Shock grenade

https://www.coh2.org/topic/105597/1v1-automatch-stats

https://www.coh2.org/news/106148/coh-master-league-man-lebt-nur-zweimal-recap




Yep should had specify that OKW is practically equal and OH is the one which is superior with meta builds.
I think OKW vs SU match up just revolves around how much dmg is done with light vehicles before T70 arrives and how OKW manages it.

It's hard to differentiate "OH" regular play, when you have 3 to 4 different ways to play them with Osstruppen, Assault G, 5 man Gren and the more risky Pio/MG42 T1 skip.


Let's try to get back to Shock nade.

The reply would be the same as above. You also quoted final results. The number of final matches is just not enough to draw any conclusions. Probably the whole tourney would give a decent picture hough.

When it comes to shocks I stick to what i wrote above.

snip

The reply would be the same as above. You also quoted final results. The number of final matches is just not enough to draw any conclusions. Probably the whole tourney would give a decent picture hough.

When it comes to shocks I stick to what i wrote above.

First: I do not see where in this post anything of this is said. Nevertheless, let's have a quick look at the arguments because they might still hold true regardless of whether they're in there or not.

But before I start:
You brush off statistics 315k games by saying that there are some random factors like AT vs RT (which does not apply for 1v1 data), maps and others and assume that faction pick rate heavily influences win rate etc (as a statement without any proof or reasoning), but then proceed to say that a whole tourney of (can't remember) 100-150 games max played by a handful of players might "give a decent picture". This does not make any sense.

However, the core of the caveats as well as your addition can be answered quite quickly, since they basically rely on the same argument, which is: Pure win rates do not tell you much due to the matchmaking mechanism always evening things out. We also had this discussion in the forums already so I will condense it a bit.

This assumption is true for the large majority of the ranks in the middle, yes. A mediocre player playing an OP faction will get matched against a better player using a normal faction so everyone will get a ~50% chance to win in the ideal case. This is your core argument why win rates do not provide any useful information.
But the theory falls apart on the edges of the graph: The top and lowest percent of the ladder will rarely get equal matches and usually be down matched (or up matched, respectively). We can see that nicely on the win rate graph. This also means that faction differences cannot be compensated that well anymore by just giving you are better/worse player. Hence, we see the actual faction strength more clearly. Most of your critiques also do not apply anymore at this point.
The low and high end borders just show us different perspectives of the faction balance, for example how easy it is to learn the faction, how forgivable noob mistakes like forgetting units etc are. But in the end we can still see a lot of the faction strength. Obviously there are still some caveats, but I think it is a fair assumption that the influence of just random matchmaking, maps etc will be evened out to an acceptable degree if we look at those 15k games. Especially pros will veto the maps that are bad for their faction and leave a more normalized map pool of better balanced maps (which in turn is proven by the fact that those maps are usually picked for tournaments, since they are the most balanced and do not favor one or the other faction as much).

You brush off statistics 315k games

Careful I don't brush it off. The differences are tiny. Such tiny differences aren't sort of "big enough" to influence a balance discussion much (I'm talking about all games now). If they were bigger that is another story. Too many factors will usually influence such differences, especially when the matchmaking system is at work. The graph is also a bit misleading as the 2% difference looks really big there.

by saying that there are some random factors like AT vs RT (which does not apply for 1v1 data), maps and others and assume that faction pick rate heavily influences win rate etc (as a statement without any proof or reasoning),

I might have copy pasted too much - of course we are speaking about 1v1. There are more arguments there, don't brush them off

but then proceed to say that a whole tourney of (can't remember) 100-150 games max played by a handful of players might "give a decent picture". This does not make any sense.

It actually does. There are cherry picked players and sort of the best possible match for each other there is. Of course it is not enough. But this is all we have got - no random drops due to a phone call, etc. No silly matchmaking due to waiting long for a player or no ping problems, no cheating, to name just a few factors.

