I havent played for a long rime although I love the game and plan on buying the dlcs etc

I would like to ask about the threads on the forum.

Why is it that some players are claiming that allias are OP and others, (including me) that axis are op.

Why is it that some people say allias have way more versality/options to counter with, while others say that about axis.

It is very hard to get anything useful from the threads here because everyone (with some exceptions) seems to be very much biased.

Im looking at it from a dev perspective and I think I would hate to be in shoes of someone who actively works on figuring out the balance.

I think as community, with potentially power to change a thing or two, we have failed.

When thinking why this is a thing..i wonder if its because axis vs allias thing and because the game does not support for example, us vs us matchup.

Coh is in such a terrible spot IMO when it comes to balancing because the game is overcomplicated, again, imo. And...unfortunately, community doesn't seem to help (well..not by the means of posts here anyway).

Can I ask about some ubiased input from you on why do you think balance is alright, or not? Can we, as community, do something about it?

@Fatal_Thoughts 

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that looking at high-level data is important. However, balance perception varies a lot depending on skill level, playstyle, and game mode. From my own experience in the 1k ELO range, I struggle against Germans because of their strong defensive options, powerful mid-game, and seemingly cost-effective units.

Your points about USF being strong at higher levels are interesting, but does that necessarily mean balance is broken, or does it just shift depending on skill brackets? If the meta at 1500+ is different from the meta at 1k, isn't that a problem in itself? Maybe balance isn't just about raw unit power but also how skill expression, map control, and faction design interact at different skill levels.

Instead of just saying ‘X is OP,’ wouldn’t it be more productive for the community to push for more structured balance discussions, perhaps based on actual performance metrics across ELO brackets? Right now, it feels like every discussion ends up in a subjective back-and-forth where everyone (with exceptions) feels their side is weaker.

Well, large scale or high performers? These are two different things and if you want to look at large scale - most of the games in Coh 3 is between 800 - 1k elo. Above 1.5 is only a small percentage (~12%). 

When you look at these lower elo games you will see that based on stats, no faction has advantage that would give anyone any reasons to label them as OP.

All this makes me think and hope that the game isn't being balanced based on results from higher elo games. I can't imagine that reducing for example USF performance to even move them slightly to Axis levels at higher elo won't have dramatic impact at lower elos.

But then it feels like usf having nearly 10% higher winrate than axis is wrong...

So who should be made unhappy here? High elo players (which are considerably smaller group) or lower elo? I dont think there is a good way out of this..but nerfing USF is not a good option imo. Dont know what is.

Fatal_Thoughts wrote:

I think you've undermined your own pov there with the central paragraph.

I dont think I understand

The "balance" at lower elo is incredibly subjective because the matchmaking algorithm has the ability to match players with someone of much higher or lower skill and therefore the ability to bring the winrates to 50% which is what it is designed to do. The reason we mention that balance should be done at high elo is because at that level the matchmaker can no longer find people of much higher skill and the game balance starts to show it's true colors. We could make a huge change to the meta and after the initial settling in phase the win rates would return to around 50%. A simple thought experiment to understand this is to think how come the balance is so skewed in high elo but this isn't reflected in the lower brackets win rates at all? The answer is what I stated, the matchmaker matches the players who just won with the stronger faction with players who are much better, they loose and thus the win rate stays around 50%.

As for your initial questions:
1. The two sides seeing it differently thing. Read carefully what ppl are saying. The side that complains against axis are mostly more casual 4v4 players and the ppl who complain against allies are mostly 1v1/2v2 more competitive players. This split simply comes from the fact, that coh is balanced asymmetrically and the larger game modes are for some reason easier for axis. Probably, because they rely on a smaller amount of more powerful units instead of a larger mass of units and on maps that don't scale linearly with the unit count it is simply easier to maneuver and micro less units especially with all that is going on in 4v4, also easier to not get punished by arty spam. There are probably other reasons as well like DAK being super mobile which is a huge thing on the larger maps. Ultimately 4v4 is supposed to be the fun game mode and expecting the small dev team at relic to properly balance 4v4 is simply unreasonable. i also want to add that the disproportion in win rates in 4v4 is barely 4% (in the fun game mode mind you) while it is over 15% in 1v1 (the competitive game mode) so you tell me which situation is more egregious and requires more attention.

