I play only axis because i love axis
Redundant.
We gathered as much from your previous marvellous opinions on balance.
Posts: 1096
I play only axis because i love axis
Posts: 556
Posts: 110
Axis are way to strong right now,any further nerfs to allies will likely kill the player base
Posts: 556
Posts: 110
https://youtu.be/dsp5UTcmdu4
Posts: 785
This guy couldn't even reach top 100 as axis by his own words
Posts: 110
After playing axis for only 3 days.
I don't play this game, don't care about arguing about it, but if you're going to use a quote from the video you should probably put it in the context that it was delivered in.
Posts: 682
Posts: 556
You prorably can play 10 games in 3 days.
If you play for 3 days and say that it was "extremely easy" and you haven't reach top 100, you either played against lowranked people (so in that case your opinion is invalid) or you lost against normal players and because of that stayed at 300-400
In either case, there is no need to add extra to the quote.
Posts: 110
https://youtu.be/SnatshsdOiU
not just him its pretty much what everyone saids
Posts: 919
This guy couldn't even reach top 100 as axis by his own words and tries to speak something about balance...
Posts: 1617
Posts: 110
That is not how it works. As if everybody could easily reach Top100 just by playing a faction for three days. You will always be compared with guys playing the same faction. So if playing a faction is like a walk in the park because the faction is so op, there are maybe still threehundred players which are even better. You loose 2 out of 10, they loose 1 out of 10. Ergo they are higher ranked. Rank 300 is pretty good already.
The guy in the video has a point. Playerbase is dwindling already, it takes forever to search for a 3vs3/4vs4 game as axis. At this pace the game will be dead soon.
More interesting is the winrate of the Top100 to Top200, because there it starts to really split up. It would be interesting to see the average winratio of all that players, but I give you a direction. If you compare players that have a winratio of 90% or more on the fourth page of leaderboards (Top150-200) for 4vs4, you will see this:
DAK: 11 players wih 90% or more, three of them having 100%
Wehrmacht: 8 players with 90% or more, two of them having 100%
British: 4 players with 90% or more, highest winratio is 93%
US: 3 players with 90% or more, hioghest winratio is 92%
This data may have changed as you read it, but it should be still similar.
This is just a tendency with low number of games overall, but I fear it is part of the dwindling playerbase.
Posts: 919
It might be so, but playerbase currently is so low on numbers and even lower on experienced or skilled players, there is really no difficulty in reaching top 100, except 1v1 I guess. If you have a right arranged team in current state of CoH3 leaderboard there is no problem to reach this said top 100, there is no excuse for getting a top 300 as arranged team in 3 days, it is just misunderstanding of the game in general.
No, he doesn't. There are very few people who play this game for ranks, more people play just "for fun", and if you want to play as allies you won't find something which is very different from CoH2 playstyle: "smoke and blob/get heck a lot of firepower" as USF or "blob and call-in a lot of arty" as UKF. As axis you get a "blob around undoctrinal opel-blitz from feuersturm or minibrummbar" as DAK or "blob your fallpios atound HMG and medic bunker/251". DAK released as semi-soviet t1+OKW faction and wehr got luftwaffe doctrine where you drop semi-mainline infantry from the sky. It is atleast something new, that's why people play axis more. There is literally no point to play allies except for rank and not a lot of ppl care about that.
Also should I mention that even when pathfinder+scott meta as USF was found by majority of players in CoH2 axis still had a majority of players playing while it was a pure suffering for most of them?
This is a very difficult data to use since you don't have ratings for arranged teams and solo players for CoH3. Most of people who are playing 3v3 and 4v4 "seriously" to get ranks don't go solo in those gamemodes and matchmaking is so poor that in most of times your semi-arranged or fully-arranged team of top10-top50 players gets matched up against 1-2 top100 players and last are top1000+ which means autowin for arranged team.
In my opinion people who are really should be listened to regarding balance are those people who reached high ranks and 1v1 should be prioritized over team-base gamemodes since team-based modes are more forgivable.
Things which are heard by me from such group do not include cry like "hammer axis/allies to the ground" but address overtuned and underperforming units. I can light up 10 most common takes I've heard if required.
Posts: 682
People always played axis because of german tanks. Especially in "for fun" matches. Panther, Tiger, Königstiger, Elefant... and so on. It is not about tactis or viability
Posts: 110
You still nee the right arranged team of skilled players, otherwise you will fail ultimately. There are between 7000 and 8000 ranked players at 4vs4 for each faction atm (not all playing in regular basis of course). I don't think everybody can reach Top100 this easily. That would be strange.