However, the core of the caveats as well as your addition can be answered quite quickly, since they basically rely on the same argument, which is: Pure win rates do not tell you much due to the matchmaking mechanism always evening things out. We also had this discussion in the forums already so I will condense it a bit.

This assumption is true for the large majority of the ranks in the middle, yes. A mediocre player playing an OP faction will get matched against a better player using a normal faction so everyone will get a ~50% chance to win in the ideal case. This is your core argument why win rates do not provide any useful information.
But the theory falls apart on the edges of the graph: The top and lowest percent of the ladder will rarely get equal matches and usually be down matched (or up matched, respectively). We can see that nicely on the win rate graph. This also means that faction differences cannot be compensated that well anymore by just giving you are better/worse player. Hence, we see the actual faction strength more clearly. Most of your critiques also do not apply anymore at this point.

They do I'm afraid. I understand You had a discussion. The conclusion and arguments seem to be wrong. The ends of the graph is actually the worst part to use for comparison. Silly matchmaking on both ends will give you silly and random results and maybe even more importantly, it will be based on a rather small sample. Drops, experiments, good players just playing for fun against weaker ones - too many variables basically. And still the differences are too tiny to be significant. And still the number of games will be different for Soviets and UKF, for example. And my main critique is that the bigger the sample the more realistic result - closer to 50% in this case. Just wrong approach I'm afraid. Completely wrong.

The low and high end borders just show us different perspectives of the faction balance, for example how easy it is to learn the faction, how forgivable noob mistakes like forgetting units etc are.

U're making too many assumptions here, and not really counting all variables/reasons to win/lose. Actually it is impossible to enumerate them tbh. For example, trying to suggest that that low end will show You how quickly a player will learn a faction is just expecting far too much from a simple graph.

But in the end we can still see a lot of the faction strength. Obviously there are still some caveats, but I think it is a fair assumption that the influence of just random matchmaking, maps etc will be evened out to an acceptable degree if we look at those 15k games. Especially pros will veto the maps that are bad for their faction and leave a more normalized map pool of better balanced maps (which in turn is proven by the fact that those maps are usually picked for tournaments, since they are the most balanced and do not favor one or the other faction as much).

I'm afraid U can't see the faction strength there tbh - too many caveats. Explained by the author of the whole spreadsheet very well. Too tiny differences, too many variables, too few players for some factions with many more for other factions, etc influencing stuff. Ends of the graph, trust me, are the worst point for any analysis.

Actually maps part is probably the only part that shows quite accurately how maps influence each faction. But that is another story.

This will probably always be the opinion rather than fact.

Its a fact.

Again, ask Sander or Miragefla, who have direct access to win rates.

Its a fact.

Again, ask Sander or Miragefla, who have direct access to win rates.

I know we are speaking of shock grenades but I also understand that whether they should be more expensive or not depends on the faction's strength I feel allowed to continue.

Analysys of a game between similarly skilled players is still a better idea than raw numbers.

A small example: A good player will always play with UKF. A worse player will always choose Soviets. The result will be that UKF win rates are higher than Soviet win rates. You can't make any assumptions about any faction strength just because UKF has a higher win rate than Soviets. In this case better players selected UKF. Period. Analysig numbers makes little sense in this scenario.

Still it would be useful to post those stats from all tourney matches. Could be useful as long as used correctly.

Careful I don't brush it off. The differences are tiny. Such tiny differences aren't sort of "big enough" to influence a balance discussion much (I'm talking about all games now). If they were bigger that is another story. Too many factors will usually influence such differences, especially when the matchmaking system is at work. The graph is also a bit misleading as the 2% difference looks really big there.


I might have copy pasted too much - of course we are speaking about 1v1. There are more arguments there, don't brush them off

I know how to read a graph, mate. But I am still talking about the graph that plots game rank vs win rate. This one contains by far the most information.

It actually does. There are cherry picked players and sort of the best possible match for each other there is. Of course it is not enough. But this is all we have got - no random drops due to a phone call, etc. No silly matchmaking due to waiting long for a player or no ping problems, no cheating, to name just a few factors.

