I agree here. I only know ELO systems very superficially and we also don't know how exactly Relic implemented their system, but shouldn't the ELO adjustment be made based on the team's winning chance?
Say you're a top player with only low skill players in your team vs a team of "normal" opponents, giving you a calculated win chance of 50%, shouldn't the ELO rating after the game adjust as much as if this was a match of "worthy" teammates and opponents? It shouldn't take individual ELO into account and punish the top player overly for losing the game.
Asking out of curiosity here, because this is how I always understood the system.
I belive thats the one of the core problems with ELO here. Because the end result of ELO win\loss is based on an individual player rank. It isnt taking into a considiration whether you was paired with low\high rank players. If you are top player winning game against low ranks with low ranks teammates, you gain almost no ELO, yet you are loosing it as if you lost to a low rank.
I do belive that ultimately, system treat all games (except the ones which were obliviosly sabotaged by unability to find proper opponents\teammates) as if they have 50\50 chance of winning. Either that, or it was just a huge oversight or copy paste code done by relic in terms of how teamgames ELO works.
Since there are some signs of MM trying to balance the game rank wise, even if its unable to find players of your rank, but at the same time when it comes to ELO there is litteraly nothing adressing such match ups.
At least this is the idea I got from my observations. |
The lower you are on the ladder, the more probable it is to be matched with a higher skilled opponent. At the same time, this loss will result in a lower ELO adjustment.
It actually depends. Without taking into a considiration super low ranks, if you have multiple opponents simular to your rank, but among them there is a player with a significantly highter rank then yours, you still will lose significant amount of ELO. The same way you will lose significant amount of ELO if you are paired against lower ranks, having simular low ranks teammates.
But it actually would be really insteresting, if some one made a research of how actually ELO is calculated in a match with multiple people being much higter\lower rank then the others.
I even think that, there might be even some sort of way system tries to balance the match via matching differently ranked players. Because its a common situation where, for instance, top 100 player could be matched with multiple rank 700-1000 players, against full house of ranks 300-400 players. |
|
Thinking of it, I guess one of the main problems with ELO is that it doesnt care about who you are playing with in a first place and your performance in the game.
For instance, for instance if I'am rank 10000 paired with rank 10 vs another rank 10's, I will gain shit load of ELO in case my team wins, Elo doesnt care if I got hard carryed.
If I'm rank 10 paired with 10000 against same 10000, I will lose shit ton of ELO, dispite me trying to hard carry them.
At the same time, I will gain almost nothing if I managed to carry bad low rank teammates.
This is really a big risk low reward system. Because you legit can lose almost of your rank grinding prossess in a few really unlucky games.
Not saying that such indepth calculation is nessesery, but, at very least, in teamgames, teams could have had assigned rank based on the ranks of all players in mentione team. So if the game is super one-sided, at least loosing side wont lose crap ton of ELO and winning side wont get free ELO after stomping them. |
1- this is due to it's squad size, if you take any other MG in the game, you will win similarly
2- i do not understand this point. If it means that the maxim takes more punishment, then that is not exactly true. Yes, you got 6 men, but maxims out of cover can be gunned down by lmg grens (before suppressing them), and otherwise AoE damage (mortars and what not) deal very effectively with maxims, like with any MG
3- this is not exactly true - its setup and teardown time is identical to the MG-42, and it's walking speed feels basically the same as well.
4- this is a situational advantage, particularly versus enemy cover, but the MG-42 also has aoe suppression (and enjoys faster suppressing, so you can just compensate the worse AoE with that). more at point 5
5- sustain fire is cheap and strong because it permits the maxim to actually suppress it's enemies. It turns it into a proper machine gun for 30 seconds. It's use is rather restrictive before veterancy 1, as you need to cycle a reload before firing, costing (sometimes) valuable time.
1) Not really due to squad size, mainly because maxim has more damage and in a situations where both MGs suppressed each other Maxim will come out on top + due to sustain fire maxim always wins garrison MG duels.
2) In every imaginable scenario maxim still has better surviability over any other MGs put in the same scenario, thats the point.
3) Mind providing the stats comparison? I dont know them, but maxim even to a blind eye faster to rotate and deploy then MG42, thats for sure. Maybe its not nessesery teardown\setup but something else what makes it faster.
4) No, not even by a long shot. Maxim has almost double the amount of MG42 AOE suppression on top of having bigger AOE suppression radius. It really makes a difference in game, when even spread out units still will be suppresed. But its a fair to say that MG42 has better ROF to compinsate lack of AOE, but it doesnt change the fact that the philosophy behind MG42 and Maxim is compeltly different, therefore usage should be different.
5) Well yes, thats the whole point of sustain fire. It allows maxim to perform just like other MGs, while keeping its own advantages over other MGs. The same way USF AT gun require muni usage to perform as other AT guns while keeping its advantage of supperior range.
i don't see what the 120mm has to do with anything, let alone the maxim.
