Winrates indicate horrible balance

Even though this went off topic, ultimately this conclusion leads us back to what is at hand.



No one claimed that the game is totally balanced or that you shouldn't doubt the balance team. The point that was made was only that you need to be careful drawing conclusions from these stats, because they likely do not paint a complete picture. The non top 200 stats are likely more heavily influenced by some external factors such as map pool and (lack of) player skill, while top 200 stats with 200-400 games are too small a sample size to be reliable and obviously vary too wildly (60/40 wr in 3v3 vs 40/60 wr in 4v4) to be anything close to conclusive. Which really is a shame because as they'd likely be the best representation of balance.

Are Axis a bit too powerful in teamgames at the moment? I'd say probably yes.
Is it as bad as these raw stats seem to suggest? I don't think so.

+1

And people, as usual, do not consider the map pool when analyzing balance. Each map pool will have an effect on balance in a significant way.

Do you have the same stats on premades?

Like honestly, from rank 1000 to top 50 a lot of games considered as wins or loses even without proper game, since leaving is not punished at all, players are crushing, ragequits are happening often after first well done 2v1 or 3v1 push...

And even top 50 are still losing against premades a lot during to voice chat superiority against chat and pinging.

axis isn't just easier to play as to understand how to play. Their tools just plain work. There is an effective tool for every situation. With allies, you have a lot more failures, especially with penetration in AT battles.

axis isn't just easier to play as to understand how to play. Their tools just plain work. There is an effective tool for every situation. With allies, you have a lot more failures, especially with penetration in AT battles.

This is true especially when comparing things like the MG-42 and Vickers. They also have complete armies which allow greater freedom in commander choice while USF is almost mandatory to pick Calliope/Priest because they don't have good ways of dealing with support weapon spam such as Non Doc Brumbar, Non Doc artillery pieces or snipers.

This is true especially when comparing things like the MG-42 and Vickers. They also have complete armies which allow greater freedom in commander choice while USF is almost mandatory to pick Calliope/Priest because they don't have good ways of dealing with support weapon spam such as Non Doc Brumbar, Non Doc artillery pieces or snipers.

yea not having real arty has been usa and brits biggest flaws. brits stuck with a cruiser instead and usa a mortar carraige lol other then that u are force to chose it in commander

I agree that too much emphasis on 1v1 balance when the vast majority of players play 4v4's and team games is a mistake. It leads to units like the Brummbar which is insanely strong in team games, and compare it to the Scott. All of the risks of Wehrmacht tech swapping (losing snares, Mortars, medium tank pressure) are completely negated in team games and allows for rushing out and spamming PGrens and stuff like Brummbars without any of the downsides. Allies seem to only win 4v4's against good players with cheese like ISU/KV2 and filthy Rocket Arty wipes. It's like everything Axis has is better and easier to use in 4v4, but it gets nuked easily by Calliopes/Katys. Even though Axis is so much easier, I don't enjoy playing them in team games because I don't like facing cheese.

On top of Axis getting every crucial tool non-doctrinally. Coh2 also has some really bizarre things to favour Axis in low skill level team games. Why is it that the heavily armoured Axis tanks which fight against weaker allied anti-tank are the ones that get the Blitzkrieg ability, or the insta-pop smoke cannisters while USF have the long delay targeted smoke. Also Wehrmacht are the only faction who get dedicated anti-tank mines that change games. (ignoring M20). Also only the Soviet Machine guns death loop.

I agree that too much emphasis on 1v1 balance when the vast majority of players play 4v4's and team games is a mistake. It leads to units like the Brummbar which is insanely strong in team games, and compare it to the Scott. All of the risks of Wehrmacht tech swapping (losing snares, Mortars, medium tank pressure) are completely negated in team games and allows for rushing out and spamming PGrens and stuff like Brummbars without any of the downsides. Allies seem to only win 4v4's against good players with cheese like ISU/KV2 and filthy Rocket Arty wipes. It's like everything Axis has is better and easier to use in 4v4, but it gets nuked easily by Calliopes/Katys. Even though Axis is so much easier, I don't enjoy playing them in team games because I don't like facing cheese.

