Tier list 1vs1

Considering the conversations ive had with noggano and kimbo (The latter who thinks you basically lose the game if you dont kill the AEC valentine combo before 13 min you lose, and the former who when asked about what to do vs brits was "So far i think only 5 man are a good answer") i can with certainty say they used brits a significant part for a good reason.

Then say that instead of pointing out that a more or less expected number of players in the top 4 used UKF. My issue isn't that you don't have a point. My issue is that half of the points you bring up are misguided.

Then say that instead of pointing out that a more or less expected number of players in the top 4 used UKF. My issue isn't that you don't have a point. My issue is that half of the points you bring up are misguided.

I don't think there's ever been a previous time where people used the logic that a faction is OP just because people used it in a tournament. It doesn't even matter that said faction went 0-2 in the finals, it's still OP and needs to be nerfed. It won't be "balanced" until nobody uses it again.

I don't think there's ever been a previous time where people used the logic that a faction is OP just because people used it in a tournament. It doesn't even matter that said faction went 0-2 in the finals, it's still OP and needs to be nerfed. It won't be "balanced" until nobody uses it again.

Because something is wrong, doesn't mean the alternative or opposite is right.

Both arguments are too short sighted (a faction appearing or the results of a series without analysing how each game played). Unfortunately we don't have a huge sample size where we could rely on sheer WR to analyse faction performance.

Because something is wrong, doesn't mean the alternative or opposite is right.

Both arguments are too short sighted (a faction appearing or the results of a series without analysing how each game played). Unfortunately we don't have a huge sample size where we could rely on sheer WR to analyse faction performance.

I've not claimed that in any post. I don't know at this point, but then, neither does anyone else. There was really just one very competitive series in the last tournament. With one data point, you can't calculate a standard deviation, much less make any conclusions.

As people use UKF more, their understanding of it will change. Just because UKF went 0-2 this tournament final doesn't mean that the next one won't be 5-0 UKF.

I've posted more about this lately because the hypocrisy and bias is annoying. When JLI's needed a nerf, it was okay to wait almost a year. Same thing for taking the faust from Falls. In this case, people aren't even waiting for the meta to develop before going batshit crazy about a hotfix.

I've not claimed that in any post. I don't know at this point, but then, neither does anyone else. There was really just one very competitive series in the last tournament. With one data point, you can't calculate a standard deviation, much less make any conclusions.

As people use UKF more, their understanding of it will change. Just because UKF went 0-2 this tournament final doesn't mean that the next one won't be 5-0 UKF.

I've posted more about this lately because the hypocrisy and bias is annoying. When JLI's needed a nerf, it was okay to wait almost a year. Same thing for taking the faust from Falls. In this case, people aren't even waiting for the meta to develop before going batshit crazy about a hotfix.

Alright it's just it's getting more common to post about a mostly best of 3 short tournament and even then just mentioning the finals lol.

I've posted more about this lately because the hypocrisy and bias is annoying. When JLI's needed a nerf, it was okay to wait almost a year. Same thing for taking the faust from Falls. In this case, people aren't even waiting for the meta to develop before going batshit crazy about a hotfix.

This is a tough comparison to make.

Firstly, in the case of JLI, you'd have to ask the balance team why it took so long - not the community. Most acknowledged that they were pretty OP. However, balancing CoH2 isn't a game of "revenge"; just because something was OP in the past (and left OP for ages), doesn't mean its ok to leave something else OP for ages to 'balance it out'. The same can be said for Fall's faust (and that was arguably much less powerful than JLI).

Secondly, OP mainline infantry is much more of an issue than OP doc-locked infantry. Again, in the case of JLI, they were tied to one somewhat mediocre doctrine - no heavy tanks (except the KT), no off-map artillery, no recon. Yes, JLI were powerful, but as soon as you saw them, you knew you weren't going to face a JT, and you knew your arty was safe.

OP Mainline infantry is a lot more dangerous, because it tells you nothing. They're going to be present in every single game, and they don't really dictate builds.

With that said, I do agree that we need to wait a bit longer to see where things fall - but right now, it's not looking good.

It won't be "balanced" until nobody uses it again.

This, however, is extremely disingenuous.

IS' are shoe-horned into a position that's an absolute nightmare to balance, thanks to cover bonuses, non vet-locked self-healing (and it's AOE), non-doc "off" map arty, and crazy vision bonuses. However, its pretty clear that those bonuses are a bit much when they can all apply at the same time to a single squad.

OP Mainline infantry is a lot more dangerous, because it tells you nothing. They're going to be present in every single game, and they don't really dictate builds.

+1

You kind of already said this but when mainlines are OP you can combine them with whatever doctrine you want. JLI and Falls were THE reason you picked those respective doctrines. They were still OP but at least you could maybe find some games with people who weren't using those Docs

Secondly, OP mainline infantry is much more of an issue than OP doc-locked infantry.

