Login

russian armor

USA scotts (M8A1)

PAGES (19)down
17 Sep 2021, 05:10 AM
#161
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 962 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Sep 2021, 18:43 PMEsxile

Let's remember that because Axis players considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because Axis players considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have Axis players considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.


Tbh there is a pattern and pretty simple one.

Jackson, Cali and path+scott are utilizing range. Range is the most powefull in the game imo, because its just allow you to not bleed\take damage while enemy have to dive for you pottentually getting into mines\ambushes.

Its indeed hard to drive, you either go all-in or kamikadze one expesince unit in order to cover its lose with kills.

Because lets be honest here, dives arent happening out of no where, and unless you lost the initiative there is no way enemy can just dive you and be unstoppable.
17 Sep 2021, 06:26 AM
#162
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3465 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2021, 04:05 AMMMX

He's absolutely right though (even if I'd probably not put it so bluntly). Also, blaming your faults on others being human nature doesn't invalidate his argument even the slightest - on the contrary, this is exactly the problem at hand. And it gets exacerbated by the fact that the lower people's general understanding and ability to play the game is, the more they overestimate their own knowledge and skill. The classic Dunning Kruger effect.

This inability to recognize and accept own faults and shortcomings instead of projecting it on some higher force, paired with blatant and totally unwarranted overconfidence is why 90% of the balance suggestions made here on the forums are mostly worthless.

How on earth could someone that plays one faction exclusively in the 1k digit ranks even come to an informed opinion on the overall state of balance when they not only lack the skill/knowledge that would be required but also have an inherently narrow and restricted vantage point on the game as a whole?


Took the liberty to just fix that for you.

In all seriousness, I do get your point that allies (USF in particular) may be more difficult and less forgiving to play well that axis at the moment. But that is an issue that begins to vanish at high skill levels and seems to be most pronounced in the lower to middle skill bracket - the area where matchmaking has the biggest leverage to guarantee fair games with equally-skilled parties on each side. At least in theory that is what should happen - if axis is easier to play at a certain level, then the matchmaking algorithm will pair the players with an allied team of higher skill to keep things even and vice versa. That this approach isn't perfect and gets exponentially more difficult the more players in a team are involved is of course another story altogether.


So you agree with him to call them trash? Fair games should happen at any level, not only at top level, that's the purpose of the matchmaking but how the matchmaking can even work properly if the skill requirement for each faction is so different?

MMX
17 Sep 2021, 07:14 AM
#163
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2021, 06:26 AMEsxile


So you agree with him to call them trash? Fair games should happen at any level, not only at top level, that's the purpose of the matchmaking but how the matchmaking can even work properly if the skill requirement for each faction is so different?

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with his choice of words, but there are certainly a lot of people who are just bad at the game due to various reasons (limited tactical/strategic understanding, micro/APM deficits, etc.). And balance won't fix any of these - only the ability and willingness to improve will. That's the part I agree with.

As to the matchmaking, I also agree that the most important function should be to produce fair match ups that are fun for everyone. And this should be totally possible if the game is balanced from top down, desite potential skill gaps between individual factions. The latter can simply be evened out by pairing lower-skilled players using an easier-to-play faction with higher-skilled ones using a more difficult faction to master.
This will of course only work for maybe 80% of the playerbase, as for the highest/lowest 10% there are simply no better/worse players available to draw from. And that is also the reason why the game needs to be inherently balanced for the top 5-10%, for anyone below this threshold matchmaking can take effect (well, minus the bottom 10% I guess).
17 Sep 2021, 07:29 AM
#164
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 905

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2021, 07:14 AMMMX

As to the matchmaking, I also agree that the most important function should be to produce fair match ups that are fun for everyone. And this should be totally possible if the game is balanced from top down, desite potential skill gaps between individual factions. The latter can simply be evened out by pairing lower-skilled players using an easier-to-play faction with higher-skilled ones using a more difficult faction to master.
This will of course only work for maybe 80% of the playerbase, as for the highest/lowest 10% there are simply no better/worse players available to draw from. And that is also the reason why the game needs to be inherently balanced for the top 5-10%, for anyone below this threshold matchmaking can take effect (well, minus the bottom 10% I guess).


