Factions and tournament

Hi everyone, I wanted to understand how in the 1vs1 tournament there were little used factions (ukF and OST) after OST was also upgraded?
Is OST as bad as a faction?

Ostheer isn’t bad at all. I think the state of Grenadiers and the weakness to LV play, especially the T70, due to a lack of AT vehicle in T2 scared a lot of people off of Ostheer.

There's a pretty huge discussion on this in another thread: link.

The short summary (I'll try to be neutral) of that thread is basically:

• UKF is unusable in competitive play. It's simply missing too many 'core' tools (snare, mobile mortar, etc.) and relies too heavily to gimmicks and/or "crutch" units to carry the team. They were only used 5 times in the tournament (and only against OST), with a 40% win rate.
  
  
• Sov vs. OKW, USF vs. Ost and USF vs. OKW were all very close to 'perfectly balanced', in terms of win/loss ratios. In general, the allied factions won a few more games (~53-55% win ratio), but this small of a discrepancy can likely be explained by 'luck'.
  
  
• Sov vs. OST seems unbalanced at face-value, due to Sov having a ~71% win ratio against OST. It's been debated fairly heavily weather this can be explained by 'luck' (which players played Sov more) or if it's a balance issue, but there's no consensus on the topic. We'll likely need to wait for more data/analysis to understand what happened here.
  
  
• Sov/USF were used about the same amount; USF in 41 games, Sov in 38 games.
  
  
• OKW was used a fair bit more than OST; OKW in 54 games, OST in 30 games.
  
  
• OKW being used more than OST could be due to balance, but it could also be due to player preference. Some players played exclusively USF/OKW, for example.
  

My own opinions below

OST is slightly under-performing right now. A while ago there was a thread asking players to rank the factions in order of strongest to weakest in 1v1, and this vote basically matched exactly what happened in the tournament. The general consensus seems to be that OST is vulnerable to Sov's T70, since it has incredibly high 'wipe' potential, which is very powerful against OST's expensive (and small) squads, combined with Gren's slight under-performance in the very late-game when compared to their reinforce costs.

Additionally, OST's T4 is generally seen as "bad" in 1v1; the Brumbarr requires very high levels of micro to be effective (and even then, it's not amazing), the Panther is very expensive, but arguably less effective than a pair of STuGs, and the PanzerWerfer is only useful in certain scenarios. As a result, OST generally relies heavily on "Call-in meta", where their late-game armor is made up almost entirely of doctrine-specific units such as the Tiger and Elefant. Since these units only become available very late in the game, there is a noticeable weakness in OST's unit lineup when Sov/USF 'T4' becomes available, as OST will still be waiting for those late-game Call-in units.

Hi everyone, I wanted to understand how in the 1vs1 tournament there were little used factions (ukF and OST) after OST was also upgraded?
Is OST as bad as a faction?

UKF had a huge change to their meta, so much so that no(almost) pro had the balls to play em when 10k was on the line.

As for Ostheer, the faction requires more skill than any other to use so most pro's wanted to have it a bit easy and mostly played OKW.

The lack of USF is due to a lack of Ostheer. USF has a very strong mach up against em, however the USF-OKW is a bit OKW sided.

The Sov have good match up against both OKW and OST. And so they were picked most. Also OST counters Sovs better than OKW does the lack of them also led to sov prevelance.

And here is the thing most matches had beed rather one sided meaning 3-0/3-1 which indicates the better player won.

I don't thin OST is a bad faction. But it requires more skill and experience to play.

Thanks for the answers. Will there be any future changes to OST to make it stronger?

Hi everyone, I wanted to understand how in the 1vs1 tournament there were little used factions (ukF and OST) after OST was also upgraded?
Is OST as bad as a faction?

In general, I think Storm and Doom are right. Also, I don't think OST is terrible, but OKW has a stock counter (Puma) to LV play while Ost doesn't. In a tournament, the last thing you would want is to be left without a counter to a core unit. If someone picks OST, and then Mobile Defense for the Puma to counter the T70, what would they do when the IS2 comes out? Most players wanted a Tiger so it seemed like many of them went OKW with mechanized and the Grand Offensive commander, which gave them all of the tools.

