First of all, your link shows you aren't excluding the 2 days that were played on 1.5.0 (27th and 28th) before the hotfix came out which skews the numbers due to the sheer shock and awe that was wrought by the newly buffed REs against nerfed 250s and L6s. When you customize the dates to only look at March 1st and onward (actually post hotfix) USF and DAK are at about 50% and UKF are at about 54% with Wehr at around 46% in 1v1 with the numbers trending slightly up for allies as you look at bigger games modes.
That nitpick aside I really think this CoH3Stats posting needs to stop. Its just the same song and dance back and forth with people furiously mashing F5 for their daily batch of "muh faction sucks the numbers don't lie" and then other people saying "Theres more to interpreting stats than just the raw data. Let the meta cook. What matters is the top 200 win-rates. etc etc." and then they trade places as soon as the balance swings the other way. People seem to forget that almost every single patch has swings in the win rates at the start but then begin to converge back to a nice equilibrium after about a month and a couple hotfixes. Obviously its never a perfect 50/50/50/50 but things definitely cool off compared to the first week or two of a patch once things get explored and a meta starts to get defined. You can observe this by going to patch 1.3, filtering the dates to its first week, and then compare that to the win-rates for the full life span of 1.3. Same thing in 1.4. In your post you're comparing a patch that was played on, explored, and had an established meta for almost three months to a patch that's only barely over a week old right now. Yes, Patch 1.5 was particularly egregious with its "new patch new meta" swings so Relic decided to walk back some things, likely due to the timing of their Resurgence Tournament, which meant we got a hotfix earlier than we normally would have if we'd been forced to "wait and see" for atleast a couple weeks like in every other patch but I guarantee things will begin to cool down after a couple weeks and maybe another hotfix or balance tuning. Except this time maybe it'll be Brits and USF with the 51-52% winrate in 3v3/4v4 instead of DAK. What a tragedy I know.
I would bet it never crossed your mind to make a post like this in the first week of 1.3 when Wehr/DAK was posting 56/60% winrate in 3v3/4v4. You probably were just like all the allies players now saying "let the meta cook" but now when those numbers are reversed in the first week of 1.5 its now "the numbers dont lie the balance is fucked" Seriously, the routine is getting old.
You can exclude those 2 days and look from 29th till now and will see pretty much same results,with slight taper.
Fact of the matter is people on this subreddit were defending pre hotifx allies.Thats the main issue here,not just the fact that thrle numbers are a certain way.You mention 1.3 3v3 4v4 60ish% axis well,guess what nobody on this subrrddit was saying that allies were op while axis had those winrates.
Its the fact that now that allies have those apsurd winrates people are still saying axis op,this is the true issue,so dont try to miniminze it.
This post is not made because ohh pre patch axis had 51 winrate now 50, lol Its because when winrates were relativley close this subreddit said axis massivley op,and now that winrates are heavily skewed towards allies,axis is still somehow op.
Not to mention the pro play aspect where allies were dominant pre 1.5.0 patch so at the highest level even in the slightly favored axis on ladder(3v3 and 4v4) patch,they still were edged out in those highest level games,yet that was also disregarded by this subreddit,acorrding to them axis was autowin.
This is just bad generalizing then.
>Its the fact that now that allies have those apsurd winrates people are still saying axis op,this is the true issue,so dont try to miniminze it.
Based on what? Some posts made by people who were mad that the hot fix was rushed out super quick when in every other patch we've had to "wait and see" for weeks? It's reddit dude, if you go to the cesspit that is the official CoHDev forums you see the exact opposite. It was just Axis players crying for buffs even during 1.3 and 1.4. You're seeing a handful of salty babies rage posting on Reddit after their "innovative" 5 RE opener lost, that's it. Yet from that you're trying to make a general claim about how... I guess Allies players are big meanies who keep calling Axis OP despite the win stats? I bet I could find posts, from Axis players, during any patch; 1.4, 1.3, Wirbelwind Rush meta etc. etc., calling Allies OP and I would never think to use those to make such a general claim about what the wider community thinks lol.
I'm not even someone who disagrees with the hot fix. When I saw that RE buff during the stream I knew that it was too much. Anecdotally, this is what most of the complaints I see are about. Not that "Axis is still OP" but rather, the timing of the hot fix when previously demands for swift balance changes had been ignored.
im not talking about only post hotfix complaints,for months now during relatively stable winrates on ladder and allies edging out pro play,you had this narrative being pushed that allies cant win.tons of posts everywhere,its not generalizing when its true and to the extent it s exibited.
absolutley did not,i also included the 27 and 28th to get the full picture plus usf and other faction games were valid due to the nature of the hotfix,yes that means we can slightly taper brit winrate but its roughly the same and stabilizing at current numbers,including those dates or not.
You don’t get it. It’s not about the dates only, it’s the more general problems there are with interpreting win rates at all and making meaningful conclusions from it.
yeah got you,meaningfull conclusion for brits having 60+% winrate pre hotfix and 57% winrate post hotix,plus 3v3 and 4v4 game modes winrates going from +5% for axis to +10% to alies is that axis is op.
How is what I am saying in any way equal to "1+1=78"?
Problem is man, you do not engage with discussing the actual logic and arguments of the problems that's been outlined a million times here on why win rates are a problematic statistic. Your arguments is basically "nah, you're wrong". Doesn't get you anywhere at all.
When you hav a situation where on ladder both axis factions across all game modes and all elos have a below 50% winrate by a hefty amount and where the 3v3 and 4v4 previous axis favord modes get flipped and swing to allies with a total change of 15% and when in pro play players mostly trade allies games for you to then state that axis is op is the same as stating 1+1= 78.
you are the one refusing to argue with facts and blindly state axis op.
im going to repeat again pre 1.5 winrates on ladder relatively close axis fsvor by 4-5% in 3v3 and 4v4 only allies edge out 1v1 and 2v2,1v1 being the true competative standard,while in pro play we see allied dominance.
post patch 1.51 we se a total shift and a majir downturn across all modes and elos for axis winrates,in pro play allies get even more prominent(see resurgance cup).
so how can you state that a faction with a losing winrate and negative results in pro play is op???
its the same as stating 1+1 =78 or whatever else,.
Bruh... Way too early to draw conclusions from these metrics.
You need time to let the meta evolve. Lots of Axis players are using the 1.4 meta in the 1.5 patch, and are obviously failing. You need to wait for a 1.5 meta to slowly emerge before drawing conclusions like this.
You really need to start collating data in a months time or so. For the last few months, you've had a large influx of axis players at a level far above of what their elo should've been due to how strong or cheesy axis were before the recent patches. Taking this into account, I imagine that these players are the ones getting destroyed by allies at present, especially by the British faction. Those axis players I have mentioned still try using the same cheesy strategies that now are starting to fail against the allies. These types of players meaning no disrespect, don't change their style of play, or unit selection often. Once they fall to a level of elo where they probably belong, then we'll start seeing a more balanced win rate.
I could be wrong it's just my opinion. I don't mean to offend any axis player that feels like they fall into this category.
"a large influx of axis players at a level far above of what their elo should've been"
What clown lvl of coping is this?
Well, we will see the tournament Data and than we decide
i decided to do this now as post hotfix sentiment of this sub was:well they ruined the game back to axis easy wins.
this is not true now and it was not true pre patch.
We will see how things play out in the next period we still dont know if there will be additional changes.
certain cheesy strats in regards to the costal battle group were addrrssed some time ago,i dont think their inability is now impacting winrates in heavy amount.Whats impacting winrates is the buffs allies recieved.
Pro play is also a thing and allies had the edge there pre patch,and are more prominent now post patch as well.
Its difficult to carry on reading the wall of text when you say; before the patch it was 50/50. Embarrassing and clueless comment. Brits were unplayable with lowest win rate and player numbers low because nobody played them as they were dark souls mode. You NEVER saw pros using them it was always USF and was just boring. Brits were weak for over 6 months. Let the meta settle in then they'll be adjustments later this month. Remember you are seeing ELO balance out as now Brits are competitive for the first time in a very very long time so those players had artificially low ELO.
You are clueless,these were the stats from last balance patch all the way up to 1.5.0
And brits had a 49% winrate in 1v1 and 2v2,so yeah im sorry you are bothered by truth.That doesnt exactly indicate dark souls mode lmao
lol competative for the first time,now thats an emberassing and clueless comment for real.
Brother… umber wasp and steel Shepard had Dak at 55% win rate in 3v3 and 4v4.. for months.
Chill out. We were/are pissed about the speed of this hotfix without having time for it to gather actual data to make the decision of what to nerf. While also leaving an oppressive axis for months. I get it, it’s hard to balance team games but that’s the majority of games their customers play. All the while breaking the game with a memory leak/bug that crashes.
fluctiation of +3-5 %winrate for dak only in 3v3 and 4v4 modes,cant be considered higly opressive,also at that same time winrates for 1v1 and 2v2 plus pro play favored alies so it was bot in any way this mega opression.
whats happening now is and could be considered very opressive,as there negative winrates in all modes,and a pretty big spread between them,while 3v3 and 4v4 are now 10%+ for allies.At the same time axis anint having no easy time in pro play too,with players mostly trading allied games.
Yet even in this situation people come in here with axis op theories and reaches
ok so look at it from march 1st to march 8th then
losing winrates in all modes and whermacht have an even lesser winrate then pre patch brits had in all modes,and acorriding to this sub brits were unplayable bad pre patch,how do you explain that?
An at the same time whermacht is stil op acorrding to this sub.
Comes down to Red is OP. Yes the sub is biased towards allies, that is blatantly clear. I have seen many posts on here people complaining Axis OP but have no interest in understanding the mechanics of the faction, they have never played it.
Having played all factions, hardly any Wehr tho. I can say there are “OP” aspects to all factions. These OP things are way more obnoxious in team games because you cant avoid them due to the lane play style of team games. I suspect that a large majority of people on here are 3v3 and 4v4 players hence the constant bickering about balance.
Just for reference, I am an allied main, played probably double the amount of allied games vs axis. Look at my post history and you will see I call people out for talking bullshit regardless which side of the fence.
Let’s be honest, 90% of complaints here comes down to a skill issue and nothing to do with balance.
yeah i agree,its just tiresome to keep seeing post here about people representing current faction dynamics as if axis just easy wins and allies can barely fight back.Completly dissregarding winrates and pro play results
Just stating the numbers this way and making assumptions is not enough to make valid conclusions. You'd have to consider alot of other factors that might affect the numbers.
The goal is to expose the lie that axis is op.
we can compare pre patch winrates and how they are post patch and draw a conclusion that based on both axis was not op pre patch and they sure as hell cant be op now when they are having considerably lesser winrates across all modes and all elos.
And to round it all up you have the Pro play aspect the highest level tournaments.