So how does matchmaking work exactly? We don't know, because it keeps hidden. Relic isn't very transparent here. If you have a team of USF/UKF in 3vs3/4vs4 for example playing versus mainly Ostheer. Does matchmaking means that their 2000K players are playing versus 2000K players. That woul be a bad thing already, because there are less UKF/USF players, so you can assume that a 2000K Ostheer players should have higher skills than a 2000K USF/UKF player.
MMX
17 Sep 2021, 09:12 AM
#165
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1



So how does matchmaking work exactly? We don't know, because it keeps hidden. Relic isn't very transparent here. If you have a team of USF/UKF in 3vs3/4vs4 for example playing versus mainly Ostheer. Does matchmaking means that their 2000K players are playing versus 2000K players. That woul be a bad thing already, because there are less UKF/USF players, so you can assume that a 2000K Ostheer players should have higher skills than a 2000K USF/UKF player.


well i don't have any details either, especially not for team games. i remember there was at least a well-written guide somewhere here on .org that sheds some light on how matchmaking works for 1v1s, but i can't find it right now.

EDIT: this one. a bit outdated but still a good read
17 Sep 2021, 10:49 AM
#166
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 682 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Sep 2021, 18:43 PMEsxile


Every time I read your entries, I have the impression you're a Asperger person. This or having a serious superiority complex.

Most/all people blame on their faults on opponent or mechanisms because its human nature to do that. It takes a lot of self reasoning to pass through it.
Now specially for Coh2 the main reason for that is the amount of information someone must know to master each faction and be able to perform this rational analysis and the little available access to it. Some people may have it easier to master it than other, remain the fact that all Top players accumulate much more dedicated hours to the game than others. New almost-top players like Elpern or AngryDutch have spend tremendous amount of time on the game to reach their current level, something unreachable for 99% of player base.
So comparing their knowledge and capacity to reason on Coh2 mechanisms to regular player's one does not make sense at all and even more considering the latest as trash for that.

Now each faction requires a different way to play the game and players of all factions blame their own mistake on mechanisms or other players, not only USF one's. And USF is at the moment the less forgiving faction and the only one without late game dedicated units on their stock roster. No heavy tank, no rocket arty, no soaking damage behemoth.
Here there isn't a question of understanding the mechanism because everyone understand rapidly that in order to match Axis late game level you must pick Calliope or Priest every time on team game. Or doing the Path-Scott strat which is seen more and more regularly from 2vs2 to 4vs4 at all levels.

Let's remember that because Axis players considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because Axis players considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have Axis players considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.



Perfect example of what I was talking about. Ofc your response is a rant about late game unit choices when in reality they don't matter one bit for 90% of players. Funnily enough tehre are plenty of people on this forum who lack the experience of elpern and dutchman but still have a good understanding of the game and are perfectly capable of debating balance in a reasonable manner. Examples would be chuko, mmx or stormjäger. Conversely, you actually have a lot of ingame experience but you always fall into the trap of faction bias and blaming balance for your own mistakes. Maybe you should work on your positioning first? Learn how to use units correctly before starting to complain about unit rosters? Or don't and keep enjoying the game playing however you want, that is fine as well. But then don't act like you can make any statements on balance.

Edit: Oh also, pls don't diagnose people with things that you don't understand.
17 Sep 2021, 12:23 PM
#167
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3465 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2021, 10:49 AMGiaA


Perfect example of what I was talking about. Ofc your response is a rant about late game unit choices when in reality they don't matter one bit for 90% of players. Funnily enough tehre are plenty of people on this forum who lack the experience of elpern and dutchman but still have a good understanding of the game and are perfectly capable of debating balance in a reasonable manner. Examples would be chuko, mmx or stormjäger. Conversely, you actually have a lot of ingame experience but you always fall into the trap of faction bias and blaming balance for your own mistakes. Maybe you should work on your positioning first? Learn how to use units correctly before starting to complain about unit rosters? Or don't and keep enjoying the game playing however you want, that is fine as well. But then don't act like you can make any statements on balance.

