OKW needs buff?

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...

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.

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.

the same argument can also be thrown for falls and obers... id suppose the choice here is between fussies and termiagers...

the same argument can also be thrown for falls and obers... id suppose the choice here is between fussies and termiagers...

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.

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.

yeah thats the point... fussies obsolete volks and falls obsolete obers... but you cant get both falls and fussies soo the "choice" here is which unit u want to obsolete...

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?

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

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?

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 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...

I cannot - please make it visible

objective data > opinion

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.

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

It is far from objective. IMO they are actually quite powerful.

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

Data are not lies - just transferring win% into faction powerlevel is simply wrong.

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...

Its easy enough to look at a single statistic like winrate and come to a quick conclusion about it without considering any potential confounding variables.

Let's take achpawel's playercard for example.
In 1v1(his primary game mode), his least played faction is OKW with 329 matches. His most played is Ostheer with 1035 matches followed closely by soviets with 985. Third is USF with 801 and then there is a huge drop to UKF with 392.

From these stats on their own we might conclude that achpawel is going to be most biased AGAINST OKW because its his least llayed faction. After all, you avoid factions you dislike, not ones you like. And we might also conclude he will be most biased FOR ostheer followed by soviets.

But thats not a whollistic way of looking at the situation. UKF might be his favorite faction but perhaps they were his most recent purchase.

Coming from wargaming titles(world of tanks and warships) only a fool looks at the winrate alone of a particular vehicle and concludes that vehicle is over or under performing. You factor in the availability of the vehicle(is it new or exclusive?) The average damage dealt per battle, the average kills per battle, the average deaths per battle, the amount of spotting damage done etc. And when you factor in these other variables sometimes the winrate just doesn't matchup with the performance of the vehicle for whatever reason. Maybe the ship/tank is an extremely high damage dealer but low durability means it can't carry matches which reduces its overall winrate despite OP damage output.

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.

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

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?

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)

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...

I cannot - please make it visible

no idea how

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.

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

It is far from objective. IMO they are actually quite powerful.

then your opinion is trash

Data are not lies - just transferring win% into faction powerlevel is simply wrong.

GRAIN OF SALT GRAIN OF SALT GRAIN OF SALT

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.

absolutely... but its already been backed up as the reason why the soviets are the weakest faction in the previous "soviet OP" thread already...

Each faction is as weak as the hand that is controlling it TBH. Soviets are def. not the weakest faction in the game. There are no "weakest" factions. You can only say "weakest faction with respect to". or "regarding this/that they have the weakest...".

Eg. They have the weakest MG. That's a fact. You can prove it by simply providing the stats of the units https://coh2.serealia.ca/#

Or OKW has the most sacrificial tech structure, which is amplified in weak hands that do not know how to distribute medical supplies from sturms (OKW has no healing yelling in some threads)....etc.

You can't really have a serious look on the face and state that one faction is the weakest. Nobody can. Graph only shows the balance is great. And playing the game you can also sense it. Now, if you want to break down every unit and ability. You can go ahead and write a dissertation about it and you'll definitely get published in a top tier mathematical journal.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

I won't delete pages of comments, so please get on topic or get purged from commenting on the thread.

I won't delete pages of comments, so please get on topic or get purged from commenting on the thread.

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.

Actually, I'd love to see accessibilty tech adjustments. And more discussion related to such things. Hopefully, the proposed tech revamp will happen (any of the proposals voiced by the balance person or others made a lot of sense imo).

At this point I'm resigned to the idea that I'll be forced to use Volks as 30 minute mainlines for the rest of the game's lifespan lol.

RIP dreams of double LMG Obers in most of my matches.

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.

Well tourneys arent that good for balance changes either... fundamentally balancing by winrate has several factors
1. Player skill variance
2. Map variance
3. Player matchup
4. Statistical variance... otherwise known as luck

With respect to the 3 graphs we have on winrate only map variance is really eliminated in tourneys by limiting the fights to select maps... player skill and matchups may be reduced or increased depending on the criterion of the matchmaking system vs the automatch system... but the lower sample size directly impacts statistical variance negatively soo im not too keen on using tourneys as absolute indications aswell

In any case neither objectice data nor subjective data will arrive to diagnosis on their own... but objective data must be taken a bit more seriously than subjective data...

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.

Its soo easy to dismiss your opponent as rage isnt it? Youre a terrible person



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?

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?

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.

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.

No, no, he is right, we need to nerf mechanized to avoid power creep.
We will be nerfing it to the point where BG will be equally appealing choice.

Its soo easy to dismiss your opponent as rage isnt it? Youre a terrible person

There is something wrong with this sentence, but I can't put my finger on it.