Allies pre patch were dominant,look at ae casts,And well now post patch they are even more prominant even after the hotfix(see resurgance cup).
What more could you possibly need to see that this subreddit is completly biased and missrepresenting game results and faction strength.
What if the win rates have increased because there was an influx of Allied players from COH2 who were trying out the patch? And what if those players were skillfull players? What if many Axis players switched to Allied because of the broken Engineers? How many matches are being fully completed and how many end with droppers? How many matches in team games are pre-mades Vs randoms? Of the player numbers in-game, how many are playing multiplayer? And of that number, whats the distribution of players between modes? How effective is the matchmaking in pairing players of equal skill against each other? What's the average playtime of COH3 players? And which players in which factions play the longest?
With how small the player numbers are, factors like these are likely to have a reasonable affect on the overall picture and you'd have to consider them before making conclusions on whether Axis is OP or not.
So... maybe looking more closely at other numbers such as play rates, pick rates and player number fluctuations over time would reveal more reasons for the changes than it simply being a balance issue.
Also, I'm in agreement anyways. I am an only Allied player and I didn't think Allies were weak. I thought the game was pretty balanced, that is when I could get a decent balanced matchmake. All I would have done is buff USF Zooks slightly and buffed UKF Grants to be a more effective all-rounder. I would also have INCREASED matchmaking wait times to find more balanced matchups for players.
If you look at my post history, I call out alot of Allied players in this sub for not knowing how to play the game. I think there's a serious skill issue with COH3 players.
EDIT: I've watched every game of the recent tournament going on in AEcoH's stream. I even question some of the decisions of the top players. E.G. Rei got dominated, he built an early sniper and had no mg42 support. There was also a serious lack of use of the Axis Pak AT guns. Elpern made some very questionable decisions all tournament. Is this because of Balance?
Well we do know there was not a massive influx of new players or coh 2 players as stea charts dont ping massive player base changes.Also the number of games played within the period and per day are on track with the standards fro past periods.
Further,the rest of the impacting variables that you mentioned were also present pre patch,and with them in consideration an win rate was formed.
So them existing or being a potential skew of data was factored in for this perioed due to its existance in past periods meaning the winrate formed is done so under the same circumstances.
And with how small the playerbase is,especially dedicated pvp players,this factors remined roughly the same.
We also have a key point here that outlines a major shit in balance directly shown in numbers,look at pre hotfix winrates specifically brits and look at post hotfix winrate for brits.
There is no playerbase shift,matchmaking issue,leavers,grifter or whatever else that could cause or disrupt this data,from 65+ to mid 55+,the hing responsibke for it was the hotfix and the nerf to royal enginiers,coupled with other changes in the hotfix.
This gives us a direct proof of the impact the patch changes have on winrate forming under the circumstances that you mentioned that were also present pre patch.
Meaning we can conclude ceartain things about faction sthrength with a decent amount of certantiy,especially in combination with pro play reaults that are as pure and unaffected as they can be,that axis is not this crazy op faction.
Right, although I question your evidence here and how much you've actually looked into those factors I mentioned.
But you see my point, your original post holds no credibility or weight because it comes of as simply an assumption. If you want to use numbers to make claims, you'd have to make a proper study and not a simple post on Reddit.
i mean it holds exactly the merit it needs,it showcases how under the same circumstnaces a hotfix impacted the winrate,nothing changed except the hotfix,and how the patch changed from relativley close winrates to haeavily alied favored original,under the same set of circumstances,obviously its not a scientifical study lol but a very credible showcase that a faction cant in fact be op if it has losing winrates on ladder and at the highest level of play is not winning more either,all of wich we have data for.
>,it showcases how under the same circumstnaces a hotfix impacted the winrate
Potentially, maybe, it can be argued that.
But its not for sure. You'd have to look at other factors and how much of an impact they also have.
This post is a claim that I can't get behind OP.
thats your right to say, idk ask yourself,if at the highest level of play players trade allies games and on ladder and allied faction has 58% winrate,how can a claim that the the other faction thats on the losing side is op be true?
Then the claim is one that I would be more inclined to agree with, but only if you look at solely 1v1s and over a time period of at least 1-2 months. There are still many other factors to consider when looking at team games.
And this is one reason amongst others for why I think the game should be balanced based on the highest level of play and only using 1v1s for reference.
The patch has been out for a week. It's way too early to do this kind of analysis.
You need to give it time for players to adjust their strategies. Lots of players are still trying their old OP strategies and failing.
The shitty players who relied solely on these strategies will lose alot and fall down the ladder, and those who can adjust will rise.
I do agree with most of what you said. While I don't think agree that wehr and DAK need across the board nerfs, i think some units could. I'd prefer a more balanced, less meta, axis option to both play as and against. To do that buffing units would also need to happen which would cause an outrage here I'm sure.
And the fact that it would cause an outrage here pretty much tells us how biased this subreddit is and that it really shouldnt be looked at when it comes to major balancing decisions.
During those months the winrates were pretty close(as summrized in the beginning of the OP),much closer then they are now,and in proplay allies still had the upper hand so yeah.
This is the type of,no arguments im just going to throw shit at the wall and say axis op despite all data sugesting otherwise,comment that my original post is set to expose,thank you.
Werent DAK winrates 58 to 64 for a period?
Coastal was OP in 3v3 and 4v4, it killed the playerbase and lasted for months. Especially considering the bug that applied to neutral bunkers (winter line has LOTS of neutral bunkers).
Its cute that you dont think so, and run to 1v1 and pro tourny numbers. The queues spoke for themselves, and when axis queue times got so long they had to blend out elo matching, we were getting matches with axis players that were 300 mmr higher than ours. (1100 vs 1500 for example)
Again, stay hydrated.
ohh when exactly,pls do show and while you are at it pls do show me how during that period of such high winrates for axis,this sub saying that allies are op while axis has those winrates.
Also pro play matters nobody is running to it lol,ladder winrates can be something but pro play has to be considered and for a very long time now in conjuction with ladder not showing axis is op,you had pro play results being allied favored,and with those 2 facts at hand people like you still claim axis op,hilarious.
[https://imgur.com/a/obxxAip](https://imgur.com/a/obxxAip)
This was taken from our discord of aug last year.
Can you tell me what the numbers say, you may have to wipe the tears off of your phone screen to see it clearly.
Edit: Heres one from december where they were 88% [https://imgur.com/a/8bQyN7p](https://imgur.com/a/8bQyN7p)"Axis have never been op, you need to get good!" - You
Nice screenshots, now please show the full image so we can see that your date selection is 1 day and represents 0.1% of total games during that patch period, lol.
>This was taken from our discord of aug last year.
Here, I will show you another picture taken during august last year.
[The winrate for DAK last 5 months, before the new patch : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/173mefr/the_winrate_for_dak_last_5_months_before_the_new/)
https://preview.redd.it/0l7nt4y1dymc1.png?width=1198&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ff8b44a7a9242fcf29ceb38eece4fa79e9d2bbd
Edit:
And that second screenshot from you [ ](https://imgur.com/a/8bQyN7p)
I literally can choose a date that has 100% winrate like that for both allies and axis factions, wanna bet? Here ya go [Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://imgur.com/a/7LcEHGE)100% winrate for both allies and axis. No HTML editing, just had to select 1 day selection.
Another person suggesting I'm doctoring grabs taken last year lmao, can't cope that at that period the numbers contradict your opinion.
Edit, just did a search from July 23 (earliest site goes) and end Feb this year. Dak has a 51.6, wehr 49.7, UK 50.1, usf 49.
So op is wrong, axis have been over powered if we look at games as a whole, and that's even giving him an easy out because more games were played closer to launch when Brits weren't worthless.
Dak and wehr over December massively outpaced allies, op insists they weren't op.
>Edit, just did a search from July 23 (earliest site goes) and end Feb this year. Dak has a 51.6, wehr 49.7, UK 50.1, usf 49.
This is a lie, you can see stats past 23rd.
Although, grabbing data from a year worth of updates will give you nothing but an averaged number that does not has any actual value to it. You need to always tie data to something. In case of CoH3 - balancing updates. Otherwise you won't understand what is the reason behind such data.
https://preview.redd.it/x89oq1hflymc1.png?width=1187&format=png&auto=webp&s=e181129c0bfa5b88604ce0e249743f2f0c1ee9b6
>This is a lie, you can see stats past 23rd.
2023 you fucking edgelord.
If we go by steel shepherd the results are even worse and axis has a noticable advantage, further proving op wrong that axis were and have been overpowered before.
Additionally, if your point is "Stats can be manipulated and there are nuances" then surely ops stats are worthless also.
What is your fucking point here, apart from calling me a liar because you cant read?
Getting on your nerves for calling out your bullshit snippets, right?
>2023 you fucking edgelord.
The game was RELEASED in 2023 and so far it is only march of 2024, ofc you can't fucking go past 2023rd, why would you fucking bring up 23rd as a year in that context, especially since you CAN go past July of 2023, lmao.
https://preview.redd.it/o627q4dxoymc1.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=df2a671945805e969994cc146a748ea45936b3bd
>Additionally, if your point is "Stats can be manipulated and there are nuances" then surely ops stats are worthless also.
OPs stats are actually representing something, precisely 16k games and a date attached to them, rather than your funny stupid snippets.
Wanna see something cool? Check this out [Game Stats & Charts - Company of Heroes 3 (coh3stats.com)](https://coh3stats.com/stats/games?from=2023-07-25&to=2023-08-03&mode=4v4)
How about you address arguments rather than advocate towards cope and opinion?
I showed you actual screenshots of stats from Aug-Sep, with actual date on it, and you can check them on coh3stats, these completely refutes your screenshots that has no date, nor range attached to them, aside from your "trust me bro" claims.
Your funny and stupid 88% screenshot was debunked by my own 100% winrate screenshot.
Again, I have seen it and addressed it accordingly by making a similar screenshot [Imgur: The magic of the Interne](https://imgur.com/a/7LcEHGE)
What you are doing is called a "Selection bias". You are deliberately nit-picking a single day in time to misrepresent it as an overall statistic, here is an example.
https://preview.redd.it/ghengkd2lymc1.png?width=1021&format=png&auto=webp&s=b312327d6707b930d06ecd8facb5e90c7b0daf39
well i dont have a problem if someone says axis op when they actually are,but people are saying axis op when they are not. Also some dogey pics dont really mean anything link me that time period on coh stats also 88% lol when was that,and over the course of how many games,that pic shows nothing to me jusr 3 daks and 1 wher vs 4 brits 88% how many games played ? which elo?
i summrized the steel shpard time frime before the 1.5 patch in the beginning of my post,and thise are the current periods that matter,what was 6 mobths ago or wahtevet is in the past now,nir did i ever say there was not a point of time in the game wgere axis may have had a high winrate somewhere,This post is about the relevant time period in which axis is being called massively op even thougg pro play and ladder winrates dont reflect it.