2. Regarding the state of balance, just ask yourself, what faction traits of the axis are complained about? To me it seems like it's the unit of the day that some overconfident player got smacked with. There is no consistent theme apart from maybe bunkers and I can agree that coastal defense is a doctrine that makes overpowering average players fairly easy but it isn't all that crazy past around 1300 elo and that's because the doctrine and bunkers aren't all that strong it's just that they require a particular counter and some game knowledge to get rid off. On the other hand the allied side has a couple of traits that are constantly complained about by many ppl across many threads across many patches and these are: manpower cheats, anti everything units, blobs/unit spam, easy and uncounterable access to vision and abundance of one click counters in the form of indirect abilities. And these are simply undebatable. Open coh3stats and count the amount of units each factions has that can deal with infantry, team weapons and armor in at least somewhat reliable of a way and then compare how easy it is to get these units as well as micro them. At this moment, as axis, especially DAK if you loose access to fuel for any amount of time you are basically done. As allies, you can barely hold the map and still win, because you have a bunch of anti everything manpower only units that axis simply do not get. I don't want to go on a rant on this again so let's end it here.

3. I just have to bring this up but skill level is a big factor in the OPness of units. And you just can't say that in a game that is based on counter play if someone doesn't know that they need to bring up an at gun to destroy a bunker or throw a satchel that this makes the bunker op. Sure there maybe are some cases where the counter play is very difficult and should be changed somehow but those are far and few in between. If you think this isn't the case, then please name them. And ultimately the players I saw on here, complaining about axis, that I later had a chance to play... They simply play badly and their elo reflects it. I looked up your player card and just wanted to ask you do you really believe that you have enough game knowledge and understanding to make the claims you are making? No offense, but I'd argue that at around 900 elo this is not the case. Everything I say on this forum is backed up with stats but most of the anti axis complaints are just rambling. If you believe axis is OP please articulate why and back it up with something other than feelings. Point in case being the recent wespe backlash where the wespe literally has worse stats than the bishop and by a large margin despite being a doctrinal unit but somehow none of these ppl are complaining about the bishop. I get that the wespes ability is generally better but it's power is way overblown it just is one of those situations where the counter play isn't super obvious or easy and that is why ppl are crying about it.

@SEPH_27
Thanks for your input—there's a lot to discuss!

1. When it comes to balance and matchmaking, I’m a little confused. On one hand, you’re saying that "the algorithm has the ability to match players with someone of much higher or lower skill," but then you also state that "at high ELO, the matchmaker can no longer find people of much higher skill, and the game balance starts to show its true colors." What makes high ELO special in that regard? Why can’t it find lower ELO players instead of supposedly revealing some ultimate truth about the game?

In my opinion, when designing matchmaking, I would use a priority list where one of the top priorities is ELO rating. However, I think the small player base might be causing issues, forcing the matchmaker to prioritize queue times over ELO rating, etc.

That said, while I agree the matchmaking is flawed (likely due to the small player count), I don’t see how that explains why balance should be determined based on high ELO matches.

1. Balance in 1v1/2v2/4v4 – I read the posts carefully, and I haven’t noticed many complaints about specific game modes, aside from a few threads where people do mention issues. I agree that 4v4 should be more of a "for fun" mode, but in my experience, 4v4 matches can be frustrating due to mass bunkers, walking Stukas, Axis blobs, and tanks.

I also agree that 1v1 deserves more attention than 4v4—not just because of the faction win rate differences but because, as mentioned earlier, 4v4 is meant to be more casual (though whether it actually is or not could be a topic for another discussion).