This is true but so is the dangers of having UP mainline infantry that handicaps the entire faction to the point experienced UKF players give up on them in competitive play.

Unfortunately that's what happened when Tommies were UP the tournament before last, we only saw 4 of the 5 factions get played and even Hans said UKF were not competitive (swapping to USF). The balance team reverted half the RA nerfs to find a middle ground yet according to some this is buffing them to JLI levels of OP? Give me a break.

This, however, is extremely disingenuous.

I was just poking fun at people's responses to the UKF buffs. I don't actually care that much about Brits. I mostly play them when I'm bored of other factions. They still feel a little weird to play. I don't play a lot of Ost either, but that has more to do with how grens used to get wiped so often due to arty.

On a less sarcastic note, I do agree that having a mainline infantry unit unbalanced is somewhat worse than having a doctrinal unit unbalanced.

This is true but so is the dangers of having UP mainline infantry that handicaps the entire faction to the point experienced UKF players give up on them in competitive play.

Unfortunately that's what happened when Tommies were UP the tournament before last, we only saw 4 of the 5 factions get played and even Hans said UKF were not competitive (swapping to USF). The balance team reverted half the RA nerfs to find a middle ground yet according to some this is buffing them to JLI levels of OP? Give me a break.

I don't deny that having UP mainline infantry is a problem, but I don't think it's as bad as having OP mainline infantry. If 1/5 of the factions is 'non-viable', then its simply not played - the other 4/5 continue as normal. If 1/5 of the factions is 'wildly OP', it makes playing 2-3/5 factions incredibly frustrating (or impossible).

Also, I don't think the issue is the RA change (0.9 -> 0.85 out of cover); it works out to something like a 5.9% buff to 'eHP'. The problem is the moving accuracy change (0.35 -> 0.5), which gives IS' 42.8% more DPS when moving - that's what makes them similar to JLI.

/edit

I think a major source of the problem (regarding IS balance) is the massive number of 'states' IS can exist in:

Bolstered?
In Cover?
Weapon upgrades? (LMG, Piat, etc.)
Pyro upgrade? (LOS, Arty, smoke)
Medic upgrade?
Vet level?
Vet 1 and in cover? (more LOS)
Grenades unlocked?

That's just non-doc IS when in combat, without having to deal with auras and abilities. That's an incredible number of combinations to balance. Compared to Grens:

LMG?
Vet level?
Rifle-nade unlocked?

And it was worse before the patch, IS could have had the AT upgrade or the Ass upgrade.

If you balance one state, the others simply are disbalanced

I don't deny that having UP mainline infantry is a problem, but I don't think it's as bad as having OP mainline infantry. If 1/5 of the factions is 'non-viable', then its simply not played - the other 4/5 continue as normal. If 1/5 of the factions is 'wildly OP', it makes playing 2-3/5 factions incredibly frustrating (or impossible).

Also, I don't think the issue is the RA change (0.9 -> 0.85 out of cover); it works out to something like a 5.9% buff to 'eHP'. The problem is the moving accuracy change (0.35 -> 0.5), which gives IS' 42.8% more DPS when moving - that's what makes them similar to JLI.

/edit

I think a major source of the problem (regarding IS balance) is the massive number of 'states' IS can exist in:

Bolstered?
In Cover?
Weapon upgrades? (LMG, Piat, etc.)
Pyro upgrade? (LOS, Arty, smoke)
Medic upgrade?
Vet level?
Vet 1 and in cover? (more LOS)
Grenades unlocked?

That's just non-doc IS when in combat, without having to deal with auras and abilities. That's an incredible number of combinations to balance. Compared to Grens:

LMG?
Vet level?
Rifle-nade unlocked?

The edit here is exactly why I believe is starting from the start instead of the end make 4 man Tommie work, preferably with the cover mechanic (it's neat and unique) then build from there. If 2 brens on them is then OP, look at that. If bolstered makes them too strong look at that but leave the foundation strong. Part of the reason we are where we are is because bolstered 2 bren Tommie were nuts so brens were nerfed and standard Tommie were nerfed then bolster was delayed and now we're at a state where without any of the "extras" Tommie are not worth their cost or micro.

Start from the stock and work your way up.

Here's to hoping a Brit overhaul happens before the game is abandoned.

If you balance one state, the others simply are disbalanced

Perhaps not buffing both sections and the assault ability from Commando regiment would have been a good idea. Buff after buff adds up.

The forums and community are an endless whine and cry fest people who can't win enough games to make themselves happy with their preconceived notion that German soldiers and equipment were all the best in real life that that notion should carry over into this game. How dare the Jackson TANK DESTROYER be able to actually kill tanks let's nerf it! How dare the Churchill actually be able to deflect AT shots lets nerf it!

Don't get me wrong I don't like what they did to the Tiger or any of the heavies but Axis is far from UP.

I don't deny that having UP mainline infantry is a problem, but I don't think it's as bad as having OP mainline infantry. If 1/5 of the factions is 'non-viable', then its simply not played - the other 4/5 continue as normal. If 1/5 of the factions is 'wildly OP', it makes playing 2-3/5 factions incredibly frustrating (or impossible).

