So the fact that Soviet won every single game in factional showdown without lend lease does not indicated that they are OP?
Factinal showdown makes for an interesting show, but I don't think it's an interesting show, but I don't think it is representative enough for the state of balance:
- Too few matches
- Only on map used(?)
- This was an knock-out tournament, where best players' preferences skew results
- 4 out of 5 matches each show are played by the same (winning guy) skewing the results
- Most of the time, the two people that play will not alternate factions
The last two points are the most crucial. VonIvan, the best Soviet player never had to play against Soviets. Nevertheless, his wins account for 80% of all stats. Talk about skewing results.
The best, most bias-free way to determine relative strengths imo is:
- A championship-type tourney, where everybody plays against everyone
- Only people of similar-rank competing
- As a heuristic, you can ignore the results of people that win both Axis and Allies matches against a particular opponent (that way, you can avoid players live DevM/Luvnest boosting the winrates of their favourite factions)
The closest we've ever gotten to this in CoH2 history was GCS qualifier rounds. The only conceivable downside for GCS qualifier championship was that live version was "too fresh" and people hadn't had the time to fully explore the patch.
Failing the fact that it's not feasible to keep hosting tournaments in perpetuality, the second best metric is automatch stats; assuming top players are still active.
Not necessarily. People play meta or what will make it easier to win. Dhsk where OP for years yet everyone went for maxims simply because of meta.
DSHK was simply overshadowed by the Maxim:
- Earlier arrival
- No doctrine-lock in
- Multiple escape options (e.g., Partisans or Guards for AT)
However, on the other hand, DSHK strats have never been stronger than before. T1 & DSHK strats were garbage before, but they are ultra-strong now.
We pointed DSHK knock-on effects a thousand times from the very first time, even before WBP was announced. However, relic had to stick to the scope script.
I simply have to disagree in all three point points, but especially about the cost efficiency of Soviet call-in infantry.
For instance shock troop are great if not op in any QQ map like Dusseldorf
Let's agree that we disagree.
And having OP penals solves very little. And that is why Imo the first priority is to rebalanace all infantry available before minute 1 before opening knew wounds like TDs support weapons etch.
You always rebalance what's most important first. Picking an arbitrary element of the game and narrowing the scope to only touch that element will only create more misery than before:
- Either the balancing team is forced to make all infantry copy-paste of each other
- Or you create eye-glaringly obvious imbalances that persist in the game until Relic allows us to narrow down our focus on another aspect of the game
The first aspect leads to faction homogenisation. The second aspect means that e.g., even if we make all infantry equal, that still doesn't change the fact that OKW non-infantry dependent late-game far outpaces anybody else's, and they'll just roflstomp the game.
Instead, you have to balance around phases of the game. Pre-WBP the game only had 3 phases:
- Opening phase (e.g., Maxims)
- Light Vehicle Spam phase
- Call-in spam phase
For team-games, you substitute Call-in spam phase with late-game scaling phase.
Light vehicles were so completely dominating that middle portion of the game, that we only really had to look at light vehicle stats themselves, to fix that part of the game. So, in essense, WBP wasn't as much about Light Vehicle rebalance, but it was about Early-mid game rebalance.
Unfortunately, Relic dropped the ball by leaving call-ins completely unchecked, which is why, one year on, call-ins continue to completely dominate the meta.
The choice for GCS patch scope, which we had absolutely no input in determining was bad, in that it had no discernable direction at all. It was just a short, narrow view of chart-topping cheese, with no checks in place that we aren't ruining the affected factions, and with no checks in place that we aren't letting other factions have a free hand.
e.g., Maxim nerfs were requested, without tying them to Conscript buffs or other T2 buffs, without acknowledging that this was an OKW-mostly issue, which would have allowed us to add smoke to OKW), and without adjusting late-game OKW infantry at all (which the Maxim was meant to counter). Or, similarly, you have nearly the entirety of Brit cheese removed, without even considering that OST JU87 skill-planes, Heavy TDs or the Sturmtiger would become unchecked.
Nevertheless, GCS was a good patch, in that it allowed the game to do progress. However, it did severely upset teamgame lategame balance, in ways that we've already predicted and protested from the very beginning of GCS patch design.
FBP changes, at their core, were meant to address low-hanging fruit that were affecting the one-dimensionality and unfairness of the late-game, similarly to how WBP changes were designed to fix the one-dimensionality and unfairness of the early game.
If FBP were to hit 4-or-so months ago, that timing would have been perfect. Then we would be able to flesh out the opening phases of the game and make something interesting. At the same time, 1v1 meta would finally outgrow call-in crutches, that would have propelled faction cores to the forefront. However, Relic doesn't seem to be having the resources to put out regular patches.
In the meantime, 1v1 had an overload of meta call-in cheese, which still remains unaddressed to this day, and teamgame replayability became poisoned with late-game scalability issues once Brits got reined in, and OKW was allowed to have a free hand. Fortunately, there's always a middle ground (2v2), and I hope that this continues to be an interesting outlet for most people.
Given that so much time has been wasted, and many vets have pulled out, I don't think that we have the potential, anymore, to enact and evaluate finely-tuned game balance changes. Instead, future patches should be focusing on diversifying faction options and adding (or, better recycling) new content.
Ultimately, as the game will be reaching its end of life, at somepoint, what will matter the most is originality, content diversity, good design and a decent skill ceiling for each faction. Whatever minute differences about balance should only concern top players and tournament organisers. As always, a healthy player base and good matchmaking will take care that mid-tier people are given interesting matches, even as top players come and go.
3 years from today,
nobody will care whether mid-range for conscripts is 15 or 25. However,
everybody will care if the easiest strategies remain the most powerful ones, or whether 60% of a core faction is garbage compared to the remaining 40% of the faction, and they will also care if the vast majority of the doctrines are defined by one single above-average ability that they have, as opposed to having a doctrinal design.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
