UTT2 stats

Implying you are the only one in the world who has the same ideas

I can assure u I was the FIRST ONE to have those ideas. Especially the Stug RA. All the axis fanboys were asking for armor buff instead, but I knew the allied crybabies would screech about it to no end.

I can assure u I was the FIRST ONE to have those ideas. Especially the Stug RA. All the axis fanboys were asking for armor buff instead, but I knew the allied crybabies would screech about it to no end.

You might had bring it up AGAIN for last year patch, but it's not the first time i've seen it brought up.

PG vet suggestions comes from 7 yeas ago when the game released with non flavourful vet 1 abilities. The joke on bringing the panzer to Panzergrens.

Stug change was basically a process of elimination. What can you actually change in order to buff it slightly.

If someones claims as "own" changes like size, accuracy, reload, vet numerical adjustments, etc. i will heavily roll my eyes. If someone comes with something unique (for example recently, Mirage brought up the issue with the Su76 having a small firing cone of 2 when all other case mates are set at 5), yeah sure power to them for digging up in the code and checking for discrepancies. Same with people who founds the steps to reproduce a bug and more so those who suggest ways to fix it.

At the end of the day, NO ONES words hold any more water than others unless you are specifically testing and providing feedback and gameplay testing in the modding group.
A good and simple idea holds it's ground on it's own, disregarding who says it.

About stats.
For WC 1v1 tournament we had 114 games, which is still a small number.

1Quote: "There is data available for 114 games, which is significantly less than what we had for the main round of GSC2, where we had data 351 games in total. This means that any calculation of percentages can be considered semi representative at best."

2: "Most games are decided by the skill gap between opponents (see below).
We look at a small number of matches.
The games are played on a subset of maps only. Performance on other maps might be very different. Also, starting positions were fixed, so wins or losses might be related to that, despite the valiant efforts to improve the maps prior to the tournament.
Previous tournaments showed that each individual player has certain strengths and weaknesses when it comes to handling different factions."


UKF was not a good faction for that meta (heavy) and they historically been underplayed EVEN when OP (player preference) in 1v1. The fact is that even people who played them before skipped them for the tournament.
Something was/is still inherently wrong with the faction though the TEAMGAME performance was not as bad. Same thing is happening nowadays but in the other side of the spectrum.


If it's hard to gauge balance on 1v1 with that small number of games, what leaves to teamgames which has way more variables to consider.

Implying you are the only one in the world who has the same ideas

I wish i had his brain...