No it does not. These cherry picked players are the same that you find in the top 5% of the graphs and therefore the region that I am talking about. Tournaments are additionally held on only a couple of maps which further scews the outcome in case one of them is slightly unbalanced. Additionally, the "form" of the player is way more important since they are a snapshot of only 1-2 days. If you're playing Asia/Oceania but the tournament runs until late evening in European time, the cherry picked players from Asia will have a disadvantage because they will play their games in the middle of the night. Did not sleep well that day, had a cold, a stressful day at work, argument with your family? Well suddenly the player's favourite two factions will get an additional loss. The game size is small. The only thing that tournaments have going for them is that the skill gap is - assumingly - smaller, but that's all. Most, if not all, other factors still apply (they still run via Relic's servers, there can still be a bugsplat. And quite famously, in game bugs as it happened in Luvnest vs Asiamint. All these weight actually MORE than in the 15k game sample), but with a smaller sample size and that actual RNG has more weight. You said you know your statistics, so give an actual reason as to why all this does not apply instead of sentiments and statements. The "silly matchmaking" is a fair point, but as I said: At the edged of the graph this happens to all players, therefore all factions have higher winrates at the top 10% of players. There is no good reason to assume that this happens more often to one specific faction than another.

If you know statistics you should also know that - for the most part - the tournament matches are a subsample of the data that SiphonX visualized, but slightly scewed due to the tournament environment.

They do I'm afraid. I understand You had a discussion. The conclusion and arguments seem to be wrong. The ends of the graph is actually the worst part to use for comparison. Silly matchmaking on both ends will give you silly and random results and maybe even more importantly, it will be based on a rather small sample. Drops, experiments, good players just playing for fun against weaker ones - too many variables basically. And still the differences are too tiny to be significant. And still the number of games will be different for Soviets and UKF, for example. And my main critique is that the bigger the sample the more realistic result - closer to 50% in this case. Just wrong approach I'm afraid. Completely wrong.

Alright, then give a reasoning as to why all this is wrong. Just saying "it's wrong" does not make it wrong. You also focus on the end of the graph - but don't say anything to my points regarding the top players.
Those random elements have been addressed already as above. I agree that the bigger sample size is better, that's why SiphonX's data is better. You specifically claim that the more games were played, the closer the win rate is to 50%. Let's have a look: For OST this is true, SOV has the most games from Allied factions yet differs the most, UKF and USF differ the least yet have the least games played.
Are these differences significant? You say no. The honest answer is: We don't know for sure. But it's a lot of games, and the differences in the top player department is between 5-10% with 15k games played. The drops and other random mishaps that you mention are likely a very minor fraction of all these games.

U're making too many assumptions here, and not really counting all variables/reasons to win/lose. Actually it is impossible to enumerate them tbh. For example, trying to suggest that that low end will show You how quickly a player will learn a faction is just expecting far too much from a simple graph.

If it came across as if these is the be all end all conclusion, then this was not intended. But if a faction performs the worst with both high end low skill players, it's a decent hint that this faction might be weaker than the other factions.

I'm afraid U can't see the faction strength there tbh - too many caveats. Explained by the author of the whole spreadsheet very well. Too tiny differences, too many variables, too few players for some factions with many more for other factions, etc influencing stuff. Ends of the graph, trust me, are the worst point for any analysis.

This data is not the perfect set to prove faction strength, but at some point you have to see that your initial argument is based on your personal "game experience and my tourney and cast observations" stating that "Soviets are much more forgiving and generally easier to play with than OKW". You said I can't conclude from a simple graph how easy it is to play a faction, yet you do it from what? The 100-200 games a CoH2 fan can play in a month maximum (unless you have a full month of free time) + the 50 you watched? How do your observations suddenly beat data from 15k games? You said you know your statistics, but this is fully ignoring good scientific practice. You even agreed that the matchmaking will even things out for the majority of all players. So how does your personal game experience then translate into actual balance knowledge if you additionally have to filter out that all your matches were decided by the matchmaking algorithm to give you a chance of roughly 50% (I am assuming at this point that you are not in the top 5-10% of players)?