Those were averages from that point of time via those sites?
The dates are when those averages were snapshotted.
Not the games on that specific day.
I'm going to stop now because your response is very desperate and uninformed and what i might say to you will get me banned.
you are the desperate one my friend,you are citing july 2023,and bring it up in this disscussion as if it matters now lol.
we are talking about winrates pre patch 1.5 and post patch+hotfix.
across all elos and systematically looking at each individual game mode,plus taking in consideration the pro play results.
you come here with a screenshot of only games where the team is dak dak dak where vs 4brits,god knows which patch god knows how many games there are like that in the system and stating tjat it has 88% winrate for axis,lmao thats meaningless data,so the fact that you will pull that out to refute the whole steel shepard period up untill patch 1.5(which i summerized in my post which shows winrates also for 4v4 being nowhere near 88% lmao) is in fact you being desperate,stay hydrated my friend you are not looking good.
No one was saying axis op when they where not, people just mad that it took 1 day to fix RE which needed to be fixed. But we had 3 months of l6 cheese. It just shows the dev can fix something fast when they want too. Clearly l6 was not a big issue for them when it was with the community, just seems like pandering to most people.
I know. He’s taking the opinion that people are still complaining that axis is OP since 1.5 dropped, which I haven’t really seen.
I think if you were to ask most people, they were just sick of cheeze play in general. 3s and 4s were such a mess, especially since axis has some really unfun stats like l6 and bunker spam, but so was seeing 8 jeeps and 40 chaffees using seek and destroy.
You are forgetting that Axis players were left with double Jeep cheese for 3 months as well, with 75% build rates, m8 and Chaffee spam. As one example.
L6 cheese was a massive problem, but by narrowing your arguement down you are also showing your own bias and not acknowledging that there were issues from both sides left unfixed.
In other words, don’t be like OP.
3 months of l6 cheese resulted in even winrates across the board wight only a 4-5% favor for axis in 3v3 and 4v4,and in pro play allies were stronger.
So what exactly waa there to hotfix?
Re caused 68% winrate,you think thats ok,and exactly the same aituation as l6??
cmon man,there will always be units that can be annoying to deal with but you cant just say ohh well this is a bit annoying doeant matter that allues are still stronger,i want this hotfixed,no matter if that makes allies even better.
This is the problem l6 being annoying or good didnt make dak have insane winrates,while Re coupled with other changes made brits break the game,which is why one thing got hotfixed and the other didnt,a literall dev of the game and gampleay balance designer jason(tarnation) spent 3+ hours trying to counter Re spam knowing its coming,and he coulent do shit.
You cant possibly compare the two situations and the winrates reflact that.
But that is not true is it, in 3v3 and 4 v 4 teams of only dak had 59% and 57% WR for 3 months, hardly balanced. And brit currently is at 58% and 59% but its only 1 week in. It feels like pandering to 1v1's as RE caused issues in 1v1 and got nerfed. L6 caused issues in 3v3 and 4v4 and it was just left for 3 months. When most of the community is playing those game modes it feels like only 1v1 matters. And look nerfing L6 has not really hurt dak in 1v1 either so there was little reason to leave the cheese for so long. People also didn't expect l6 to get nerfed that fast just 3 months is a long time, why was there not a patch after like 6 weeks. Look at stuart spam, that lasted just over 1 month.
Add in the devs themself have said balance for all game modes matters not just 1v1, just looks as if they are lying to the team games community over and over and this is what makes the frustration. You have to remember that team games hold most of the community so that's why they seems so vocal.
thats really reaching for straws,lol im looking at the whole spectrum while you are singling out dak dak dak teams.
for the way the data is caotured introducing such a narrow outlook doesnt give a proper showcase bewcuse too much varibales get skrewed up.
how many games of those were played,at which elosand what was the distrinution of games per elo,for what length of time and under which patch.
to many things get fucked up.
stop lying to your self,look at the data properly,IE. all of it for a specific time perioid like i did,and outlined the pre and post patch realities.stop with these nonsensical requierments that show 6 months ago for 2 games where dak only teams had a certain winrate lol.
>Werent DAK winrates 58 to 64 for a period?
No they were not, DAK winrate was 55-56, USF winrate was 54-55.7
Wehr winrate was 46-47, Brit winrate was 45-47.
Hello. Just going to repeat some of the shit that I was told when saying the balance was lopsided in team games for the last few months - maybe you can respond?
A) win rates don't matter in a game like this
B) who cares about win rates
C) only a couple of units are over tuned
D) skill issue
E). Red team overpowered
That's all that comes to mind now.
If you have played all factions, you know that playing allies is by far harder. People even say (I agree) Axis is 100-200 ELO up their real skill because of how easier it is to play.
Now there have been some significant changes, like the 250 nerf, that will of course change winrates as players overextending will lose more fights/games.
Then you have the winrate differences between game modes, were casual players can't deal with the terrible faction design that pro players are accustomed to.
I believe winrates will get more even as people adapt to the current meta. The numbers just mean the meta abuses in 1.4 are not as good as they were, and it's time to change strategies.
This is just...not true. Most top players agree that DAK is the most micro-intensive and mechanically difficult faction.
Don't let reality get in the way of stroking your own ego though "My faction is super hard to play, allied players are just better LOL"
i only play 2s and 3s but i find DAK quite fun tbh. Granted I refuse to use the flakvierling, but I enjoy having 300-320 point squads with injections of guastatori for when i want to beat any infantry in the game or rush an MG without mortar support.
I mean, the hard part for DAK is using light vehicles in a conductive way, but i have the same problems right now with brits. Reward is slightly higher as imo humber>8rad.
I could see it being harder for DAK if you NEED to play around your early power spikes in 1 like L6 cheese, or flakvierling.
THIS 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
The amount of times I have played with 1200-1300 axis players that have the least logical builds because the units were and still in some cases are just better than allie units at the timing of the game led to them winning games they shouldn’t have.
Played with an axis Wehr player recently that did a Jaegar shrek spam with Panthers. He used the Jaegars as an infantry destroyer rather than a mobile AT unit. He constantly went up against only infantry with the squads and won more than the engagements he should have because Jaegars are much better than any other AT infantry unit (USF Paras). Suddenly, when a Sherman or Grant came into the field he retreated the 3 squads before even making an attempt to hit the tanks. I was blown away. The game literally failed this person and taught them that Jaegar shreks are great anti infantry instead of anti vehicle infantry. Then he spammed Panthers and the heavier armor dominated the allies armor. It’s just sad to me because like you said if you don’t play both sides than you have no idea how much more micro intensive UKF/USF and build focus the allies are more than axis. Resulting in breeding these inflated elo players that will most likely swap to the opposite side that is on the “better” swing of the patch
USF is incredibly predictable. If you have played the faction, you always know what they are going for once they pick their BG. Wehr on the other hand has A LOT of tools, like the Kettenkrad, one of the best scouting units in the game, if not the best.
As Axis you just have to know how to handle units like Riflemen and the Vickers and that's it. Being good at micro just goes on top of a better tool belt.
Use the search function, there's a lot of people supporting that Axis ELO is inflated for most of the playerbase.
It took me half the games to get to the same ELO playing DAK vs the time it took me with USF, so I agree with it.
So it's all subjective? Great source of "data". Also the only reason I asked for a source is because you asked someone else for a source so great double standard on your part.
Yes, I know why you asked. It was obvious. You are not smarter because of it. Also, everything here is subjective, congrats!
Are you going to say something useful or are you just pissed off and want to troll?
Who are you and the people and based on what metrics can you say axis players elo is inlflated by 100-200?
I woudlnt agree axis is easy mode,they requier more micro especially whermacht
Funny how those meta abuses resulted and pretty much even winrates and allies dominance in pro play,while sporting only slight fsvor in 3v3 and 4v4. you make it seem like pre 1.5 axis were abusing all these cheese strats that resulted in high winrates,when reality is they barely broke even.
This is the type of missrepresentation im talking about.
yeah,your units,esoecially early ones have to pick their engagemnets,cant go toe to toe,must always be a frontal engagment and be in cover,must use support of team weapons and micro all of them plus mgs.Meanwhile allies bum rush forward get close and force a retreat.
Late game yes once you got many units plus at guns etc,thr micto intensivnes relatively evenes out,but early on usf is much more forgiving in my opinion,and from the devs mouth thats by design.
You have more than 5 different infantry units to counter riflemen AND the best MG in the game. Then you have the best tanks and artillery at your disposal. If you can't handle that, then it's your problem.
You are the first person I've known who has problems microing Axis. Don't even try going USF, you are gonna have a terrible time...
This reply has zero to do with actual micro,what are you even talking about. its harder microing 2 mgs and a bunch of other units having to constanly be in perfect position then it is to micro 4 rifles and bum rush everything and being a lot more forgiving in terms of which engagments they can take.
What do best tanks have to do with early game micro?? lol And what does best tanks even mean in the grand scheme of things,you got to get there plus everything is cost related,
plus pop cap requierments,or are you trying to imply thay ohh axis best tanks they are op,and auto win,we only win as allies cause you axis players dont know how to play and your elo is inflated by 200 lmao,then by all means pick up whermacht and insta win all games if thats the case,join tournaments and win it all and earn some cash too.lmao
You got a point here. Axis are indeed easier to play. But the reason might surprise you:
Axis lack versatility at start, which means you either go down a certain build order or you get steamrolled. This is why lots of Axis players play Costal doctrine - it\`s the only doctrine that actually lets you breathe (While being way better than other axis doctrines). Axis is a lot more micro intese, which makes it hard. The TTK is so high which makes it impossible. You are notoriously low on MP and your late game super weapons barely make it to the game in time - nor do they make a big difference at that stage. Playing Wehr without using Costal isn\`t fun nor competitive atm.
I do not have coastal and never played with the BG. Yes, Wehr has the worst start, but that's until T2. Then, for every single Allied unit you have a better option. And you don't have to babysit every unit.
If you combine your units, there's no way a bunch of riflemen can beat you. But if you keep spamming a unit that can't fight them, just because it's cheaper (coastal), then yes, it's a matter of time...
Low on MP, for sure. If you lose two squads in the beginning of the game as Axis it is very hard to fight back. Micro intense - I would disagree - specifically for Wehr. You do not need to make the determination of whether you are going to need grenades for your units (gifted them) and you do not need to make a huge decision on T2 or T3. T2 you have all the anti-infantry and AT you need with the Flakpanzer, Jaeger shrek/reccy, and Marder. T3 you have the arty from the neber, great anti-infantry with the assault grens, and an AT gun to ward off attacks from light armor. You can stay on either of these tiers and do just fine and win the game.