Thanks for the answers. Will there be any future changes to OST to make it stronger?

It's very likely that upcoming patches will strengthen OST's lineup (and also attempt to help UKF). Most players seem to agree that OST is on the weaker side of things; the disagreement is in what way (and by how much) they are weaker.

I believe it was mentioned that the next patch was delayed until after the WCS tournament, so it's likely that it will be discussed soon. My guess would be a Jan/Feb update, with a workshop 'test' patch available within the next month or so.

OKW has a stock counter (Puma) to LV play while Ost doesn't.

This is actually a very important point; not sure how I missed this. Considering how important LV-play was in the tournament (every faction went 'rushed' their LV in almost every game), having the puma as an 'easy' counter was likely a deciding factor for many players when comparing OST vs. OKW.

I think i have to correct some aspects which had been mentioned before. The data mentioned and some of the analysis of it is from an incomplete pool of games.

snip

snip

-UKF: They were used at least 8 times, having a 25% WR.

-OKW: the match up against both USF and SU was fair.

-SU/USF: their match up against OH was highly favoured. OH won 6/18 games (33%) against Soviets and 5/16 games (29%) against USF.
SU mostly went with IS2 doctrines against OH (11/18 armored assault and twice with Shock Rifle).

-OH: T4 has been the bane of diversity for OH, mostly on 1v1. This gives them troubles when we live in a heavy meta. Their is no Puma to save them this time neither for when they are behind in light vehicle phase.

-THERE WAS NO LACK OF OH NOR USF.
OH=40
OKW=67
SU=50
USF=49
UKF=8

_______________________________

Now going into analysis:

-You have to take into account that if a faction is COMPLETELY OP, it will dominate far more heavily pick choice. Same in the opposite way if they were UP. There is also player preference to take into account. That been said...

-UKF saw almost no play, not because "PRO"s didn't had balls, but cause they had been heavily nerf for 1v1, when the clutch which hold the whole faction has been nerfed (mostly IS bolster) and their strongest units been normalised (Churchill).
Add that we live in a heavy call in meta, and that the call in vehicles from UKF are not all rounders good AI and AT, and then you have your answer.

Players who might had picked UKF in the past (HHans/Jove) didn't do so. Those who favour it didn't make it pass the round of 16 (Aimstrong and Ashabois). Barton tried them once (and lost) and other players who might had brought them didn't participate (CPrice/PaulAd/others).

-OH: if you are playing from behind, you will be heavily strained mp wise, cause the opponent will bleed you by pushing the advantage with light vehicles (Stuart/T70) and stalling into a heavy tank (IS2/Pershing) which you can't really counter effectively with T3.
Puma doctrine is no longer a thing, which might make heavy T1/T2 play viable. The 222 can counter M20 but will lose to anything heavier (Stuart, AA HT, T70) while not providing as much as AI for fuel investment nor AT. In the past, it would had act as soft counter for cost against a T70, but after the rework to 400HP and 222 cost normalised, it's no longer possible.
T4 no longer has OP Brummbar which might make it worth to get in 1v1 and spending all resources in either getting a PV or PW as first units is not viable. This limits the options against heavy armored vehicles.


So what is probably gonna be the focus of attention towards the future:


-Heavy call ins: they are probably gonna get nerfed. Mostly regarding their timing (CP) and maybe cost. The IS2 is likely to get a certain degree of armor nerf.

-SU: probable fine adjustments towards the 7man upgrade on Conscripts.

Everything else mentioned is heavy speculation.

My view:

-Heavies: they should also debate if removing the extended range at vet 2 (either from 45-50 or 40-50) would be a good idea, as this makes 50 range TD irrelevant as the heavy tank can return fire with ease.

-TD: vet adjustments.
Stug: swapping vet 2 with vet 3. TWP from 80 to 160dmg. Spread out 30% ACC between vet2 and vet3.
PV: Spread out 30% acc on vet 2 and 3
Jackson/Su85: tone down vet pen increase to 10% (basically mirroring performance when equalising vet with PV getting skirts)

-UKF: plenty of things to consider in how to improve the faction or making it viable in 1v1 without clutches/cheese.