1. Regarding the state of balance—what aspects of Axis factions are being complained about? Well, here’s the thing: I don’t really want to turn this thread into another rant about "Faction X being OP." You pinpointed a few issues, and just as you defended Axis units, I could just as easily defend Allied ones. So, I’d rather not go down that rabbit hole.

2. Yes, I agree—skill is a big factor. But not always. Some units are so strong that you need to be extremely lucky to counter them.

When you say, "you have enough game knowledge and understanding to make the claims you are making"—absolutely! I know that in any game I play, I perform well. I’m not at a master league level, but I’m above platinum. While getting out of wood/bronze ranks usually takes some time, it’s fairly easy to do—except in COH, where it isn’t.

If balance decisions are based on game stats (which I believe they are), and those stats are skewed by a faulty matchmaker, then the decisions themselves must also be skewed.

So, could the only real solution to balance issues be fixing matchmaking? Even if that means finding no games at all or waiting 20 minutes in queue? Wouldn’t it be better to find an opponent of similar skill and have a fun match rather than either being an overpowered monster (regardless of faction) or leaving after five minutes because the enemy team is 500+ ELO above you?

SCvTyson wrote:
When it comes to balance and matchmaking, I’m a little confused. On one hand, you’re saying that "the algorithm has the ability to match players with someone of much higher or lower skill," but then you also state that "at high ELO, the matchmaker can no longer find people of much higher skill, and the game balance starts to show its true colors." What makes high ELO special in that regard? Why can’t it find lower ELO players instead of supposedly revealing some ultimate truth about the game?

Ok, let me put this in the simplest way I can. If they are playing at high elo then they are the best players in the game, how do you find a much more skilled player to match them against when they are the best? There isn't any significantly better player and the matchmaker cannot level out the win rate by matching them against someone much better. Because the matches are forced to be at a similar skill level, you get a situation where the faction strengths and weaknesses play a larger role because the skill factor is mostly taken out of the equation. You also remove the possibility of the players having no idea how to use units and therefore this is the elo range where the most unknown variables are removed and the factions can be played at their best and show what they are really capable of. I'm not sure how to explain this in an even simpler way.

SCvTyson wrote:
Balance in 1v1/2v2/4v4 – I read the posts carefully, and I haven’t noticed many complaints about specific game modes, aside from a few threads where people do mention issues. I agree that 4v4 should be more of a "for fun" mode, but in my experience, 4v4 matches can be frustrating due to mass bunkers, walking Stukas, Axis blobs, and tanks.

It isn't always specified directly but if you read into it and know the game decently you catch onto what players are talking about. I understand your frustration with the bunkers and can agree that there could be something done about them to specifically make them weaker in lower elo matches, but in all honesty if someone goes too hard into bunkers they are fairly easy to counter. Again I understand this can be a bigger issue in 4v4. because other players can cover the bunkers in hard situations but that is just the nature of the game in 4v4. Nerfing bunkers at this point would make them unplayable in anything but 4v4 and just isn't realistic imho. And here we come to the claims that are unfounded.

1. Walking stukas. How is it that you are complaining about axis arty but not allied arty? The stuka is pretty good I will admit, but it plays a particular role. It isn't the best in everything. Go ahead and test the calliope in cheat commands mod and see how it performs vs. the stuka against different target types. If there is anything the stuka is best at it's wiping infantry blobs on retreat or caught out of postition. It doesn't have any weird stuns, doesn't have extreme range, is very squishy, isn't that good against emplacements or even heavier team weapons like the 17 pounder, has a very obvious audio queue and long arrival time and finally, it is a tier 4 fairly expensive unit. The bishop comes way earlier and is also cheaper but performs better against most targets with the exception of moving infantry. And also, The stuka counterplay is really easy, just don't blob and insta retreat if you hear the audio.