Also, I don't think the issue is the RA change (0.9 -> 0.85 out of cover); it works out to something like a 5.9% buff to 'eHP'. The problem is the moving accuracy change (0.35 -> 0.5), which gives IS' 42.8% more DPS when moving - that's what makes them similar to JLI.

/edit

I think a major source of the problem (regarding IS balance) is the massive number of 'states' IS can exist in:

Bolstered?
In Cover?
Weapon upgrades? (LMG, Piat, etc.)
Pyro upgrade? (LOS, Arty, smoke)
Medic upgrade?
Vet level?
Vet 1 and in cover? (more LOS)
Grenades unlocked?

That's just non-doc IS when in combat, without having to deal with auras and abilities. That's an incredible number of combinations to balance. Compared to Grens:

LMG?
Vet level?
Rifle-nade unlocked?

I'm pretty sure CoHronacup shattered this "wildly OP Brits" ruining all balance argument with the pick and winrates so lets stop repeating it shall we. They went 0-2 in the finals and axis didn't exactly struggle even in the games Brits won in build up rounds (pfc vs kimbo for a prime example).

A 42.8% increase is irrelevant without context backing those numbers up. What's important is how that final buffed moving acc or moving DPS compares to other mainline units. Ok so Tommy have 0.5 moving acc.

Riflemen have 0.6 moving accuracy (this is even without BARS), are they similar to JLI? Why is there no crusade for rifleman for breaking the balance between five factions. We also have fiveman grens that are slightly stronger than bolstered Tommy, yet we had no threads calling for a hotfix to grens.

As for the factors in balancing Tommies vs gren, Ost have similar capabilities it's just more spread around eg pios (similar LoS to cover section). Pgrens (AT infantry), grens (medkits and med bunker). Also PIAT Tommy is hardly a balance issue lol

I'm not saying Tommy are perfect and require zero changes, but this patch has put them in their most balanced place yet.
Balance team should be applauded for that.

I'm pretty sure CoHronacup shattered this "wildly OP Brits" ruining all balance argument with the pick and winrates so lets stop repeating it shall we. They went 0-2 in the finals and axis didn't exactly struggle even in the games Brits won in build up rounds (pfc vs kimbo for a prime example).

I was trying to speak generally, not specifically regarding IS; but I don't think anyone would call IS "non-viable" before this patch (2x Bren IS blobs were a thing). However, my post really doesn't come across that way in retrospect. Regardless, I don't think that UKF is "Wildly OP" right now (they're nowhere near pre-nerf falls), but they're definitely "very powerful", at least in terms of mainline infantry.

As for the CoHrona Cup, that only covered 1v1. From my experience, this strategy (IS spam) seems to get much worse in team-games, where the UKF player can forgo support weapons, as their teammate(s) can provide them. I'm sure an argument could be made for "new patch, pro-meta still in flux", but I'd think we would've seen the new "cheese" strategies at least attempted.

A 42.8% increase is irrelevant without context backing those numbers up. What's important is how that final buffed moving acc or moving DPS compares to other mainline units. Ok so Tommy have 0.5 moving acc.

Riflemen have 0.6 moving accuracy (this is even without BARS), are they similar to JLI? Why is there no crusade for rifleman for breaking the balance between five factions. We also have fiveman grens that are slightly stronger than bolstered Tommy, yet we had no threads calling for a hotfix to grens.

A 0.5 moving accuracy or 0.6 moving accuracy doesn't say much; but a 42.8% increase says a ton. The 'increase' is the context.

As for the other units (rifles, Grens), the issue is again, context. Rifles become very powerful late game due to their reinforcement cost, amazing vet, AND great weapon upgrades. Individually, those are all fine; combined, they're a bit strong (nothing massively OP, though). Grens also have a 5 man upgrade, but it locks out the LMG42 upgrade. They also remain very expensive to reinforce until T4 is built. None of these are because of their moving accuracy, as their weapons are balanced around that.

As for the factors in balancing Tommies vs gren, Ost have similar capabilities it's just more spread around eg pios (similar LoS to cover section). Pgrens (AT infantry), grens (medkits and med bunker). Also PIAT Tommy is hardly a balance issue lol

I'm not saying Tommy are perfect and require zero changes, but this patch has put them in their most balanced place yet.
Balance team should be applauded for that.

Yes, I know OST have the same abilities on different units - that's the point I'm making. Infantry Sections have so many possible permutations that "balancing" them is incredibly challenging. For example, let's say (somehow) the LOS Stacking between vet 1 cover and Pyro was OP on PIAT upgraded squads, and we wanted to reduce that. Unfortunately, if we made the LOS bonuses not stack (or lowered their values), this now also affects Vet 1, non-bolstered Bren squads.

On OST, changes to Pgrens don't affect Grens that directly.