Is OKW dead? what's your opinion?

Yeah its typically rare but there are examples of champs in the past who got nerfs designed to maintain high elo power while nerfing low elo power this is typically because lower elo players dont/can't counter the character with higher level mechanics or is/are too safe to play at low elo. Hence nerfs design for low elo.

There's only one character I believe was strong in the high elo which was weak in low elo, mostly because the champ required high-level mechanics/teamwork to function properly in which high elo hes strong but low elo weak because of a lack of teamwork

I don't play DOTA/Smite/Lol but HoTs. But the situation is similar.

Mind you, that there's buffing stats, and reworking heroes/champs. As i said previously, low ELO changes should be focused around useability/gameplay wise. There's also a misconception on low ELO as well. I'll say there's bottom of the floor low ELO and "normal" low ELO. While a MOBA has an easier entry level, there are still people who are there just to smash buttons. RTS have a higher entry mechanic wise, but if you are at the bottom 30%/50%, there are other problems rather than balance.

I don't play DOTA/Smite/Lol but HoTs. But the situation is similar.

Mind you, that there's buffing stats, and reworking heroes/champs. As i said previously, low ELO changes should be focused around useability/gameplay wise. There's also a misconception on low ELO as well. I'll say there's bottom of the floor low ELO and "normal" low ELO. While a MOBA has an easier entry level, there are still people who are there just to smash buttons. RTS have a higher entry mechanic wise, but if you are at the bottom 30%/50%, there are other problems rather than balance.

I find that to be a large issue in balancing Relic style RTS when in comparison to MOBAs. Its easy to balance Mobas cuz it almost always obvious that something is OP and UP as they excel or underperform at all times. In RTS theres a lot more middle ground as theres a lot more factors that affect how a unit performs, minus the blatantly obvious broken units in the past/present (Pre-nerf KT, Current Jackson, IL2, Guards etc)

For example in an extreme case take Tommies: Someone who doesn't use cover or moves them while shooting would claim they are UP because they are super weak in those situations. Someone who used cover against a person who doesn't use mortars/snipers to clear them would claim they are OP because they excel in that given format. (This is unrealistic of course but just an "hypothetical" example)

Also quick note I typically say low ELO would be a solid 60-70% of a playerbase in Mobas. Coh2 is properly different when saying low elo.

I find that to be a large issue in balancing Relic style RTS when in comparison to MOBAs. Its easy to balance Mobas cuz it almost always obvious that something is OP and UP as they excel or underperform at all times. In RTS theres a lot more middle ground as theres a lot more factors that affect how a unit performs, minus the blatantly obvious broken units in the past/present (Pre-nerf KT, Current Jackson, IL2, Guards etc)

For example in an extreme case take Tommies: Someone who doesn't use cover or moves them while shooting would claim they are UP because they are super weak in those situations. Someone who used cover against a person who doesn't use mortars/snipers to clear them would claim they are OP because they excel in that given format. (This is unrealistic of course but just an "hypothetical" example)

Also quick note I typically say low ELO would be a solid 60-70% of a playerbase in Mobas. Coh2 is properly different when saying low elo.

More or less what i have in mind.

1-3% master, 3-9% diamond, 15% plat, 25% gold, 35% silver, 15% bronze.
Ignore lower 50%, consider what is been used by the gold/plat, take a look at how effectively things are used at top 10% and check for extreme niche high performance on 5%.

On top of been harder to balance RTS, there's an issue which comes from a design perspective of updating games every 2/3 months and completely swinging performance of units instead of going for 5%/10% buff/nerfs.

I would love to see win rate stats if anyone still collects them.
In 1v1, OKW seems ok. In 4v4 they are atrocious though....completely painful to play there.
I think most people agree that OKW was OP before the patch, I think most of this could have been remedied by the Forward Base nerf and leaving the rest as it lay. With the Forward retreat causing the most grief in larger matches giving a very significant early advantage.
OKW seems to have no point where they are at an advantage now, with weaker early, mid and late games than any of the Allied factions.
Wehr is still fine in 4v4 which chalks up to their great support weapons. OKW on the other hand has the worst MG (MG34), worst indirect (leIG) and worst AT (Rak). Their infantry are mediocre and their tanks are easily beaten by allied TDs because of the range issue. With the vet nerfs they never get up to speed.
OKW success seems to hinge on 2 things within 1v1 and 2v2, and that is making big plays with either the FlakHT or P4. You have to make these two vehicles really count within the first minute or two of their arrival or else you are done for. This is unreliable and it doesn't feel like the faction has the ability to organize a tactical game of reliable advance if you choose correct tactics and micro well, this is the only faction that feels this way imo. JP4 is a fine TD, but it is still the most disadvantaged TD. Panther doesn't know what it is. Obers tend bleed more MP than they take away from the opponent. Raketen is impossible to vet or keep alive, it is the only AT weapon that fears unsupported tanks more than tanks fearing it. Absolute garbage AT unit. leIG has gone from OP to something that you are lucky to get more than 1 kill with per match, as a tool to dislodge things it functions too slow, often you can barrage an MG position 3-4 times before it moves or retreats.
IMO the December patch went way to far in nerfing them and went too far in buffing Allies in general.