There's kind of 2 auto-match threads going now, but I'll add here as well: The issue isn't arranged teams, it's how they're handled. On paper, it should be possible to match any arranged team (except for the absolute best) against a random team; a 4-stack of 5,000 rank players will not beat a random collection of top 200s, for example. The issue is the handling of arranged teams is extremely naive right now.
Firstly, as Rosbone pointed out, any new combination of players is handled as a completely new team: 4x "top 10" players playing together? Totally new team with no way of knowing their skill level until they play 10 "placement" games. Then, if 1 person leaves the group, and a different "top 10" player joins, despite it being 75% of the same team, automatch says "no, this is an entirely new team. 10 placement matches please". This is pretty much the worst way of handling it. Instead, use the data we do have (maybe they played 1v1 a lot), and use that as a starting point. Even better, use an over-all "hidden ELO" score that tries to rate the players "average" skill level for all factions and all modes that they've played, if only to place them better when trying a new mode/team/etc.
Secondly, as pointed out by Rosbone and others in this thread, the match-making system can give some really terrible matches. While it does give even matches sometimes, in less popular modes, or in less popular regions/time zones, it gives some truly awful matches. Or perhaps sometimes it gives awful matches regardless of the situation. In any event, it clearly needs to be worked on, as the current system is just not very good, and it ends up giving a lot of players a poor experience.
Thirdly, even if the existing system worked flawlessly, the actual implementation of arranged teams is pretty bad. As-is, it assumes that a 4-stack is exactly equal to 4x randoms provided their ranks are the same. This is pretty flawed, as chances are that the 4-stack has voice communications, experience playing with each other in the past, and pre-made strategies/combinations that they like. Meanwhile, the 4x randoms have none of this, and might not even communicate in the same language. As a result, even if the "ranks" are the same, we need to assume that the 4-stack will be playing much, much better. Perhaps something like:
Team ELO = ((arranged team size) / (game size)) * 1.2
This would mean that a full pre-made team would match with players with 20% higher ELO than they actually have, and it would scale for a 2-player pre-made in a 4v4 game, for example (a 2-stack in 4v4 would give +10%). |
if you do such stuff, half of the players will drop in the loading screen
If the matches were made evenly, and there was a punishment for leaving, that wouldn't happen though. People leave in the loading screen right now because it's often top 50 vs. 2000+ rank players. |
While I don't think the automatch system needs to be that in-depth (speed vs. accuracy options), the lack of discussion around the automatch system is pretty concerning.
CoH2's system is archaic and lacks a TON of basic QOL features that just about every modern game out there has, and from what we've seen in the CoH3 "preview", it doesn't look like a lot has been changed so far. To be fair, that was an early alpha, so things can change; but there's been no information given on this topic, which is a bit concerning.
My thoughts:
-'Ready Check', similar to most competitive games (ex. CSGO), where players need to confirm they're ready for the match to start. This prevents AFK players.
-'Leaver Penalty', also similar to most other MP games (ex. CSGO). If you leave games, you get a "penalty" that prevents you from playing again for a little while, with increasing times for frequently leaving.
-'In Game Report', self explanatory; the current "email us a replay" system is honestly unacceptable.
-As you said, better matches. Refer to this thread for examples. To put it shortly, the allowed "range" is far too high, and there needs to be hard cut-off as well. Top 50 players should never, ever, be matched against top 2,000+ players; that's just creating an awful experience for every person involved.
-Also as you said, loading screen info. What rank are my teammates? What rank are my opponents? Is one player in a pre-made group significantly better? |
I don't think "ELO-hell" is a real thing, at least from my experience; I've never had a problem getting to my usual "top 200" rank in 4v4 (or any mode), on any of the factions I've tried. The only advice I can really give is to "not leave games". Leaving games almost always results in a loss, which of course lowers your rank. As a result, even if you win every match you think is "fair", you're still probably taking a lot of losses due the games you've left, cancelling out any wins. In my case, I only leave if one player on my team is clearly afk (no movement for the first 2 minutes), or if the game has clearly been lost (getting base-pushed, facing tanks when we've never held any fuel, etc.).
With that said, the match-making system desperately needs an overhaul in CoH3, for many of the reasons listed already. The biggest change, in my view, would be to limit the possible "range" of ranks within a match. As pointed out in the Legendary Team Game Matchups thread, you can currently get into some incredibly one sided matches, especially if you wait long enough in queue, or matches where the skill levels don't make much sense (top-50 players matches with ~5000 ranks).
This needs to be limited, as it creates an awful experience for everyone involved; the lower-rank players aren't going to be able to compete, and even worse, won't learn anything from such a one sided match, and the "pro" players are going to either find the match incredibly dull due to how one-sided it is, or incredibly frustrating as their teammates won't be able to play at their level.