Edit: Oh also, pls don't diagnose people with things that you don't understand.


StormJager who trash talk the balance team? Funny enough you didn't include yourself on the list. My post wasn't a rant at all in fact just examples how is managed the balance in-game.

TLDR, you call people trash, I call the balance trash and be the root cause for the current situation.
17 Sep 2021, 16:26 PM
#168
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 905

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Sep 2021, 09:12 AMMMX
EDIT: this one. a bit outdated but still a good read


Thx, this gives some insight at least. But I do think it got worse with dwindling player base and it should be harder most probably to get somewhat even matches for teamgames.
24 Sep 2021, 11:45 AM
#169
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2241

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_H_wdcd43E

"mY scOtT is not sOo Op..thAts whY i mUst crY in the fOruM aNd tEll aLl thAt i cAnt plAy wiTh it"
24 Sep 2021, 12:33 PM
#170
avatar of PvtBaker

Posts: 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_H_wdcd43E


Axis team should've made rocket arty to deal with the heavy support weapons play that was preventing them from making a move against the Scotts instead of doubling down on tanks.
MMX
24 Sep 2021, 13:20 PM
#171
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_H_wdcd43E

"mY scOtT is not sOo Op..thAts whY i mUst crY in the fOruM aNd tEll aLl thAt i cAnt plAy wiTh it"


talking about the pot calling the kettle black...
24 Sep 2021, 13:32 PM
#172
avatar of Lady Xenarra

Posts: 885

Given the new 4v4 meta of Scott/Pathfinder spam/Maximimimimimimimim, seems like we're in a difficult situation. 4v4's always been a clusterfuck but the tournament illustrated very well that things have gotten worse. And not just a few one-offs.
24 Sep 2021, 15:55 PM
#173
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1255

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_H_wdcd43E

"mY scOtT is not sOo Op..thAts whY i mUst crY in the fOruM aNd tEll aLl thAt i cAnt plAy wiTh it"


Again 1 game used to claim something is op. No time stamp given to prove your claim.

Omg you must be right, nerf the scott and pf to shit and leave axis always up stuff alone.
24 Sep 2021, 23:58 PM
#174
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 905



Axis team should've made rocket arty to deal with the heavy support weapons play that was preventing them from making a move against the Scotts instead of doubling down on tanks.


Had a look into the video. This was the reason Axis team was near to loosing the game before baechi had a bug splat. Tanks and infantry pushs were totally shut down by allied team weapon spam on this small map. Walking Stuka was needed way before...
25 Sep 2021, 04:06 AM
#175
avatar of thekessvn

Posts: 102

In that match, stallng for heavy tank is bad choice. There are a rocket arty, brumbar and 105mm lefh gun...
25 Sep 2021, 08:36 AM
#176
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Sep 2021, 18:43 PMEsxile



Let's remember that because Axis players considered that a Jackson having a chance to bounce at max range from a P4 was unbalanced, balance team nerfed the Jackson's armor.
Because Axis players considered that Calliope was too hard to dive, they nerfed its armor so it can't bounce anymore and its health so it dies in two shots.
And now we have Axis players considering that the already heavily nerfed Scott is too good with pathfinder to nerf both units.




Seriously you're just like the alt-left lunatics dominating the media landscape today. Hyper-biased, refusal to accept facts, rejecting stats and only using subjective "personal experience", treating yourself as the moral arbiter of truth, and reductively thinking of the issue simply as Axis OP-Allies OP.

I was rank 67 with USF with a +14 win streak in the bullshit Jackson era, when its fire rate was still much higher, cost was cheaper, and it had a decent chance to bounce P4 shots. OKW P4 would catch Jackson in the rear and still lose 100% of the time. In fact the Jackson still beats P4s in 90% of situations which don't involve an amazing bait/trap by the other player. Just using your brain is enough - no other tank destroyer has any chance of winning in an unsupported battle when flanked by a medium tank - SU85 and JP4 may not even get one shot off. Heck, even 50 range tank destroyers like Stug can easily get killed by a T34-76. Jacksons having literally no weakness was beyond unfair. Even though I abused it and played USF a lot during that period, I was supportive of nerfing a batshit OP unit because that's the whole point of balance patches.