2. Axis blobs. This is one of those things that are completely unfounded in the game stats. It is literally impossible for axis to blob/unit spam the same as USF at the very least, wehr and brits are comparable, DAK is way behind on any possibility of blobbing but USF takes the cake here no questions asked. They have non doctrinal access to manpower cheats and a health upgrade as well as the best veterancy for survivability as well as having the best mainline that is also the cheapest. Wehr needs more expensive units to just be able to match rifles and needs a particular doctrine to be able to spam them in any sort of similar sense. But the math just doesn't work out. How do you spam more of a more expensive unit without manpower cheats or even with them? Unless you think you can match the USF start of rifles and at guns only with grens. I wish you luck but it's a joke to even suggest it.

3. Tanks... Ok, here we may have something. Question is which tanks? I'm guessing you mean the heavies which take an incredibly long time to get and cost a lot of resources. Yes, they are strong but they are a reward for holding out against an enemy that in the meantime has the possibility of pressuring you with 2-3 medium tanks worth of resources that you are saving up. And honestly, by the time these tanks roll around if you play it right, taking out a tiger with 3 ez8s shouldn't be all that hard. At the very least, you should be able to hold the line. But you're complaining so what do you suggest? Tanks that are worth 2-3 mediums in resources should suck? Axis shouldn't have any tools to whittle down the manpower cheated USF blob? From my experience, the tiger is the only thing that can keep these blobs in check... Somewhat.

SCvTyson wrote:
Regarding the state of balance—what aspects of Axis factions are being complained about? Well, here’s the thing: I don’t really want to turn this thread into another rant about "Faction X being OP." You pinpointed a few issues, and just as you defended Axis units, I could just as easily defend Allied ones. So, I’d rather not go down that rabbit hole.

Ok, fair enough but this is a matter of broken design, not particular units. If we don't identify the issues that need fixing, we can never fix them. The point of a debate is to bring points and counterpoints until one side can no longer counter. This isn't an argument and I hold no ill will towards you or anyone and I sure as hell will not be offended if I am wrong in some regard. But I expect to be proven wrong in a debate backed by stats not emotional rambling like some ppl here do. If you have gripes with axis design principles or units go ahead and voice them but be fairly specific and say why these things bother you. And let's brake things down a bit here, when I say allies I mostly mean USF. I wouldn't say brits are broken, maybe they have a couple of units that need some slight tweaks but they are definitely not broken and again, the win rate reflects that. USF on the other hand is just batshit insane broken and I can back it up.

SCvTyson wrote:
Yes, I agree—skill is a big factor. But not always. Some units are so strong that you need to be extremely lucky to counter them.

Again, fair enough, please tell us what these units are? To support the allied side I can say that brits may have some issues with heavier axis armor if they don't build a combined arms army properly. But they have the tools it's just that these tools aren't as braindead as for USF, where axis armor that they saved up for the whole game can simply be face rushed by hellcats and gone in under 10 seconds. I will also say, that this statement is true for axis and I would wager that even more so. Ultimately, this situation is going to happen one way or another and is the result of asymmetric balance so I wouldn't worry too much about it unless there are things that are simply too hard to counter and require not a little but a ton of luck to get rid of, like the USF blob.

 

SCvTyson wrote:
When you say, "you have enough game knowledge and understanding to make the claims you are making"—absolutely! I know that in any game I play, I perform well. I’m not at a master league level, but I’m above platinum. While getting out of wood/bronze ranks usually takes some time, it’s fairly easy to do—except in COH, where it isn’t.

Again, fair enough, but we are talking about coh here not starcraft. Coh is a more complicated much harder game to master, much more complicated, because for every action you need to account for the rng that is present and it can range from terrible, to bad, to average, to decent, good or fantastic and you need to be able to act accordingly, just like in real life. I think that is why I love this game because it's so much more exciting than something like starcraft. When I mentioned you elo I also didn't want to attack you or anything, anyone can have a valid claim but back it up with some explanation. You might be seeing things I'm not and vice versa. But when you write "mass bunkers, walking Stukas, Axis blobs, and tanks" without any details it's hard to have a conversation because we don't know what exactly you have a problem with. It sounds like bunkers shouldn't exist, walking stukas shouldn't exist, axis shouldn't have tanks... I think we can agree this isn't helpful. I'm also not saying you don't have game knowledge overall. You can be a great starcraft player for all I know, we are talking about coh in particular and as you admit, you are having a hard time in this game, so maybe some of the things you believe are an issue aren't an issue but you not understanding coh? Again, the core of this game is asymmetry. You will never have exact calculated outcomes like in starcraft.

