That completely ignores my main point: infantry AT doesnt NEED to be able to counter late game AI vehicles. The other counters exist already
It makes me so sad to see a single Jaeger squad without any cover (out in the open) beat a single Bulldozer/Crusader/Centaur. The UKF/USF elite zooks squads are already way too good given how good they are vs infantry at the same time (+some additional versatility), but they got beaten by a Brummbar in a 1vs1 situation at least (still they are too good vs other tanks or in numbers). Jaegers surpass this overperforming units with ease. Even with upgraded .50cal the Dozer looses. That are 400MP, 90fuel, 50mun and 14population dedicated anti infantry/structure. Dozer/Centaur/Brummbar can't even kite because of low range. What a bad joke.
Generalist AT squads (even elite ones) should have a chance to beat medium/heavy AI tanks if staying in green cover only. Anything else is comical. If they really want late game AT squads with such an AT performance these should get slaughtered like US Bazooka Teams by other infantry.
Don't feel insulted. I am asking out of curiosity to see such games, not especially your but games with a lot of late-game tanks involved in general.
Okay, I'm sorry for missunderstanding.
The most obvious one is how ELO work.
People who achieve 90-100% win rates are usually experienced players who are either change mode or account and enjoy at least 10 games in mismatches.
The probability of a player who just bought the game to achieve such win rates are very very slim.
Yeah, I assume so. People reaching a 100% win rate are most likely no new players. But since that is not an axis or allied only feature this should concern all factions equally and as such don't dictort the overall tendency.
Most interesting would be a winratio comparison of all players that played 50 matches or more at least, seperated in some skill levels. For example rank 1-100, rank 100-200, rank 200-500 and so on. Sadly I don't know a tool that does this. Maybe someone else knows a way to extract that data.
That data are not really helpful in an analysis for many reasons.
Yeah winratio comparisons are completely overrated. Luckily they have nothing to do with balance.
Just give us other reasons
than YeltsinDeathBrigades already provided.
Struggling always were majorly a skill issue. This is why I so hardly put this sentence here for those who are speaking about underperforming allies: tools are there. When there are tools and someone cannot use them, it is a skill issue.
I disagree with a word "struggle" or "has hard time to deal with" since both are, again, skill issues, because tools are clearly there.
The point I made was about the accessibility of tools (learning curves). Atm we see allies on the backfoot in the big game modes and this starts in the low Top200 already as I pointed out as a tendency with the winratios in another post. As a developer you can't simply say "But the tools are there, it is a skill issue." Its nothing worth if only the Top100 can use this tools to great effect because there use is either fiddly, too micro intensive or just too unintuitive and so on. Of course it is a skill issue but it is problem beyond a skill issue if one side has a better accessibility than the other.
Lets to a comparison within the same team. If I'm playing Allies with three friends in 4vs4 two always play Brits, one always US. Despite having the same winratio with the same played matches, the US player has a higher ELO and a higher rank, although he is the worst player of our team. Why is that so? It seems in comparison to other US players in 4vs4 he is better than the British with the same winratio compared to British player in 4vs4. What does that say about US and British? I would say British wins overproportional in comparison with US.
In a good balanced game the Top 5% of every should win more often than loose, the bottom 5% should loose more often than winning. The 90% in between should win roughly about between 49% - 51% because matchmaking confronts them with people of their own skill. If that is not working either matchmaking or balance (including accessibility/learning curves) is screwed.
Any example of such games like someones video or cast?
I accepted your own played games as the basic of your arguments. Why are you asking me that? My played games are the basic for my arguments. I didn't recorded a single one. You are free to stop talking with me if that is not enough for you.
When I play wehr in 3v3 or 4v4 I need every combat unit on the field asap...
Because Opel blitz costs 200 mp...
It's not fiddly...
About suicidal idea of fielding early ketten...
I don't think we get to a mutual agreement here. I do think no team should have a ressource bonus in a game (and that includes abilities like reducing manpower cost of reinforcing by 25% at Indian artillery, but that one is only for one player at least and not for the whole team - still it is a bad mechanism). Ressources should be equal and only depending on map control. You seem to think that its totally fine as it is. I do think all is said.
There is where your words start to touch 1v1 drastically, and also there is clearly a skill issue, sorry for being straight.
