What do you think about the new match statistics & UKF?

https://coh2stats.com/stats/week/1616976000/1v1/wermacht

I've just realized that coh2 statistics site has come back to alive. (Thank you for whomever made this possible)

And as I've expected, UKF's statistic is not even close to balanced.
42 ~ 44% win ratio in all 2:2 ~ 4:4,
1:1 win ratio is 52% at beset, 41% at worst.


Yet, when I came to this balance forum, what I see is buch of posts talking about UKF being too strong for some reasons.

In the last ML (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-ptwn9N11mZSocSJcL8xTQFrI8knU86DWoOL7OnCXjo/edit#gid=101410045)

UKF was picked only 9% (compare to 71% Soviet / 20% USF), and even then only won 3 games out of 13.

Yet, they got nerfed in winter balance & will be in commander patch.

Why? Am I missing something?

I do get replies about UKF playing count, yet nothing about win ratio. The important factor here is (obviously) win ratio.

By the way, when will JLI be nerfed? I cannot see the reason to give all the abilities to them and called in at cp1. When all other factions have call-in infantry at cp3. Comparing them with ranger... sigh...

https://coh2stats.com/stats/week/1616976000/1v1/wermacht
1:1 win ratio is 52, but played game is 1/3 of the other factions. (Too sucks to play IMHO)

Not everyone has UKF since its a standalone and not released in a bundle like WFA and EFA.

You are comparing weekly WR (wait till at least we have a month worth of data) when there is so much fluctuation from week to week in the case of 1v1.

UKF has always been a mess when the balance of the faction revolves around how OP are IS or not, with the last patch unfortunately not addressing.


UKF will always be underpicked in pro play unless they are massively overpowered.


As far as preview changes, just voice your opinion and let's just try it to shape it cause this one will take a good time to build.

Not everyone has UKF since its a standalone and not released in a bundle like WFA and EFA.

That has norhing to do with it.

stat site parse top 200 players match info. So unless there is less than 200 UKF players in rank, standalone DLC cannot be the execuse for the low match count.

You are comparing weekly WR (wait till at least we have a month worth of data) when there is so much fluctuation from week to week in the case of 1v1.

UKF has always been a mess when the balance of the faction revolves around how OP are IS or not, with the last patch unfortunately not addressing.


UKF will always be underpicked in pro play unless they are massively overpowered.


As far as preview changes, just voice your opinion and let's just try it to shape it cause this one will take a good time to build.

You can view entire March stat if you want(but only supports weekly/daily view at the moment).
And result is worse if you do. haha...

Underpicked & low win ratio means something especially if it's between high level players. If win ratio of 23% doesn't mean something, what does?

And I have to mention that this ML was played im pre-winter patch version. And AFAIK, UKF got nerfed in winter patch. So... good luck to UKF for next ML & 2021.

https://coh2stats.com/stats/week/1616976000/1v1/wermacht

Yet, they got nerfed in winter balance & will be in commander patch.

Why? Am I missing something?

I do get replies about UKF playing count, yet nothing about win ratio. The important factor here is (obviously) win ratio.

By the way, when will JLI be nerfed? I cannot see the reason to give all the abilities to them and called in at cp1. When all other factions have call-in infantry at cp3. Comparing them with ranger... sigh...

From what i can tell from my experience playing as UKF(and again this is anecdotal) in 3x3 and 4x4 , i either roll over Axis with terminator sections and emplacements(mortar mostly) with good control over fuel points early game or they manage to hold enough for a elefant/Brummbar combo while leFHs bombard everything you have, at which point you either manage a Comet dive on the heavies supported by fireflys and if you are on good team by some allied offmap, or try to make a 17 pounder(which will just get bombarded to death). If none of those work you just watch all that VP advantage you made early game wither away before your eyes while your tanks are killed by the elefants, the emplacements/Arty by the leFHs and your infantary by vet 5 JLIs.

And from playing as Axis(again anecdotal personal experience) it's the same but in reverse the UKF comes with the terminator IFs blobs supported by some emplacements(which are hard to deal with early game) makes holding the fuel a living hell(maybe even closes one side/fuel point of the map due to sheer amount of emplacements) at which point either one of the randoms quits because they don't see a fuel nor VPs connected or your team holds one and makes some caches to proceed to stall for the elefant to deal with any of the allies tanks, one guys makes a leFH gets vet 1 with it and leaves it on counter Barrage while having a army composed intirely of JLIs and 3 rocketens, by some point in the game your team has 1 elefant, 1 king tiger and assorted suporting tanks and like 150 vps to the allies 400s , and as i wrote aside from a massive dive supported by offmaps the axis tanks will keep the allies tanks away(with decent micro) keeping a 2 VP pressure most of the time on the allied team,and then you see all that VP advantage the allies had wither before their eyes while your team kills their tanks with the elefant, the emplacements/Arty with the leFHs and the infantary with vet 5 JLIs.

So what i am saying is late game Axis Combined arms ''OP'' when used well on team games(hence the win rate i think).But IFs are a pain to deal with too and should be looked at.

