Commander Update Beta 2021 - British Feedback

Therefore, the data should merely have been summed up and presented in the same very same metric. You yourself have pointed that out in a different thread.

Go quote me on that because I never said that. I said an X-fold change over random choice is a better metric.

But what exactly do you mean by "summing up"? All commanders in one mode? One commander in all modes? All in all?
Nevertheless, summing them up as you suggest is the most misleading way possible. This way your data represents 70-80% 4v4 with a bit of 3v3 and 2v2 and the tiniest touch of 1v1.

Go quote me on that because I never said that. I said an X-fold change over random choice is a better metric.

But what exactly do you mean by "summing up"? All commanders in one mode? One commander in all modes? All in all?
Nevertheless, summing them up as you suggest is the most misleading way possible. This way your data represents 70-80% 4v4 with a bit of 3v3 and 2v2 and the tiniest touch of 1v1.

I did not suggest to go the route of summing up. I used the word "should" which is another probablity of showing data. Also, I asked Vipper to clarify what she did, as it is neither a ratio, nor a popularity value. But my post of asking for clarification has been removed.


And yes, you did say that a different metric, you said it yourself there again. The quote you are asking for is your post. Additionally:

Summing up game modes makes as much sense as not summing them up, it just depends on what you want to show. And while Vipper failed some important information, he at least stated that it is across all modes. The raw data does not show that at all.

Literally, we both are saying exactly the same thing. With the difference that you are adding to Vipper's posts, where as I am asking solely her to provide support to her posts without having a moderator to back up the data.

Sigh let's clarify this.

-Vipper's list makes a simplistic point across the board which is easy to visualize.

-Though the score can be misleading because it's only based on absolute positioning on popularity and not based on amount of times put in the loadout by comparison.
For ex: if a sample of A, B, C has a value of 10/5/3 for 1 mode and 50/10/3 for another, you can argue case 1 is not problematic at all compared to the 2nd case, although they would score in the same way.

-I wouldn't group modes together. Too much difference between 1v1 and 4v4. I think at most you can only group 3v3/4v4

Some of the issues with raid section are:

1) Too many advantage over IS, same DPS with no need for cover and only a slight reduction in Target size when in cover

2) Access to too many perk that IS require tech for, bolster/grenades/weapon upgrade which allow them fast teching to vehicles

3) Vet 1 bonus that makes very little sense

4) Commander they are available. The commander is actually one of the most popular commanders across all mode and does not really needs to become more attractive.

Overlap in the commander with RoE with flamer/Commandos

5) Vicker-K as "assault rifle" seem odd choice and creates issues with other unit that have access to it like M3 and the Heavy sapper.

Yes Vipper and I share the same points on the issues with current Raid sections. They're literally UKF Riflemen that are arbitrary gated at CP1 but allow Brits to completely replace IS. Vipper and I literally outlined that current Raid section contradicts what the balance team wants.

A less aggressive Assault Section.

Here, let me say again what the problems are with the current idea and why:

- No cover bonus, but still have Lee Enfields that excel in long range but not good in close, something that IS and Sniper already fill the niche in the faction.
- In THE SAME DOCTRINE AS COMMANDOS
- Automatic unlock of grenades and bolster, allowing stall builds to be absolutely cancer
- Trying to become a UKF version of Riflemen

Now let me give ideas to change it if you still insist on making Raid Sections as is:

- CP0. Literally balance it around minute 0 to save the headache of balancing between different game modes.
- Give M1 Garands or Carbines. Make them excel at close/med range.
- Put them in other doctrines. Seriously Mobile Assault is already extremely good both 1v1 and 4v4. Put them in Tactical Support or Artillery. Remove them from Mobile Assault.

Ok now thats out of the way. Light Infantry version can be made into close range versions and not exclusively long range like others for diversity. You can make them have G43s, stun grenades, etc benefitting a close range squad. Plus I already told how to make them balanced at CP0 and not completely replace IS.

Just try JLI sections. Trust me, it can work.

Raid Section feedback:

For Raid Sections, I would like to throw the idea to have them be JLI/Pathfinder niche.

- Call in at CP0. Comes at 4 man and not affected by bolster upgrade.
- They have Scoped Enfields (same stats as M1 Garands) at first and ability to upgrade 1 crit weapon.
- Crit weapon is locked behind Weapon Racks. Cost around 60 muni per squad. Also unlocks their other abilities like flares, etc.
- Lock out Brens, PIATS, grenades, Bolster, Medic & Pyro.
- Vet 3, they gain an extra man or the new Vickers LMG.
- They do not have cover bonus, increased decap/cap speed, and ability to snipe a model for a price.

