Profile of iTzDusty

There is no window of opportunity when Shrecks are on the field enmass. Shrecks come before the AEC.

Perhaps making the 6-Pounder into a quicker unit will allow it to efficiently counter Light Vehicles in absence of a useable Light Vehicle for the British Empire...

Schrecks are an easily kited hard counter, schrecks do not immediately invalidate all vehicles on the field. This is what micro is for.

The 6 pounder is also stat for stat identical to the pak 43, with the addition of a 50% accuracy buff against vehicles (I still believe thats the case). What more does it possibly need when it is the strongest in the game?

Oh boy, Dusty vs World here, here we go.

It is impossible to doubt that team games are the most popular game mode. Here are the statistics on the front page.
http://coh2chart.com/

If you wish to refute this argument, you must discredit these statistics. Simply giving your own counter-statistics does not accomplish anything. This is self-apparent to anyone who has done any form whatsoever of academic research in absolutely any field; your theory must acknowledge and either accommodate or explain away existing theories to be accepted by the general academic population.

You can tout how many people play 3v3 and 4v4 all you want. If you still think that somehow means 4v4 balancing should be a priority, and that balance somehow trickles down, all it proves is a complete lack of understanding of game mechanics, full stop.

Having said that, I will now explain why OCF had 2000+ viewers despite being a 1v1 tournament.
- COH2.org had months of advertising for it
- Relic advertised it within the COH2 game.

Looking at the viewership of one tournament with mass advertising (in COH2 standards) and claiming that therefore 1v1s are popular among the majority of players is a poor argument.

Notice how I never said that 1v1s are the most popular game mode. My post implies/claims that 1v1 tournaments receive more viewership because they are, in fact, more competitive than 3v3 and 4v4.

Assuming the hypothetical situation that it is impossible to balance both 1v1 and 4v4, Relic would lose less by disabling the ability to queue for 1v1 games than 4v4 games. Of course, one must also remember that 4v4 games have 4x as many players as 1v1 games.

Again, your fundamental understanding of the game is flawed. The nature of variables and the amount matchups to balance, that other users have pointed out in this thread, mean that 4v4 is exponentially harder to balance and technically impossible. Throw map balance in to that, something that is refined in 1v1 and 2v2 for the most part, and it becomes even harder.

@Dusty
You continue to insist that, by virtue of your 1v1 skills, your judgements and theories about the problems and workings of 4v4 are automatically correct. This argument implies, and relies upon, the "elitism" of 1v1 over other game modes; that is, a 1v1 player requires more skill than a 4v4 player.

This argument is innately flawed because it fails to define what is meant by 'skill'. One can easily identify a 'skilled' saxophone player, or a 'skilled' baseball player, because only one set of abilities is being compared. However, it is far more difficult to judge who the better "skilled" musician, or "skilled" sportsman is, if you are given two musicians who play different instruments, or two sportsmen who play different sports.

If you ever played CoHnline, I was in the top of the 4v4 ladders for a very long time. I've played my time in 4v4s. Individual skill is hardly the factor that it is in 1v1s and 2v2s. "Top" 4v4 teams get away with literally a-moving blobs, because there are little opportunities to flank. The "Go hard like" team showed this many times on one of their POV streams during League of Heroes, where one of the players on north Lienne had 4 squads of Pgrens a-moving around for half of the game. I fail to see the "skill" involved in that.

Skill in 1v1 games undoubtedly requires larger map awareness and higher APM/Micro. However, having these skills does not make you a 'skilled' 4v4 player, any more than being a skilled baseball player means you can play cricket.

Not once do you even accept the possibility that 4v4 game modes require different types of skill or awareness. You must prove this if your arguments are to be valid.


At the same time, however, you yourself acknowledge that 4v4s are innately different than 1v1 games, albeit in a derogatory way

Yes, because most of the best 4v4 teams (with notable exceptions like the TATUS guys that have proven themselves to be extremely competent 1v1 and 2v2 players) get away with poor micro on the basis of map knowledge. Knowing where to optimally place bunkers, schwerer HQs, and which buildings to garrison at the start of the match are not indicators of skill, they are indicators of cookie-cutter pre-planning. The nature of 4v4 allows these plans to be executed with minimal micro because, again, the lack of flanking opportunities and human wave tactics that only 4v4 lets players set up a machine gun and not have to worry about it for 5 minutes. 1v1 and 2v2 have minimal pre-planning at best, and no MG will stay static for 5 minutes. All players must adapt on the fly to cutoff maneuvers and well-microed light vehicle play. A 4v4 team could theoretically place a machine gun on their cutoff for the entire game and it would hardly constitute a few percent of that teams effective fighting strength. If anything, League of Heroes proved that these types of players were abysmal at micro and on the fly planning, as these teams lost the majority of their 1s and 2s games, and only stayed in the tournament because of the extreme point weighing on the 3s and 4s games.

However, at the same time you continually insist that your experience in smaller team games allows you to recognise and judge the value of arguments and concerns in 4v4 games from 4v4 players. Furthermore, you are openly hostile to 4v4 players who have a different opinion on balance issues as you do.