That has norhing to do with it.

stat site parse top 200 players match info. So unless there is less than 200 UKF players in rank, standalone DLC cannot be the execuse for the low match count.

It's slightly different to what it implies. Site creator explained it. While it takes data from top200 players, it also accounts for games played in modes on which those players are not top200.

If someone is ranked top100 in 4v4 random and top1500 in 1v1, his games in 1v1 will be accounted for as well.

The fact that a faction is also less played (you can check the amount of ranked players in coh2 official leaderboard means that you can make 1:1 comparisons between ranks. Someone ranked 200 UKF is way worse than someone ranked 300 as Soviets.

You can view entire march stat if you want(but only supports weekly/daily view at the moment).
And result is worse if you do. haha...

Underpicked & low win ratio means something. If win ratio of 23% doesn't mean something, what does?

And I have to mention that this ML was played im pre-winter patch version. And AFAIK, UKF got nerfed in winter patch. So... good luck to UKF for next ML & 2021.

UKF is in a rough spot, but i'm explaining WHY some of the factors you include can't be translated directly as it been a clear issue.

Each pro player has a distinct playstyle and preference. Even when UKF was broken, some of them just played USF/SU. UKF will always be underpicked unless obnoxious OP at which point it barelys breaks even with been the 2nd most picked faction or on pair with the most picked one.

1v1

320/699
260/620
262/549
309/655

That's 45.62% That's low but fairly in the range of statistically acceptable accounting for the factors i mentioned before.

If you talk about the 4v4 margins, yep, that's more of a clear issue.

It's slightly different to what it implies. Site creator explained it. While it takes data from top200 players, it also accounts for games played in modes on which those players are not top200.

If someone is ranked top100 in 4v4 random and top1500 in 1v1, his games in 1v1 will be accounted for as well.

The fact that a faction is also less played (you can check the amount of ranked players in coh2 official leaderboard means that you can make 1:1 comparisons between ranks. Someone ranked 200 UKF is way worse than someone ranked 300 as Soviets.



UKF is in a rough spot, but i'm explaining WHY some of the factors you include can't be translated directly as it been a clear issue.

Each pro player has a distinct playstyle and preference. Even when UKF was broken, some of them just played USF/SU. UKF will always be underpicked unless obnoxious OP at which point it barelys breaks even with been the 2nd most picked faction or on pair with the most picked one.

1v1

320/699
260/620
262/549
309/655

That's 45.62% That's low but fairly in the range of statistically acceptable accounting for the factors i mentioned before.

If you talk about the 4v4 margins, yep, that's more of a clear issue.

Good point on the flaws of match stats. Did not see that. Thank you.


However, I still disagree with 45% is "acceptable" WR. I do agree that the match stats must be seen for more time, but do not expect it to be changed significantly.
2:2~4:4 is just.... to be honest removing UKF will be a burf to the Soviet & USF. Their win ratio will go higher with that patch.

What I don't really understand (and majorly complaining) is that I don't see a point of recent patches. What are they seeing to adjust the balance?

I mean.. ML was pre-winter patch. It has been a year since UKF was not in a major league. Yet they nerfed UKF one more time just like nailing a coffin.

In Korean community playing brits is almost a meme "I can win u even with this broken faction".

Most of the complaints I see are related to playing against them being unfun.

The first 4 minutes of the game vs Brits suck to play. They have the best starting unit in the game.
Sections are extremely powerful and clearly overtuned. UC is a fantastic bleed machine in the early game. They even have access to a T1 machine gun.

Midgame they have multiple emplacements that can be very annoying to remove given how few weapons are effective vs them (mostly AT Guns) and how vulnerable they tend to be when pushing that far forward. (Raketen retreat comes up big here) Trenches make the already annoying Sections an absolute nightmare to dislodge.

But the faction also tends to falter at this point. They have no mobile arty, so if they start from behind in an arty war they always lose as they can't get out from under the superior barrages. Their squad weapons are lackluster, while Axis STGs and LMG42s are excellent, bridging some of the gap in infantry power. Their MG has terrible suppression, so they struggle to stop blobs that other MGs would quickly shut down. They have no real close range assault troops. (Assault Officer is not good) Their Smoke has Grenade throw range but Mortar levels of delay before arriving. Their supposedly superior Arty has to be thrown from short range and arrives so slowly its really just an area denial tool rather than real arty. Their T3/T4 vehicles outside of the Comet are all fairly 'meh' units. On top of that, the faction has a tiny stock roster that gets cut down even further by having to choose which T4 its going to get.

In short, the insistence on making factions around having incomplete toolkits be 'balanced' by broken units has created a faction that feels unfair to play against while still being underpowered.

You are comparing weekly WR (wait till at least we have a month worth of data) when there is so much fluctuation from week to week in the case of 1v1.

UKF has always been a mess when the balance of the faction revolves around how OP are IS or not, with the last patch unfortunately not addressing.


UKF will always be underpicked in pro play unless they are massively overpowered.


As far as preview changes, just voice your opinion and let's just try it to shape it cause this one will take a good time to build.

Aimstrong chose UKF, that was like the only UKF match. And he lost to VonIvan. UKF was a meme faction in ML4.