And again: How can you say that tourney stats could be a decent basis with those few games, split across 5 different factions and a small player and map pool, but then say you agree with the spreadsheets author that the games and players in his (much, much larger) data are possibly not enough to draw conclusions?
Nothing of this adds up.

Well instead of talking about 1v1 winrates as a whole in a "shock grenade thread", answer me this question. Why do shocks cost 360mp and obers cost 340 mp and have to buy their LMGs to stand any remote chance against shocks against someone who isn't sitting AFK at range 35.

Why does the shock grenade get to cost less than the other grenades, yet gets to have a max range blast of 40 damage which is 50% of any infantry model aside from snipers, while other grenades have far less. I'm not saying we need massive changes here, just lower the max range damage to something similar to the cooked frag or find a middle ground. And also for another thread probably address shocks in some way.

Consistency, balance between factions. Saying soviets need OP unit because axis have OP unit is an awful arguement. You don't keep OP units, you nerf them and try to balance them with every other unit so factions don't crutch on them every game.

I'd like to reiterate: shocks are a singular purpose unit whose only job is to brute force through the enemy head on and kill shit in close range. This is very different than firing lmgs on the move or am bushing armour all from the same unit. Have a slightly cheaper grenade comes with being a singular purpose unit as specialists are ALWAYS more cost effective at their given role than flexible generalist units.

Obers for example can at least lay traps or punish units trying to close when they have vet and can when the time comes fire their lmg on the move.

I'd like to reiterate: shocks are a singular purpose unit whose only job is to brute force through the enemy head on and kill shit in close range. This is very different than firing lmgs on the move or am bushing armour all from the same unit. Have a slightly cheaper grenade comes with being a singular purpose unit as specialists are ALWAYS more cost effective at their given role than flexible generalist units.

Obers for example can at least lay traps or punish units trying to close when they have vet and can when the time comes fire their lmg on the move.

Obers are pretty singular use too? They can only engage with infantry. Booby trap on obers = smoke on shocks. They both get something.

Fragible grenade? shock body armor. Just because a unit is different doesn't mean it needs to be OP.

Calling obers a generalist is stretching their description to the absolute maximum....

And again, is there really a reason their grenade needs to obliterate damaged models all the way out to the full blast radius of the grenade? Does it truely help them win 1v1 situations more, considering they do not lose to probably any axis squad in the game from equal cover?

I know how to read a graph, mate. But I am still talking about the graph that plots game rank vs win rate. This one contains by far the most information.

I understand

No it does not. These cherry picked players are the same that you find in the top 5% of the graphs and therefore the region that I am talking about.

True. The difference is that their games are cast, uploaded to YT and can be analysed! My whole point is that this is probably the only way to improve an already pretty well balanced game.

Tournaments are additionally held on only a couple of maps which further scews the outcome in case one of them is slightly unbalanced. Additionally, the "form" of the player is way more important since they are a snapshot of only 1-2 days. If you're playing Asia/Oceania but the tournament runs until late evening in European time, the cherry picked players from Asia will have a disadvantage because they will play their games in the middle of the night. Did not sleep well that day, had a cold, a stressful day at work, argument with your family? Well suddenly the player's favourite two factions will get an additional loss. The game size is small. The only thing that tournaments have going for them is that the skill gap is - assumingly - smaller, but that's all.

I agree with everything above. That is why I wrote in the previous post that this is the best we have. Probably far from ideal but if AE cantinues his tourney quest (fingers crossed) there will be so much more material soon.

Most, if not all, other factors still apply (they still run via Relic's servers, there can still be a bugsplat.

True - but I really think that the number of problems and random loses is greatly reduced. I don;t really think anybody playing in the tourney will have a baby on their lap, will have to open the door to a mailman or answer an urgent phonecall.