SCvTyson wrote:

If balance decisions are based on game stats (which I believe they are), and those stats are skewed by a faulty matchmaker, then the decisions themselves must also be skewed.

So, could the only real solution to balance issues be fixing matchmaking? Even if that means finding no games at all or waiting 20 minutes in queue? Wouldn’t it be better to find an opponent of similar skill and have a fun match rather than either being an overpowered monster (regardless of faction) or leaving after five minutes because the enemy team is 500+ ELO above you?

Yes, this would be the easiest fix, you are correct. But we all know, that 20min wait times mean the game dies and even with them you can't guarantee a very equal game just based on elo. In a game like coh it's enough that someone plays a strat you aren't prepared for and you can loose really hard. Kinda same thing in starcraft, so... I don't think this is a bad thing. No two ways about it. Coh can be in a good state and probably will be, but it will take a long time. We are off to a way better start than coh2 one way or another. I think that what needs to be done atm is to get USF back in line with the other factions. Currently in queue you end up matching with cheesy meta abusers of the almost uncounterable USF builds and there just isn't much you can do. If someone is of a similar skill level you will most likely loose. And you see this in the replays. Axis even with the late game powerful armor isn't really able to do braindead frontal pushes and USF does this all the damn time. There is supposed to be some asymmetry but now it's just USF get's all the best. They have the best mainline ok, fair enough, so they were supposed to have weaker support weapons. Now, they have the best mainline, the best support, the best elites, the best mediums, the best td's... Like what happened? Where is their weakness?

I agree and disagree with some of your points. I really do think I'd rather avoid in discussing which units precisely seem better or worse to me, because I'm affraid it will become jus another thread about units and their strenghts and weaknesses.

I also feel that I understand now why this game isn't balanced and frankly, I don't think it will ever be with such tiny playerbase and allowances set MM. Many times I had been matched up against players with 600elo and it made me feel like I'm cheating, on ther other end I was also matched against people with 1500 elo and it was undoable. 

To me, personally it feels like I'd like a choice or some kind of a ladder system in game.

Maybe we need something like SC has, where brozne players could be anything from 0-400, silver 401-600 etc etc.

Sure queue times might go up but I do think the gameplay experience would benefit from it. Ofc you could go "unranked" and the system sould remain as it is..but I think introducing actual ladders and ranked mode with some rewards (achivements) would go a long way.

Saying that, theres also a risk that the game will suffer due to significant dev work being put into the system instead of new units and maps..

Wdyt?

Theman2 do you think changing usf/refactoring their units etc will bring more players?

I dont think this would be the main contributor, although some people would enjoy that for sure. To me, the only reason why I dont play this game 24/7 is lack of purpose..I like competetive gaming and aiming for high elo on 3rd party tool doesnt make me want to play. 

I also think the game doesnt necesarilly need any urgent changes to become more attractive but some kind of progression system is a must.

Thinking of these cheap mobile games even with bad graphics they can turn out to be a blast thanks to solid gameplay loop.

All balance issues/opinions aside, wdyt could make this game be more attractive?

Thanks theman. Appreciate feedback. So yea... In your opinion its balance issue. 

Any other opinions on prioritizing ladders/progression system over balance tweaks/new bgs etc?

SCvTyson wrote:
Maybe we need something like SC has, where brozne players could be anything from 0-400, silver 401-600 etc etc.

