OKW needs buff?

Every faction has the same MP income and most of the BS like tech free heavies have been removed. You can't say that you lose the game if you lose a volksgrenadier squad while at the same time say your opponent can keep playing as though nothing happened when they lose a rifle squad.

Whenever you lose while you played better it's either: you got shafted by RNG and a plane lands on your head, or you made some good plays that you remember but ignore all the bad plays you did in the same game.

what is extremely harmful is the countless waves of suggestions to nerf the soviets despite being the faction with the lowest winrate... of course youre just gonna keep on claiming the earth is flat despite data saying otherwise soo if youre gonna believe in your little fairytale land thinking that OKW needs some major overhaul unlike the actual weakest faction ingame then im sorry to disappoint...

Do you have a playercard? The fantasy world, well, is not really my thing. I will use Your arguments: Most decent players state that OKW needs some overhaul and it is weak at the moment. The winrate stats are not to be used in balance and they are largely decided by automatch mechanics and hundreds other factors. Why don't You just read and accept what the author of the stats you use to back Your claims wrote about them?

IMO most problems with OKW stem from their tech, most future balance changes attempt to address that (to be checked on the forum). It is hard to treat most of the stuff You write other than bias.

Do you have a playercard? The fantasy world, well, is not really my thing. I will use Your arguments: Most decent players state that OKW needs some overhaul and it is weak at the moment. The winrate stats are not to be used in balance and they are largely decided by automatch mechanics and hundreds other factors. Why don't You just read and accept what the author of the stats you use to back Your claims wrote about them?

IMO most problems with OKW stem from their tech, most future balance changes attempt to address that (to be checked on the forum). It is hard to treat most of the stuff You write other than bias.

soo by your argument winrate is irrelevant... OKW UP give nuclear bomb since 100% winrate against allies is irrelevant... also we should completely remove all guns from the soviet faction in the game after all in the battle stallone grad they only gave 1 gun per 2 soldiers :v

ohh yeah and the earth is flat and the sky is green

soo by your argument winrate is irrelevant... OKW UP give nuclear bomb since 100% winrate against allies is irrelevant... also we should completely remove all guns from the soviet faction in the game after all in the battle stallone grad they only gave 1 gun per 2 soldiers :v

ohh yeah and the earth is flat and the sky is green

The post is completely incomprehensible and not OKW related. Have a beer mate

The post is completely incomprehensible and not OKW related. Have a beer mate

your argument of winrate being completely irrelevant is equally nonsensical...

your argument of winrate being completely irrelevant is equally nonsensical...

Read what the author of those stats wrote. Read the question and answer section, too. It is really clear and self explanatory - requires some reading time, though.

Read what the author of those stats wrote. Read the question and answer section, too. It is really clear and self explanatory - requires some reading time, though.

you simply cannot dismiss the data though.... the winrates may not be absolute proof of a faction underperforming however it is OBJECTIVE data which exists beyond "opinions" and "feelings" and therefore must be granted credibility beyond that of an "opinion"...

therefore winrates >>>>> your trash opinion

HOWEVER you are one of the people INSANE enough to claim the soviets are OP despite having the lowest winrate ingame... this is in utter IGNORANCE to the data presented... take a look at your dumb argument and see how your narrative fits the bill...

Hi

Soviets ARE OP - a fact imo

A list of my favourite absolutely ridiculous counter arguments:

1. T70 has to be OP because Soviets are weak - who the hell came up with that nonsense first?
2. CE has to be the cheapest because it is so weak.
3. Conscripts have to be 7 men because they suck (while grens have to be 4 men because that was the original sacred design).
4. Guards must have ptrs package for free.
5. Penals AT satchels are weak because they have small range.
6. Shocks are meh because work only close range.
7. ZiS needs to have the ridiculously potent (due to range and number of shells) and dirt cheap barrage because soviets don't have grenades.
8. Tripwire should stay the way it is because nobody uses it.
9. ZiS is bad at its AT role and that is why it should have the largest crew.
Show Spoiler

can you stop being axis biased for one second?

you simply cannot dismiss the data though.... the winrates may not be absolute proof of a faction underperforming however it is OBJECTIVE data which exists beyond "opinions" and "feelings" and therefore must be granted credibility beyond that of an "opinion"...

therefore winrates >>>>> your trash opinion

HOWEVER you are one of the people INSANE enough to claim the soviets are OP despite having the lowest winrate ingame... this is in utter IGNORANCE to the data presented... take a look at your dumb argument and see how your narrative fits the bill...




can you stop being axis biased for one second?

Have You read info on how to interpret the data? I guess not...
Where is Your playercard?
Check my player card to see my Sov level/number of games and this might convince You that I know quite well (for a casual player) how to use them. It also confirms that I play OKW and it really is more difficult to play with them.
You seem to be Soviet biased in an OKW thread tbh - try to stick to the thread topic, which is OKW.
As a footnote - my favourite soviet myths are still valid, just UKF is crazily OP and is better than Sov. Buffing Sov is not the answer though.