And quite famously, in game bugs as it happened in Luvnest vs Asiamint. All these weight actually MORE than in the 15k game sample), but with a smaller sample size and that actual RNG has more weight.

Yes, but because such games are cast you can always just delete their result (a bugged game) from the stats.

You said you know your statistics, so give an actual reason as to why all this does not apply instead of sentiments and statements.

I feel I answered above.

The "silly matchmaking" is a fair point, but as I said: At the edged of the graph this happens to all players, therefore all factions have higher winrates at the top 10% of players. There is no good reason to assume that this happens more often to one specific faction than another.

Yes and no. When you have a bigger sample the result will be better/more realistic. You have many games as Soviets and many fewer as UKF or USF. Also there might be players who play only Soviets and manage to enter the top zone only with one faction. They are usually worse players than those who play all factions (tourney guys, for example). Anyway, this is the variables thing. It is really impossible to predict what strange constellations of factors might influence that. It may or may not be faction strength related. Looking at those graphs my bet is that there are simply more Sov players and the peak is less sharp because of that (quite typical in stats).

If you know statistics you should also know that - for the most part - the tournament matches are a subsample of the data that SiphonX visualized, but slightly scewed due to the tournament environment.

But it is a cherrypicked subsample that will grow in time. And this is the sample that can be reviewed under microsope . You will know if a match was won or lost because of specific strat, early game failure, simply a bug or some non balance related mistake or rng or some period of player godmode. It is impossible to determine balance problem or faction strengths only basing it on such graphs (sadly).

Alright, then give a reasoning as to why all this is wrong. Just saying "it's wrong" does not make it wrong. You also focus on the end of the graph - but don't say anything to my points regarding the top players.

Yep. I guess top really is a bit more solid. Still, just like I wrote earlier, not solid enough imo to draw conclusions. Assuming that all those top players keep switching factions and have all their stats there....nah. Probably one army players blur the picture there - that is my guess. They probably play Soviets as their main faction and enter the zone with them only. Their other played factions are further behind on the ladder (especially their axis), maybe even 100-200 positions lower or even not existent at all - this way they don't lower other armies performance in the top of the graph. This way their other armies stats don't lower other armies performance, but their Soviet performance lowers the graph. This together with more Soviet players makes the peak lower. But that is my guess as I can't verify it.

Those random elements have been addressed already as above. I agree that the bigger sample size is better, that's why SiphonX's data is better. You specifically claim that the more games were played, the closer the win rate is to 50%. Let's have a look: For OST this is true, SOV has the most games from Allied factions yet differs the most, UKF and USF differ the least yet have the least games played.
Are these differences significant? You say no. The honest answer is: We don't know for sure. But it's a lot of games, and the differences in the top player department is between 5-10% with 15k games played. The drops and other random mishaps that you mention are likely a very minor fraction of all these games.

I don't think that his data is better from the perspective of assessing balance. It is because you don;t really know who is in the top mix. There might be people who play only one or two factions, unlike in the tourney where players are usually really good at playing all armies. When such people enter the top of the graph they will blur the picture. And yes, the honest answer is we don't really know. In tourneys you know these things.

If it came across as if these is the be all end all conclusion, then this was not intended. But if a faction performs the worst with both high end low skill players, it's a decent hint that this faction might be weaker than the other factions.

It doesn't have to be like that, especially if the faction was the first faction introduced into the game. Their playerbase may be bigger. This will usually lower the peak of the Soviet graph.

This data is not the perfect set to prove faction strength, but at some point you have to see that your initial argument is based on your personal "game experience and my tourney and cast observations" stating that "Soviets are much more forgiving and generally easier to play with than OKW". You said I can't conclude from a simple graph how easy it is to play a faction, yet you do it from what? The 100-200 games a CoH2 fan can play in a month maximum (unless you have a full month of free time) + the 50 you watched? How do your observations suddenly beat data from 15k games? You said you know your statistics, but this is fully ignoring good scientific practice. You even agreed that the matchmaking will even things out for the majority of all players. So how does your personal game experience then translate into actual balance knowledge if you additionally have to filter out that all your matches were decided by the matchmaking algorithm to give you a chance of roughly 50% (I am assuming at this point that you are not in the top 5-10% of players)?

