This is purely anecdotal but I've got about a few hundred games now and when I check winrate when loading up a new game (3v3, 4v4) I would say it's very common that wehr and dak player have 60 and 70% win rates. I almost never see that with my allied teammates. If someone allied have 60% winrate Im often surprised as they often are around 50-52-55%. Now why this is so I will leave unsaid, but it is clear that it is evidently easier to win more games as the axis factions as of now.

Bahahah, stop spreading misinformation. Allies spam is insane.

abre wrote:

This is purely anecdotal but I've got about a few hundred games now and when I check winrate when loading up a new game (3v3, 4v4) I would say it's very common that wehr and dak player have 60 and 70% win rates. I almost never see that with my allied teammates. If someone allied have 60% winrate Im often surprised as they often are around 50-52-55%. Now why this is so I will leave unsaid, but it is clear that it is evidently easier to win more games as the axis factions as of now.

Unfortunately this is how it feels like. Im ally but giving axis a try to understand them better and one thing I can say for sure is that if you make a single mistake with allias, its oretty much lost. With axis it seems like you can always recover and still win. Sure, some units feel better in some scenarios (on both sides) but to me it seems like axis are so much more flexible and easier to play. Still trying to figure out the reason why it feels like that to me, maybe its the diversity, cool units skills (heal, rush, nades one shotting everything, vision lol)..or simply, armored division that is so easy to play with (well time whirlbel or flaker can pretty much end game..try doing that with stuart :D). Axis are just way more fun. While playing allias I feel like my apm is not enough. Definitely need more apm when playing allias and do NO MISTAKES. 

And maybe Im noob, I guess I am with just having less than a 200 games (or a hundred) but this is how it feels to me. Most of all try axis..I didnt like that idea but they are really fun in comparison to constant struggle and apm fight kn allias side.

ledarsi wrote:

Easier to play is literally synonymous with being stronger, as in a fair matchup using an assumed-to-be-fair matchmaking/rating system, will result in comparative matching that puts a more skilled Allied player against a less skilled Axis player to result in a 50% win rate expected probability.

This is also the reason why numbers like 65% win rate in 1.6.0 are so eye-poppingly horrendous- because the ELO system literally CANNOT FIND players weak enough on the advantageous side to result in a 50% expected probability match. The fact ratings are adjusted after every match, and after a loss, are decreased resulting in being matched against less skilled opponents, mutes the effect of imbalance quite significantly, and makes it exponentially harder and harder to alter the overall win rate by more and more as it gets further away from 50% even. A small change can result in a 51-49 swing, but to get a 60-40 swing the delta in power level between the factions must be OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE.

Basically the point is this- if at any point one faction is intended to be "easier to play" that is actually verbatim dictionary denotation identical to announcing an intention to make that faction overpowered by definition. Observations to the effect that one faction is easier to play are identical to stating that faction is overpowered. All else being equal, two perfectly identical copies of the same person duplicated in that device from the Prestige playing each other, will result in that faction winning a high percentage of the time.

Anecdotally, in my opinion for me Axis is also definitely easier to play both in overall power level of their units as well as tech structure and flexibility. It's not a great experience playing as Allies and never having the initiative nor really having any unit you're actually excited to build, rather you make AT guns if they make vehicles, you make what you're required to make to avoid losing right there. Whereas Wehr and Dak has an endless array of power points to choose from, from flak to Tigers to the early MG42.

You've hit the nail on the head.  When the game is balanced, the matchmaker has an easy time making matchups that result in a 50/50 chance.  The current patch is so horrid that I'm -11 as Brits.  I'm +15 as DAK, but that was mostly taking advantage of an earlier patch that was about as shyte as this one.  For those of us that play all factions, it's easy to feel the difference.  

I don't know if Relic is listening to the masses and does their balancing for all of the people that insist allies are OP, or if it is just a bias from their "balancing" employees.  In any case, it isn't new.  COH2 was left with around a 55/45 win rate for Axis in 4v4 when Relic left the balancing to the "community" balance team.

The "balance" team decided to force US players into deciding if they want ok-ish infantry or vehicles.  They force that choice at about the 5 minute mark.  If you choose badly, you're screwed 20 minutes later, like if you go Armor support and your team doesn't keep enough fuel income.  US is the only faction that gets screwed over with exclusive upgrades.  Axis not only have non-exclusive upgrades, they also get non-doctrinal artillery and elite troops.  

I don't think complaining will help.  The "balance" team obviously doesn't care and Relic's managers are really unlikely to notice or care about win rates, especially when sales aren't great and Relic is trying to figure out how to survive.