Because relic intended soviet units to be mediocre as a compinsation of being survivable. When soviet units received buffs on support weapons, it always coased a bunch of problems if the survivablility of them wasnt ajusted. Point is being, that maxim could have received general perfomance buffs, but its survivablility have to lowered aswell. You just cant throw buffs on 6 men support weapons and expect that nothing will be broken afterwards.
then why are you buying the maxim?
Pretty much to abuse it when its possible. Maxim is imo just a situational unit, sometimes its really hard to make it work and sometimes its easy, depending on the opponents and map you are playing it and teammates. You definitly should not build maxim in every single game, on every single map and expect it to work, thats a mistake a lot of sov players do.
On a side note, I myself dont like how maxim works in the game. Its either total garbage or abusable filth. I would rather have something closer to a proper MG, then this unit full of gimmicks, but what I am trying to say is that Maxim needed full overhaul, not just buffs\nerfs because its nature isnt allowing it.
|
Yes, that is an essential skill in teamgames, being able to carry weaker teammates. Therefore in your example the guy who can carry will receive a high rank while a player who individually could have average skill but is bad at carrying will get a potentially lower rank than his skill. It makes perfect sense for 4v4 and it’s not like 4v4 is a competitive game mode.
It makes sense, in CoH2 reality, but it isnt nessesery a good one. Because it ultimatly only leads to frustration, cheating and overall some of the playerbase dropping the game.
For instance, if player lost the game due to him being outplayed, be might think "Oh well, I might need to learn how to play against it" he will potentually start watching tutorials, good players play and so on.
On the other hand, when you know that if you had better teammates you would have won, but yet you've lost because you was unable to carry them, it automatically swifts player perspective. From "I need to learn" to "Why even bother". Now we can freely add plain unfair MM on a regular basis, premades vs randoms, total assymetrical balance, really annoying and cancer meta and we end up with a bunch of problems which are harmfull for the game in a long run.
Some players might be able to endure it, get over it and become better, but its a small persantage. And while 3v3\4v4 arent competitive as 1v1\2v2, they are most likely the gamemodes which will be chosen by new players to learn the game.
To put it simply, there are no shortterm harm, but such problems are really harmfull for the game in a long run. After all, we dont know how many potentual good 1v1\2v2 we might have lost, just because they desided to start learning from teamgames and then said "fuck it" and dropped the game.
It’s neither a relic nor a matchmaking issue.
I honestly disagree. But as a matter of fact, its still the developers obligation to provide fair MM. CoH2 MM would have worked if there was huge playerbase, but game doesnt have one, yet not a single solution was implemented to adress MM for smaller player base, resulting in a riged games. CoH1\2\3 never had (and never would have had) player base of Dota2\AoE, but yet developers desided to make MM and systems behind it, like if there is simular playerbase.
Logical solution, which a lot of competitive RTS\FPS do is to just have seasonal ranks, with resets on a season base. This or CoH3 really should have huge online, otherwise it will be all over again.
I mean like, even from a common sence perspective its just more healty for the game, just because new players will have easier time learning and they will know even if they get shit rank, at least it wont stick to them that bad, so the chances are that they will keep playing the game are highter. Same pattern can be seen in a lot of modern games. |
No good Soviet player opens with Maxim in Red Ball or White Ball because you lose all pushing power if you do. Its an instant-lose situation if you open with Maxim.
This is objectively not true. Soviet players might not open with maxim, but maxims do see a lot of action in high rank plays, even in 4v4 tourney. You just need to know where and when it should be used.
On the flip side, async balance aside, MG42 open is powerful because you only need 1 to lockdown a lane. Where-as you need 2 Maxims to do the same because of the small firing arc. Maxims have the same cost and setup time as an MG42 and don't instant suppress like the MG42 does. If the Soviet player needs to get 2 Maxims to lock down a lane, that means the Ost player can get 2 MG42s to lock down a lane even better. Are you starting to see the problem here?
Again the whole premis of the complaint is that maxim is worst then MG42 in actually being auto-firing MG. Thats the core of the problem here, but maxim has other advantages (which are being called shit for some reason).
List of them being:
1) Being able to win MG duels
2) Much more sustainable to damage
3) Easier to relocate
4) Supperior AOE suppression
5) Really strong and cheap sustain fire ability
Disadvantages are:
1) Smaller arc of fire
2) Slower to suppress
3) Even slower at suppressing yellow cover
This list alone already shows that it just cant be played exactly like an MG42, but at this matter Vekers and .50 cal cant be played like 42 aswell. Maxim has a specific role of being either supporting unit or it should be used with sustain fire ability, it isnt meant for areas lockdown, thats why it becomes super hard to deal with on maps where it actually can lockdown areas.
If you need suppression platform and you dont give a damn about other advantages, then there is DSHK for this reason. Its conter intuitive way of using MG unit (especially in comparison) but its the way it was always ment to be used. Even on release, Maxim was almost purely damaging unit, before relic buffed its suppression which gave birth to maxim spam. If it wasnt the case, then it woudnt have had 6 men crew and smaller arc of fire, and people propused this, like since release to make maxim into proper MG, but relic never did it. In other words, it is what it is. You cant just lower its cost and call it a day, you cant lower the build time and call it a day without redesigning a unit.