These stats would be ok if every player played all factions imo. If you have players playng only as Soviets, or only as allies/axis the stats will always be not informative enough. in tourneys players are forced to switch sides and this makes the difference imo (plus the fact that you can actually watch the game)

And again: How can you say that tourney stats could be a decent basis with those few games, split across 5 different factions and a small player and map pool, but then say you agree with the spreadsheets author that the games and players in his (much, much larger) data are possibly not enough to draw conclusions?
Nothing of this adds up.

Tourneys make players switch sides so they have to play at least one axis and one allied faction. IMO it changes a lot as the same player tests both sides. In the graphs there probably are quite a few players who play only one faction or their ranks with (usually axis factions?) are below the top tier. They blur the picture of balance in the graphs. We don't know how many such players there are even in the top tier. I also don't know if the players whose ranks got hidden with one army are in the graph.

(Sorry for a lot of repetitions)

Obers are pretty singular use too? They can only engage with infantry. Booby trap on obers = smoke on shocks. They both get something.

Fragible grenade? shock body armor. Just because a unit is different doesn't mean it needs to be OP.

Calling obers a generalist is stretching their description to the absolute maximum....

And again, is there really a reason their grenade needs to obliterate damaged models all the way out to the full blast radius of the grenade? Does it truely help them win 1v1 situations more, considering they do not lose to probably any axis squad in the game from equal cover?

I didn't say that obers were generalist just that there is more flexibility. They can and often will engage on a fringe while shocks are balls in for any assault. The cheaper grenade is baked in to their cost as it's pivotal to their role. They do have armour but they do not have centralized DPS so model losses hurt. They pay in mp as a well as munitions just getting into position for the nade.

Additionally if they beat any axis squad in close range (ahem as they should) what difference does it make if they toss another 30 mu into the fight? The entire "thing" for shocks is if they get in close... Well, don't let them. They have no flexibility at all so they excel at their singularity

Well instead of talking about 1v1 winrates as a whole in a "shock grenade thread", answer me this question. Why do shocks cost 360mp and obers cost 340 mp and have to buy their LMGs to stand any remote chance against shocks against someone who isn't sitting AFK at range 35.

Why does the shock grenade get to cost less than the other grenades, yet gets to have a max range blast of 40 damage which is 50% of any infantry model aside from snipers, while other grenades have far less. I'm not saying we need massive changes here, just lower the max range damage to something similar to the cooked frag or find a middle ground. And also for another thread probably address shocks in some way.

Consistency, balance between factions. Saying soviets need OP unit because axis have OP unit is an awful arguement. You don't keep OP units, you nerf them and try to balance them with every other unit so factions don't crutch on them every game.

1- Obers Kar actually do dmg and have passive suppression 6 years since release. Anything above 15 range, Ober as a squad outdps Shocks WITHOUT the LMG upgrade.

2- LMG/AR/Carbines are easier to use as they keep performing defensively or offensively with A move or chasing down squads. Once you retreat pass 10-15 range, the chance to wipe a squad or do dmg with an SMG drops drastically.
The fact that you have to get into CQC put's you in a more dangerous situation.

3- The veterancy on Shocks is oriented towards the grenade. It's like the grenade is part of the character of the unit.

Show Spoiler

This is also why Obers cost more. They have more utility, diversity and better vet.

4- 1.5 Armor is equivalent to 0.66 Received accuracy. Obers start at 0.7. Any weapon with penetration higher than 1.0 negates this advantage.
This applies to LMG, HMG and mounted MG mostly (obviously other vehicles weapons and flak accuracy base units)

5- I'll rather have Shocks get the current costed and dmg grenade rather than Bundle/Gammon nuke nade dmg model with longer fuse.