I look at each player individually. When the players arguing with me play 90% of one faction, have mediocre ranks, and only play 3v3 and 4v4, it is EXTREMELY safe to say that they have a limited understanding of game mechanics/timing/resourcing. I don't even have a perfect understanding of all the numbers in this game, yet I'm not going to run head first into an MG42 over and over again, I'm not going to lose two squads to a sturmpio, I'm not going to chase a low health tank without stopping to shoot, I'm not going to fight on the move and in open cover, I'm not going to have my pants down for a light vehicle rush,and I'm not going to leave roads unmined for Panthers and complain about losing my katyusha on the forums.

The reason I cannot accept any of your arguments, and the same reason I encourage everyone else to disregard your arguments, can thus be summarised;
- you ignore the fact that 4v4s are the most popular game mode
- you believe, by virtue of your superior 1v1 abilities, that your judgements are automatically superior to those of a 4v4 player, and thus
- you refuse to acknowledge most complaints brought up by 4v4 players about 4v4 specific to 4v4, because you believe they are complaints by a bunch of unskilled idiotic retarded casual crybabies who don't know how to play the game, despite the fact that they actually play 4v4s and you don't
- you are openly hostile towards those that disagree with you regarding 4v4 game mode

I've never said they aren't the most popular, I have always said that is a dumb metric to use when prioritizing balance in an RTS game. This isn't a MOBA, go play DOTA or Total War Arena if thats what you're looking for. The game is, never has been, and never will be designed to be anywhere close to perfect in 3v3 and 4v4.

My judgements are superior to the average 4v4 player, because again (and this is getting very old to repeart), the average 4v4 player sticks to one faction or side, has mediocre micro, and has mediocre game mechanic understanding. This really isn't hard to understand.

This thread really has proven to me that the "unskilled idiotic casual" moniker becomes more true each day. Notice how I've never even said in this thread that OKW isn't OP, but everyone is pretending like I'm saying there isn't a problem. The hyperbole in this thread that I've been calling out is about "LEL 90% winrates" 3 days after a patch that had a MAJOR faction redesign, most importantly the potency of EARLY light armour play in the Luchs that Allied factions have NEVER had to prepare for (unlike the m20, t70 rush of early 2014, m5 rush in the summer) and the fact that people are up in arms about this without even learning how to counter it is ridiculous. Even better is the people that make these arguments have no right to make them, they have hidden ranks with OKW, or a majority of games played as allies. I don't really care how batshit OP something is, but no one is allowed to make a balance argument without playing a SINGLE match as what they claim to be oh-so-OP. Sure, 11 minute KTs are retarded (and surprise, only exist in 3v3 and 4v4, remember what I said about lack of flanking, micro, and retarded tunnel vision static play? No wonder, people can just build caches and never get cut off in 4v4) and that is going to be changed.

In further summary, in case you refuse to read my post because I am a 4v4 player;
- I view your arguments about 4v4 in the same light you view my arguments about 1v1
- Your entire justification of the superiority of your arguments lie in the fact that you play 1v1, and I play 4v4.

1v1, and 2v2. And yes, that literally is a good justification. 1v1 and 2v2 primary players have a better understanding of game mechanics, because if they don't, they lose. Tell me how many of your 4v4 friends can say the same about their matches, considering you don't need to know much at all to be a competent 4v4 player. Bonus points when these players complain about patch notes and specific numerical changes. I loved reading the posts when the flame changes happened, and people knee-jerked harder than I've ever seen, repeating the same incorrect bullshit that only someone with a lack of understanding of mechanics would be able to fathom. Oh, lets not forget the crit shot change too, apparently EVERYONE claimed to play the balance mod, and apparently none of them did because they all though there was no more snare.

Finally, to get back on fucking topic;
One must remember in 4v4 game modes, that the allied team can have potentially all three factions. Therefore, if UKF has a significantly lower win% than USF and SOV, there must also be a larger # of games with either only UKF or 3UKF (+EITHER USF OR SOV).

This does not necessarily mean that UKF cannot be played in team games. Perhaps 1/2 UKF with proper mixed allies remains quite powerful.

This also does not necessarily mean that UKF is "fine". We cannot know, hypothetically, if UKF was deleted tomorrow, how the USF and SOV win rates would adjust (assuming all UKF players would play either USF and SOV with the same skill)

Are we really going to base UKF being bad on the 25% 4v4 statistics that do not take into account matchups with what is a fairly broken OKW due to pop cap?

UKF performs completely fine against Ostheer, and would perform fine against a fixed OKW. This is the truth for all game modes. UKFs win rates can easily be explained by the lopsided OKW search rates, and the fact that their brokenness disproportionately affects UKF more, on top of UKFs current population cap bug.

The hyperbole in this thread about UKF being "on life support" comes from the exact same clowns that think the sniper was fine, the churchill was fine, the crocodile was fine, and free heavy engineers were fine. These are those oh so high caliber 4v4 players that required these crutches to make up for their poor play. After all, a cheap 1400HP well armoured tank requires minimal micro, ditto for one with a stupid long range, DOT dealing, AT gun wiping 1400HP well armoured tank with a flamer, perfect for 4v4 players.

The chinese invasion has begun.

Man the machine guns.

Molotov also have shorter range iirc

Not when you stack 3x range increase

OKW flame grenade needs bringing in line with Conscript molotov.
literally no reason not to use it in every single fight as it forces the enemy to move instantly or take extra damage from how fast it is.

It does the exact same damage while costing more than a molotov.

Apart from speed and the cost difference, they are already "in line"