First of all, you call Armor company inferior while it is broken nearly beyond repair in 1v1. Issue with over performing Marder is only a 1v1/2v2 thing since soft AT is superior in 3v3 and 4v4 and UKF has early-mid soft AT like boys-AT rifles (2-3 squads with dirty cheap infantry upgrade from upgrade center kill a marder in a single volley) and a very good late-game soft-AT as Foot Guards, which are best pick for your set of units to deal with just those Ubertanks. 17pdr is completely fine as it is with those soft-AT tools backing it up. Also you clearly underestimate power of crusader spam, so if in team game you somehow reach late game (which for my experience is like 1/8 games) two players can field enough units to deal with Tiger and even with roaster backing it up. If none of you went into Armor BG and your team decided to play without churchills there is also gurkhas/commandos at your disposal, so there is also a counter for axis elite/semi-elite troops.
Sorry when I'm talking from a teamgame perspective. I don't play 1vs1 because I want o play the game with friends and just having a good time. If Armor company is broken in 1vs1 it is maybe the old problem of CoH2 call-ins skipping tech (for example 2x T34/85 call-in) which was patched away and now we have it again in CoH3. In 3v3/4vs Indian artillery and Air+Sea companies seem to be more versatile and superior. I do think they have to bind the call-ins to tech again.
Regarding Crusader Spam: I played it myself and I do not underestimating it. I won games with it. There is a point though were it reaches the end of its lifespan. To be honest, I find it idiotic that it is superior to playing with the heavier nondoctrinal tank options in Brit unit roster. But the heavier options have all the same problem, a combination of too slow speed with too low penetration for the heavier armored targets. That the reason CrusaderIII Spam is so viable, while it can fight medium targets frontally it has the speed to swarm around heavier targets if needed. On top of this you can kite infantry pretty good because of good accleration.
And please don't tell me they won. I will start to think we are playing different games... played nearly 200 games as Wehr in 3v3 and 4v4 and Panther was useful 3 times with one time it really making a difference so much that it led to comeback. The time when it led to comeback main reason for it was it's performance against 76mm Sherman and fact that it is call-in, so I could afford to build a lot of them while saving resources because of staying in Pgren companie only.
I don't think I play on your level. Not everybody has the time to play so many games in this short release phase. I played about 65 games counting together all games with all factions since release. Strong units wich cost a lot and have a lot of health/power get better the further you go down the ladder. It is not only a l2p issue but also a issue of faction design. "Skill issue" like you said in your first sentence was always a lazy excuse in CoH to not balance learning curves properly. Its like USF in comparison to OKW in CoH2. USF was harder to learn but strong once you mastered it, OKW easier from the start but less you could abuse once you mastered it. That made USF really hard to play further down the ladder.
I dare to disagree. My take would be "While brits have superior early game advantage and are powerful all-rounder overall they struggle against heavily armored anti-infantry vehicles, cqc elite units and artillery fights in team games since those are RNG-based. Artillery and air-based call-ins also are powerful against brits since UKF has poor AA-platform and not very mobile in it's current meta playstyle. USF however has weaker early game and crowd-control/anti-emplacement tools are nearly non-existent, but has access to superior late-game tank destroyer, best mainline infantry and sniper backed up with decent support abilites from BGs and support centers."
I don't know why you want to disagree. You don't contradict my argument but yeah your explanation is way more detailed and better overall. I agree with your statements completely. The only thing I want to add: Its worth nothing that you gave the best mainline infantry if everybody plays with better doctrinal infantry as their mainline (because their own nondoctrinal mainlines are weak).
I still do not understand those people. They might get a Tiger or a panther in 1 out of 10 games and those units even rarely make a difference but they still go for them if what you say is true. I just cannot understand the point: they play not to win but to see a unit moving back and forth and shot/shout random barks and slurs. How you can balance game around these people?
In 3vs3 and 4vs4 its more than 1 out of 10 games, at least below Top200 and that are over 90% of the players.
Currently if you move Fpios to 1 CP you will softly remove wehrmacht from 1v1 matchmaking. People will not play grenadiers in their current state in 1v1, only few chosen one superior gigamindsets and guru's of CoH franchise. Also I cannot understand why we should move 30.cal to 1 CP if HMGs in this game are as poor as they are. Paratrooped 30.cal still must be supported by riflemen or it is busted with first clowncar/stummel/sniper etc.