I've already told you. Lethality AREA of nuke nade = 3x times the size of normal nade (including shock nade).
While Shocks nade retain 40dmg till 4 (i think MMX made a thread about how dmg doesn't drop off to 0 pass far dmg till max radius AoE) the drop off dmg from nuke nades is almost similar with a higher mid dmg and far dmg dropping till 3.75 at 30 and from there till 5 range radius.


If you want to nerf the grenade, then rework them to be design around something else than just the grenade and getting close.

snip

I'll move this to PM because this discussion is getting out of scope for the thread

snip

Does anyone have the stats on the grenades? So AoE distances and damage modifiers?

I'll move this to PM because this discussion is getting out of scope for the thread


Does anyone have the stats on the grenades? So AoE distances and damage modifiers?

The old coh2 stats site still have the grenades listed.

Shock's grenades performance is an oversight and not a trade mark.

In the original design the grenade was weaker with December patch it received a huge buff but without actually normalizing it and bringing it inline with other grenades:

"HE Grenade far AOE increased from 0.15 to 0.5"

(The same can be said about valentine main gun and SU-76 vet damage bonus in the barrage)

Shock's grenades performance is an oversight and not a trade mark.

In the original design the grenade was weaker with December patch it received a huge buff but without actually normalizing it and bringing it inline with other grenades:

"HE Grenade far AOE increased from 0.15 to 0.5"

(The same can be said about valentine main gun and SU-76 vet damage bonus in the barrage)

But you see, i think it was normalised towards other grenades, without giving it a 120 (original) / 100 damage profile of other anti infantry specialised units.

The same post you quote the change from, explicitly tells you that.

We are also improving the performance of the Shock Troops’ grenade to be on par with other anti-infantry specialists.

And to give some context, 6 months before that this was done to Guards with are more generalist (and Partisans as well).

RGD-33 Fragmentation Grenade (Affects Partisans, but not Shocks)

AOE far damage reduced from 0.5 to 0.25 (Same as MK2)
Ready aim time increased from 0.125 to 0.625 (to match MK2 overall delay)
Munitions cost reduced from 45 to 35

There is no oversight. There is direct intention.

WE can agree or disagree with the direction.

But you see, i think it was normalised towards other grenades, without giving it a 120 (original) / 100 damage profile of other anti infantry specialised units.

The same post you quote the change from, explicitly tells you that.



And to give some context, 6 months before that this was done to Guards with are more generalist (and Partisans as well).



There is no oversight. There is direct intention.

WE can agree or disagree with the direction.

Only the profile of the shock grenade is different than other elite grenades...normalizing might have been the intention but the change was not successful and that is what OP is actually saying...

Well instead of talking about 1v1 winrates as a whole in a "shock grenade thread", answer me this question. Why do shocks cost 360mp and obers cost 340 mp and have to buy their LMGs to stand any remote chance against shocks against someone who isn't sitting AFK at range 35.

Why NKVD officer have force retreat in AOE, which also pin and slow units for 45 munition, while sturm officer have selected force retreat which buffs nearby enemy units for 60 muni and I belive 50 or so with vet

Only the profile of the shock grenade is different than other elite grenades...normalizing might have been the intention but the change was not successful and that is what OP is actually saying...

Which i think is good, because the grenade is less oriented towards wiping full HP squads.

Why NKVD officer have force retreat in AOE, which also pin and slow units for 45 munition, while sturm officer have selected force retreat which buffs nearby enemy units for 60 muni and I belive 50 or so with vet

Not my words but Sander.

Basically because the Sturm Officer is basically an Ober squad.
The NKVD panflets is a not a direct retreat, there's RNG as to which effect occurs and takes time.

If the guide is updated and they use the same ability:

25% chance of nothing
35% chance of being slowed and taking +100% received accuracy
30% chance of suppressed/pinned
10% chance of being forced to retreat