Grumpy21 wrote:

ledarsi wrote:

Easier to play is literally synonymous with being stronger, as in a fair matchup using an assumed-to-be-fair matchmaking/rating system, will result in comparative matching that puts a more skilled Allied player against a less skilled Axis player to result in a 50% win rate expected probability.

This is also the reason why numbers like 65% win rate in 1.6.0 are so eye-poppingly horrendous- because the ELO system literally CANNOT FIND players weak enough on the advantageous side to result in a 50% expected probability match. The fact ratings are adjusted after every match, and after a loss, are decreased resulting in being matched against less skilled opponents, mutes the effect of imbalance quite significantly, and makes it exponentially harder and harder to alter the overall win rate by more and more as it gets further away from 50% even. A small change can result in a 51-49 swing, but to get a 60-40 swing the delta in power level between the factions must be OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE.

Basically the point is this- if at any point one faction is intended to be "easier to play" that is actually verbatim dictionary denotation identical to announcing an intention to make that faction overpowered by definition. Observations to the effect that one faction is easier to play are identical to stating that faction is overpowered. All else being equal, two perfectly identical copies of the same person duplicated in that device from the Prestige playing each other, will result in that faction winning a high percentage of the time.

Anecdotally, in my opinion for me Axis is also definitely easier to play both in overall power level of their units as well as tech structure and flexibility. It's not a great experience playing as Allies and never having the initiative nor really having any unit you're actually excited to build, rather you make AT guns if they make vehicles, you make what you're required to make to avoid losing right there. Whereas Wehr and Dak has an endless array of power points to choose from, from flak to Tigers to the early MG42.

You've hit the nail on the head.  When the game is balanced, the matchmaker has an easy time making matchups that result in a 50/50 chance.  The current patch is so horrid that I'm -11 as Brits.  I'm +15 as DAK, but that was mostly taking advantage of an earlier patch that was about as shyte as this one.  For those of us that play all factions, it's easy to feel the difference.  

I don't know if Relic is listening to the masses and does their balancing for all of the people that insist allies are OP, or if it is just a bias from their "balancing" employees.  In any case, it isn't new.  COH2 was left with around a 55/45 win rate for Axis in 4v4 when Relic left the balancing to the "community" balance team.

The "balance" team decided to force US players into deciding if they want ok-ish infantry or vehicles.  They force that choice at about the 5 minute mark.  If you choose badly, you're screwed 20 minutes later, like if you go Armor support and your team doesn't keep enough fuel income.  US is the only faction that gets screwed over with exclusive upgrades.  Axis not only have non-exclusive upgrades, they also get non-doctrinal artillery and elite troops.  

I don't think complaining will help.  The "balance" team obviously doesn't care and Relic's managers are really unlikely to notice or care about win rates, especially when sales aren't great and Relic is trying to figure out how to survive.

usf tech is overpower, especilly the reforce cost -25percent manpower, see wtf the wht tech is, only vet1 and +25percent exp

If you play all factions, ALL of them have their broken things, The game got better right now, dunno what to expect on the next balance patch, but overall, and looking back it's playable, Problem with COH 3 imo atm, is the shooting special weapons on the run, this should be gone, brits were awful in 1v1's, they got their pay back in this balance atm, its imo the best faction for late game, then we back to the eternal question.

If you claim one faction is broken, why don't you play it and get a massive win streak to validate your point, with screenshots?

How are you plus 15 with dak and minus with brits Im the opposite Dak is so Garbage i cant win I went from top under 100 ranke to like 400 

 brits is easy mode dont even have to try still in top 100 no prob

USF id say by far is the weakest, with the buff to mgs and whers always has been strongest coupled with a nerf to USF mortar. In team games it can get pretty cancerous also helps them stop the ranger and rifle spam much better now and USF dosent really have a lot of other great units. The AT gun comes too late and AT infantry either get focused off easily or hard countered with flakverling. Chaffe is ok but has almost no AI it can only force off other light vehicles, greyhound can be good but even an upgraded flakverling with the stun can hard counter greyhound or chaffee. AA ht is squishy and has no pen and you cant really afford to make it you need AT. Jackson nerfed so now they lose heads up jackson spam vs p3-p4 spam.reg sherman sucks with out upgrades. 

airborne feels lack luster think they need more dps with 1919 upgrade, there expensive to call in and reinforce. Airborne mg spam can be easily countered with flame care, other light vehicles, wher mg spam, and in general axis have superior indirect and already did before mortar nerfs that I dont think daks mortar HT got any nerf.