I get that having an evolved brain and realising that nonsensically OP units and abilities should be fixed is too difficult for you to comprehend, but seriously your examples are the most fucking idiotic ones I've ever seen.

Calliope got nerfed only after countless years of dominating and 100% of decently-skilled players who play multiple factions regard the change as a long overdue one. Walking Stuka used to survive TWO hits and that was considered super OP, it got nerfed immediately the patch after Mechanised was made more accessible for OKW, yet you don't see a problem with hyper-lethal rocket artillery surviving 3 hits AND the ability to bounce tank shells. I've literally only ever lost my Calliopes to Stuka bullshit that targeted my Calliope wayyyy outside the patrolling circle.

Walking Stuka got nerfed years ago but the Calliope was OP for countless years and FINALLY got reined in to still be the best rocket artillery in the game, and you think that's an example of "Axis bias" by the balance team when they simply nerfed the Axis OP stuff 2 years earlier.
25 Sep 2021, 09:38 AM
#177
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13148 | Subs: 1


...

It seem that there are some people with an "us and them" mentality who perceive any change that does not favor their "side" as a direct result of "lobbing" from the other side so they feel they have to "lobby" their own side even more zealously to get better results.
25 Sep 2021, 10:59 AM
#178
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3465 | Subs: 1




Seriously you're just like the alt-left lunatics dominating the media landscape today. Hyper-biased, refusal to accept facts, rejecting stats and only using subjective "personal experience", treating yourself as the moral arbiter of truth, and reductively thinking of the issue simply as Axis OP-Allies OP.

I was rank 67 with USF with a +14 win streak in the bullshit Jackson era, when its fire rate was still much higher, cost was cheaper, and it had a decent chance to bounce P4 shots. OKW P4 would catch Jackson in the rear and still lose 100% of the time. In fact the Jackson still beats P4s in 90% of situations which don't involve an amazing bait/trap by the other player. Just using your brain is enough - no other tank destroyer has any chance of winning in an unsupported battle when flanked by a medium tank - SU85 and JP4 may not even get one shot off. Heck, even 50 range tank destroyers like Stug can easily get killed by a T34-76. Jacksons having literally no weakness was beyond unfair. Even though I abused it and played USF a lot during that period, I was supportive of nerfing a batshit OP unit because that's the whole point of balance patches.

I get that having an evolved brain and realising that nonsensically OP units and abilities should be fixed is too difficult for you to comprehend, but seriously your examples are the most fucking idiotic ones I've ever seen.

Calliope got nerfed only after countless years of dominating and 100% of decently-skilled players who play multiple factions regard the change as a long overdue one. Walking Stuka used to survive TWO hits and that was considered super OP, it got nerfed immediately the patch after Mechanised was made more accessible for OKW, yet you don't see a problem with hyper-lethal rocket artillery surviving 3 hits AND the ability to bounce tank shells. I've literally only ever lost my Calliopes to Stuka bullshit that targeted my Calliope wayyyy outside the patrolling circle.

Walking Stuka got nerfed years ago but the Calliope was OP for countless years and FINALLY got reined in to still be the best rocket artillery in the game, and you think that's an example of "Axis bias" by the balance team when they simply nerfed the Axis OP stuff 2 years earlier.


?? Jackson armor was nerfed last year because it has a chance to bounce P4 at max range. We're talking about RNG here. The nerf consisted on removing a 10% chance to bounce at max range. Which was solely done in regard to please a certain portion of the player base. The same population that say it's fine if the P4j bounce 4 times consecutively atgun, because its RNG.

Calliope efficiency has been nerf long time ago that's not the topic, last nerf was about its armor and hitpoint because some players find it unfair that RNG could decide against their will. Here again, the balance team did the perfect change to make sure RNG isn't involved anymore unless missing the shot.

There are no more RNG going in favor for USF, Jackson, Calliope, Sherman, Scott are all unable to bounce anything (kidding, sherman can sometime once every year). The last units able to get some favorable RNG are the Pershing and heavier variant of sherman which are irrelevant on teamgame.