HOWEVER you are one of the people INSANE enough to claim the soviets are OP despite having the lowest winrate ingame... this is in utter IGNORANCE to the data presented... take a look at your dumb argument and see how your narrative fits the bill...




can you stop being axis biased for one second?

Let me remind you that he still was in denial about certain unit match ups when he was literally bashed on the face with stats and sources.

Arguing him is arguing insanity itself.
You can't win, you won't win, because he does not give a single fuck about facts, metrics or statistics if they go against his point of view.

Let me remind you that he still was in denial about certain unit match ups when he was literally bashed on the face with stats and sources.

Arguing him is arguing insanity itself.
You can't win, you won't win, because he does not give a single fuck about facts, metrics or statistics if they go against his point of view.

Personal attacks aren't helpful. You were bashed, not me.

Personal attacks aren't helpful. You were bashed, not me.

sometimes an ad hominem is the appropriate response to fact denying cherrypickers... people who cherry pick data and deny everything that does not suit their rhetoric deserve none better...

sometimes an ad hominem is the appropriate response to fact denying cherrypickers... people who cherry pick data and deny everything that does not suit their rhetoric deserve none better...

You stopped sticking to the topic a few posts away. You don't want to provide Your credentials. You don't read FULL analysis of the data You use to back up Your conclusions. You seem to believe in personal attacks. A textbook definition of a bad discussion partner. OKW is in a bad spot - Your understanding of the gameplay mechanics seems too be low to understand it. Not providing Your playercard seems to suggest you don't play all factions. We will have to agree to disagree.

Personal attacks aren't helpful. You were bashed, not me.

What is your suggestion to dealing with person who refuses to accept unquestionable evidence?

Mine is to call them out and ignore.

Have You read info on how to interpret the data? I guess not...

i think anyone with postgrad education knows how to interpret statistical data...

whats your level?

Where is Your playercard?

its literally below the avatar

Check my player card to see my Sov level/number of games and this might convince You that I know quite well (for a casual player) how to use them. It also confirms that I play OKW and it really is more difficult to play with them.

objective data > your opinion

You seem to be Soviet biased in an OKW thread tbh - try to stick to the thread topic, which is OKW.

you seem OKW biased in the previous soviet thread aswell... whataboutism aside i actually AGREE on a tech rework for OKW.... unlike you who wants nothing but soviet nerfs like a crazy persion...

As a footnote - my favourite soviet myths are still valid, just UKF is crazily OP and is better than Sov. Buffing Sov is not the answer though.

your "myths" are cherry picked and ran through several layers of bias... i can make the same "myths" for any faction and claim them to be true using your half arsed logic...

You stopped sticking to the topic a few posts away. You don't want to provide Your credentials. You don't read FULL analysis of the data You use to back up Your conclusions. You seem to believe in personal attacks. A textbook definition of a bad discussion partner. SOV is in a bad spot - Your understanding of the gameplay mechanics seems too be low to understand it. Not providing Your playercard seems to suggest you don't play all factions. We will have to agree to disagree.


look i can play your game too!

i think anyone with postgrad education knows how to interpret statistical data...

Well, You apperently refuse to accept what the author of those stats warns about....

whats your level?

It is in my signature

its literally below the avatar

It is not

objective data > your opinion

again - read the explanation how those stats are created and what conclusions cannot be drawn from them

you seem OKW biased in the previous soviet thread aswell... whataboutism aside i actually AGREE on a tech rework for OKW.... unlike you who wants nothing but soviet nerfs like a crazy persion...

OKW has some problems, which I enumerated above in earlier posts. Of course this is my perspective - but that is the idea behind the forum. Nice we agree on the tech rework - Sander's or JibberJabber's ideas or Vippler's all make sense to me.

your "myths" are cherry picked and ran through several layers of bias... i can make the same "myths" for any faction and claim them to be true using your half arsed logic...

They are not cherrypicked. You cherrypick the data out of the context and use win/loss faction ration to justify balance improvements. It is wrong for many reasons but since You don't want to acknowledge FULL data of how those stats are created it is You who does the cherrypicking. You take just stats without all the background on how they are created and what risks are involved into interpreting them. And btw interpreting such data is not as simple as You seem to suggest.

You absolutely should not extrapolate anything based on 1% difference. That is 0.5% from 50%. If anything, this graph shows that the balance is extremely well functioning. Nobody is standing out. Soviets maybe but they are also a faction that is in the base game so more games could be played there. NONE OF YOU, and I mean NONE, should use those graphs to come to any sort of conclusion. Axis or ally bias. OKW needs a slight tech rework, if anything. Doesn't need nerf nor buffs.