Other changes would also be great, like leaver penalties, or adding a "skill bonus" to pre-made teams so they face "random team" players of a higher level (to compensate for the pre-made team's better communication), and of course a "ready check" when a match is found; but I think all of those are a much lower priority. |
The problem isn't that it allows for AT vs. Random; it's that the automatch system assumes that a Random team is equal to an AT team if their ranks are the same. Get 4x rank 200 randoms to play against a premade of the same rank, and the premade will win every single time simply because they'll have much better coordination.
My suggestion has always been to give a skill "bonus" to the premade team; assume a 4-player premade of Rank 200 players will probably be equal to rank 100 randoms, etc. Similarly, that means if you're a rank 200 player, you won't be facing rank 200 pre-mades. You'll probably face rank 300-400s, where you'll have a noticeable advantage in skill to compensate for their coordination. |
*They have the safest bases that prevent infantry and light vehicle base-rushes.
*No-tech AT guns so you never get rushed with vehicles without an answer
*AT gun with retreat - much less likely to lose them if you missmacro
*No weapon drops for mainline inf so you are not feeding the enemy your weapons if you lose squads
*Free-ish weapon and nade unlocks (baked into tech and cheaper overall)
*Strong nondoc elite inf lategame that can replace volks losses (less punishing to lose inf)
*Extra support and protection if you build shwere outside of base sector
*Nondoc super heavy tank that can be build even if you lose strutures
Is there a faction that is better or similarly good for a new player?
I'd probably put OKW pretty high on "hard to learn" list, mostly because they have so many strange and unique "features" that don't carry over to any other faction. In a vacuum, sure, they're fairly straightforward to learn; but as soon as a new player tries a different faction, they'll need to learn a lot more. Regarding your points:
1. Only if you're playing 1v1, otherwise you'll probably get OST bunkers. Also, relying on base defenses isn't a great plan, and realistically, base-rushes aren't all that common.
2. While Raks are more forgiving, it can also teach you 'not-ideal' ATG usage (pushing too far, etc.) and reliance on camo, which no other ATGs have (non-doc). I also find they're frustratingly inaccurate.
3. Yes, but you also can't pickup weapon drops on mainlines once you get STGs, so it's sort of a trade-off.
4. This is the same on OST.
5. They're strong, but tricky to use; they'll show up quite squishy and be competing with Vet 2 or 3 upgraded infantry, which will force them to retreat quite quickly if you're not careful. Once they get vet, yes, they're very powerful.
6. I find that the KT is a bit of a "beginners trap"; the only time to build it is if you're winning by an incredible margin already. Otherwise, you've spent an incredible amount of resources on a single, slow, tank that can be countered (or at least, held off) quite easily by pairs of TDs. I find that it's much better to get a JP4 and P4, or really any other combination of stock tanks.
Overall, I'd recommend learning OST first. They have a linear tech order (unlike OKW) which means you'll never miss standard units, simple base healing, and a generally strong roster of units. Except for LV rushes, they generally don't have a downside for beginner players, unless the player has trouble preserving squads. Learning OST will also tech the fundamentals of every other faction in the game, which OKW might not. |
More options are always good. If it is indeed an issue, just add a toggle in the options for "classic" camera mode, which puts the zoom at CoH1/2 levels. Or better yet, a slider; so you can finely tune your 'default' camera zoom level. |
Not sure if this is a recent issue, or just one I'm noticing more and more - but it seems like replays are often corrupt, and disproportionately so if I actually want to re-watch a key moment (i.e. save the manually).
I just had a game that was either against a very skilled player, or someone cheating, and I wanted to review it - to see where I went wrong, or to report it. But both the "last played" replay and the replay I had manually saved at the end of the match were corrupt. It then occurred to me, that this has happened quite a few times.
Is this a new issue, or one I can fix? It's hard to improve (or report) when I can't check replays. |
Not going to read the entire thread, but the only issue I've noticed with Paths is the exp/vet ratio. They don't give much exp per model, but they vet up incredibly quickly - I've seen vet 2 within a few minutes.
If they hit vet 2 early, which they often do, it's quite easy to snowball into a stronger build; and due to the vet 2 bonuses (RoF, RA, passive healing), they can maintain a large MP drain that can be tricky to get out of. Other than that, Paths are fine (although boring to play against/as).
Slow down Vet gain (or increase exp rewards), and they'll be pretty much inline with every other unit in the game. |
Wrong ATO is not deal damage to all unit in circle in same time in just target 1 unit and switching.
barrage also not multiply by unit in area like zeroing.
that mean.
how many unit how less its effective.
consider again with this test video.
Yes, I'm aware of how ATO works; however, even with it targeting a single unit at a time, the total damage done to all of the units in the circle is still very high. If you replace those 5 panthers with 1x Vet 3 Panther, 1x Vet 3 Brummbar, and a vet 0 Elephant, as I described in my post, after the barrage all 3 will be well below half HP. That's a significant amount of damage dealt, especially since it starts less than 5 seconds after the smoke appears. |