Helps them counter sniper starts without commiting another sniper. But worse performance in 1v1 duels while able to support IS.

Just in case people want to read my idea. Plus I changed it to CP0 and added weapon lock based on feedback.

Sigh let's clarify this.

-Vipper's list makes a simplistic point across the board which is easy to visualize.

-Though the score can be misleading because it's only based on absolute positioning on popularity and not based on amount of times put in the loadout by comparison.
For ex: if a sample of A, B, C has a value of 10/5/3 for 1 mode and 50/10/3 for another, you can argue case 1 is not problematic at all compared to the 2nd case, although they would score in the same way.

-I wouldn't group modes together. Too much difference between 1v1 and 4v4. I think at most you can only group 3v3/4v4

Imo it depend what one is looking for and each set of stat has it merits.

For instance from this number I would argue that scores above 8 are good indication that commander is too good across all modes while number below 2 that the commander is simply not good enough.

I did not suggest to go the route of summing up. I used the word "should" which is another probablity of showing data.

Alright, I just got what you meant. You mean "summing up" in the sense of summarizing, not in the sense of adding up. That is a bit ambiguous phrasing. Confusion cleared up. Unless you literally meant adding up. Because that is how you have been using the work in your previous posts.

Also, I asked Vipper to clarify what she did, as it is neither a ratio, nor a popularity value. But my post of asking for clarification has been removed.

There is no formal definition of a "popularity value". Your post in this thread is very much up and visible and has never been invised.

And yes, you did say that a different metric, you said it yourself there again. The quote you are asking for is your post. Additionally:

Literally, we both are saying exactly the same thing. With the difference that you are adding to Vipper's posts, where as I am asking solely her to provide support to her posts without having a moderator to back up the data.

I asked for clarification where the score comes from plus suggested a different way of calculating "popularity" which I personally would prefer but is probably also not as intuitive to understand. That is all I did.


But to be honest I'd rather go back to topic. This is about the commander update, not the exact calculation of some score.
Vipper's score is fine for what it wants to show. After knowing how he got it, I think we can accept that.

Good good!

I suggested to Vipper to ditch her term popularity (as it is not) and use instead "No. equipped when the match started", which is exactly what the data shows. If the commander is picked up after the match started is a different set of data that we don't have.

Also big thumbs up to the guy who provided the data. They should be always sourced to avoid further confusion as they best represent the picture of the game that they are interested in (for me it's 2on2).

Good good!

I suggested to Vipper to ditch her term popularity (as it is not) and use instead "No. equipped when the match started", which is exactly what the data shows. If the commander is picked up after the match started is a different set of data that we don't have.

Also big thumbs up to the guy who provided the data. They should be always sourced to avoid further confusion.

"Loadout popularity"

Imo it depend what one is looking for and each set of stat has it merits.

For instance from this number I would argue that scores above 8 are good indication that commander is too good across all modes while number below 2 that the commander is simply not good enough.

The problem is that the way you group commanders, specially across all modes, is that you can either exacerbate or hide problems by averaging all values together.

Take this as how i would do it:

1v1

964 15.79% MA
868 14.22% RE
772 12.64% RA
748 12.25% LL
736 12.05% C
614 10.06% SW
524 8.58% SO
485 7.94% TS
395 6.47% AE

2v2

4888 17.79% MA
4614 16.80% RA
3637 13.24% C
3349 12.19% SO
2791 10.16% RE
2691 9.80% SW
2171 7.90% LL
1718 6.25% TS
1611 5.86% AE

3v3

5999 20.33% RA
4508 15.27% MA
3755 12.72% SO
3293 11.16% RE
3168 10.73% C
2622 8.88% SW
2466 8.36% LL
2206 7.47% AE
1498 5.08% TS

4v4

24626 22.13% RA
15896 14.29% MA
13418 12.06% SO
12893 11.59% C
12299 11.05% RE
8733 7.85% SW
8700 7.82% LL
8412 7.56% AE
6289 5.65% TS

Average % across all modes:

RA 17.97%
MA 15.79%
SO 11.39%
C 11.90%
RE 11.65%
SW 9.15%
LL 9.08%
AE 6.84%
TS 6.23%

...

That is another way doing it but still one read the same things
RA MA are poplar way above average while AE and TS way bellow.

In addition your way puts different weight on different modes since 1v1 have less games on average.

That is another way doing it but still one read the same things
RA MA are poplar way above average while AE and TS way bellow.

We will have to disagree. Perception changes completely depending on how you present the data.

I still think grouping the average pick across all modes is bad. If anything, the 4v4 pickrates shows the symptoms (commander) not the cause (artillery).