-USF: hard to say and surprising as most people bring SU as an issue and not USF (which might be the case but most will start to talk about it once all data is released).

-OH: i'm not sure how much more can be done to make T4 viable on 1v1 without making any of their units OP. It might be now the time to test (again) how to reduce OH eternal weakness to light tanks.

I think i have to correct some aspects which had been mentioned before. The data mentioned and some of the analysis of it is from an incomplete pool of games.

-UKF: They were used at least 8 times, having a 25% WR.

-OKW: the match up against both USF and SU was fair.

-SU/USF: their match up against OH was highly favoured. OH won 6/18 games (33%) against Soviets and 5/16 games (29%) against USF.
SU mostly went with IS2 doctrines against OH (11/18 armored assault and twice with Shock Rifle).

-OH: T4 has been the bane of diversity for OH, mostly on 1v1. This gives them troubles when we live in a heavy meta. Their is no Puma to save them this time neither for when they are behind in light vehicle phase.

-THERE WAS NO LACK OF OH NOR USF.
OH=40
OKW=67
SU=50
USF=49
UKF=8

That's really interesting new data; but it still seems slightly incomplete. I just tallied up the round of 32, 16, quarters, semi, final and 3rd place rounds, and got 113 games total - your list is 107. That's still FAR better than the 84 we were discussion earlier; if you're the source for this new data, great work.

I also don't understand where the "There was no lack of OH" conclusion came from; by your new revised data, OKW saw 67% (27 games) more play than OST, compared to USF and Sov being only 2% (1 game) apart.

That said, it's interesting to see that these 'newly added' games absolutely trash the USF vs. OST matchup, to the point where their win-rate against USF was actually worse than the already terrible Sov vs. USF matchup.



As for your comments on future balance changes, I think you're pretty much correct about everything. My only changes to your suggestions would be regarding TDs; the M36 and Su-85 are incredibly dominant vs. medium tanks, to the point where they become essentially irrelevant once the TDs hit the field. Reducing their pen w/ vet wouldn't really change this at all. Delaying them slightly or lowering their RoF, and in the case of the M36, lowering its moving accuracy, might be other viable avenues for change.

As for OST, perhaps giving the 222 an 'AT' upgrade could be looked into, similar to how the OKW Elite-Armour 221 "upgrade" works; paying some MP/Fuel in exchange for more armor for that specific unit. Additionally, it could give an "AP Round" toggle, similar to the M4A3 AP/HE toggle, which could give it more pen and damage in exchange for a lower rate of fire.

Aggression dictates and wins games, defensive and response oriented factions don't really set the pace of the game.

Ost doesn't lack anything, but its not going to set the rules of the match, unless ost player is just noticeably better, which isn't the case for tournaments.

UKF on the other hand is a faction that lacks plenty of basic tools other factions have and all the "crutch OP" units that it relied upon to make up for lack of these tools were removed from the game, leaving you a cripple without crutches to lean on, so obviously they are going to be beat up badly in any kind of competitive high end situation.

....

-Heavies: they should also debate if removing the extended range at vet 2 (either from 45-50 or 40-50) would be a good idea, as this makes 50 range TD irrelevant as the heavy tank can return fire with ease.
...

I don't really agree with this. Imo it is the base performance of this units that is problem and not their performance once vetted. These units have high shock value while it should be the other way round. They should start weaker and become better with veterancy:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/102581/redesigning-super-heavy-tanks

I think i have to correct some aspects which had been mentioned before. The data mentioned and some of the analysis of it is from an incomplete pool of games.





-UKF: They were used at least 8 times, having a 25% WR.

-OKW: the match up against both USF and SU was fair.

-SU/USF: their match up against OH was highly favoured. OH won 6/18 games (33%) against Soviets and 5/16 games (29%) against USF.
SU mostly went with IS2 doctrines against OH (11/18 armored assault and twice with Shock Rifle).

