Profile of GachiGasm

So to sum up, FRPs are fine and well adjusted and contribute another layer to the strategy in the Real Time Strategy game

Are you speaking about forward reinforcement or forward retreat points?

Forward reinforcement, has no harm in itself and its a fine mechanic.

Forward retreat points, on the other hand brings only harm and actually removed a lot of strategy layers from the game.

Hell just look how Ostheer\Sov and WFA factions have to play. In teamgames ofcouse, since in 1v1\2v2 FRPs arent used, which is actually funny for the game balanced around 1v1. I still dont understand why FRPs which arent affecting 1v1\2v2 but fucking up 3v3\4v4 never were nerfed to the ground or completly removed.

As Ostheer you can have reinf\med bunker yes but you also cant retreat, you have to use soft retreats, meaning that you have to micro and play with your units just as if there was no reinf point. If you mass retreat chances that you lose your bunker are super high, because its easy to kill. Depending on the faction you play against, you have to cover your flanks because again bunker is very vunerable.

As Soviets you can use M5, which usually have to be either exposed to reinforce during the fight or you again have to use soft retreats and micro your units.

And finally look at how WFA works. You litteraly can place your FRP in somewhat safe place which wont be in reach of inderect fire units placed near frontline, but still relatively close to the main action. And thats it, you dont have to think about anything. Where ost\sov will be punished by bad retreat choses, WFA factions arent punished what so ever.

Whole idea of "forcing enemy to retreat" as a general tactical win, is completly thrown out of the window, just because you dont really care if OKW\UKF\USF are retreated because you know they will be back in a blink of the eye.

There is imo not a single redeeming factor for FRP as it stands, besides maybe it make game more action packed, but its more action packed in a garbage way, because it forgives not only a bad play, but actually promotes the way of playing which CoH arent really about.

Imo the main problem with ELO and stuff is that its some what permament or degrading.

For instance, your first 10 games when you are unranked are impermeable because they pretty much decide the level of suffering. You either can have proper games and then you will be able to matched against more or less equal opponents or you might get shit games with players dropping either on your or enemy side resulting in your rank being sabotaged.

My UKF 4v4 was destroyed this way. When I got multiple droppers and unwinnable games in my first 10 games, resulting in me not even bothering picking 4v4 UKF, simply because for every 1 game I can win, I will lose 5.

Aswell as, unless its 1v1 its really hard for new players to climb the ladder even if they are improve, because you more of often then not put in unwinnable games.

Whole ELO problem is actually should be managed by seasons. So if I am new player and I suck, but then I've improved, I shouldn't be forced to start climbing from 1000+ ranks.

Also people who abused sertain patch and were put on the very high possitions, shouldnt keep them because its resulting in a shit MM and doesnt reflect their skill. Or the people who just bruteforce their rank, having 3k games and 50-50 w\r or less, but also having middle ground rank for some reason, resulting them being paired with legitimate middle ground players..

This is pretty much the seasons come into play, pretty much reseting player stats every season and keeping history of previous seasons. Not to mention, it might make MM less toxic, because some people are frustrated because rank\stats are permanent, without any way to reset it.

And not to mention that, even if we will be super optimistic, CoH3 most likely wont have huge player base to cover the whole MM system properly. My bet that at very best CoH3 will have like 10-15k stable player base, spread across 4 pvp and 4 pve gamemodes. And unless Relic make ranks ultimately less important in a long run, we will have garbage MM again.

"but people should really stop pretending like USF is the worst faction on life support"
followed by
"one particullar cheese strategy is the only thing making them playble"

I missed "and". What I meant is, some people in this thread and in general tend to defend airborn\scotts cheesing as the only one viable strategy without which USF has no chance of winning what so ever.

And I don't play 1v1s but I do know that axis are not hard nor harder to play than allies. I consider soviets and OST to be the "easiest" factions to play in 1v1, but USF/UKF/OKW are not harder, just different, in a sense that they lack something either early, or later on.

Stats says otherwise, even common logic says otherwise due to how factions are designed. But what ever.

Having said that, I seldom play paths/scott as it's unwise in 3v3s. You have no mines and you'll get swarmed by panthers sooner or later.

Whole idea of this meta is that you are able to maintain such pressure from the beggining, that Axis just wont survive untill panthers. If there are panters running around, then USF player failed to maintain snowballing. Pathfinder/scott meta wont win you 50+ mins games, but it has the capacity of pretty much ending the game in less then 20 mins and maintain insane pressure just untill super late game. There are no legions of panthers by that time.

I don't even consider the scott/paths to be that strong, in any game mode. People just don't want to get out of the usual build orders and playstyle to counter it.

Sure thing. Except it all comes to outplaying USF and teammates in early game, because the only real counter is to drag the game as long as possible in order to get Elephant\JT, because funnly enouth the most generic and usual build order is the only effective one.

If there is no factions weaker then the mentioned faction in particular game mode, then it is the weakest by the definition.

Weak because of what? 4 USF in 4v4 is for sure much weaker then say 4 soviets in 4v4, but it doesnt mean that USF is weak = trash.

Problem with the USF is that in 4v4 rifles gimmics arent working due to narrow maps and MGs coverything almost everything, but it doesnt mean that USF is the weakest. I would still say that as far as allies go UKF is the weakest in 4v4, untill maybe mid game.

But its not a secret that its generally harder to play as random allies in 4v4 because most of the players are retards, the same way its generally harder to play as axis in 1v1. So this backbone aurgement "USF is weak in 4v4" is ultimatly flawed. They might be on a weaker side options wise, but in a context of "weak teammate faction" they are not even close to being weak in 4v4. I would be glad to play with non-retarded USF as a teammate in 4v4 over UKF anyday.

Thread litteraly died, still there is USF fanclub mob ranting, even considering nothing is happening to the pathfinders and scott