So why do you think people prefer going for Path&Scott? Because this strat reduce the need for favorable RNG.


25 Sep 2021, 13:04 PM
#179
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 962 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2021, 10:59 AMEsxile

We're talking about RNG here. The nerf consisted on removing a 10% chance to bounce at max range. Which was solely done in regard to please a certain portion of the player base.

Calliope efficiency has been nerf long time ago that's not the topic, last nerf was about its armor and hitpoint because some players find it unfair that RNG could decide against their will.

Exept thouse RNGs were on units which are not supposed to have it. Its like if Panther had 10% to not take any damage from mines, based on the fact that tecnically you have to dive and tecnically there could be a mine on your path, therefor bad play shouldn't be punished.

Jackson\Cali are supposed to utilize range, they are able to out-range all tanks and stay un-harmed unless dived and the only way enemy can counter them with mediums\panther - dive them. Meaning that if you allowed yourself to get dived YOU either put them in a bad possition or YOU didnt have proper support via mines\AT guns\inf with snares to stop diving units.

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2021, 10:59 AMEsxile

The same population that say it's fine if the P4j bounce 4 times consecutively atgun, because its RNG.

Exept unlike Jackson\Cali P4J actually have to pay for a chance to have good RNG. You can either end up with immortal P4 or you can end up with overpriced P4 depending on RNG. But the whole idea behind P4J is shit. I would have rather see it with lower armor, but buffed up HP like any other premium mediums are made.

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2021, 10:59 AMEsxile

So why do you think people prefer going for Path&Scott? Because this strat reduce the need for favorable RNG.

They prefere it because its low risk\high reward strategy which has only few very predictable counters. All you have to do to be effective with it - just know how to play the game. The same way Sturmtiger worked, when you could have had total idiot on OKW, who sucks dick untill 8CP then pop-out ST and wipe all your stuff sooner or later.

Scotts right now work pretty much the same, unless its totaly one sided game or unless USF player messes up, there is litteraly no way to efficiently counter them without super heavies like JT\Ele or relying on clocked raketen shoot\retreat cheese.
25 Sep 2021, 13:35 PM
#180
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3465 | Subs: 1


Exept thouse RNGs were on units which are not supposed to have it. Its like if Panther had 10% to not take any damage from mines, based on the fact that tecnically you have to dive and tecnically there could be a mine on your path, therefor bad play shouldn't be punished.

Jackson\Cali are supposed to utilize range, they are able to out-range all tanks and stay un-harmed unless dived and the only way enemy can counter them with mediums\panther - dive them. Meaning that if you allowed yourself to get dived YOU either put them in a bad possition or YOU didnt have proper support via mines\AT guns\inf with snares to stop diving units.


Exept unlike Jackson\Cali P4J actually have to pay for a chance to have good RNG. You can either end up with immortal P4 or you can end up with overpriced P4 depending on RNG. But the whole idea behind P4J is shit. I would have rather see it with lower armor, but buffed up HP like any other premium mediums are made.


They prefere it because its low risk\high reward strategy which has only few very predictable counters. All you have to do to be effective with it - just know how to play the game. The same way Sturmtiger worked, when you could have had total idiot on OKW, who sucks dick untill 8CP then pop-out ST and wipe all your stuff sooner or later.

Scotts right now work pretty much the same, unless its totaly one sided game or unless USF player messes up, there is litteraly no way to efficiently counter them without super heavies like JT\Ele or relying on clocked raketen shoot\retreat cheese.


P4s aren't supposed to be counter to Jackson (like atgun are supposed to counter P4j), and again it's long range penetration, P4 like panther have already 100% to pen at low range in case of dive.

Calliope don't have panther or damage engine mines to protect them. If a panther dive, then you have to keep your jackson at distance and the calliope because there nothing that can temporize your escape.
PAGES (19)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

236 users are online: 236 guests
13 posts in the last 24h
134 posts in the last week
796 posts in the last month
Registered members: 34888
Welcome our newest member, Mcqueeney
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM