UKF in ML so far...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hGGFJwPoijh4etnnKVJIAg5sF0BGKb9MtLHsFJM-exU/edit#gid=1473192649
3 matches out of 65 matches played & won 1 game!!
Way to go UKF! I must say, I'm impressed to see a winning game from this faction.

Nothing to worry UKF players. Stats are all already expected.

5% pick rate doesn't mean much because
"UKF will always be underpicked in pro play unless they are massively overpowered."

33% win rate is "That's low but fairly in the range of statistically acceptable accounting for the factors".
You know.. after all, it's just 3 matches.

The play count being 1/3 of the other factions(https://coh2stats.com/stats/week/1617580800/1v1/wermacht) is not that serious since UKF is DLC faction & people don't see fun playing in.

Hey, at least this time you picked the correct stats to back up your opinion.


I agree with the point that UKF is trash this patch, but you need to understand the context of the faction across the game history. I'm saying that cause i feel you are quoting me out of context.


UKF will never have 33% or higher pick rate on allied side. But the sad aspect is that you see people like Aimstrong/Hans/Asha not been able to play the faction at all. That's what i told you in the last thread you made.

And i'll maintain that a 45% WR on automatch is in the realm of acceptable.

Hey, at least this time you picked the correct stats to back up your opinion.


I agree with the point that UKF is trash this patch, but you need to understand the context of the faction across the game history. I'm saying that cause i feel you are quoting me out of context.


UKF will never have 33% or higher pick rate on allied side. But the sad aspect is that you see people like Aimstrong/Hans/Asha not been able to play the faction at all. That's what i told you in the last thread you made.

And i'll maintain that a 45% WR on automatch is in the realm of acceptable.

I remember I brought ML4 match previously. And that's what you said. What has been changed?

why can't we make the Brit Faction function more like OST. Like buff the MG, adjust the sections and such.

why can't we make the Brit Faction function more like OST. Like buff the MG, adjust the sections and such.

Their MG is already really good. People really under estimate how strong Vickers is.

why can't we make the Brit Faction function more like OST. Like buff the MG, adjust the sections and such.

Because you will get crying babies saying that the game is becoming too similar.

People are acting like they're playing mirror matches at this point without it being so lol.

I mean in reality even if all of the Armies were designed as similar as possible with their counterpart units they would never really play the same because of the core faction and the units having different stats, abilities, utility and so on and so forth.

1 example I can give are the Halftracks, the Ost one has a flamethrower upgrade (and the walking stuka in the old CoH) while the Allies have the M16 upgrade at the most.

So again, pretty much the same unit, right? But it's different in stats and what it can do, what it can be upgraded to and so on and so forth.

Their MG is already really good. People really under estimate how strong Vickers is.

But it can't suppress for shit though. It's like a maxim but with more damage.

Because you will get crying babies saying that the game is becoming too similar.

But that sentiment is not entirely false. Only ost is somewhat different from the rest.

But that sentiment is not entirely false. Only ost is somewhat different from the rest.

Only the Ostheer and Soviets are standard build Armies, like the US and Wehrmacht in the original CoH so they're quite similar to each other as I said before with each having their own specific and unique counterpart units which prevents a mirror match like most people are afraid of.

The rest of the factions are weirdly designed in my opinion and trying to forcefully be "different", as in the reason why we got both British Armies being focused around static defensive emplacement gameplay or both the PE and OKW being the "Elite" more vehicle focused factions.

What should have been done in my opinion was go for a theme and stick to it, for example I think it was well done in the original CoH with the US and Wehr representing their real life 1944 counterparts well while in this game the Ost is some sort of mish-mash 1943/1944 defensive Army while they should be an early war more mobile and aggressive Army with the OKW's trucks instead to represent the "Blitzkrieg" time of most of the Theater of War missions for example.

The Soviets are... fine I guess altho if the Ostheer was more accurately modeled during the early parts of the war then they too should have been done so with a bit older vehicles and weapons.

USF are probably the poorest designed faction just because of their limited options and unpractical base design. Their concept was a force that "bends but doesn't break" at the start but I think it kinda died off with the removal of the rifle smoke, not to mention lack of an actually normal MG like the M1919A4 instead of a .50 cal which makes no sense to be carried around by a bunch of infantry which need to be bodybuilders in order to actually do so in real life and stuff like the M20, M15, M8 and M36 being standard vehicles while the M10 is not or the lack of a 76 Sherman upgrade again which doesn't make sense as well for a 1944 US Army, no M18 Hellcat too which was one of the most effective TDs of the war, no Jumbo which would have fit more for again a 1944 US Army instead of the Pershing which saw extremely limited service in 1945 and so on and so forth.

Then we come to the OKW which again, it doesn't make sense for a 1944 German Army to be so aggressive and focused on the early part of the game when they should be a more defensive force with concrete buildings and so on. Their whole design also went out the window with the removal of the fuel and ammo toggle mechanic at their Mech HQ, I mean why not just give them resource caches at this point as well?

And lastly the British, which with their Comets are meant to represent a British Army in 1945 on the Rhine but instead they're again limited to static emplacement gameplay with the mortar pit especially and no mobile non-doctrinal mortar team to rely upon as a cheaper means of indirect fire like the rest of the factions.

One could argue that yes, the same thing did happen in the original CoH with the PE and Brits being forcefully "unique" altho the themes of said Armies did make a bit more sense with the PE being based on the Panzer Lehr Division in OMG while the British were more defensive oriented because in real life they took up the brunt of the fighting in Normandy until the US could break out of the hedgerow country and into more open ground but in this game again at least in my personal opinion, the Army designs lack any such sense with only maybe the OKW being ever so slightly at least somewhat faithful to the 1944 German Ardennes push but even so their entire HQ system again makes little to no sense.

I remember I brought ML4 match previously. And that's what you said. What has been changed?

That ML4 was played in preview patch. Not in the live version of the game.

Considering that ML players are good players and they know how game works, there is objectively no reason to pick UKF, because you can achive better results with Sov and USF, but at the same time achiveing this results requare much more skill.

Not to mention that most of the time Axis player will take Ostheer, there is even less reason to go UKF, because Ostheer unlike OKW have proper counters.

Even more, if we pretend that UKF does not exist, then we pretty much have 50\50 value between 2 allied factions across all brakets.
Unlike, you know, OKW which in a proper 2 faction selection actually picked x2 times less then Ostheer.

But its some how ok probably, only 3 games as UKF are not.

axis should be able to build v1 and v2 and only can be used vs UKF base so they will never be picked again

there is objectively no reason to pick UKF, because you can achive better results with Sov and USF, but at the same time achiveing this results requare much more skill.

So to be clear, UKF has no potential.

Even more, if we pretend that UKF does not exist, then we pretty much have 50\50 value between 2 allied factions across all brakets.
Unlike, you know, OKW which in a proper 2 faction selection actually picked x2 times less then Ostheer. But its some how ok probably, only 3 games as UKF are not.

Are you saying, 24 games played faction is problematic compared to 3 games played faction?
USF only been picked 4 more games than a OKW, does that mean USF also have the same problem?


And also, I have to mention that OKW so far has highest WR. UNLIKE someone with 33% WR.

I don't know why you are even bringing up OKW into this. How can they be statically compared?

Game played
24 vs 3

WR
54.2% vs 33.3%

So to be clear, UKF has no potential.



Are you saying, 24 games played faction is problematic compared to 3 games played faction?
USF only been picked 4 more games than a OKW, does that mean USF also have the same problem?


And also, I have to mention that OKW so far has highest WR. UNLIKE someone with 33% WR.

I don't know why you are even bringing up OKW into this. How can they be statically compared?

Game played
24 vs 3

WR
54.2% vs 33.3%

Everything in this game has potential.

But unfortunately people are tied down as to what can be achieved with said potential.

There are many ways and things to do unlike what people think that the path is only ever one.

So to be clear, UKF has no potential.



Are you saying, 24 games played faction is problematic compared to 3 games played faction?
USF only been picked 4 more games than a OKW, does that mean USF also have the same problem?


And also, I have to mention that OKW so far has highest WR. UNLIKE someone with 33% WR.