Thing is SC2 even at this point in it's life has nearly 10 times more players than coh3. Considering how long coh games last this will make queue times unbearable. Coh3 is getting more players come in as time goes by but it's fairly slow. I just don't think 20min queue times will help the game, quite the opposite. This comes from my experience with most ppl being extremely impatient. I tried getting a ton of friends into Escape from Tarkov and the most common complaint was that the queue times are too long and it makes ppl angry. And they are similar to what they are now in coh. I think, the game needs shorter queue times rather than longer ones if anything.
 

SCvTyson wrote:
I think introducing actual ladders and ranked mode with some rewards (achivements) would go a long way

We kind of have a ranked ladder currently (I know it isn't the full implementation but still). You have elo, ranks, a leaderboard... Trying to popularize the game through things like tournaments is a different story and probably a good idea as the tournaments organized by AE_COH for example got a lot of ppl into coh2 but in order for these to make sense, the high level balance needs to be worked out. No one is interested in a tournament where allies win 90% of games and this has kinda been the case for the coh3 tournaments that's why I stopped watching them and I really liked them back in the coh2 days. As for achievements and similar stuff... I think this is something that might work for the mobile game crowd but not those who play coh. It's also kinda hard to come up with achievements for multi so... Idk, this isn't a huge investment to implement, there already are some achievements in the game so it's just a matter of expanding the existing system but I for one don't care about these in the slightest.

SCvTyson wrote:

I also feel that I understand now why this game isn't balanced and frankly, I don't think it will ever be with such tiny playerbase and allowances set MM. Many times I had been matched up against players with 600elo and it made me feel like I'm cheating, on ther other end I was also matched against people with 1500 elo and it was undoable. 

The thing with the elo diff in matches is not an issue of game balance per say but it does feel that way. Consider this, in a game with perfect balance if you matched against someone of higher skill you would loose. We sometimes forget this in coh but as you say yourself, when playing someone significantly better or worse you are expected to loose/win and this is not a balance issue but a matchmaking one. The problem is that in coh even these losses often feel very bad. Fixing the MM is one component that is extremely important to making the game feel more balanced. Unfortunately this is something the devs have little influence over. They could extend the queue times but imo that would kill the game harder than large elo discrepancy matches. We currently have to often wait 5-7 minutes for a 15-40min game. Make that queue time 20mins and now you are probably waiting longer than playing and that will feel terrible for most. I think this is something that the community has to fix and as Theman2 says, we need to get coh2 players into coh3. Combined this would give us somewhere around a quarter of the SC2 player base and maybe then some of the matchmaking changes you suggest could become a possibility but at this point... Not happening.

SCvTyson wrote:
I like competetive gaming and aiming for high elo on 3rd party tool doesnt make me want to play

The question is why? You can be very competitive with the ranks we have in game. Does having a particular rank symbol make it that appealing? I like to play competitively and climbing the leaderboards is satisfaction enough for me, regardless of whether or not they are 3rd party.

SCvTyson wrote:

To me main selling points/player base number increase lie in:

1. Strong progression system 

A) Intersting achies - unique player cards, skins, voice over unlocks(?), even something like special effects (to a degree ofc we dont want to ruin the immersion)

I strongly disagree with these points. In software development there is the concept of a MVP (minimum viable product) and I feel coh is not a viable product yet. The things you mention are nice to have cosmetics and I don't quite get why they would interest someone who wants to play competitively as you claim and overall, these things won't really matter if the core gameplay is not fixed. One way or another, adding these before the game is actually a viable product in terms of the core gameplay seems to me like a really big waste of dev time. Also, achievements are kind of like investments. You are investing your time to get them and do you really want to invest your time into achievements in a game you dislike? It would be like working a job you hate.

SCvTyson wrote:

2. Ladders

A) Ranked mode (this imo is a big one)

B) other modes?