People always played axis because of german tanks. Especially in "for fun" matches. Panther, Tiger, Königstiger, Elefant... and so on. It is not about tactis or viability but about the reputation of "Ubertanks". With the exception of the new 76mm Sherman this is still true for axis late game.
Its difficult to use but still one aspect you shouldn't miss. The arguments you used should apply to both sides equally. So there is some sort of useful comparability in this data.
Team-based modes shouldn't be neglected, more players are playing here and keep the game alive. There is always a way to tune balance in 1vs1 without screwing the balance in 3vs3/4vs4. The resource inflation plus too narrow map design were a big problem in CoH2 multiplayer and made balancing across all modes nearly impossible. It seems they improved in that basic aspects. So it should be more easy now to balance while having an eye on all modes.
Posts: 919
Nice, I didn't realize you were my spokesperson.
That might be true, but usually people play Luftwaffe doctrine which lacks those overpromoted "Ubertanks" or Italian Combined Arms, which offers access to superior italian tanks like Carro Armato M13/40 or Semovente 75/18 heavy tank destroyers... Of course, with access to Tiger later on, but people constantly complain that game ends sooner than it's fielded and ppl tried to spam those italian "ubertanks" a lot. I really haven't seen much tries to stall until heavy tank against me while playing as allies so there's is something I am missing (it would be cool to see BG pick rate and call-in stats so we could know how many wehr players picked Breakthrough for Tiger or mecha for Panther, highly doubt that we can get it tho)
Jokes aside, why those people pick luftwaffe as often if they came into match for that overpromoted Tiger?
You got me here, but please tell me what kind of knowledge we can get from this data?
Currently I haven't seen any good things towards balancing except for Pfinders and flak emplacement nerfs, which still were very slow to implement. They still did their old mistakes of overnerfing things, like 250/pgren nerf or increasing PIVs popcap and MP cost.
When in CoH2 we find a bug with self-reparable SWS which could give Wehr access to OKW units they banned for using it and fixed it less than in a week after 10 years of game's release.
Destroy obstacle bug , bug with increased range of vet1 stugD's mounted MG and garrisoned HMGs bug are still in game from the release and they did nothing to solve it. Yes, I understand that those aren't as game breaking but I am still very pessimistic about Relic and do not feel that they really made steps into right directions.
I have a feeling that out conversation is pure theory and we won't play long enough to see how they implement their balance changes or "make steps into right direction" since there will be no such steps.
Posts: 110
I have to admit as DAK I always play Italian Combined Arms, because it seems to be the best deal overall. As DAK you have the Tiger in the end of course which I do think is exeptionally good especially vs Brits since there are no tanks that can reliable pen it from the front unless you go for Black Prince, but Brit Armor company is an inferior choice Imo. Of course there is the nondoctrinal 17pdr but it sits there unable to move on its own with 17 popcap.
As Wehr I'm not sure were you got your data/impression
lately I saw a lot of players building the Panther in 4vs4.
Especially for Brits its a hard thing to deal with.
While Brits have very good infantry and artillery options they struggle versus heavy armored targets. Ironically US is vice versa.
And there it is: The german Ubertanks. On the other side Axis has always the choice to support heavy tanks with Marder III to penetrate the slow moving heavy brit tanks in addition to the strong pentration Tiger and Panther have by themselves. So this is maybe somehow the problem in late game tank fights which attracts the players to axis.
If you see that a faction has higher win ratios in one game mode than in others, have a look what is differnt in the meta. Mostly it is timing of units or spam of units which are better in some game modes than in others. Having a 0 CP paratrooper squad (Wehr) or paratropper MG (US) is for example better on bigger multiplayer maps where you can dig in before enemy troops arrive than on small 1vs1 maps. Solution: Put 1CP before it. Small impact on 1vs1, big impact on 4vs4.
Another example: Having Kettenkrad upgrade and Opel Blitz which basically can double fuel income of a fuel point if you combine them for the whole team is idiotic if the other team can't do that (okay, there is one fiddly mechanic with weasel). Solution: Only the owner of Kettenkrad, Opel Blitz or Weasel gets the bonus fuel income (thats the way it was in CoH2 lately). The latter change has absolutely no impact on 1vs1 but a huge one on 4vs4. Easy and smart balancing.
29 | |||||
23 | |||||
277 | |||||
7 | |||||
4 | |||||
1 | |||||
0 |