OKW is not in a bad spot. It has some nasty tradeoffs but that's it. USF also has nasty tradeoffs. Only OST and Soviets have none with their complete linear structure.

One should also never use "Top tier players are saying". Top tier players are probably the most bias of them all since their income revolves around them being able to win with certain factions. No matter how many swaps you do in a tournament where one person plays allies, other plays axis and vice-versa, it's obvious that specializing in one faction can net you the best outcomes in 1v1.
2 factions (1 axis, 1 ally) is viable and would make you the best player.
Playing all factions equally does not make you an expert nor does it give your arguments merit, contrary to popular belief. One does not need to see ones playercard to analyze the arguments. This is not science with unknown variables. The variables are known.
I have the same merit with balancing the USF or OKW (factions I mostly play). I was both 17th and 300th in competitive with USF and would probably rank somewhere around the same with OKW if I were to play it ranked. Still, those ranks mean s***. The weight of my argument does not supersede the argument of some 1000+ rank person.



Eg. this thread is nonsensical. Not because OP is low/high rank, but because the arguments themselves are nonsensical. Doesn't take rank 1 nor rank 1000000 to point that out. Again, everyone can play the game and you don't need to go through 6 years of education and exams to get a grip with the subject in hand.

EDIT: you would use expertise and experience in science because a lot of it is UNKNOWN. You need to study and learn models so that you could apply the same models to unknowns. If it works out, great, if not, you need a new model. This is where science is great. It creates new goods, intellectual or material.
Balancing this game creates nothing. You are taking the known and open to all and shuffling it so that nothing stands out. That's why you don't need to play 200 games with each faction to see what works and what doesn't. 10-20 games (like the first 10 ranked) are usually enough with a couple of AI games for actually getting to know what's what. That's why one should ALWAYS focus on the arguments themselves, leave out the bias and the "SHOW ME YOUR PLAYERCARD". Once you ask for the playercard YOU are forfeiting the argument cause deep down you know you are wrong so you are looking for the "I have more hours invested, I am MORE right than you"

OKW has nothing to with soviets, with USF and UKF. OKW suffers from problems in their core design and tech three, aswell as from bad unit pop-cap, timing and the fact that stupmpios have to do litteraly everything.

OKW suck in inf based AI? Because obersts are too late.
OKW get gang raped by early LVs? Because faust is locked, for no reason. On I side note, I loled at ppl puting the fact that allies dont have\have to unlocked Snares, while Axis litteraly have 0 early LVs you need snares against from the get go.
OKW cant heal without sacrificing one inf upgrade? Because tech suck ass.

And to the mix that sweeping\healing\Inf AT\laying mines\reparing\damaging is consintrated in 1 300MP 8pop squad.

All OKW suffers from is from really poor quality of life desing of the faction, which pretty much rips you off essential core game mechanics of the game.

OKW has nothing to with soviets, with USF and UKF. OKW suffers from problems in their core design and tech three, aswell as from bad unit pop-cap, timing and the fact that stupmpios have to do litteraly everything.

OKW suck in AI? Because obersts are too late.
OKW get gang raped early LVs? Because faust is locked, for no reason.
OKW cant heal without sacrificing one inf upgrade? Because tech suck ass.

And to the mix that sweeping\healing\Inf AT\laying mines\reparing\damaging is consintrated in 1 300MP 8pop squad.

All OKW suffers from is from really poor quality of life desing of the faction, which pretty much rips you off essential core game mechanics of the game.

Not much to add. Exactly that. What to do to improve it is another story. Hopefully some of the already proposed ideas will be implemented.

Well, You apperently refuse to accept what the author of those stats warns about....

ok... let me simplify it for you...
data has lots of factors
lots of factors means data is taken with a grain of salt
data however is taken with less grains of salt than an opinion... is it that hard to understand?

also where is the author`s warnings? i read the whole article and there are no warnings AT ALL... or are you being dishonest aswell?

It is in my signature

i was referring to your educational attainment... data analysis is bread and butter for any postgraduate course... if you have not achieved it then it explains as to why you are having difficulty understanding such basic concepts

It is not

i can see it just fine...

again - read the explanation how those stats are created and what conclusions cannot be drawn from them

objective data > opinion

OKW has some problems, which I enumerated above in earlier posts. Of course this is my perspective - but that is the idea behind the forum. Nice we agree on the tech rework - Sander's or JibberJabber's ideas or Vippler's all make sense to me.

yeah but unlike you i dont ask nerfs on the objectively weakest faction in the game

They are not cherrypicked. You cherrypick the data out of the context and use win/loss faction ration to justify balance improvements. It is wrong for many reasons but since You don't want to acknowledge FULL data of how those stats are created it is You who do cherrypicking. You take just stats without all the background on how they are created and what risks are involved into interpreting them. And btw interpreting such data is not as simple as You seem to suggest.

really now? what is your analysis ohh PHD in statistics? all data are lies therefore my opinions are truths?