 friends, learn the game, and then learn to play as a team before they can start to enjoy a win? Someone needs to play weeks or months before they can enjoy a win? Or switch to playing Axis so they can join the multitudes learning to spam and stomp noobs?
While a "true" balance in 4v4 needn't be achieved, a lot of the design of the current COH2 is to blame. That the VP counter moves at essentially the same pace as in COH1 (3 points, 500 VPs to win, etc.) but the early, mid and late games all come faster, and with a decided imbalance in late game strengths, means team games are bound to be imbalanced. Without changing the balance of the teams you could slow down the progression. That would also possibly solve the call-in meta.
That 1v1 balance is a priority doesn't mean that you should ignore the 4v4. It just means that you work harder on 4v4 balance while watching the 1v1 and 2v2 closely. A more balanced 4v4 is achievable. COH1 was certainly more balanced in 3v3 and 4v4 than COH2 while probably also being more balanced in 1v1.
4v4 balance will retain more players. That is a decided "good" for the franchise. It should not be ignored. ATs should not play randoms. Probably ever. Good game experience > fast bad game experiences. And if there are more good game experiences you get more gamers... and so less wait. |
What Portugals know about home war on Ukraine? Probably nothing. European Medias are full of bs and propaganda, don't count on it. Really, I'm living 20km near of Ukraine border and probably I know better what's going up there than other guy from west Europe 
I will not comment on your knowledge, or mine. But if your assertion is true, think about how it applies to all those people who are so sure they know what goes on in the US, the Middle East, or Greece. |
Yet the difference is that it does not matter whether you get an Ostwind or a Möbelwagen.
Germans have the tank advantage anyways - who cares if it´s a Panther or a King Tiger, a Jagdpanzer or a Jagdtiger?
Introducing another class of vehicle out of the blue makes a huge difference. I´m not looking forward to Tiger copies everywhere... that´s my opinion. It´s lazy and USF are still going to lack decent medium tanks.
Next step could be a sniper (dual) for OKW and USA. Maybe a Willies Jeep Kübelwagen equivalent for USA. CAS for everybody.
Honestly, I would argue a bit more pseudo mirroring might be good for balance.
All the differences haven't exactly made balancing the game easy. And "similar" units in different armies and with different abilities or coming from different tiers or diff CPs would probably play quite differently despite superficial similarities. After all, don't all the factions have a non-doc mg? Are they all the same? How about the AT guns?
The real Pershing was certainly no Tiger analog. A heavier "medium" tank with a gun that could finally punch holes in the front of German armor it was not as heavily armroed. OTOH it was a much more maneuverable tank, could cross more bridges, was more mechanically reliable than either the pV, VI or VII.
(Also it would have been available in much greater numbers had the war dragged on even a couple more months. And production at the time was already up to 200/month and climbing. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
