State of Balance

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[scrapking]

How does one even respond to this...

First off I'd probably start off by saying that no matter what you do.. some people just can't be swayed, they're set in their ways and will always play Axis. The same goes for Allies. Sometimes it's just a natural thing you can't change by trying to make things appealing.

I'm really not sure what the numbers have to do with balance. If you can't get a game as Axis, due to there being too many. Most players know to have a second account readily available to play Allies. Just as well, a lot of people refuse to play the opposite faction. Which again, is not a reflection upon mod design. All factions, and all doctrines are being played, obviously there will be some more than others, but that's neither here nor there in terms of balance unless we hard-cap the number allowed per doctrine/faction.

As for vCoh players transitioning.. you also have to consider that our community's more veteran players play Axis and most newcomers will accrue losses before they start winning. Again, not something we can change. When new players come in playing Axis, they may get teamed with veteran players.. and get wins. Which is highly influential in the longevity of player accounts.

True enough, no matter what you do, "some" people will always play what they play.  However, I argue that those people are in a severe minority.  People play Axis either for variety, easier going, effective play style or the perception that Axis are at an advantage.  (and at least consider that the perception might be reality while accepting that on some level all that really matters is perception).  But to say that you can't change it by making things more appealing is a ludicrous statement.  Say "won't", but don't say "can't".

To say that it isn't a reflection on balance or mod design is negligent.  Nobody is saying that the purpose of balance or mod design is to arrive at this end, but it is, nevertheless, the result. The point is that mod design and balance has within its scope and power, the ability to rectify it.  Choosing not to seems either ignorant of there being a problem, or stubbornly unwilling to address it, conveniently leaving the blame on the human nature of the playerbase.

You can see what people are answering within this very thread about why they play what they play.  Unit effectiveness.  Variety.  Cool factor.  Win buttons.  Throw away units.  Easier development.  Sure people have multiple accounts to play both sides.  Is accommodating other players a legitimate reason?  Is convenience a legitimate reason?  How does that play out in the long term?  Shouldn't everyone play whatever faction they play because they enjoy what it offers and feel as though there chances are as good with one as another?  Is it a healthy notion that people play Allies to suicide zerg Axis vet?  Is it a healthy notion that players in a persistent mod commonly view Axis units as better investments to develop, and Allied better options to wantonly dispose of?

Don't be so defensive, I'm not saying "the mod is shit", or "devs suck".  There is some amount of goodness to be added to Allied factions, and/or taken away from Axis ones - and/or some amount of badness to be taken away from Allied or given to Axis  - and I guarantee you that the scales will tip.  You guys have that within your power to do. So please don't say "can't".  The only challenge here is honing in on the "some amount" without breaking it in the opposite direction.

Read, and take to heart what people are answering in this very thread.  There is much validity to everyone's commentary.  While maybe not as detailed or explicit as other answers, pay particular attention to Pak88mm's answer - it is very telling and very honest.

[Rocksitter]

Lol its just the opposite.   People who played the 1v1 ladder in vCoH will know that in the end, the Americans are probably the strongest doctrine in EIR.

However, it also requires a godly amount of micro.  Its much easier to blob up a bunch of grens or spam some support weapons or build a doomfort and win with wehr in EIR.

And this is only the Americans, not the Brits.    When EIRRMOD was talking about this problem, PE, Wehr, and Brits had similar retention rates and number of players, but three times as many Americans quit as compared to everyone else.

It comes down to how US vs Wehr was designed in COH.   Baiting and flanking a MG42 is and always will be more difficult and require more micro than plopping one down and guarding it with another squad of infantry.   One of the most basic tactics for defeating a MG42 is more difficult to do in EIR due to the lack of retreat and reinforce mechanic and the super low pop cost of MGs compared to regular infantry.

 I see more support spam on the allies side than the axis at the moment I also see alot more spam  from the allies as well...

[CommanderHolt]

I mainly play Allies (Due to too many Axis when I'm on) and I say there is much axis support spam and Elite Infantry spam.

But then again, people generally perceive the other side of "X" rather then their side of it because they are are on the receiving end of it and they don't see the other people of their side doing it in other games.

[Scyn]

I really don't place much weight in certain peoples' responses as they are the ones who I refer to as those refusing to switch sides. The argument that these people are few in number is incorrect. There is a substantial amount of players that will only play one side. So some people are truly not very credible sources.

As per Pak's response, the Axis have unit choice and varying unit combinations. Again, not something we can change except by making new units only exclusive to allies. It is the same problem that existed in old EiR that could very well stick with us for eternity. As for Allies being perceived as the griefing side... I think we'd all agree that Panzer Elite have the most potential to grief player's.

If you can't find the allies appealing in their current state, there's not much else we can do aside from clearly offering people a win button. Doctrines are constantly changing and if they're not suitable enough via the feedback we get, then they'll change again. That's really all there is to say on the issue. The rest is player choice.

[Rocksitter]

 You could be right on that but I know from my battalion make up I have no spam..
 I dont have over 3 of the same units and I dont usually bring them on together..

[Rocksitter]

 Just because you play only one side does not mean you cant see spam from the other that makes no sense I play against allied spam all day long so I know my statement holds weight ..