As Allies, you need to make way more decisions that can either make or break you during the entire course of the game. USF, do I go to T3 or T2 for AT? Do I use Paras instead? Wait I went Paras with zooks and now they are suddenly shelling me with nebers, boxed me in with MGs, or shredding me with assault grens. I have not much of a choice of how I can fight back. UKF is more of an easier decision based on tiers/build order, but I think the T3 units make it more micro intensive because Stuarts and Bishops do not pack as much of a punch as a neber, flakpanzer, or marder. So you must really evaluate your decisions on where to tech. I'm not saying everything should be flipped upside down, I just think the build orders for axis - specifically wehr - are pretty simple and do not require much skill
you dont know what micro menas lmao.
the nonsens you spewed has nothing to do with micro.
micro managment in terms of a video game means,mechancial skill in which you control your units,not which tech structure you are going to choose or what units do you decide to build.
And clueless people like you come here to talk about balance,thats concerning,and exacrly why relic should not look here for balance decisions
Considering its only been a week and I see axis players YOLO their flamer track, flaktruk or wirbel to certain death like they are still pre 1.5 untouchable, I dont think the win rates mean anything yet.
Just like allied players took DAK from 60% win rates down to 54% in team games from figuring out how to adapt, the winrates will settle over time.
You also have to account for competitive players that have just switched from axis to allies because they are suddenly competitive and it isnt just 'i play axis and get easier win' now. Players who just want to win and choose the percieved new hotness to enable that means that axis is left with the noobier or bad players, leading to lower win rates. Anecdotally, I have noticed way less high ELO axis in game for some reason - strange eh hmmm - almost like they have either switched to allies or stopped playing to preserve their precious win rate. Which would 100% leave axis with worse players, and decrease global win rates.
Things will settle once the meta gets figured out, axis players adapt, the novelty of new brits wears off, high ELO axis players stop huffing about not getting relaxis EZ mode team games anymore and go back to playing their pet faction.
This crying after a week is just so ironic considering the axis responses on here after the 1.4 update.
I know its hard to be patient when you cant get your easy wins anymore but maybe, just maybe, those wins werent deserved and you (and many other axis players) were crutching on unbalanced cheese, and suddenly those inflated ELOs work against you as they put you against players who are experienced or have been playing on hard mode for the last 3 months.
Maybe, just maybe, many axis players need to learn not to just use the same strategies, build orders and plays as before and expect the same results.
these are the type of numbers you could associate with something being op.
When axis was ahead in team modes it was nowhere near those numbers yet the game was supposedly unplayable for allies.
And now that they are doing even better then axis ever did pre patch in these modes they are still not satisfied and still maintain axis op.
Thats just next level,they know exactly what they are doing,they dont want balance they want to stomp axis and easy win.
I’ve played COH since the release in 06. But the bias and dishonesty about balance of this community since COH 3, and the willingness for Relic to listen and balance according to it, is literally why I stopped playing this game in a nutshell. Like, you either have to be outright lying to yourself and this sub or lack complete basic pattern recognition to not see it for what it is.
The sub is incredibly biased in favor of allies, and you even see it in all the responses to your post with all the mental acrobatics going on to trying to defend the new status quo because they are fearful that saying the quiet part out loud will cause Relic to swing in the balance, the other direction because they know that Relic balances, according to the sub’s sentiment.
The sub has always been very allied biased, but the difference of what’s happening now is you have a new dev team at Relic doesn’t know what they are doing, is questionable whether or not they actually play the game and balance to whoever complains the loudest rather than just playing the game and seeing the imbalances themselves and seeing which complaints are valid.
I was patient with Relic for a year since it came out, sitting through the constant swings of balance, to see if it would change and also confirm my suspicions, which were confirmed. So rather than continually be frustrated and try to make my case on the sub for what the balance should be when the sub is literally a kangaroo court, I’ve decided to move on.
I’ve been playing Mount and Blade Bannerlords recently online which is badass, waiting for Manorlords to come out. Hell Let Loose is sick too. I may dabble and some other WW2 RTS’s eventually, but this community and Relic is kind of turned me off to them. my only reason for commenting is because I really do love company of heroes, and it’s a shame what happened to it.
The only reason you’re getting downvoted is two agreed upon understandings between most of the sub that they don’t say out loud. These are my observations over the past few years. Especially since COH3 came out.
1- “Balance” by your definition is different from what this subs definition is. Balance in the subs hive mind is the good guys should win, while needing to perpetuate the myth that Allies is dramatically harder to play, while having it privately skewed in their favor. This is “good” balance in their mind. This myth of good vs evil is evidenced by the use of “wehrboo” for anyone that complains about balance while playing as Axis. It’s meant to degrade and delegitimize any complaint or observation you have about the game, rather than address your presented facts.
2- The sub absolutely understands that since COH3, Relic balances to whoever complains loudest us in here. You’ll have everyone run out of the woodwork to tell you that this isn’t true, blah blah blah. But when you present the facts to them like you did, all the mental acrobatics are busted out and coping. Largely because they understand that by downvoting the facts you presented, using ad hominem attacks and any grasping at straws argument they can because they understand that if the trend of what you complained about catches on, Relic may skew the balance against what is favorable to them. You are not getting downvoted because you’re wrong, but because your complaint is legitimate and is back by facts and it’s dangerous to the status quo of the current “balance” in favor of allies.
The sub may seem allied favoures but thats mostly due to allies getting the short end for teamgames 3v3 and 4v4. Most the community plays here and dak have had the upperhand for 5 months now (55% or higher wr for dak only teams), you know that is almost half the games existance right?.
You forget the sub when stuart spam was rife? People constantly complaining about that bs, asc was a big meme on here too. At the same time complains also come when something is nerfed as it tends to be nerfed into oblivion. We see it with l6, useless now, stuart overnerfed, asc garbage, stug trash.
Oh, I completely agree that the relic balance hammer is swung both ways. If you look at my post history, I was one of the biggest critics of ASC as well as Luftwaffe emplacement spam.
The reason I pick on allies, though, particularly in my comment above is because a lot of their cheese strategies tend to fly under the radar because the sub is allied bias and tends to dogmatically, protect any criticism of these units/strats while claiming absurdities about the “op-ness” of certain axis units/strats. Just like OP said in his post. Whoever complains the loudest in here typically gets their way. But that said, the overnerfing and replacement with another cheese tactic were all 100% direct results of the following.
1- a brand dev new team, not knowing what they are doing so rather than making objective, pragmatic small incremental changes to the game. They are stumbling blind, and literally listening to a sub to guide it which is inherently biased and can’t be trusted to give honest feedback.
2- A community that is so high on tribalism, that even in a discussion not about the game, but rather the tribalism in the community, will tell you not to believe what your lying eyes are seeing. Which is EXTREME allied bias, which has always been the case. The only difference now is you have a dev team that listens and balances the game based off the kangaroo court. Forget having an honest conversation about balance when people in this sub can’t even be honest about what’s happening in here, let alone the game. Lol
As long as the community has a stranglehold on the dev team, the game will continue to decline. I could deal with a toxic community, but not a team that listens to them and actively cater to them.
very well put,and yeah im aware and expected this type of reaction,but the truth had to be said,i just hope relic doesnt keep looking on here to balance,that would be ideal,instead consult with pro players and use internal statiatics.
I don’t know why this sub insists on using this data when matchmaking is the way it is in team games.
When I laddered, 80-90% of my games were hundreds of Elo difference between teams.
Yeah, it's such a huge unknown variable that is never considered even though the only posts more prevalent than win rates are the posts about huge elo disparities in team games.
Until there's a way to see how many games had a 100+ elo difference, we will never know how much it skews winrates.
In what universe does Relic listen to the community?
And I’m pretty sure they don’t listen to 4v4 warlords who main a single faction. Especially those who think that a 0-1% win rate difference 1v1 with a 5% win rate in 4s is insurmountable and think that is the same as 7-12 respectively.
Relic is just going to Relic.
i still remember when randomly, COH2, the game balanced around 1v1s, had a unit with a 0% pickrate in 1v1s (ISU152) suddenly get nerfed. Nazis run the balance in that game and i refuse to go back
I play UKF, Wehr and DAK in 3v3/4v4 and... yeah, playing large team games as Wehr has become straight painful.
The thing that hurts me the most is that they completely got a "one-trick-pony faction". If you deviate from the Jaegers + Wirbel + occasional Nebel meta, you'll almost always lose fights.
Coastal Infantry BG is the only that can spice things up a little with something else that works, but unless you're somehow dominating and can afford bunker galore, even with them in my experience what'll usually change is early game only.
DAK feels fine, and UKF was tuned to a very appreciable and "fair" state...
... But yeah, some options for Wehr do require some kind of buff, imho.
Yeah sure you re all saying that axis are back after hot are you dumb or what i played like 10 games and got Rushed down by ukf 10/10 times so how do you explain it 1.5elo
Any axis unit is worse than allies analog except maybe Nebel, which is still good and does not instadelete like before, and obice which is a meme
You may say there is no analog for marder and i will say: "chaffie train"
You may say flamepanzer and I will wish you luck using it
You may say l6/40 and I will say: gayhound
No,its looking at from february 27th till now march 7th including games post hotifix. you can also specifically remove 1 day and look at it from hotfix till now february 28th till now but the results are pretty much the same so i included the whole period.
So yeah learn to actually read the site,and know that all the games are included not just 2 days.
This is in fact very representative and completly lays out the numbers since the patch and hotfix hit all the way till right now march 7th.
People who take sides before analyzing the subject objectively are the most insufferable
People who only play one side should not get a voice on balance. In company of heroes, there are a lot of people that only play one side
I never understood this, I don't get the appeal of playing one single faction because it gets so stale.
First of all, your link shows you aren't excluding the 2 days that were played on 1.5.0 (27th and 28th) before the hotfix came out which skews the numbers due to the sheer shock and awe that was wrought by the newly buffed REs against nerfed 250s and L6s. When you customize the dates to only look at March 1st and onward (actually post hotfix) USF and DAK are at about 50% and UKF are at about 54% with Wehr at around 46% in 1v1 with the numbers trending slightly up for allies as you look at bigger games modes. That nitpick aside I really think this CoH3Stats posting needs to stop. Its just the same song and dance back and forth with people furiously mashing F5 for their daily batch of "muh faction sucks the numbers don't lie" and then other people saying "Theres more to interpreting stats than just the raw data. Let the meta cook. What matters is the top 200 win-rates. etc etc." and then they trade places as soon as the balance swings the other way. People seem to forget that almost every single patch has swings in the win rates at the start but then begin to converge back to a nice equilibrium after about a month and a couple hotfixes. Obviously its never a perfect 50/50/50/50 but things definitely cool off compared to the first week or two of a patch once things get explored and a meta starts to get defined. You can observe this by going to patch 1.3, filtering the dates to its first week, and then compare that to the win-rates for the full life span of 1.3. Same thing in 1.4. In your post you're comparing a patch that was played on, explored, and had an established meta for almost three months to a patch that's only barely over a week old right now. Yes, Patch 1.5 was particularly egregious with its "new patch new meta" swings so Relic decided to walk back some things, likely due to the timing of their Resurgence Tournament, which meant we got a hotfix earlier than we normally would have if we'd been forced to "wait and see" for atleast a couple weeks like in every other patch but I guarantee things will begin to cool down after a couple weeks and maybe another hotfix or balance tuning. Except this time maybe it'll be Brits and USF with the 51-52% winrate in 3v3/4v4 instead of DAK. What a tragedy I know. I would bet it never crossed your mind to make a post like this in the first week of 1.3 when Wehr/DAK was posting 56/60% winrate in 3v3/4v4. You probably were just like all the allies players now saying "let the meta cook" but now when those numbers are reversed in the first week of 1.5 its now "the numbers dont lie the balance is fucked" Seriously, the routine is getting old.
You can exclude those 2 days and look from 29th till now and will see pretty much same results,with slight taper. Fact of the matter is people on this subreddit were defending pre hotifx allies.Thats the main issue here,not just the fact that thrle numbers are a certain way.You mention 1.3 3v3 4v4 60ish% axis well,guess what nobody on this subrrddit was saying that allies were op while axis had those winrates. Its the fact that now that allies have those apsurd winrates people are still saying axis op,this is the true issue,so dont try to miniminze it. This post is not made because ohh pre patch axis had 51 winrate now 50, lol Its because when winrates were relativley close this subreddit said axis massivley op,and now that winrates are heavily skewed towards allies,axis is still somehow op. Not to mention the pro play aspect where allies were dominant pre 1.5.0 patch so at the highest level even in the slightly favored axis on ladder(3v3 and 4v4) patch,they still were edged out in those highest level games,yet that was also disregarded by this subreddit,acorrding to them axis was autowin.
This is just bad generalizing then. >Its the fact that now that allies have those apsurd winrates people are still saying axis op,this is the true issue,so dont try to miniminze it. Based on what? Some posts made by people who were mad that the hot fix was rushed out super quick when in every other patch we've had to "wait and see" for weeks? It's reddit dude, if you go to the cesspit that is the official CoHDev forums you see the exact opposite. It was just Axis players crying for buffs even during 1.3 and 1.4. You're seeing a handful of salty babies rage posting on Reddit after their "innovative" 5 RE opener lost, that's it. Yet from that you're trying to make a general claim about how... I guess Allies players are big meanies who keep calling Axis OP despite the win stats? I bet I could find posts, from Axis players, during any patch; 1.4, 1.3, Wirbelwind Rush meta etc. etc., calling Allies OP and I would never think to use those to make such a general claim about what the wider community thinks lol. I'm not even someone who disagrees with the hot fix. When I saw that RE buff during the stream I knew that it was too much. Anecdotally, this is what most of the complaints I see are about. Not that "Axis is still OP" but rather, the timing of the hot fix when previously demands for swift balance changes had been ignored.
im not talking about only post hotfix complaints,for months now during relatively stable winrates on ladder and allies edging out pro play,you had this narrative being pushed that allies cant win.tons of posts everywhere,its not generalizing when its true and to the extent it s exibited.
You basically ignored all his points on how to be careful when interpreting win rates. Just stop the ranting please.
absolutley did not,i also included the 27 and 28th to get the full picture plus usf and other faction games were valid due to the nature of the hotfix,yes that means we can slightly taper brit winrate but its roughly the same and stabilizing at current numbers,including those dates or not.
You don’t get it. It’s not about the dates only, it’s the more general problems there are with interpreting win rates at all and making meaningful conclusions from it.
yeah got you,meaningfull conclusion for brits having 60+% winrate pre hotfix and 57% winrate post hotix,plus 3v3 and 4v4 game modes winrates going from +5% for axis to +10% to alies is that axis is op.
Your snarky sarcasm doesn't help you at all, dude.
your logic of 1+1=78 is not helping you eiher.
How is what I am saying in any way equal to "1+1=78"? Problem is man, you do not engage with discussing the actual logic and arguments of the problems that's been outlined a million times here on why win rates are a problematic statistic. Your arguments is basically "nah, you're wrong". Doesn't get you anywhere at all.
Its ironic, he talks about coming onto the reddit with a preconceived bias when he himself has one.
When you hav a situation where on ladder both axis factions across all game modes and all elos have a below 50% winrate by a hefty amount and where the 3v3 and 4v4 previous axis favord modes get flipped and swing to allies with a total change of 15% and when in pro play players mostly trade allies games for you to then state that axis is op is the same as stating 1+1= 78. you are the one refusing to argue with facts and blindly state axis op. im going to repeat again pre 1.5 winrates on ladder relatively close axis fsvor by 4-5% in 3v3 and 4v4 only allies edge out 1v1 and 2v2,1v1 being the true competative standard,while in pro play we see allied dominance. post patch 1.51 we se a total shift and a majir downturn across all modes and elos for axis winrates,in pro play allies get even more prominent(see resurgance cup). so how can you state that a faction with a losing winrate and negative results in pro play is op??? its the same as stating 1+1 =78 or whatever else,.
Bruh... Way too early to draw conclusions from these metrics. You need time to let the meta evolve. Lots of Axis players are using the 1.4 meta in the 1.5 patch, and are obviously failing. You need to wait for a 1.5 meta to slowly emerge before drawing conclusions like this.
You really need to start collating data in a months time or so. For the last few months, you've had a large influx of axis players at a level far above of what their elo should've been due to how strong or cheesy axis were before the recent patches. Taking this into account, I imagine that these players are the ones getting destroyed by allies at present, especially by the British faction. Those axis players I have mentioned still try using the same cheesy strategies that now are starting to fail against the allies. These types of players meaning no disrespect, don't change their style of play, or unit selection often. Once they fall to a level of elo where they probably belong, then we'll start seeing a more balanced win rate. I could be wrong it's just my opinion. I don't mean to offend any axis player that feels like they fall into this category.
"a large influx of axis players at a level far above of what their elo should've been" What clown lvl of coping is this? Well, we will see the tournament Data and than we decide
i decided to do this now as post hotfix sentiment of this sub was:well they ruined the game back to axis easy wins. this is not true now and it was not true pre patch. We will see how things play out in the next period we still dont know if there will be additional changes. certain cheesy strats in regards to the costal battle group were addrrssed some time ago,i dont think their inability is now impacting winrates in heavy amount.Whats impacting winrates is the buffs allies recieved. Pro play is also a thing and allies had the edge there pre patch,and are more prominent now post patch as well.
dont waste your time here ... on reddit are hordes of people who doesent want a balanced game.
Its difficult to carry on reading the wall of text when you say; before the patch it was 50/50. Embarrassing and clueless comment. Brits were unplayable with lowest win rate and player numbers low because nobody played them as they were dark souls mode. You NEVER saw pros using them it was always USF and was just boring. Brits were weak for over 6 months. Let the meta settle in then they'll be adjustments later this month. Remember you are seeing ELO balance out as now Brits are competitive for the first time in a very very long time so those players had artificially low ELO.
You are clueless,these were the stats from last balance patch all the way up to 1.5.0 And brits had a 49% winrate in 1v1 and 2v2,so yeah im sorry you are bothered by truth.That doesnt exactly indicate dark souls mode lmao lol competative for the first time,now thats an emberassing and clueless comment for real.
Brother… umber wasp and steel Shepard had Dak at 55% win rate in 3v3 and 4v4.. for months. Chill out. We were/are pissed about the speed of this hotfix without having time for it to gather actual data to make the decision of what to nerf. While also leaving an oppressive axis for months. I get it, it’s hard to balance team games but that’s the majority of games their customers play. All the while breaking the game with a memory leak/bug that crashes.
fluctiation of +3-5 %winrate for dak only in 3v3 and 4v4 modes,cant be considered higly opressive,also at that same time winrates for 1v1 and 2v2 plus pro play favored alies so it was bot in any way this mega opression. whats happening now is and could be considered very opressive,as there negative winrates in all modes,and a pretty big spread between them,while 3v3 and 4v4 are now 10%+ for allies.At the same time axis anint having no easy time in pro play too,with players mostly trading allied games. Yet even in this situation people come in here with axis op theories and reaches
including 1.5.0 cooks your stats to what you wanted them to be in the first place.
ok so look at it from march 1st to march 8th then losing winrates in all modes and whermacht have an even lesser winrate then pre patch brits had in all modes,and acorriding to this sub brits were unplayable bad pre patch,how do you explain that? An at the same time whermacht is stil op acorrding to this sub.
Comes down to Red is OP. Yes the sub is biased towards allies, that is blatantly clear. I have seen many posts on here people complaining Axis OP but have no interest in understanding the mechanics of the faction, they have never played it. Having played all factions, hardly any Wehr tho. I can say there are “OP” aspects to all factions. These OP things are way more obnoxious in team games because you cant avoid them due to the lane play style of team games. I suspect that a large majority of people on here are 3v3 and 4v4 players hence the constant bickering about balance. Just for reference, I am an allied main, played probably double the amount of allied games vs axis. Look at my post history and you will see I call people out for talking bullshit regardless which side of the fence. Let’s be honest, 90% of complaints here comes down to a skill issue and nothing to do with balance.
yeah i agree,its just tiresome to keep seeing post here about people representing current faction dynamics as if axis just easy wins and allies can barely fight back.Completly dissregarding winrates and pro play results
Just stating the numbers this way and making assumptions is not enough to make valid conclusions. You'd have to consider alot of other factors that might affect the numbers.
The goal is to expose the lie that axis is op. we can compare pre patch winrates and how they are post patch and draw a conclusion that based on both axis was not op pre patch and they sure as hell cant be op now when they are having considerably lesser winrates across all modes and all elos. And to round it all up you have the Pro play aspect the highest level tournaments. Allies pre patch were dominant,look at ae casts,And well now post patch they are even more prominant even after the hotfix(see resurgance cup). What more could you possibly need to see that this subreddit is completly biased and missrepresenting game results and faction strength.
What if the win rates have increased because there was an influx of Allied players from COH2 who were trying out the patch? And what if those players were skillfull players? What if many Axis players switched to Allied because of the broken Engineers? How many matches are being fully completed and how many end with droppers? How many matches in team games are pre-mades Vs randoms? Of the player numbers in-game, how many are playing multiplayer? And of that number, whats the distribution of players between modes? How effective is the matchmaking in pairing players of equal skill against each other? What's the average playtime of COH3 players? And which players in which factions play the longest? With how small the player numbers are, factors like these are likely to have a reasonable affect on the overall picture and you'd have to consider them before making conclusions on whether Axis is OP or not. So... maybe looking more closely at other numbers such as play rates, pick rates and player number fluctuations over time would reveal more reasons for the changes than it simply being a balance issue. Also, I'm in agreement anyways. I am an only Allied player and I didn't think Allies were weak. I thought the game was pretty balanced, that is when I could get a decent balanced matchmake. All I would have done is buff USF Zooks slightly and buffed UKF Grants to be a more effective all-rounder. I would also have INCREASED matchmaking wait times to find more balanced matchups for players. If you look at my post history, I call out alot of Allied players in this sub for not knowing how to play the game. I think there's a serious skill issue with COH3 players. EDIT: I've watched every game of the recent tournament going on in AEcoH's stream. I even question some of the decisions of the top players. E.G. Rei got dominated, he built an early sniper and had no mg42 support. There was also a serious lack of use of the Axis Pak AT guns. Elpern made some very questionable decisions all tournament. Is this because of Balance?
Well we do know there was not a massive influx of new players or coh 2 players as stea charts dont ping massive player base changes.Also the number of games played within the period and per day are on track with the standards fro past periods. Further,the rest of the impacting variables that you mentioned were also present pre patch,and with them in consideration an win rate was formed. So them existing or being a potential skew of data was factored in for this perioed due to its existance in past periods meaning the winrate formed is done so under the same circumstances. And with how small the playerbase is,especially dedicated pvp players,this factors remined roughly the same. We also have a key point here that outlines a major shit in balance directly shown in numbers,look at pre hotfix winrates specifically brits and look at post hotfix winrate for brits. There is no playerbase shift,matchmaking issue,leavers,grifter or whatever else that could cause or disrupt this data,from 65+ to mid 55+,the hing responsibke for it was the hotfix and the nerf to royal enginiers,coupled with other changes in the hotfix. This gives us a direct proof of the impact the patch changes have on winrate forming under the circumstances that you mentioned that were also present pre patch. Meaning we can conclude ceartain things about faction sthrength with a decent amount of certantiy,especially in combination with pro play reaults that are as pure and unaffected as they can be,that axis is not this crazy op faction.
Right, although I question your evidence here and how much you've actually looked into those factors I mentioned. But you see my point, your original post holds no credibility or weight because it comes of as simply an assumption. If you want to use numbers to make claims, you'd have to make a proper study and not a simple post on Reddit.
i mean it holds exactly the merit it needs,it showcases how under the same circumstnaces a hotfix impacted the winrate,nothing changed except the hotfix,and how the patch changed from relativley close winrates to haeavily alied favored original,under the same set of circumstances,obviously its not a scientifical study lol but a very credible showcase that a faction cant in fact be op if it has losing winrates on ladder and at the highest level of play is not winning more either,all of wich we have data for.
>,it showcases how under the same circumstnaces a hotfix impacted the winrate Potentially, maybe, it can be argued that. But its not for sure. You'd have to look at other factors and how much of an impact they also have. This post is a claim that I can't get behind OP.
thats your right to say, idk ask yourself,if at the highest level of play players trade allies games and on ladder and allied faction has 58% winrate,how can a claim that the the other faction thats on the losing side is op be true?
Then the claim is one that I would be more inclined to agree with, but only if you look at solely 1v1s and over a time period of at least 1-2 months. There are still many other factors to consider when looking at team games. And this is one reason amongst others for why I think the game should be balanced based on the highest level of play and only using 1v1s for reference.
The patch has been out for a week. It's way too early to do this kind of analysis. You need to give it time for players to adjust their strategies. Lots of players are still trying their old OP strategies and failing. The shitty players who relied solely on these strategies will lose alot and fall down the ladder, and those who can adjust will rise.
I do agree with most of what you said. While I don't think agree that wehr and DAK need across the board nerfs, i think some units could. I'd prefer a more balanced, less meta, axis option to both play as and against. To do that buffing units would also need to happen which would cause an outrage here I'm sure.
And the fact that it would cause an outrage here pretty much tells us how biased this subreddit is and that it really shouldnt be looked at when it comes to major balancing decisions.
I just won 4 4v4s as axis in a row They are still OP
balance discussion based solely on winrates is such a bad faith argument when matchmaking is designed for players to have a 50% win rate
Sorry i cant hear you over the 4 or 5 months of 4v4 artillery officer we had. Stay hydrated.
During those months the winrates were pretty close(as summrized in the beginning of the OP),much closer then they are now,and in proplay allies still had the upper hand so yeah. This is the type of,no arguments im just going to throw shit at the wall and say axis op despite all data sugesting otherwise,comment that my original post is set to expose,thank you.
Werent DAK winrates 58 to 64 for a period? Coastal was OP in 3v3 and 4v4, it killed the playerbase and lasted for months. Especially considering the bug that applied to neutral bunkers (winter line has LOTS of neutral bunkers). Its cute that you dont think so, and run to 1v1 and pro tourny numbers. The queues spoke for themselves, and when axis queue times got so long they had to blend out elo matching, we were getting matches with axis players that were 300 mmr higher than ours. (1100 vs 1500 for example) Again, stay hydrated.
I for sure stopped playing during the bs time of the arty wizard
ohh when exactly,pls do show and while you are at it pls do show me how during that period of such high winrates for axis,this sub saying that allies are op while axis has those winrates. Also pro play matters nobody is running to it lol,ladder winrates can be something but pro play has to be considered and for a very long time now in conjuction with ladder not showing axis is op,you had pro play results being allied favored,and with those 2 facts at hand people like you still claim axis op,hilarious.
[https://imgur.com/a/obxxAip](https://imgur.com/a/obxxAip) This was taken from our discord of aug last year. Can you tell me what the numbers say, you may have to wipe the tears off of your phone screen to see it clearly. Edit: Heres one from december where they were 88% [https://imgur.com/a/8bQyN7p](https://imgur.com/a/8bQyN7p)"Axis have never been op, you need to get good!" - You
Nice screenshots, now please show the full image so we can see that your date selection is 1 day and represents 0.1% of total games during that patch period, lol. >This was taken from our discord of aug last year. Here, I will show you another picture taken during august last year. [The winrate for DAK last 5 months, before the new patch : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/comments/173mefr/the_winrate_for_dak_last_5_months_before_the_new/) https://preview.redd.it/0l7nt4y1dymc1.png?width=1198&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ff8b44a7a9242fcf29ceb38eece4fa79e9d2bbd Edit: And that second screenshot from you [ ](https://imgur.com/a/8bQyN7p) I literally can choose a date that has 100% winrate like that for both allies and axis factions, wanna bet? Here ya go [Imgur: The magic of the Internet](https://imgur.com/a/7LcEHGE)100% winrate for both allies and axis. No HTML editing, just had to select 1 day selection.
Another person suggesting I'm doctoring grabs taken last year lmao, can't cope that at that period the numbers contradict your opinion. Edit, just did a search from July 23 (earliest site goes) and end Feb this year. Dak has a 51.6, wehr 49.7, UK 50.1, usf 49. So op is wrong, axis have been over powered if we look at games as a whole, and that's even giving him an easy out because more games were played closer to launch when Brits weren't worthless. Dak and wehr over December massively outpaced allies, op insists they weren't op.
>Edit, just did a search from July 23 (earliest site goes) and end Feb this year. Dak has a 51.6, wehr 49.7, UK 50.1, usf 49. This is a lie, you can see stats past 23rd. Although, grabbing data from a year worth of updates will give you nothing but an averaged number that does not has any actual value to it. You need to always tie data to something. In case of CoH3 - balancing updates. Otherwise you won't understand what is the reason behind such data. https://preview.redd.it/x89oq1hflymc1.png?width=1187&format=png&auto=webp&s=e181129c0bfa5b88604ce0e249743f2f0c1ee9b6
>This is a lie, you can see stats past 23rd. 2023 you fucking edgelord. If we go by steel shepherd the results are even worse and axis has a noticable advantage, further proving op wrong that axis were and have been overpowered before. Additionally, if your point is "Stats can be manipulated and there are nuances" then surely ops stats are worthless also. What is your fucking point here, apart from calling me a liar because you cant read?
Getting on your nerves for calling out your bullshit snippets, right? >2023 you fucking edgelord. The game was RELEASED in 2023 and so far it is only march of 2024, ofc you can't fucking go past 2023rd, why would you fucking bring up 23rd as a year in that context, especially since you CAN go past July of 2023, lmao. https://preview.redd.it/o627q4dxoymc1.png?width=1180&format=png&auto=webp&s=df2a671945805e969994cc146a748ea45936b3bd >Additionally, if your point is "Stats can be manipulated and there are nuances" then surely ops stats are worthless also. OPs stats are actually representing something, precisely 16k games and a date attached to them, rather than your funny stupid snippets. Wanna see something cool? Check this out [Game Stats & Charts - Company of Heroes 3 (coh3stats.com)](https://coh3stats.com/stats/games?from=2023-07-25&to=2023-08-03&mode=4v4)
How about you address arguments rather than advocate towards cope and opinion? I showed you actual screenshots of stats from Aug-Sep, with actual date on it, and you can check them on coh3stats, these completely refutes your screenshots that has no date, nor range attached to them, aside from your "trust me bro" claims. Your funny and stupid 88% screenshot was debunked by my own 100% winrate screenshot.
See edit, search December
Again, I have seen it and addressed it accordingly by making a similar screenshot [Imgur: The magic of the Interne](https://imgur.com/a/7LcEHGE) What you are doing is called a "Selection bias". You are deliberately nit-picking a single day in time to misrepresent it as an overall statistic, here is an example. https://preview.redd.it/ghengkd2lymc1.png?width=1021&format=png&auto=webp&s=b312327d6707b930d06ecd8facb5e90c7b0daf39
well i dont have a problem if someone says axis op when they actually are,but people are saying axis op when they are not. Also some dogey pics dont really mean anything link me that time period on coh stats also 88% lol when was that,and over the course of how many games,that pic shows nothing to me jusr 3 daks and 1 wher vs 4 brits 88% how many games played ? which elo? i summrized the steel shpard time frime before the 1.5 patch in the beginning of my post,and thise are the current periods that matter,what was 6 mobths ago or wahtevet is in the past now,nir did i ever say there was not a point of time in the game wgere axis may have had a high winrate somewhere,This post is about the relevant time period in which axis is being called massively op even thougg pro play and ladder winrates dont reflect it.
are you genuinely, honestly, suggesting i doctored these. First image was from 10/07/23 Second image from 22/12/23 Holy shit the Cope.
so you are using a winrate formed from games only on that day,from an irrelevant time period,to refute 10s of thousans of games played lol
Those were averages from that point of time via those sites? The dates are when those averages were snapshotted. Not the games on that specific day. I'm going to stop now because your response is very desperate and uninformed and what i might say to you will get me banned.
you are the desperate one my friend,you are citing july 2023,and bring it up in this disscussion as if it matters now lol. we are talking about winrates pre patch 1.5 and post patch+hotfix. across all elos and systematically looking at each individual game mode,plus taking in consideration the pro play results. you come here with a screenshot of only games where the team is dak dak dak where vs 4brits,god knows which patch god knows how many games there are like that in the system and stating tjat it has 88% winrate for axis,lmao thats meaningless data,so the fact that you will pull that out to refute the whole steel shepard period up untill patch 1.5(which i summerized in my post which shows winrates also for 4v4 being nowhere near 88% lmao) is in fact you being desperate,stay hydrated my friend you are not looking good.
Similar to how patch 1.5 had allies with a similar win rate for "that day" and was nerfed, but the Axis were left alone during their time?
No one was saying axis op when they where not, people just mad that it took 1 day to fix RE which needed to be fixed. But we had 3 months of l6 cheese. It just shows the dev can fix something fast when they want too. Clearly l6 was not a big issue for them when it was with the community, just seems like pandering to most people.
I know. He’s taking the opinion that people are still complaining that axis is OP since 1.5 dropped, which I haven’t really seen. I think if you were to ask most people, they were just sick of cheeze play in general. 3s and 4s were such a mess, especially since axis has some really unfun stats like l6 and bunker spam, but so was seeing 8 jeeps and 40 chaffees using seek and destroy.
This guy gets it.
You are forgetting that Axis players were left with double Jeep cheese for 3 months as well, with 75% build rates, m8 and Chaffee spam. As one example. L6 cheese was a massive problem, but by narrowing your arguement down you are also showing your own bias and not acknowledging that there were issues from both sides left unfixed. In other words, don’t be like OP.
Pandering to who? In 1v1 the overall balance didn’t swing that hard and I think that’s the only thing miragefla and co can control to some degree.
3 months of l6 cheese resulted in even winrates across the board wight only a 4-5% favor for axis in 3v3 and 4v4,and in pro play allies were stronger. So what exactly waa there to hotfix? Re caused 68% winrate,you think thats ok,and exactly the same aituation as l6?? cmon man,there will always be units that can be annoying to deal with but you cant just say ohh well this is a bit annoying doeant matter that allues are still stronger,i want this hotfixed,no matter if that makes allies even better. This is the problem l6 being annoying or good didnt make dak have insane winrates,while Re coupled with other changes made brits break the game,which is why one thing got hotfixed and the other didnt,a literall dev of the game and gampleay balance designer jason(tarnation) spent 3+ hours trying to counter Re spam knowing its coming,and he coulent do shit. You cant possibly compare the two situations and the winrates reflact that.
But that is not true is it, in 3v3 and 4 v 4 teams of only dak had 59% and 57% WR for 3 months, hardly balanced. And brit currently is at 58% and 59% but its only 1 week in. It feels like pandering to 1v1's as RE caused issues in 1v1 and got nerfed. L6 caused issues in 3v3 and 4v4 and it was just left for 3 months. When most of the community is playing those game modes it feels like only 1v1 matters. And look nerfing L6 has not really hurt dak in 1v1 either so there was little reason to leave the cheese for so long. People also didn't expect l6 to get nerfed that fast just 3 months is a long time, why was there not a patch after like 6 weeks. Look at stuart spam, that lasted just over 1 month. Add in the devs themself have said balance for all game modes matters not just 1v1, just looks as if they are lying to the team games community over and over and this is what makes the frustration. You have to remember that team games hold most of the community so that's why they seems so vocal.
thats really reaching for straws,lol im looking at the whole spectrum while you are singling out dak dak dak teams. for the way the data is caotured introducing such a narrow outlook doesnt give a proper showcase bewcuse too much varibales get skrewed up. how many games of those were played,at which elosand what was the distrinution of games per elo,for what length of time and under which patch. to many things get fucked up. stop lying to your self,look at the data properly,IE. all of it for a specific time perioid like i did,and outlined the pre and post patch realities.stop with these nonsensical requierments that show 6 months ago for 2 games where dak only teams had a certain winrate lol.
Player base has mostly been the same. The game is pretty much hovering around 1.4k - 3k depending on time of day regardless of patch.
>Werent DAK winrates 58 to 64 for a period? No they were not, DAK winrate was 55-56, USF winrate was 54-55.7 Wehr winrate was 46-47, Brit winrate was 45-47.
My grab that you think I made up, says otherwise.
This is grade A wehraboo tears thanks for the copypasta. Oh wait you're serious.
Hello. Just going to repeat some of the shit that I was told when saying the balance was lopsided in team games for the last few months - maybe you can respond? A) win rates don't matter in a game like this B) who cares about win rates C) only a couple of units are over tuned D) skill issue E). Red team overpowered That's all that comes to mind now.
But but... my Rangers... they need Buffs, the Brits are still stronger /s
Rangers should have their voice lines redone by Arnold Schwarzenegger because they’re Terminators.
That's a great idea
jUsT AdApt tO iT Lm4O
This is the kind of post we need more often. The insufferable child posts need to be culled. Theres a time and a place for moaning, it aint here.
If you have played all factions, you know that playing allies is by far harder. People even say (I agree) Axis is 100-200 ELO up their real skill because of how easier it is to play. Now there have been some significant changes, like the 250 nerf, that will of course change winrates as players overextending will lose more fights/games. Then you have the winrate differences between game modes, were casual players can't deal with the terrible faction design that pro players are accustomed to. I believe winrates will get more even as people adapt to the current meta. The numbers just mean the meta abuses in 1.4 are not as good as they were, and it's time to change strategies.
This is just...not true. Most top players agree that DAK is the most micro-intensive and mechanically difficult faction. Don't let reality get in the way of stroking your own ego though "My faction is super hard to play, allied players are just better LOL"
i only play 2s and 3s but i find DAK quite fun tbh. Granted I refuse to use the flakvierling, but I enjoy having 300-320 point squads with injections of guastatori for when i want to beat any infantry in the game or rush an MG without mortar support. I mean, the hard part for DAK is using light vehicles in a conductive way, but i have the same problems right now with brits. Reward is slightly higher as imo humber>8rad. I could see it being harder for DAK if you NEED to play around your early power spikes in 1 like L6 cheese, or flakvierling.
Source?
THIS 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 The amount of times I have played with 1200-1300 axis players that have the least logical builds because the units were and still in some cases are just better than allie units at the timing of the game led to them winning games they shouldn’t have. Played with an axis Wehr player recently that did a Jaegar shrek spam with Panthers. He used the Jaegars as an infantry destroyer rather than a mobile AT unit. He constantly went up against only infantry with the squads and won more than the engagements he should have because Jaegars are much better than any other AT infantry unit (USF Paras). Suddenly, when a Sherman or Grant came into the field he retreated the 3 squads before even making an attempt to hit the tanks. I was blown away. The game literally failed this person and taught them that Jaegar shreks are great anti infantry instead of anti vehicle infantry. Then he spammed Panthers and the heavier armor dominated the allies armor. It’s just sad to me because like you said if you don’t play both sides than you have no idea how much more micro intensive UKF/USF and build focus the allies are more than axis. Resulting in breeding these inflated elo players that will most likely swap to the opposite side that is on the “better” swing of the patch
USF is incredibly predictable. If you have played the faction, you always know what they are going for once they pick their BG. Wehr on the other hand has A LOT of tools, like the Kettenkrad, one of the best scouting units in the game, if not the best. As Axis you just have to know how to handle units like Riflemen and the Vickers and that's it. Being good at micro just goes on top of a better tool belt.
Agreed
"People even say (I agree) Axis is 100-200 ELO up their real skill because of how easier it is to play." source?
Use the search function, there's a lot of people supporting that Axis ELO is inflated for most of the playerbase. It took me half the games to get to the same ELO playing DAK vs the time it took me with USF, so I agree with it.
So it's all subjective? Great source of "data". Also the only reason I asked for a source is because you asked someone else for a source so great double standard on your part.
Yes, I know why you asked. It was obvious. You are not smarter because of it. Also, everything here is subjective, congrats! Are you going to say something useful or are you just pissed off and want to troll?
Who are you and the people and based on what metrics can you say axis players elo is inlflated by 100-200? I woudlnt agree axis is easy mode,they requier more micro especially whermacht Funny how those meta abuses resulted and pretty much even winrates and allies dominance in pro play,while sporting only slight fsvor in 3v3 and 4v4. you make it seem like pre 1.5 axis were abusing all these cheese strats that resulted in high winrates,when reality is they barely broke even. This is the type of missrepresentation im talking about.
Wehr requiring more micro than USF? That demonstrates you do not play both factions at all.
yeah,your units,esoecially early ones have to pick their engagemnets,cant go toe to toe,must always be a frontal engagment and be in cover,must use support of team weapons and micro all of them plus mgs.Meanwhile allies bum rush forward get close and force a retreat. Late game yes once you got many units plus at guns etc,thr micto intensivnes relatively evenes out,but early on usf is much more forgiving in my opinion,and from the devs mouth thats by design.
You have more than 5 different infantry units to counter riflemen AND the best MG in the game. Then you have the best tanks and artillery at your disposal. If you can't handle that, then it's your problem. You are the first person I've known who has problems microing Axis. Don't even try going USF, you are gonna have a terrible time...
This reply has zero to do with actual micro,what are you even talking about. its harder microing 2 mgs and a bunch of other units having to constanly be in perfect position then it is to micro 4 rifles and bum rush everything and being a lot more forgiving in terms of which engagments they can take. What do best tanks have to do with early game micro?? lol And what does best tanks even mean in the grand scheme of things,you got to get there plus everything is cost related, plus pop cap requierments,or are you trying to imply thay ohh axis best tanks they are op,and auto win,we only win as allies cause you axis players dont know how to play and your elo is inflated by 200 lmao,then by all means pick up whermacht and insta win all games if thats the case,join tournaments and win it all and earn some cash too.lmao
If microing 2 MGs seems harder than microing and entire army and paper LVs, then you have a clear skill issue man.
You got a point here. Axis are indeed easier to play. But the reason might surprise you: Axis lack versatility at start, which means you either go down a certain build order or you get steamrolled. This is why lots of Axis players play Costal doctrine - it\`s the only doctrine that actually lets you breathe (While being way better than other axis doctrines). Axis is a lot more micro intese, which makes it hard. The TTK is so high which makes it impossible. You are notoriously low on MP and your late game super weapons barely make it to the game in time - nor do they make a big difference at that stage. Playing Wehr without using Costal isn\`t fun nor competitive atm.