I just brought up two examples of units that are no problem in 1vs1 but a problem in bigger game modes. I gave a solution. Regular grenadiers have to be buffed in return, all HMGs anyways. That is out of question if you ask me.
They already made a ketten nerf so comm cables cannot be upgraded straight away. By going into ketten in teamgames you, of course, provide your team with extra resources, but
a) have 1 less timed combat unit fielded
b) get your flamer later
This drastically impacts your play since as I said before, you already are in big disadvantage in wehrs early game, that's why you do not see ketten built as often in "competitive" 3v3 and 4v4. About opel blitz... I hope you are aware that it takes pop cap and costs fuel? 25 fuel, if I remember correctly. A big investment for 1 more non-combatant unit. There must be a good reason to go for it.
While Weasel, which is mentioned by you, has:
a) very good early game MG for 30 munitions
b) shared veterancy
c) possibility to field HMG or mortar
d) slow self-repair for free, so you do not build engies to keep it going
e) 2 very useful vet abilities; Actually, so useful, that I've seen people fielding 2 of those for the sake of getting both vet abilities
If anything really needs a little bit of tuning, it is definitely not kettenkrad, with all due respect.
Regarding Kettenkrad and Opel Blitz: Its always more than worth it that one players sacrifices a little bit of ressources or fighting power to give the whole team a bonus of a critical ressource. In a 1vs1 you fall behind by doing so (risk vs reward), in a 4vs4 your teammates can offset it. You are playing so many games, don't tell me you really believe this mechanic is okay please.
There was a reason they patched Opel Blitz in CoH2 after the first year from giving the bonus to the whole team to the controlling player only. This should be done here too, you can then change the fuel cost of Opel Blitz in the same patch to reflect the lower gain. This would make Opel Blitz more interesting for 1vs1 by the way.
And I was never challenging the game value of the weasel, so you don't need to list its advantages. For the sake of completeness I was just saying there is a fiddly ressource mechanic on allied side too. Fiddly because you have to reach Vet1 first. That is more unpredictable and takes longer than waiting for the 10 missing munition you need for Kettenkrad upgrade. Not capturing fuel points and waiting for Vet1 can backfire pretty hard if it takes too long or your weasel gets destroyed somehow.
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?
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.
You got me here, but please tell me what kind of knowledge we can get from this data?
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.
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.
Sad... I hope you are wrong but somehow I have this feeling...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The sad thing was that USF neede such bs meta, because their artificial nondoc unit roster with important unit types completely missing needed such tatcics to compete in multiplayer. USF in CoH2 had the steepest learning curve because of mobile glass cannon design and missing unit types in late game. It seems CoH3 has no faction with such big artificial holes. That is a progress at least.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This guy couldn't even reach top 100 as axis by his own words and tries to speak something about balance...
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.
Steel Division kind of, resource income dpeends on your division choice.
Age of Empires 3 and 4 also has economies boosted in unique, inaccessible to others ways.
...and on top of what Hannibal said both examples are player specific. An Opel blitz giving somehow more fuel to one player as a doctrinal decision is okay, because you sacrifice other doctrinal choices. Thats how it was in CoH2 after the first year. Lately you had this kind of doctrinal ressource trucks for Soviets too.
In Coh3 this is a team boost comparable to the Opel blitz of the CoH2 release. Spending a little bit of manpower to boost the income of critical ressources for the whole team is a no-brainer. Always worth it, especially at the points close to your HQ.
Atm its really worth playing axis at least if you are an arranged team. There is a lot of balance work to do.
This mechanic will do arranged teams more stronger. Simply for every map gradually caping. Infantry can rush middle sectors. And slower cap is more then enough redeemed almost double ammo/fuel income. Practically advantage only for arranged teams. GG
Yeah I do think like that too. It is way easier to execute for arranged teams.
No other competitive RTS I can think off has a similar ressource mechanic that is only available to one side. With both mechanics together you are at double fuel income, that is huge. They already understood in CoH2 that this mechanic isn't good, so they patched it away. Why bringing it up again? Did they forget? Is no one around at Relic to remember it?