On top of Axis getting every crucial tool non-doctrinally. Coh2 also has some really bizarre things to favour Axis in low skill level team games. Why is it that the heavily armoured Axis tanks which fight against weaker allied anti-tank are the ones that get the Blitzkrieg ability, or the insta-pop smoke cannisters while USF have the long delay targeted smoke. Also Wehrmacht are the only faction who get dedicated anti-tank mines that change games. (ignoring M20)

Agreed 1000%

Wow. For a moment I thought current UKF is having 65%+ WR so we were discussing how to nerf IS.

This is the exact reason UKF is not getting proper buffs for more than a year.

Any slight chance of suggesting buffs on UKF; comes back with "Oh no that will ruin the balance!"

As if it the balance is so good right now.

I say it again, UKF is not "playable" at the moment. Just go coh2stats.com and see it's WR & pick rate.

I never said UKF is OP - I said that UKF needs a complete, extensive, overhaul to become a reasonable faction, and for it to be a faction that can be balanced. My very first post in this thread was "UKF is missing many core functions (snares on mainlines, mobile indirect fire, etc.) which results in them swinging from "OP" to "UP" as single units are buffed or nerfed." and I still stand by that.

That's why IS can't be buffed; they're already over-stretched (i.e. way too many roles), and arguably the most powerful mainline infantry unit in the game. Except for AT-snares, is there a single thing they can't do? Their long range AI power is best-in-class, they have access to AT (although it's not an optimal choice), they have the best grenade, a secondary grenade, AoE healing, "off-map" smoke and artillery, sandbags, caches, and can be given emplacements and trenches via a doc. Giving them an AT grenade on top of all of that removes every single combat weakness an infantry squad can have.

UKF does need buffs, but to get them, the faction needs to be redesigned. IS need to be infantry, not "do-everything" squads with a bizarre cover mechanic. UKF needs a normal mortar and non-doc rocket arty (as does USF). They need a non-gimmicky MG. But all of these changes can't happen without other units changing as well. That's why - again - they need a massive overhaul; and until then, they can never be good. The only choice is to toggle between "awful" and "OP", and if given the choice between a "game-breaking OP UKF" and "bad UKF but Sov/USF/Ost/OKW are good", I'll pick the later every time.

Mhm. The problem with IS is... they aren't stated as mainline infantry. They are stated as weak elites. 8 pop cap, great AI, no AT to speak of.

No affordable MG counter, no soft LV counters, no shock artillery all make UKF problematic and crutchy.

The key problem is... all the clear ways to rebuild UKF results in an OST clone. And other ways are massively complicated.

Considering UKF is never going to get a complete overhaul at this point in the game's life cycle a first good step would be to remove all these totally pointless nerfs UKF got in the last balance update. Give back faster capping, faster AEC, faster and cheaper med kits. None of these changes made sense considering UKF wasn't even close to being OP before the patch anyway.

Do you have the same stats on premades?

Like honestly, from rank 1000 to top 50 a lot of games considered as wins or loses even without proper game, since leaving is not punished at all, players are crushing, ragequits are happening often after first well done 2v1 or 3v1 push...

And even top 50 are still losing against premades a lot during to voice chat superiority against chat and pinging.

I don't think there are stats on that. Maybe we can ask whoever made coh2stats.com to add this feature?

I don't think there are stats on that. Maybe we can ask whoever made coh2stats.com to add this feature?

Yeah, that could be cool.
Because without it stats about random winrates don't mean literally anything valuable.

Do you have the same stats on premades?

Like honestly, from rank 1000 to top 50 a lot of games considered as wins or loses even without proper game, since leaving is not punished at all, players are crushing, ragequits are happening often after first well done 2v1 or 3v1 push...

And even top 50 are still losing against premades a lot during to voice chat superiority against chat and pinging.

Afaik pagep once said that there is no real way to check for premade or random teams unless you send a lot of requests to the Relic server which Relic might not like. That's why it is not being done.

Considering UKF is never going to get a complete overhaul at this point in the game's life cycle a first good step would be to remove all these totally pointless nerfs UKF got in the last balance update. Give back faster capping, faster AEC, faster and cheaper med kits. None of these changes made sense considering UKF wasn't even close to being OP before the patch anyway.

add in the pop cap nerfs to the Firefly and Churchill, and eliminating upgrades on AT sections

You are right. It indeed does. OKW is the only faction that never exceeds the 50% winrate (or even hits 50%) in "1 vs 1" in both "Top 200" and "All" in the months March, April and May (the only months that have data so far). Meanwhile every other nation exceeds 51% at least once



Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler