Profile of Ohme

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198016430989/

Skill levels listed are for 3v3/4v4

Ostheer 8/10
OKW 9/10
USF 8/10
Soviets 9/10

Your Timezone in GMT: GMT -7
Max Number of Mentees: 3-4
Do You Require a Mic?: No
Any Other Request: I am a team game player (3v3/4v4) and am really only qualified to mentor those game modes.

AT and Random games matter.

But, I also think you can take AT rankings importance a little to far. The data is interesting, without a doubt, because it represents a different population of players. That said, its population is comprised by those same AT players playing randoms.

Many people who play AT games play randoms in 3v3+, which means the AT data will necessarily be comprised of players who exist in the Random populations. These players who (can reasonably be believed to) enjoy team games are likely to be: more experienced, more skilled, and have more hours spent playing COH2 team games. The point being, AT players are also sometimes Random players, and in both cases they are often matched against players who are worse than them.


Everyone is playing against randoms.


AT Data will not necessarily reflect "Competitive 4v4s between arranged teams" because the data sample is polluted with random games.

Let me put it simply. Something being worse than everything else cannot be justified through the lens of "asymmetrical balance".

I believe the problem with your viewpoint on asymmetrical balance is that you have oversimplified the issue by throwing asymmetrical out the window. The change is not justified by asymmetrical balance, but it is guided by the idea. Asymmetric balance is a set of choices made regarding the components within a system, and not two components to each other.

We do not say "Conscript dies to P4 therefore P4 OP" because it is not good reasoning. This statement does not achieve balance, because Conscripts and P4s don't exist alone within the system. The same is true for "Stug G has shorter range than Other tanks of similar type, therefore Stug G needs buff".

I'm not even here to argue about the Stug G, more so to argue about the way you argue.

AREGUECEPTION

errr yes, this thread reached it's final stage. Not a fan of watching 6 years old fanboys raging and chest beating lol. The Angry Boys mob trashing every high quality thread.

The problem lies in the attitudes of responders, as well as the confirmation bias of its original poster. You should stop to consider how little proof and/or alternatives you suggested in your original post before referring to it as a "high quality thread."

If your goal is to list frustrating game play issues, your goal is admirable. Frustration in video games due to lack of player control over outcome is an important part of game development. That said, many of the issues you listed are not exactly "game play" issues, and you should devote more time to proving your point, as well as suggesting alternatives. That is, if you would like your post to be of the quality you are suggesting. Examples:

Plane Crashes
The randomness associated with planes crashing and destroying units/retreat points is an example of bad game play. The destruction of the plane, where it lands, and what units happen to be there are (generally speaking) out of the players control. This has the potential for changing the outcome of a game, taking control from players.

Green Cover
Listing green cover as problematic game play, and suggesting it reduces tactics, is not high quality. Green cover creates terrain with different relative value, and adds strategic depth by giving players positioning considerations. It also adds tactical depth in deciding how to overcome terrain advantages with superior micro/tactical choices.

Several responses have also made good counters to your points. You are actively de-railing your own thread and blaming others, its a good way to get the job done.

I find the early game advantage of USF is lost with this type of opener. 2 RE 3 Rifle would probably be significantly more viable.