-OH: T4 has been the bane of diversity for OH, mostly on 1v1. This gives them troubles when we live in a heavy meta. Their is no Puma to save them this time neither for when they are behind in light vehicle phase.

-THERE WAS NO LACK OF OH NOR USF.
OH=40
OKW=67
SU=50
USF=49
UKF=8

_______________________________

Now going into analysis:

-You have to take into account that if a faction is COMPLETELY OP, it will dominate far more heavily pick choice. Same in the opposite way if they were UP. There is also player preference to take into account. That been said...

-UKF saw almost no play, not because "PRO"s didn't had balls, but cause they had been heavily nerf for 1v1, when the clutch which hold the whole faction has been nerfed (mostly IS bolster) and their strongest units been normalised (Churchill).
Add that we live in a heavy call in meta, and that the call in vehicles from UKF are not all rounders good AI and AT, and then you have your answer.

Players who might had picked UKF in the past (HHans/Jove) didn't do so. Those who favour it didn't make it pass the round of 16 (Aimstrong and Ashabois). Barton tried them once (and lost) and other players who might had brought them didn't participate (CPrice/PaulAd/others).

-OH: if you are playing from behind, you will be heavily strained mp wise, cause the opponent will bleed you by pushing the advantage with light vehicles (Stuart/T70) and stalling into a heavy tank (IS2/Pershing) which you can't really counter effectively with T3.
Puma doctrine is no longer a thing, which might make heavy T1/T2 play viable. The 222 can counter M20 but will lose to anything heavier (Stuart, AA HT, T70) while not providing as much as AI for fuel investment nor AT. In the past, it would had act as soft counter for cost against a T70, but after the rework to 400HP and 222 cost normalised, it's no longer possible.
T4 no longer has OP Brummbar which might make it worth to get in 1v1 and spending all resources in either getting a PV or PW as first units is not viable. This limits the options against heavy armored vehicles.


So what is probably gonna be the focus of attention towards the future:


-Heavy call ins: they are probably gonna get nerfed. Mostly regarding their timing (CP) and maybe cost. The IS2 is likely to get a certain degree of armor nerf.

-SU: probable fine adjustments towards the 7man upgrade on Conscripts.

Everything else mentioned is heavy speculation.

My view:

-Heavies: they should also debate if removing the extended range at vet 2 (either from 45-50 or 40-50) would be a good idea, as this makes 50 range TD irrelevant as the heavy tank can return fire with ease.

-TD: vet adjustments.
Stug: swapping vet 2 with vet 3. TWP from 80 to 160dmg. Spread out 30% ACC between vet2 and vet3.
PV: Spread out 30% acc on vet 2 and 3
Jackson/Su85: tone down vet pen increase to 10% (basically mirroring performance when equalising vet with PV getting skirts)

-UKF: plenty of things to consider in how to improve the faction or making it viable in 1v1 without clutches/cheese.

-USF: hard to say and surprising as most people bring SU as an issue and not USF (which might be the case but most will start to talk about it once all data is released).

-OH: i'm not sure how much more can be done to make T4 viable on 1v1 without making any of their units OP. It might be now the time to test (again) how to reduce OH eternal weakness to light tanks.

The problem with OST is that T3 and T4 is not good?
I hope that very soon the OST will be buffata. I don't find it right that a faction remains like this.

The problem with OST is that T3 and T4 is not good?
I hope that very soon the OST will be buffata. I don't find it right that a faction remains like this.

Unfortunately I have to repeat it once more. It simply does not work that way.

If every time a faction is "UP" it gets buffed than all the faction will simply take turns being buffed continuously. And that end up with sorter reaction times and more snowball effects.

It is time for nerfs not buffs.

That's really interesting new data; but it still seems slightly incomplete. I just tallied up the round of 32, 16, quarters, semi, final and 3rd place rounds, and got 113 games total - your list is 107. That's still FAR better than the 84 we were discussion earlier; if you're the source for this new data, great work.

I also don't understand where the "There was no lack of OH" conclusion came from; by your new revised data, OKW saw 67% (27 games) more play than OST, compared to USF and Sov being only 2% (1 game) apart.

That said, it's interesting to see that these 'newly added' games absolutely trash the USF vs. OST matchup, to the point where their win-rate against USF was actually worse than the already terrible Sov vs. USF matchup.



As for your comments on future balance changes, I think you're pretty much correct about everything. My only changes to your suggestions would be regarding TDs; the M36 and Su-85 are incredibly dominant vs. medium tanks, to the point where they become essentially irrelevant once the TDs hit the field. Reducing their pen w/ vet wouldn't really change this at all. Delaying them slightly or lowering their RoF, and in the case of the M36, lowering its moving accuracy, might be other viable avenues for change.

As for OST, perhaps giving the 222 an 'AT' upgrade could be looked into, similar to how the OKW Elite-Armour 221 "upgrade" works; paying some MP/Fuel in exchange for more armor for that specific unit. Additionally, it could give an "AP Round" toggle, similar to the M4A3 AP/HE toggle, which could give it more pen and damage in exchange for a lower rate of fire.

I'm not the source, it's Syphon who did the job. Since most results and value are been handwritten there might some small mistake but rough numbers should be fine.
There might be cases that the only information that could be gather is faction and who won as not all replays are available.

It's impressive that the difference between USF and Su is dead even but I don't find the difference appreciable enough to conclude that "OH didn't saw any play at all".

Let's average things up and say that the split is around +35% for OH. From other tournaments:

ESL: OKW was a minority with 37.5% Allied split was: SU/USF/UKF 57.2/22.8/20
WPC + TT: OKW minority at 37.65 Allied: 46.3/45.7/8.0
GCS2: 49.6% OH minority. Allied: 59/28.2/12.8


Regarding balance changes: those are just the "safe" type of changes to reduce power by litthe notches.
I would want to see accuracy vs size related changes in the dynamic between TD against medium vs heavies but i know those require further testing and more finesse to make them right which comes close enough as to call it "rework" rather than small balance change.

I don't really agree with this. Imo it is the base performance of this units that is problem and not their performance once vetted. These units have high shock value while it should be the other way round. They should start weaker and become better with veterancy:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/102581/redesigning-super-heavy-tanks

I don't find extended range permanently through vet to be a good way to balance power level. If you make the extended range to have some sort of limitation as reducing fire angle akin spearhear or for limited time duration as a munition exchange, i would find it less afoul.
You can swap around the power level of the unit between vet as you wish, that doesn't make extended range a good option IMO.

The problem with OST is that T3 and T4 is not good?
I hope that very soon the OST will be buffata. I don't find it right that a faction remains like this.

Is not about if it's really good or not, it's the fact that T4 has never been a desirable option on 1v1 outside specific situations/metas.

If you are ahead: why let the enemy recover by spending resources on tech, when you could just seal a game with PIV/Ostwind. If you have already armor and not losing it, you might transition later to T4, but generally it's never a good idea to go straight to it (1v1).

If you are even: you will be put behind once the enemy goes for either light or their own medium tank.

If you are behind: you don't have resources to get T4 lol.

The closes comparison to this is UKF with Hammer/Anvil (up to some point, cause you unlock other things) but both vehicles provides decent AI and AT respectively. OH T4 is heavy AI, heavy AT and artillery. This means that either you rely on AT guns or heavy infantry to carry the weakness of the vehicle you picked at T4.

I also don't understand where the "There was no lack of OH" conclusion came from; by your new revised data, OKW saw 67% (27 games) more play than OST, compared to USF and Sov being only 2% (1 game) apart.

A low sample sizes means a high degree of uncertainty, especially since players are represented in this sample a variable number of times. A player that makes it far into the tournament will have played more games and contributed more. A top 4 player plays two extra rounds compared to a top 8 player.

Hypothetically, even if the top 8 was a 4-4 (50/50) split of okw/ost players, if the top 4 happened to be a 3-1 split, then OKW is getting 4 bo5s of extra matches compared to ost. Now, I haven't studied the brackets to see if that's what happened or not, but my point is that even small differences can simply be up to chance + unrelated factors.