Pro players don't choose UKF cuz its OP? what lol? If anyone wanted to win ML4 and UKF was OP they would choose UKF not Soviets.

ML4 made it clear: Soviets and Ostheer are best. USF is 2nd, OKW 3rd, and UKF is the worst. UKF has too many weaknesses

Aimstrong chose UKF, that was like the only UKF match. And he lost to VonIvan. UKF was a meme faction in ML4.

Pro players don't choose UKF cuz its OP? what lol? If anyone wanted to win ML4 and UKF was OP they would choose UKF not Soviets.

ML4 made it clear: Soviets and Ostheer are best. USF is 2nd, OKW 3rd, and UKF is the worst. UKF has too many weaknesses

ML4 was played specifically with commander terminator format with PATCH PREVIEW 1.5.

https://www.coh2.org/news/107349/master-league-4-announcement


UKF has been historically underpicked even when they were at their strongest (AEC spam meta). Aimstrong/Asha/Hans had been players who are more likely to play UKF. Someone like Devm plays way more USF and Luvnest SU.

Will they decide to change a bit if one faction is absolutely OP in one patch? To some degree but not to the point of completely maining it exclusively unless the balance is THAT BAD.

Good point on the flaws of match stats. Did not see that. Thank you.


However, I still disagree with 45% is "acceptable" WR. I do agree that the match stats must be seen for more time, but do not expect it to be changed significantly.
2:2~4:4 is just.... to be honest removing UKF will be a burf to the Soviet & USF. Their win ratio will go higher with that patch.

What I don't really understand (and majorly complaining) is that I don't see a point of recent patches. What are they seeing to adjust the balance?

I mean.. ML was pre-winter patch. It has been a year since UKF was not in a major league. Yet they nerfed UKF one more time just like nailing a coffin.

In Korean community playing brits is almost a meme "I can win u even with this broken faction".

Check answer above. It was preview patch.

45% for 1v1 AUTOMATCH ranked is acceptable considering what i said about how the stats are brought up. If you had a way to filter top 50 or at least top100 (much more estable populations) 1v1 only players that would be a bit low but not that far away from statistically avg.

Prior to ML4, it was basically OH>USF>=UKF on 1v1 with SU/OKW not seeing much play. IIRC UKF was way more predominant in 2v2 games and further above.

The patch was REALLY bad for UKF and expectable results were done but it's not like there were not reasons to change them.

It's just that we are looping between oppressive faction with cheese and strong IS + "insert flavour of the patch tank" vs meme tier pick.

What I don't really understand (and majorly complaining) is that I don't see a point of recent patches. What are they seeing to adjust the balance?

I mean.. ML was pre-winter patch. It has been a year since UKF was not in a major league. Yet they nerfed UKF one more time just like nailing a coffin.

In Korean community playing brits is almost a meme "I can win u even with this broken faction".

The balance team are hamstrung. Relic won't let them make some (very necessary) major changes to the faction, they seem to be doing their best to make UKF a real faction while staying within the confines of Relic's autistic "vision".

Unfortunately it isnt working, though the effort really is commendable.

The balance team are hamstrung. Relic won't let them make some (very necessary) major changes to the faction, they seem to be doing their best to make UKF a real faction while staying within the confines of Relic's autistic "vision".

Unfortunately it isnt working, though the effort really is commendable.

While they may be constrained on some things, the direction of the last several patches has been to worsen allies in 4v4. I realize that they're trying to balance 1v1 and possibly 2v2 more than they're trying to affect 4v4's, but they aren't really trying to even out 4v4's.

The statistics aren't surprising. The non-doc rocket arty has too great of an impact on 4v4's, where both werfers and stukas delete allied infantry really well.

UKF doesn't have a good arty counter. They have only three abilities that delete howitzers, each in a single doctrine. Two of them are really expensive and have long cooldowns (Supremacy and Concentrated Fire). The one with Advanced Emplacements is okay but the rest of the doctrine isn't good in 4v4's. The change to Advanced Emplacements was a step in the right direction, but Improved Fortification will always make emplacements more difficult to balance. It would be much better to replace that ability with a 25lbr howitzer to make the commander similar to the Storm commander.

There doesn't really seem to be any good options for USF besides Airborne, Infantry, and Urban (or possibly tactical). The nerf to IR made Recon even more irrelevant. The tiny buff to the Greyhound leaves it still irrelevant. Buffing the main gun or giving it something like treadbreaker would go a long way towards making it better. USF badly needs a non-doc damage sponge. Ost always has at least a Panther and a Brummbar, OKW always has KT's, Panthers, and a PIV that is better than a Sherman. USF has to crutch on Jacksons, Calliope's, Priests, and skill planes.

I think Soviets are mostly okay at the moment. Their win rate is most likely dragged down by UKF.

In the smaller game modes, I think OKW struggles on some of the maps because of the weird power curve of Volks. They probably should be a little better late game. Instead of more Con nerfs, there should be some Volks buffs. I usually get 2-3 Volks in 4's but never replace them if I lose them, they're just too mediocre at the end of the game, especially compared to every other option.