[Jazlizard]

I don't think the balance is as bad as people think.

Part of the challenge is getting games that are actually even skill wise. For better or worse in a 2v2 or 3v3 environment 1 guy can easily tip the odds in favor or against any team.

There are some units when in the right hands devastate, while in the wrong hands don't get a single kill.

There are some units I feel still need price tweaking, and some changes I don't agree with, but in the end I'm willing to give the devs the benefit of the doubt as they seem reasonable as well as willing to admit when they are wrong, or at least willing to revert a change when proven to be detrimental to the balance.

Watch some of the higher skilled player replays and you'll see what I'm talking about in regards to balance, some units over perform (price wise) while some units will rarely get purchased/used.

[wildsolus]

you don't have over 3 of the same units? 3 grens and 3 volks total in your company?

[EIRRMod]

(On Holiday atm, but posting anyway ;p)

The state of balance of the sides is quite close (bar rangers / commandos vs support weapons spam + fausts) - and that is quite good.

The issue is I feel, that the teams themselves are not even, as you said scrapking - the cool factor.
Particularly in the Royal Engineer tree and Airborne trees.

The final doctrines (which change some doctrines a lot) will hopefully add to the 'coolness' factor - but is that enough?

Pricing, and availability is another area which needs tweaking - and thats the stage of balance we are at.

[CommanderHolt]

Just because you play only one side does not mean you cant see spam from the other that makes no sense I play against allied spam all day long so I know my statement holds weight ..

Well I fight against many Falls and Grenadiers spam, so I know that the Axis can spam just as badly as Allies. By that logic my statement holds weight as well.

[gamesguy2]

Just because you play only one side does not mean you cant see spam from the other that makes no sense I play against allied spam all day long so I know my statement holds weight ..

Disagree completely.  People who refuse to play both sides will always be hugely biased and can only see things from their own side.

I think the balance forum for example would be 10x better if it only allowed people who play both sides to post.

[scrapking]

I really don't place much weight in certain peoples' responses as they are the ones who I refer to as those refusing to switch sides. The argument that these people are few in number is incorrect. There is a substantial amount of players that will only play one side. So some people are truly not very credible sources.

As per Pak's response, the Axis have unit choice and varying unit combinations. Again, not something we can change except by making new units only exclusive to allies. It is the same problem that existed in old EiR that could very well stick with us for eternity. As for Allies being perceived as the griefing side... I think we'd all agree that Panzer Elite have the most potential to grief player's.

If you can't find the allies appealing in their current state, there's not much else we can do aside from clearly offering people a win button. Doctrines are constantly changing and if they're not suitable enough via the feedback we get, then they'll change again. That's really all there is to say on the issue. The rest is player choice.

People who refuse to switch sides do so for a reason though.  Often that reason is going to be connected to several perceptions (and again, perhaps realities).  If you want overall better support units, who do you choose?  If you want better early development who do you choose?  If you want better vet retention across a spectrum of units who do you choose?  For that matter, let's look at the "substantial amount of players that will only play one side"...  riddle me this, Batman... which side is it that they are playing?  Is it evenly spread?  Or is it 90%+ Axis?

We can debate the reasons for it, or we can look for ways to get around it, and that's the point on this problem I'm trying to direct attention at.  Make Allied units aside from Rangers, Commandos and Calliopes have better vet retention.  Or make more Axis units have worse vet retention.  Even up the support weapon effectiveness.  Make certain "IWIN" buttons more generic between both sides, or limit them on the side they are on.  Even out doctrinal development for things like artillery (for example, that nebels are available to all wehr at start, and Allies have to grind out admittedly superior arty).  Make U.S. GI as robust as Wehr GI in terms of upgrades, and stats.  And that's just based on the limited answers from people in this thread.

I don't know, maybe those ideas suck, there are hundreds of things that could be done - although honestly I personally think that vet retention is one of the most important to players in general.  It is a big part of persistency.  More Axis units have an advantage here than Allied and it is reflected in the leaderboards quite well.  I think one thing that has to be considered is letting go of the long held EiR tradition of not editing unit stats.  I understand it smooths the transition from CoH to EiR, but it can also be like having a nailgun in your toolbox but continuing to use a hammer because its the classic tool for the job.

The important debate at this point in time is not what can be done, but rather accepting that something can be done.

My whole point is that there are things that can be done to make the Allies more attractive, and for the most part its many little things.  Sure it might lead to imba-land the other way around, we've already been there before, but I have little doubt that it would work wonders.

[scrapking]

(On Holiday atm, but posting anyway ;p)

The state of balance of the sides is quite close (bar rangers / commandos vs support weapons spam + fausts) - and that is quite good.

The issue is I feel, that the teams themselves are not even, as you said scrapking - the cool factor.
Particularly in the Royal Engineer tree and Airborne trees.

The final doctrines (which change some doctrines a lot) will hopefully add to the 'coolness' factor - but is that enough?

Pricing, and availability is another area which needs tweaking - and thats the stage of balance we are at.

