Suggestion: 1v1 wins required to join team games

It's pretty frustrating to get teamed up with someone who obviously knows next to nothing about the game.

And I'm not talking about bad play, but players who for example move one unit at the time or don't realise that they start with a pioneer and thus never uses it.

IMO it would be nothing more than fair to demand, that you have shown a minimum of ability before you are allowed to join team games. It's perfectly OK for players to ruin their own games in 1v1, but ruining it for team mates is not.

Therefore I suggest that Relic introduces some kind of result based requirement to enter team games. Like for example having won at least 5 1v1 games. Anyone with a minimum of skill should be able to meet that criterion.

It's pretty frustrating to get teamed up with someone who obviously knows next to nothing about the game.

And I'm not talking about bad play, but players who for example move one unit at the time or don't realise that they start with a pioneer and thus never uses it.

IMO it would be nothing more than fair to demand, that you have shown a minimum of ability before you are allowed to join team games. It's perfectly OK for players to ruin their own games in 1v1, but ruining it for team mates is not.

Therefore I suggest that Relic introduces some kind of result based requirement to enter team games. Like for example having won at least 5 1v1 games. Anyone with a minimum of skill should be able to meet that criterion.

Thats what auto-matchmaking is for.

To match you with/against people with similar skill.

And, yes I know.

SgtBulldog, what is your ladder page?

Not supported. New players tend to stick with larger teamgames where they feel they feel the other players can buffer for them a bit so they can test the game. 1v1s are not for everyone. Even though you might end up with them on your team.

Yes I agree wholeheartedly with this. I know people would like to use teammates to buffer their own lack of knowledge. This doesn't excuse them from ruining other people's games by being incapable.

I think either the ability to win a 1v1 or beat the computer on hard in a 1v1 before they are allowed to join team games. It makes sense.

I kind of agree with this. I've had many 3v3 or 4v4 games that would have been awesome games, if it wasn't for one person in a lane who sat there for a minute trying to figure out what to do, then building like 4 combat engineers to rush into enemy MG's, not retreating as they do so.

It's understandable that new players want to play with others, but it's kinda courtesy to have at least a basic understanding of the game before jumping into automatch with players. I played at least 15-20 games with the computer (sometimes even through Automatch with AI) before I tried playing against live people.

Not having the best micro/complete understanding of all the units, doctrines etc. is acceptable and takes time to master. Not knowing that your starting unit can build something isn't, and should be learned away from other players to avoid ruining their matches.

A lot of games these days require the completion of a tutorial mode before you can play other modes. Normally these annoy me since I've been gaming all of my life and generally do my research before starting a new game anyways - but I can see the value and reasoning behind it.

I think it would be pretty low on the priority list though.

If you want a proper team match, then form a proper team.

Its not reasonable to expect some random guy to be up to your level of play, or know how to teamplay with you.

Even if a guy has won one 1v1, that doesnt mean in the least bit he will work with your random team any better.

Stop trying to blame randoms, and instead proactively form your own team.
With a random, your teamplay proficiency is effecfively ZERO.

The fault is not in shitty random players, the fault is in YOU for taking them into your match.

If you have only one friend online you can coherently team with, then its only 2v2 you are prepared and setup to play.

Isnt it self evident that if you enter a 4v4, with yourself as a random, and the other 3 playersnas random, that you will get FKING CURBSTOMPED vs a full 4man communicating and coordinated premade?

The expectation to enter a match as a randoml with randomsk and to get anything other that severly assplunged by even a slighlty arranged teaml is ridiculous.

TLDR: If you are a random, with no team, you will get utterly fucked vs a team, and you deserve that, because you have no goddam team.

If you want to play team games, as a team, HOW ABOUT YOU MAKE A PROPER TEAM?

If you're not playing with a teammate, this is the risk you take. It's a bad idea to limit player options like you suggest.

Id say your chance of a win is directly related to how many randoms are on your team vs the opponents random count.
What many people conveniently forget, is that YOU TOO are a random, on a random team. You arent some pro uber human who can step into a match, coordinate and motivate everyine perfectly, and carry your own weight as well as the weakest team member?

Or are you? Fuck no, you arent.

2 randoms vs 2 randoms=50/50 nominal chance.
From there, the more randoms you are, including yourself, you can deduct your win chance by 25% by random player. If the opposing team has even 2 cooperating established team members, add them a flat 50%+ of win chance, and thats being conservative.

Th3 key and common denominator word here, is TEAM!
Got a team? Fuck yeah. Your chances are GOOD and you will pwn many many mqny randoms.
Then you will get bored and DREAm of actually, finally, meeting an equal team for epic lols and true battle.

So, generaloy speaking, and as is the common sentiment throughout the teamplay world, both electronic and physical, FUCK RANDOMS.

Get a team, or you basically yourself are, when it boils down to it, just another random asshole fucking up everyone elses match, not only on your own side, but also on your opponents arranged team side who is bored to fuck of analripping randoms EXACTLY LIKE YOU.

There is a difference between accepting the fact that your random teammate may be not be a strong player but a completely incompetent one is not even fun. They should be able to demonstrate some knowledge that they know how to play.

I completely quit playing 3v3 and 4v4 because the first couple games I was paired with players who would struggle against the easy AI. Should players that have only figured out how to build pioneers really be allowed to join 4v4 games and ruin it for everyone else?

you can easily spot a noob in team games, they are the ones that rush a VP straight away
if there's a noob in your team chances are there's one in the other team as well, that's what automatch and ELO are for

That's fascism man!!

If you have no team, play 1v1.

