snip*
it would be wise however to view objective data with greater value than the opinion of a few players... opinions are prone to biases and factionalism however data stands...
Posts: 1979
snip*
Posts: 449
Posts: 1979
I realize I'm asking for trouble wanting a Volks buff, but seriously, why should I choose Volks over Fusiliers? Except for the one fact that Fusiliers come in doctrines that I might not want, but can we please change it so that Fusiliers are not a direct upgrade over Volks? Even if that doesn't mean buffing Volks, I'm fine with it, just give me a reason not to always go Fusiliers.
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
the same argument can also be thrown for falls and obers... id suppose the choice here is between fussies and termiagers...
Posts: 1979
You cant. Falls are x10000 time better then Obersts, because they are awaible earlier meaning that they can start vetting up earlier and provide you with resonable AI against upgraded allied inf\elites.
If I had an option to get Obersts (without LMG) by the time I can get stock Falls, I wouldnt even bother going for them, because luftwaffe commander is a garbage with falls being the sole reason you would want to pick it.
Posts: 1351
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?
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
i can see it just fine...
objective data > opinion
yeah but unlike you i dont ask nerfs on the objectively weakest faction in the game
really now? what is your analysis ohh PHD in statistics? all data are lies therefore my opinions are truths?
Posts: 783
it would be wise however to view objective data with greater value than the opinion of a few players... opinions are prone to biases and factionalism however data stands...
Posts: 1979
It is just hard to explain to You that win% does not transfer to balance. Read this: https://www.coh2.org/news/55039/coh2chart-and-its-worth
Answered above - but there is more. You just have to read all the author writes about it with understanding, not jumping to the simplest conslusions (such as my favourite faction is UP because of the lower win rates on the graph)
I cannot - please make it visible
In this case you directly transfer win% to balance and suggest that OKW is OP and Soviets are UP. It is far from objective data. There is simply no objective data to show balance between factions. Winrates aren't sth you can directly transfer into balance. It is actually quite risky to do just that.
It is far from objective. IMO they are actually quite powerful.
Data are not lies - just transferring win% into faction powerlevel is simply wrong.
Posts: 1979
The point is that the winrate MAY be indicative of an issue but it might not be the issue you think it is. Jumping to the conclusion that soviets are underpowered with ladder winrate as the primary-or only- metric is very problematic.
Posts: 1515
Posts: 1351
that site basically said the same thing.... DATA IS TAKEN WITH GRAIN OF SALT...
data however is taken with less grains of salt than an opinion... is it that hard to understand?
says the person jumping to conclusions with "OKW UP SOV OP" without any evidence... but of course other than the perfectly valid whataboutism against a wehraboo hypocrite there is a valid point i keep on repeating over and over that you refuse to understand...
1. objective data says sov is weakest
2. opinions of several players agree that SOV suffers alot in the current meta
3. entire arguments posted in the former "soviet op" thread in favor of the soviets being the weakest faction that involved in depth analysis...
no idea how
do i have to explain this again... the data is taken WITH A GRAIN OF SALT... it is not entirely true but it is not entirely false either...
now lets take at it from a proper analytical standpoint... OKW is a capable faction with a few teching issues... its base units are COMPARABLE to units of its counterparts and are not deficient in any way.... where OKW lags behind is TECHING which makes it a bit harder for the faction... however due to the winrates it is worth saying that OKW only needs MINOR ADJUSTMENTS...
rule in
+ strong faction lineup without subpar units
+ good winrate
rule out
- teching excludes medics
SOV meanwhile is a faction that has the weakest basic infantry elite infantry medium tank and a machinegun... all these 4 units are the WEAKEST OF THEIR CLASS when ranked to their counterparts... in return it gets a few top of its class units like the light tank and the AT gun...
rule in
+ T-70
+ zis 3
rule out
- worst machinegun ingame
- worst basic infantry ingame
- elite that doesnt scale
- worst medium tank ingame
- worst winrate ingame
now i dare ask you if youre stupid enough to believe the soviets are OP...
in any case one must be using the data in CONJUNCTION with opinions to arrive to the appropriate conclusion... but to treat opinions as superior to data is utter bullshit
then your opinion is trash
GRAIN OF SALT GRAIN OF SALT GRAIN OF SALT
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
I won't delete pages of comments, so please get on topic or get purged from commenting on the thread.
Posts: 1351
Without checking the whole thread:
Yes. But not in the way some might expect.
They don't need unit stat buffs, rather than accessibility/tech adjustments.
Posts: 956
Posts: 1979
There is literally one sentence that says it. There are, however, many more sentences/paragraphs that state that, for example:
So what methods would be best to measure the state of the balance?
!
We would recommend data from tournaments where only good maps and top players are matched off against each other. When there are no tournaments, using many of the rpleays and casts between top players is very useful, too. Of course personal experience is also important but one must be very careful to see whether perceived imbalance is due to legitimate imbalance or just a #adapt problem.
...and many many more examples of problems when one wants to use win%. You seem to be unfortunately really biased yourself and keep accusing others not sharing your point of view to be biased. Just don't cherrypick sentences out of the context of the whole analysis. To say sth safe - current factions' winrates cannot be taken into account when analysing balance. The differences there are too insignificant and distorted by too many factors. Balance in the current quite balanced game state can only be achieved through observation and experience/game knowledge.
All of the above is a rage post rather than any sensible opinion or data. Just calm down and play more with other factions. Salt isn't too useful discussing balance, either.
Posts: 449
In any case i still agree that okw needs a tech rework... playing okw atm feels wonky having to backtech to get healing and stuff yet relying on luchs/puma from mech hq...
Maybe switching out mechanics for medics would work?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
No, Mechanized is already too strong with 2 of the best LVs in the game and one of the best rocket arty. Battlegroup HQ is the one that needs to be buffed, not Mechanized.
Posts: 282
Its soo easy to dismiss your opponent as rage isnt it? Youre a terrible person