I don't know why you are even bringing up OKW into this. How can they be statically compared?

Game played
24 vs 3

WR
54.2% vs 33.3%

not saying that UKF hasn't go any problems, but presenting the winrate out of 3 (!) games as some sort of credible argument is just ridiculous (seriously, how would you even expect an average over 3 to be anywhere close to 50%?).
the abysmal pickrate is probably a better indicator that something is off, although personal preference plays a big role here as well. many of the top players in the tournament simply prefer USF or SOV over brits and wouldn't choose UKF unless they'd gain a sizable advantage by doing so. so all in all, i wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the state of UKF from the 3 tourney games played so far. the low popularity is certainly worrisome, but i'd rather rely on the data provided by coh2stats to get a more accurate picture.

not saying that UKF hasn't go any problems, but presenting the winrate out of 3 (!) games as some sort of credible argument is just ridiculous (seriously, how would you even expect an average over 3 to be anywhere close to 50%?).

The problematic part is as you've said after this, obviously the pick rate of 5%. I would argue the same even if it was 66.6%. (Damn that's a OP faction as hell.)

I created 2? 3 threads regarding the pick rate & win rate of the ML (previous one was with ML4 stat so no duplicate). And everyone keep saying pro players preference. What happened to the Hans? Asha? and others who used to play UKF?

They are just not playable faction in high rank 1on1. Period. Go ask any pro players who USED to play UKF why they quit.

Hate to keep bring other game(ST2) to this, but if say Zerg was played like 5% in some tournament. Wouldn't players would say something is off the balance?

The thing with UKF is this:

As soon as the faction is strong and used in 1v1 tournaments, certain community members will cry non-stop until the faction is nerfed and no one uses UKF.

After a while, the balance team will get the idea to buff them slightly to make them viable and as soon as they are competitive in 1v1 again there will be nerfs because the whining will overwhelm every rational argument.

I don't think UKF will ever ba accepted and be allowed to be on pair with other faction as long as literally half of the community gets intensive rectal bleeding the moment anyone mentions it in context of needing something extra or even suggests they could be weak.

Remove section cover bonus, make sections 5men regardless of Bolster and balance them around them being 5 men, give sections snares, remove sections trenches, remove sappers snare, put UC in T1, nerf the shit out of the AEC, nerf hunt, put mortar team in T1, put every UKF emplacement in Advanced emplacements doctrine, remove phosphorus rounds from Comet, put land mattress in T2 and make it a useful non cheesy unit.

Anything less than that is not acceptable. Better have a dead Brit faction than an OP Brit faction.

Remove section cover bonus, make sections 5men regardless of Bolster and balance them around them being 5 men, give sections snares, remove sections trenches, remove sappers snare, put UC in T1, nerf the shit out of the AEC, nerf hunt, put mortar team in T1, put every UKF emplacement in Advanced emplacements doctrine, remove phosphorus rounds from Comet, put land mattress in T2 and make it a useful non cheesy unit.

Anything less than that is not acceptable. Better have a dead Brit faction than an OP Brit faction.

Instead of removing and nerfing and everything why not just instead put them behind the Hammer and Anvil sub-doctrines?

If you want more mobile gameplay, choose Hammer, if you want more static and defensive doctrine go Anvil.

Example, instead of T2 they're moved to the HQ as choices there. With the weapon racks being kept as a 3rd upgrade of course.

Hammer gives you 5 man infantry squads, grenades and snares, mortar team, AEC, Comet and the rest of the Hammer and more aggressive and mobile oriented abilities, upgrades and units.

Anvil will instead grant you access to trenches, sandbags, cover bonus and so on but your infantry is kept at 4 men instead but they're a lot tougher in a defensive position and grenades. You will also get the emplacements, Churchill and so forth. It could also maybe give medics to your HQ and FA as well? Or engineers.

Stuff like the support units such as MGs, Snipers, AT guns, the Cromwell, Crusader and Firefly are kept as is and are accessible without any sub-doc choices.

This way the original concept of the British is kept without removing anything, you're just giving people more distinct and clear routes in which they can choose to play with.