If you have 1 team candidate, play 2v2.
And so on.

Its realoy that simple.

If you go into a TEAM MATCH without an actual fucking team, the outcome is obvious.

If you have no team, play 1v1.

If you have 1 team candidate, play 2v2.
And so on.

Its realoy that simple.

If you go into a TEAM MATCH without an actual fucking team, the outcome is obvious.

NEWSFLASH: Not everyone has friends online every time they want to play a team game. Obviously they want a casual game that 4v4 can offer. What they don't want is an incompetent person that has no business operating a computer joining their team. The game can be fun playing with random people of lower skill. It is not fun when the person playing with a hammer is on your team - the type of people this discussion is about.

Yep, you cannot ever dictate someone play in certain ways or modes that he does not want to.

It's relic's job to make sure matchmaking works, and to market enough to get a player base. The community does have to help maintain the player base though through good behavior.

I'm a solid intermediate-high skill player, and even my team of 3 similar players get matched up at least once a night to an enemy team that has at least 1, or all, new players barely able build units.

But, I also disagree with the poster that you should be required to win 1v1 before joining team games, because matchmaking should just handle that.

Both the OP and Nullist's posts is typical of the wanna be elitist posts and mindset that drags down RTS gaming communities.

I am not elitist in the least. I am being pragmatic.

More often than not, the same players complaining here about a random noob player on their team, are imvariably being carried themselces by a stronger player than themselves in either that game or another.

Listen.

The key to team games, is having a team.
Its really that simple.

Yes, perhaps Relic should adjust the matchmaking system with harder limits to make better balanced teams, but if the old DoW2 system of requiring 10 games before you even get an established ELO is still present, those players will STILL end up in your games, until they have it.

I anticipate that Relic could narrow the matchmaking parameters, but that would result ultimstely in much longer wait times, and therefore in more people leaving and not bothering to que again, and therefore an even smaller player pool, and even longer wait times.

I am not elitist in the least. This is how this shit works. Its the same thing in any other multiplayer game. If you dont have an arranged team, randoms will fuck your team, either on your side, or by crippling the opponent so you can lolwin/hf, but still basically not have a good game.

Im sorry, but this is how it is. Therefore I sincerely recommend deliberately and actively recruiting a pool of potential team members, if you wish to teamplay without randoms fking it for you.

Teamplay is all about HAVING A TEAM.
Enter a game as a random yourself? Prepare for and accept the consequences.

I understand, completely, that what you want, is tobe qble to login to CoH2, after work, with abeer, for a game or two before bed, and you want it in 2v2+, cos you like that mode. In addition, you would like to be able to dothat without hqving to spam/harass 5+friends to join, 2 of which live on the other side of the planet, 1 of which is a complete orick your not even sure why he is on your list, and the fifth, well, hes just one guy but you wanna 4v4. But you manage to get him in too. So now you wait. And wait. And wait. Slowly the room is filled and game starts, and it turns out your 4th teammate is 12 and thought this was comp stomp mode.

I get it. I do. But none of that changes what I said above.

And no shit, that is why I am a strictly 1v1 man.
I have some good guys on my list that maybe would tolerate my noobiness in a team if I ever asked,
but FOR SURE, I would NEVER enter 2v2+ without atleast one of them, and preferrably on voice too.

Not because Im afraid of losing or anything like that, but because, like you, the result of playing with complete random uncooperstive retards is too much for my already violin string tight nerves to take.

If I wanted the best 2v2+ experience possible, Id set up a small circuit here based in CoH2.org. Fuck the ladder dompletely. Make these games custom. Get some teammates together and challenge another team, in good spirits. Make a real thing out of it. Snacks beers and time. Then have the matches of your life, the kind that you will look back on in 10yrs and thinkdamn that was GOOD (and fuck the haters who thinj that is sad).

Maybe start with a small open 2v2+pool here on CoH2.org? Maybe use the Steam chatroom for finding competent teammates? Maybe even setup a special 2v2+ Coh2 steamgroup, where members can announce to other members thatbthey are looking for a teammate right now?

Its not all about having a teammate, in vcoh I played 2v2 random sometimes and won probably 70-80% of the games so skill does play a factor. But no you can't expect to always get a competent player. The fact that this game is lacking a lot of deep long term strategy that existed in CoH1 really does limit the ways in which one person can use better understanding and insight to outplay inferior opponents, so having a teammate is probably a lot more important in CoH2.

The chance that you get the "noob" on your team is much lower than the chance that there is a "noob" on the enemy team. Assuming you are a player with normal skill lvl, there is only a 33,3% chance of you having a bad player on your team while there is a 66,6% chance that there is a bad player in the enemy team. So in general, if you are playing well, you will have a 66,6% chance to get an easy win. I would honestly say nobody can really complain about that.

If your skill level is higher than where you are placed, you will eventually get there. With some bad luck a bit later, but that does not really matter, imo.

Seriously, this same topic has been gone over hundreds of times in just about every teamgame, ever, where people join teamgames without an arranged team.

It is the nature of the beast, for the foreseeable future.
Your best defence against its bite, is to have a team yourself.
Even with just one teammate you can trust, you create a huge advantage for your side.

Dont be a victim of randoms. Bring your mates!

Shit, Ill make a MP steamgroup for CoH2 if you wish.
I feelz your pain.

Imagine it. All you have to do, is join the steam group.
Once you do, you are free to announce in the group to all other members that, for example,
:LF 1x 2v2 or LF 2x 4v4.

Yes, youll have to deal with the spam while you are not playing, but how awesome a tool is that?