Other modes are an interesting idea. I still kinda miss the special modes from coh1. They were simply fun, didn't need to be balanced really and just added to the game. They were not what was primarily played of course but they had their own niche. Problem is, that they didn't really add to the player pool. It's a similar situation with SC2 arcade. These modes have their diehard fans but these ppl don't rly play the core game which is where we need more ppl.

Overall, the problem atm with coh3 is still with the core gameplay. And straying away from balance per say. Let me put it like this it isn't just the balance that's the issue with coh, though I do want to point out that the gigantic win rate disproportion USF enjoys is beyond what I've ever seen in any rts. Anyway, it's primarily the frustration of playing against USF. It sucks out all the fun and enjoyment from the game. It is so fcking miserable to never have the initiative, to never dictate the engagement and all this knowing that the player on the other side gets to do this to you by throwing a spam of one unit type backed by uncounterable one-click abilities. I have played allies a couple patches ago and I say this from experience it was just boring. I got to my axis elo within like 5-10 games I don't remember exactly and I just played like if I had a lobotomy. I literally won matches where I lost tanks in the teens rushing them forward and even if they died, everything was so cheap and powerful I just replaced it and kept bashing my head in until I won. Now this is much more difficult to do with brits but with USF it got even easier. The upkeep nerfs meant to minimize unit spam nerfed the already struggling factions harder than USF, because USF has a percentage based cost reduction as well as the most survivable models and so things are such cancer now I often just stop playing cause it makes no sense. I now often loose to players who I see are playing significantly worse than me but are abusing a cheese strat that is so incredibly difficult to counter that you might as well throw in the towel. Until this cancerous USF gameplay is fixed I don't see the game getting players coming in from coh2. And that is probably the biggest pool that we can take from since these are ppl that we know like the formula of coh but something is stopping them from moving over and it ain't a lack of ladder or achievements because coh2 doesn't have that either.

And just as an anecdote on my side. In coh2 for a long time USF was my favorite faction, I played them a ton and really liked their design. It was interesting, different, promoted a gameplay style that made sense for USF. In coh3 the US turned into the soviet union just sending in the human wave. This is a weird direction to take and while I understand that this can be a representation of the individual replacement system the US had in WW2 it really does not feel good for either side I think and the reason I say they need a redesign is because the current one which is winning through spam is impossible to balance, because it puts the fate of a match in the hands of the USF player almost exclusively since USF only really looses when they make big mistakes. I've had so many games where I lost despite having twice the enemy teams kills and damage that it's simply sad. They just pile corpses onto VP's and win and you can't keep up with it no matter what you do. The only things that give axis the ability to pull through in any consistent manner are wipe machines like the tiger or stuka zu fuss. I really really cannot put it into words how terrible playing against USF currently feels. It is simply soul draining.

Hi Seph,

SEPH_27 wrote:
Thing is SC2 even at this point in it's life has nearly 10 times more players than coh3. Considering how long coh games last this will make queue times unbearable. Coh3 is getting more players come in as time goes by but it's fairly slow. I just don't think 20min queue times will help the game, quite the opposite. This comes from my experience with most ppl being extremely impatient. I tried getting a ton of friends into Escape from Tarkov and the most common complaint was that the queue times are too long and it makes ppl angry. And they are similar to what they are now in coh. I think, the game needs shorter queue times rather than longer ones if anything.

I agree that Tarkov's queue times are frustrating and that SC2 still has a larger player base, which makes sense given its legacy and Blizzard's history.

My take is this:

• Ranked mode should have stricter matchmaking (ELO-based), which might increase queue times.
• However, "quick match" should remain a separate option with a more flexible matchmaking system.

If the matchmaker were stricter with ELO brackets, it could improve the experience significantly. That said, opinions on this will vary depending on personal priorities, patience, and tolerance for long queues.