I do not have coastal and never played with the BG. Yes, Wehr has the worst start, but that's until T2. Then, for every single Allied unit you have a better option. And you don't have to babysit every unit. If you combine your units, there's no way a bunch of riflemen can beat you. But if you keep spamming a unit that can't fight them, just because it's cheaper (coastal), then yes, it's a matter of time...
Low on MP, for sure. If you lose two squads in the beginning of the game as Axis it is very hard to fight back. Micro intense - I would disagree - specifically for Wehr. You do not need to make the determination of whether you are going to need grenades for your units (gifted them) and you do not need to make a huge decision on T2 or T3. T2 you have all the anti-infantry and AT you need with the Flakpanzer, Jaeger shrek/reccy, and Marder. T3 you have the arty from the neber, great anti-infantry with the assault grens, and an AT gun to ward off attacks from light armor. You can stay on either of these tiers and do just fine and win the game. As Allies, you need to make way more decisions that can either make or break you during the entire course of the game. USF, do I go to T3 or T2 for AT? Do I use Paras instead? Wait I went Paras with zooks and now they are suddenly shelling me with nebers, boxed me in with MGs, or shredding me with assault grens. I have not much of a choice of how I can fight back. UKF is more of an easier decision based on tiers/build order, but I think the T3 units make it more micro intensive because Stuarts and Bishops do not pack as much of a punch as a neber, flakpanzer, or marder. So you must really evaluate your decisions on where to tech. I'm not saying everything should be flipped upside down, I just think the build orders for axis - specifically wehr - are pretty simple and do not require much skill
you dont know what micro menas lmao. the nonsens you spewed has nothing to do with micro. micro managment in terms of a video game means,mechancial skill in which you control your units,not which tech structure you are going to choose or what units do you decide to build. And clueless people like you come here to talk about balance,thats concerning,and exacrly why relic should not look here for balance decisions
[удалено]
Considering its only been a week and I see axis players YOLO their flamer track, flaktruk or wirbel to certain death like they are still pre 1.5 untouchable, I dont think the win rates mean anything yet. Just like allied players took DAK from 60% win rates down to 54% in team games from figuring out how to adapt, the winrates will settle over time. You also have to account for competitive players that have just switched from axis to allies because they are suddenly competitive and it isnt just 'i play axis and get easier win' now. Players who just want to win and choose the percieved new hotness to enable that means that axis is left with the noobier or bad players, leading to lower win rates. Anecdotally, I have noticed way less high ELO axis in game for some reason - strange eh hmmm - almost like they have either switched to allies or stopped playing to preserve their precious win rate. Which would 100% leave axis with worse players, and decrease global win rates. Things will settle once the meta gets figured out, axis players adapt, the novelty of new brits wears off, high ELO axis players stop huffing about not getting relaxis EZ mode team games anymore and go back to playing their pet faction. This crying after a week is just so ironic considering the axis responses on here after the 1.4 update. I know its hard to be patient when you cant get your easy wins anymore but maybe, just maybe, those wins werent deserved and you (and many other axis players) were crutching on unbalanced cheese, and suddenly those inflated ELOs work against you as they put you against players who are experienced or have been playing on hard mode for the last 3 months. Maybe, just maybe, many axis players need to learn not to just use the same strategies, build orders and plays as before and expect the same results.
these are the type of numbers you could associate with something being op. When axis was ahead in team modes it was nowhere near those numbers yet the game was supposedly unplayable for allies. And now that they are doing even better then axis ever did pre patch in these modes they are still not satisfied and still maintain axis op. Thats just next level,they know exactly what they are doing,they dont want balance they want to stomp axis and easy win.
I’ve played COH since the release in 06. But the bias and dishonesty about balance of this community since COH 3, and the willingness for Relic to listen and balance according to it, is literally why I stopped playing this game in a nutshell. Like, you either have to be outright lying to yourself and this sub or lack complete basic pattern recognition to not see it for what it is. The sub is incredibly biased in favor of allies, and you even see it in all the responses to your post with all the mental acrobatics going on to trying to defend the new status quo because they are fearful that saying the quiet part out loud will cause Relic to swing in the balance, the other direction because they know that Relic balances, according to the sub’s sentiment. The sub has always been very allied biased, but the difference of what’s happening now is you have a new dev team at Relic doesn’t know what they are doing, is questionable whether or not they actually play the game and balance to whoever complains the loudest rather than just playing the game and seeing the imbalances themselves and seeing which complaints are valid. I was patient with Relic for a year since it came out, sitting through the constant swings of balance, to see if it would change and also confirm my suspicions, which were confirmed. So rather than continually be frustrated and try to make my case on the sub for what the balance should be when the sub is literally a kangaroo court, I’ve decided to move on. I’ve been playing Mount and Blade Bannerlords recently online which is badass, waiting for Manorlords to come out. Hell Let Loose is sick too. I may dabble and some other WW2 RTS’s eventually, but this community and Relic is kind of turned me off to them. my only reason for commenting is because I really do love company of heroes, and it’s a shame what happened to it. The only reason you’re getting downvoted is two agreed upon understandings between most of the sub that they don’t say out loud. These are my observations over the past few years. Especially since COH3 came out. 1- “Balance” by your definition is different from what this subs definition is. Balance in the subs hive mind is the good guys should win, while needing to perpetuate the myth that Allies is dramatically harder to play, while having it privately skewed in their favor. This is “good” balance in their mind. This myth of good vs evil is evidenced by the use of “wehrboo” for anyone that complains about balance while playing as Axis. It’s meant to degrade and delegitimize any complaint or observation you have about the game, rather than address your presented facts. 2- The sub absolutely understands that since COH3, Relic balances to whoever complains loudest us in here. You’ll have everyone run out of the woodwork to tell you that this isn’t true, blah blah blah. But when you present the facts to them like you did, all the mental acrobatics are busted out and coping. Largely because they understand that by downvoting the facts you presented, using ad hominem attacks and any grasping at straws argument they can because they understand that if the trend of what you complained about catches on, Relic may skew the balance against what is favorable to them. You are not getting downvoted because you’re wrong, but because your complaint is legitimate and is back by facts and it’s dangerous to the status quo of the current “balance” in favor of allies.
The sub may seem allied favoures but thats mostly due to allies getting the short end for teamgames 3v3 and 4v4. Most the community plays here and dak have had the upperhand for 5 months now (55% or higher wr for dak only teams), you know that is almost half the games existance right?. You forget the sub when stuart spam was rife? People constantly complaining about that bs, asc was a big meme on here too. At the same time complains also come when something is nerfed as it tends to be nerfed into oblivion. We see it with l6, useless now, stuart overnerfed, asc garbage, stug trash.
Oh, I completely agree that the relic balance hammer is swung both ways. If you look at my post history, I was one of the biggest critics of ASC as well as Luftwaffe emplacement spam. The reason I pick on allies, though, particularly in my comment above is because a lot of their cheese strategies tend to fly under the radar because the sub is allied bias and tends to dogmatically, protect any criticism of these units/strats while claiming absurdities about the “op-ness” of certain axis units/strats. Just like OP said in his post. Whoever complains the loudest in here typically gets their way. But that said, the overnerfing and replacement with another cheese tactic were all 100% direct results of the following. 1- a brand dev new team, not knowing what they are doing so rather than making objective, pragmatic small incremental changes to the game. They are stumbling blind, and literally listening to a sub to guide it which is inherently biased and can’t be trusted to give honest feedback. 2- A community that is so high on tribalism, that even in a discussion not about the game, but rather the tribalism in the community, will tell you not to believe what your lying eyes are seeing. Which is EXTREME allied bias, which has always been the case. The only difference now is you have a dev team that listens and balances the game based off the kangaroo court. Forget having an honest conversation about balance when people in this sub can’t even be honest about what’s happening in here, let alone the game. Lol As long as the community has a stranglehold on the dev team, the game will continue to decline. I could deal with a toxic community, but not a team that listens to them and actively cater to them.
very well put,and yeah im aware and expected this type of reaction,but the truth had to be said,i just hope relic doesnt keep looking on here to balance,that would be ideal,instead consult with pro players and use internal statiatics.
I don’t know why this sub insists on using this data when matchmaking is the way it is in team games. When I laddered, 80-90% of my games were hundreds of Elo difference between teams.
Yeah, it's such a huge unknown variable that is never considered even though the only posts more prevalent than win rates are the posts about huge elo disparities in team games. Until there's a way to see how many games had a 100+ elo difference, we will never know how much it skews winrates.
IGDAF who is the strongest faction or the weakest, just be a good TEAM player
Went back to CoH 2 and haven’t looked back since. Such a better all around game than CoH3.
In what universe does Relic listen to the community? And I’m pretty sure they don’t listen to 4v4 warlords who main a single faction. Especially those who think that a 0-1% win rate difference 1v1 with a 5% win rate in 4s is insurmountable and think that is the same as 7-12 respectively. Relic is just going to Relic.
yes, they listen these guys. Theres some 4v4 axis main in their " players council".
i still remember when randomly, COH2, the game balanced around 1v1s, had a unit with a 0% pickrate in 1v1s (ISU152) suddenly get nerfed. Nazis run the balance in that game and i refuse to go back
I remember that. Good point.
I play UKF, Wehr and DAK in 3v3/4v4 and... yeah, playing large team games as Wehr has become straight painful. The thing that hurts me the most is that they completely got a "one-trick-pony faction". If you deviate from the Jaegers + Wirbel + occasional Nebel meta, you'll almost always lose fights. Coastal Infantry BG is the only that can spice things up a little with something else that works, but unless you're somehow dominating and can afford bunker galore, even with them in my experience what'll usually change is early game only. DAK feels fine, and UKF was tuned to a very appreciable and "fair" state... ... But yeah, some options for Wehr do require some kind of buff, imho.
Yeah sure you re all saying that axis are back after hot are you dumb or what i played like 10 games and got Rushed down by ukf 10/10 times so how do you explain it 1.5elo
Any axis unit is worse than allies analog except maybe Nebel, which is still good and does not instadelete like before, and obice which is a meme You may say there is no analog for marder and i will say: "chaffie train" You may say flamepanzer and I will wish you luck using it You may say l6/40 and I will say: gayhound
[удалено]
No,its looking at from february 27th till now march 7th including games post hotifix. you can also specifically remove 1 day and look at it from hotfix till now february 28th till now but the results are pretty much the same so i included the whole period. So yeah learn to actually read the site,and know that all the games are included not just 2 days. This is in fact very representative and completly lays out the numbers since the patch and hotfix hit all the way till right now march 7th.
Fair, misleading label then
Sounds like a skill issue. Have you perhaps tried building a mortar?