• Sov vs. OKW, USF vs. Ost and USF vs. OKW were all very close to 'perfectly balanced', in terms of win/loss ratios. In general, the allied factions won a few more games (~53-55% win ratio), but this small of a discrepancy can likely be explained by 'luck'.
  

I don't think it's a good idea to use tournaments for allies vs axis data. Unlike automatch, allies always start on spawnpoint 1, and axis start on spawnpoint 2. Any stats that point to allies being stronger than axis can just as easily be attributed to the tourney map pool overall favoring spawn point 1.

Nondoc T3485! Can remove su76 also since its overlapping with too many units zis, su85, isu. Bad on urban maps. I don't think it can be reworked into useful unit.

T3476 into T3 with price of 110 fuel.

Nondoc T3485! Can remove su76 also since its overlapping with too many units zis, su85, isu. Bad on urban maps. I don't think it can be reworked into useful unit.

T3476 into T3 with price of 110 fuel.

Holy crap! Good idea. soviets are desperate for buffs.

Holy crap! Good idea. soviets are desperate for buffs.

why not, t34/85 are gonna act like panthers. don't really see a problem with that, maybe the t3 t34/76 could be locked behind an upgrade or tier 4 like mobilized reserves. And on the docs that got t34/85 we could change that with IS2 for gmca/aw and kv1 on armored assault.
The better option would be nondoc kv1 at t4 and t34/76 at t3 but who knows.

I think problem with TD could be solve much easier:
1. Increase damage to 200
2. Decrease ROF

Axis mediums always pens by allied heavy TDs, high ROF makes them very vulnerable (4 shots and you will be dead). While with decresed ROF and increased damage it still need 4 shots to kill mediums, but make them more orientated against "heavy armored units" with bigger HP pool. Axis medium got more time against them.
Regular ATGs still good against mediums, while heavy TD will be more preferable against heavy armor.
It's idea about how super heavy works now (like isu-152) - it have so slow ROF, while good damage and pen, that if you see medium and panther or tiger, the more obvious that target will be heavy armored unit not p4.
Allied top TD should be oriented more fight against panthers,tigers and other big boys. While fight against mediums - ATGs, mediums and infantry support.
Much easier will be change HP pool of heavy units and ROF of TD, than try to play with pens (even with stock pen, axis mediums in very bad spot against allied top TD).
What about Jackson and FF - they both have turret, that give them much more "defense" against flanking and also make them more mobile in terms of fire. It's better decrease turret rotationm but give them toggle ability like KT have, like "Focus mode" - speed of turret rotation increased, but in range (90 degrees or 60 or any other value). If player don't use ability - ok, you can shoot to any side without need to rotate your TD, but make them very vulnerable to any flanking.
It's all my thoughts about current balance allies TD vs axis mediums.

why not, t34/85 are gonna act like panthers. don't really see a problem with that, maybe the t3 t34/76 could be locked behind an upgrade or tier 4 like mobilized reserves. And on the docs that got t34/85 we could change that with IS2 for gmca/aw and kv1 on armored assault.
The better option would be nondoc kv1 at t4 and t34/76 at t3 but who knows.

Get a 3 digit rank and maybe then you can suggest big balance changes. Kappa

I don't think it's a good idea to use tournaments for allies vs axis data. Unlike automatch, allies always start on spawnpoint 1, and axis start on spawnpoint 2. Any stats that point to allies being stronger than axis can just as easily be attributed to the tourney map pool overall favoring spawn point 1.

Not only that, you also want to mitigate the individual player skill factor and player matchup factor, so this tournament would have to have a league format of everyone vs everyone multiple times with the same factions. Then you’d have to take individual skill into consideration, as well as multiple other factors that you’d have to mitigate.

In reality I think a more specific approach to balance is needed, in terms of effectiveness of certain matchups of key units and general economy in certain balanced player matchups. These require strong analysis of individual games and advanced statistics of carefully selected games.

In summary, getting statistically valuable results out of this tourney would be challenging.