B I N G O


One comment about final doctrines which deserves some consideration  - assuming that they are equal and cool enough to both be attractive, there is still the grind in getting there.  When one side feels as though it must attrit their way to end-game it requires a bit more patience and work than another - even if we assume the reward is the same.

People should enjoy the climb, not suffer it.  And I am not saying it should be easier, or faster, or anything given for free per se, just that not only should the final results be equitable, but the effort required to arrive there as well.  I think that right there sums up quite a bit of my issues.

[Lt_Apollo]

i play both sides, and i find that spaming rangers is an easy win against all but the best players. i mean realy you try the spaming and its mutch more streamline for the allys, and there is no sutch thing as gren spam seeing there basic infentry why would having 7 or 8 be spam when they are just heavy infentry.

also falls are luaghable, 1 commando squad or ranger team can kill multiple squads with little recived damage, but i must say thats all the PE do now is attempt to spam falls and fail.

i think the mod needs to move away from elite infentry for all fractions and emphisise on mainline infentry more, i mean having rangers as they are is fine but only if there severly limited, same gose for stormies and falls. you should never realy be able to replace your main force with elite infentry its just bad gameplay. now i could see multiple airborm squads in an army as thats how they should be there airborn there whole focus is on that unit, but infentry should in my opinion be more about getting better riflemen to compete 1 on 1 with axis grenadiers and having 1 or 2 rangers to help brake that ocasional deadlock. but defenatly not how it is now where you go infentry you automaticly start to spam rangers insted of even considering to use the rifle man. its just kinda skrewed up.

[Scyn]

I really don't know where you're gathering your information that there are more players on one side than the other. There are almost exactly the same number of Allied accounts as Axis accounts. 1731 Battalions. 869 Allies, and 862 Axis.

It's also not a problem of vet retention. It's a problem of vet gain. Anyone can keep a unit alive if they really want to. It's a problem of getting the kills necessary to vet up and aside from Allied Elite infantry, Axis unfortunately have the upper hand in this matter.

[Warlight]

Actualy, 4 of those axis accounts Belong to me... so I have one for every PE doctrain, and a Blitz one .

And most people who have vet baby them.  Its not like everyone has vet.  It is a select set of people who do.  I have NEVER had vet for very long.  I think its hard as hell to get.

[scrapking]

I really don't know where you're gathering your information that there are more players on one side than the other. There are almost exactly the same number of Allied accounts as Axis accounts. 1731 Battalions. 869 Allies, and 862 Axis.

It's also not a problem of vet retention. It's a problem of vet gain. Anyone can keep a unit alive if they really want to. It's a problem of getting the kills necessary to vet up and aside from Allied Elite infantry, Axis unfortunately have the upper hand in this matter.

Your information is skewed by the fact that people have multiple accounts, and might play one over the other to accommodate there being a game at all.  The problems are that for one, which side do you suspect people would play for that reason?  Is that a good reason for people to play a faction, in terms of enjoying the mod for the long term?  Aside from being intrinsically unfair, it just isn't healthy for long term player or faction retention.  I would think that is obvious.

At any given time of day, I bet there are consistently more Axis players looking for games than Allied (based on my own perceptions in the lobby / ventrilo over the past few years, as well as discussions with other players).  And out of the players who are looking for games an important question to answer would be "how many of each faction are currently only playing that faction to facilitate playing a game at all"?  I don't know of anyone who plays Axis when they prefer to play Allied "just to make a game", but the exact opposite is the norm, the former, a rare exception.  I think this truth is fairly obvious to most every EiR player.

As far as your comment about vet, I can agree that vet gain is also a big part of it, so rather than squabble about whether its retention or gain, let us agree that part of the issue is vet in general.

[Scyn]

Meh. You're really not worth the time, mate. You're just argumentative and hardly play the mod at all, it's amazing how you can even facilitate an opinion or argument based on your lack of experience.

[AmPM]

Scrap has probably played many many more games than you Scyn, then again, you only play with favorable teams, which would lead to a bias in your view of balance.

Anyway, I find my turnoff toward making an allied company at this point is the grind to get abilities. Its just not fun. I would rather play a 10min game and get my PP than play 30-40min and gain said PP while building the company.

And no, before you get all uppity, I am not biased, I spent the ENTIRE last war playing Engineers. I started a LONG thread on how crap the Churchill was, and I know the challenges faced by heavy tanks and the new repairs.

Basically, the units that make some doctrines cool, are crap (Churchills) or they just dont' have working doctrine abilities.

I play FJ now (I had a TD PE company) because there is nothing useful in TD that I can't do with another company. Wooo, 12% damage on a Marder, double schreks that need to be paid for with MU or that I can just drop using supplies? Hetzer while fun isn't necessary in any way, and isn't much better than a Marder in its role. Jadg is useless, Tellers are overpriced and may not even be useful during a game depending on mode, etc.

FJ can counter elite enemy infantry, provide more than enough AT with 4 Marders + Panther + Tankbusters and fausts, are not reliant on easily countered armored vehicles or schrek spam (seriously, there are many more infantry squads in game than vehicles, meaning you don't need all that AT).

Its just the way the game is played right now. Get as much good infantry as you can, and everything else supports it.

[jackmccrack]

but ampm you always play axis