The problem is that the way you group commanders, specially across all modes, is that you can either exacerbate or hide problems by averaging all values together.

Perception changes completely depending on how you present the data.
I still think grouping the average pick across all modes is bad. If anything, the 4v4 pickrates shows the symptoms (commander) not the cause (artillery).

Thank you very much for pointing this out too. I fully agree with you, that's what I have been trying to say all along.

We will have to disagree. Perception changes completely depending on how you present the data.

I still think grouping the average pick across all modes is bad. If anything, the 4v4 pickrates shows the symptoms (commander) not the cause (artillery).

The analysis is whole different ballgame my point is different.

You are calculating an average on MA 15.79 because you put different weight on each game mode.
If you average the percentage instead you get:

15.79+17.79+20.33+22.13=76.04/4 = 19.01

(edited)

About Tactical Support Doctrine, I would like to ask if its possible if balance team can introduce a special unit with the abilities that are usually tied to the building on them instead. Like the Major for USF.

This is because I dont think you can properly balance a building-based special unit without it being broken OP or worthless. As it stands the doctrine is among the least popular in all game modes.

Radio Officer:
- 3 man armed with pistols
- Comes out at Hammer/Anvil(preferred) or high CP.
- Poor combat stats.
- Has access to all abilities that was available to the FOP previously.
- All abilities rebalanced to compensate for a mobile FOP.

The analysis is whole different ballgame my point is different.

You are calculating an average on MA 15.79 because you put different weight on each game mode.
If you average the percentage instead you get:

15.79+17.79+20.33+22.13=76.04/4 = 19.01

I think you are getting the wrong numbers.

Not sure which % you are trying to calculate. You are mixing RA and MA.

15.79 is for MA 1v1
17.79 is for MA 2v2
20.33 is for RA 3v3. MA is 15.27
22.13 is for RA 4v4. MA is 14.29

As i said, grouping different modes popularity is bad.

"I still think grouping the average pick across all modes is bad"

The only reason i put average per mode is because you made a list of popularity which average all modes together.
If you were to put all modes together accounting for weight, 1v1 pick wouldn't matter at all and we would only account for what happens in 4v4.

In the Ostheer thread they are discussing how the Riegal is not worth a doctrinal point and could be paired with another upgrade to bring it in line with other doctrinal points.

I think the British Flamethrower could probably use the same treatment. A single upgrade to a single unit is not good enough to justify an entire doctrinal point, and both Feursturm and Rifle Company have flamethrowers paired with other upgrades.

I'm wondering if the new Vickers could be paired in with it and added to Sections as an upgrade option?

In the Ostheer thread they are discussing how the Riegal is not worth a doctrinal point and could be paired with another upgrade to bring it in line with other doctrinal points.

I think the British Flamethrower could probably use the same treatment. A single upgrade to a single unit is not good enough to justify an entire doctrinal point, and both Feursturm and Rifle Company have flamethrowers paired with other upgrades.

I'm wondering if the new Vickers could be paired in with it and added to Sections as an upgrade option?

Oooo, roll vickers and flamethrower into a "Special Weapons" ability. Just flamethrower is... not significant enough for a whole commander ability pick.

That would incentivize Royal Engineering to use Engineers, as they can be triple Vickered for a potent mid to close range squad. Now how to dispurse that vickers...

Raid sections should not be in the same doctrine as infiltration commandos. Its just odd to have 2x doctrinal infantry in the same doctrine.

I would remove infiltration commandos period. Then, I would make a new unit "support commandos," which are a 4 man squad equipped with ranger m1 garands (maybe buff the riles a little if needed.) This squad could be upgraded with 2x elite vickers lmg or 1x scoped lee enfield/ m1c rifle (with crit ability equivalent to that of Jaeger light infantry). Theses support commandos could be built from commando gliders, or be available as a new unit in mobile assault. If they are kept in mobile assault, I would make raid sections a nondoctrinal upgrade for IS that are mutually exclusive with the pyro supplies and the medical kits.

Infiltration commandos as current are a boring unit. They are commandos, except without the glider. They suck as infiltration units, because they don't have enough HP to do anything behind enemy lines, so they are typically deployed from the base. They need a rework bad, or to be removed now that raid sections are in as a new unit.

So I don't play much UKF but there are 3 commanders that the vanguard operation crocodile which is a 1/3 of all the commanders for the faction. What if Tactical Support had it's operation vanguard replaced with a land mattress? According to these stats Tactical Support is practically tied with Advanced Emplacements as the least included commander in loadouts. Giving a land mattress would help give UKF overall more options to get rocket artillery and could be a possible way to improve this otherwise rarely chosen commander.