Soviet 120mm is the best example of it, it was meh but survivable. It was buffed, surviability was untouched and now its cancer to deal with.
tdlr: need suppression use DSHK, maxim is situational unit which wont work if you want to use it as MG42.
Also not mentioning that opening Maxim needs to tech T1 so you're already down fuel and MP at the beginning stages of the game.
Also very weak argument. Considering that all factions have roughly the same tech timings overall from T0 to T4, so building a tech early into the game, doesnt put you into any kind of disadvantage res.wise. Soviets start will less MP, because they have cheaper starting unit resulting a better starting MP income.
Its only true for the fact that MG42 hits the field faster then maxim, but at the same time cons hit the field faster then grens. |
Tl;dr: Skill issue, git gud if you wanna get higher ranks.
It has its truth, but honestly I think that this aurgument is flawed for teamgames. For instance your aurgument will be correct if we take either low end or high end player brackets.
In other words, say legit rank 1-100 can outplay and carry against rank 250-500 rank. But say you are in a bracket of thouse 250-500 rank players. You know how to play and you even will be able to carry against rank 800-1000+ players.
To put it into the perspective, say my legit rank is 500, I was fucked up by first 10 games and got rank 1500. At some point, I will be able to carry games and fight even 3+ opponents by my own dispite having bad teammates, but the rooftop of my skill at this point in time is significatly lower then it is for the top players, meaning that essentually the closer I will be getting to my legit rank, the less are the chances that I will be able to carry games.
To put it more simply, the range of games you can carry is highly dependant on your skill, but it doesnt reflect your rank what so ever. I might be able to win the game against equal opponents, with equal teammates, but at the same time I might not be able to carry really bad teammates even against equally bad opponents, because I am not as good to do so.
Essentually, top players in teamgames are able to get to the top, because their skill allows them to carry wider range of possible opponents and teammates alike. Average joe on the other hand, might be rank 600 skillwise, but he most likely never will be able to climb over rank 1000, just because he is not good enouth to carry rank 1000 teammates.
I mean, your aurgument is true here, that he have to get gud. But then whole rank system is pointless, since you are not being placed into fair games in a first place, therefore your skill is based not on how you individually play, but rather how bad enemy\teammate have to be in order for you to win games by carrying them.
And the main question here is, is it fair for the this average joe to be placed at lower ranks, just because he his skill isnt good enouth to carry other players, dispite him possibly wining the game if it was fair skillwise?
Its legit to say "dont play randoms then, you know what you are getting youself into", it will be fair to some extend. But its not like the problem isnt fixable at all and objectively player shouldnt be punished by developers who werent able to provide a fair matchmacking system. I think I dont have to be forced to play like rank 100, to be able to be at rank 500. |
Saying that it is able to lock down "large chunks" of the map is an overstatement.
How so? Out of my head I can remember Essen, Hill, Rzev, 2 new 4v4 maps, Steppes and General Mud. On those maps maxim is ineffective or less effective.
On pretty much any other 3v3\4v4 its either can lock down hell of a lot of space (like on Red Ball) because maps are narrow anyway or at least be quite effective depending on your starting possition (like on Lanzerath\Whiteball right side).
The only single complain about maxim I kinda agree with, is that it could have been a bit better at suppresion against yellow cover, seens it indeed feels like its suppression against units in cover is a bit lower then it should. |
How is this a maxim specific issue??? This applies to literally every hmg, and if anything the maxim is the least effective at it
Who cares if the maxim is the least effective amoung already way too effective units, within the cancerous strats and map pools?
It's the maxims fault that relic couldn't just give OKW a mortar? And that they waited years to fix their access to the ISG which is still an underwhelming unit in general?
Its Relic fault and what you saying is true, but the point of the thread is the rant about maxim, without attempts to look at the bigger picture. Maxim buffs could have been possible imo within the big patch which adresses multiple core problems of factions in some aspects.
Just like raising it's price to 260 while giving it multiple nerfs was a good idea... The performance nerfs were plenty
Well it was a bandaid fix, sure. Maybe even stupid one. But its better to have underwhelming unit, then having broken unit, if proper factions ajustements cant be made. |
So no-one care that in teamgames, on good half of the maps maxim even with its smaller ark is able to lock large chunks of the maps.
Aswell as when backed up by early USF ambu it become practically immortal unless flanked by blob in early game. Which is meta on maps like Red\White ball.
And no-one cares, that even with "how uttery trash" maxim is, OKW still has no counter for it untill IGs\Zu Fuss hit the field, unless soviet player is retarded enouth to let himself be flanked by SP.
But sure, dropping it to 240 mp is a good idea  Too bad that in 1v1\2v2 it wont be used anyway, because cons\penal oppening into 120mm\Dshk is still more effective. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