SEPH_27 wrote:
We kind of have a ranked ladder currently (I know it isn't the full implementation but still). You have elo, ranks, a leaderboard... Trying to popularize the game through things like tournaments is a different story and probably a good idea as the tournaments organized by AE_COH for example got a lot of ppl into coh2 but in order for these to make sense, the high level balance needs to be worked out. No one is interested in a tournament where allies win 90% of games and this has kinda been the case for the coh3 tournaments that's why I stopped watching them and I really liked them back in the coh2 days. As for achievements and similar stuff... I think this is something that might work for the mobile game crowd but not those who play coh. It's also kinda hard to come up with achievements for multi so... Idk, this isn't a huge investment to implement, there already are some achievements in the game so it's just a matter of expanding the existing system but I for one don't care about these in the slightest.

Good points. I agree that we have a functioning ladder, but IMO it’s poorly designed. Matchmaking seems to rely more on ELO ratings (from third-party sources) rather than an in-game system.

One of CoH3’s biggest weaknesses is that it doesn’t offer a clear competitive ranking experience. SC2 set a certain expectation for RTS players, and the lack of those "standards" in CoH3 turns people away IMO. Many of my friends refuse to play simply because there’s no clear leaderboard or ranked progression system.

Achievements aren’t just for mobile gamers. In fact, they were one of the main reasons I kept playing SC2. Even when the game felt unbalanced at times, the sense of progression kept me engaged. I’d get wiped by Zergs repeatedly, but over time, I improved and reached high Diamond. The ability to track my progress was a big motivator.

I also stopped watching tournaments—not because of "imbalance", but because I feel the game lacks other important features that matter to me.

SEPH_27 wrote:
I think this is something that the community has to fix and as Theman2 says, we need to get coh2 players into coh3. Combined this would give us somewhere around a quarter of the SC2 player base and maybe then some of the matchmaking changes you suggest could become a possibility but at this point... Not happening.

I agree—getting more CoH2 players into CoH3 would be great. Any new players are welcome. But I don’t think CoH2 players are staying away only because of USF issues.

CoH2 might just be a more content-rich game. I personally tried CoH2 and didn’t enjoy it, but I know many others did. If faction balance were the only issue stopping CoH2 players from switching, I’d expect them to return at least during major updates. But that’s not happening. We don’t see an influx of 2,000 to 6,000 players during updates—at best, some minor spikes but not coh2 player base.

SEPH_27 wrote:
I strongly disagree with these points. In software development there is the concept of a MVP (minimum viable product) and I feel coh is not a viable product yet. The things you mention are nice to have cosmetics and I don't quite get why they would interest someone who wants to play competitively as you claim and overall, these things won't really matter if the core gameplay is not fixed. One way or another, adding these before the game is actually a viable product in terms of the core gameplay seems to me like a really big waste of dev time. Also, achievements are kind of like investments. You are investing your time to get them and do you really want to invest your time into achievements in a game you dislike? It would be like working a job you hate.

I work in software development too (not in gaming, but in a relevant field). In my view, CoH3 has already reached strong milestones. I wouldn’t call it an alpha or beta—it’s a stable release, ready for expansions, DLCs, and new features.

The reason I care about cosmetics, achievements, and even profile pictures is that they create a sense of progression. They give players meaningful rewards for their time and effort. Even something as simple as "Play 2,000 games to unlock a profile picture" can be cool!

Yes, hardcore players won’t care about this. But to become a hardcore player, you need to spend a lot of time in the game first. We’ve already got those players hooked. The bigger challenge is attracting new players. And the reality is, modern gamers enjoy customization, progression systems, achievements, and ranks.

For me, the real issue isn’t balance—I actually feel the opposite, it has not much to do with balance. 

I want CoH3 to succeed, but in its current state, I don’t see it happening. "Quick match only" was fine when I was a kid—but that was years ago. Even my kids playing Roblox have a deeper sense of progression than I do in CoH3.

If anything in this game could be labeled as "feature incomplete," it’s not the balance—it’s the UI, progression system, ladders, and achievements. The global achievements are meaningless. If everyone gets the same reward, then what's the point? If we throw the balance into the mix, sure, a tweak here and there, possible rework..

Okay, I’m getting too emotional.