Login

russian armor

GCS2 Barbarossa faction win rate

20 Jun 2018, 05:24 AM
#21
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jun 2018, 18:53 PMzarok47


That raises an interesting point, is a weak UK show becuase it's actually weak or does nobody good play UK because they think it weak and therefor creating a weak show?


this is just Begging the question. You're assuming the brit is secretly OP and figuring out how to warp the evidence.



All in the quali tourney? If so then obviously the stats in OP are incorrect. Which then nullifies all of his information.

I also don't have a doubt that brits are in a poor position currently though. But that position seems to only be poor vs Ostheer. OKW seems to struggle significantly more vs brits than ostheer.


OKW : UKF = 7:1

this means that OKW won seven times against the UKF, while the UKF won once. How does this suggest OKW struggle against british?

Look at the other match up:

OKW : SOV = 6:10
OKW : UKF = 7:1
OKW : USF = 3:2

The OKW basically struggle against the soviet, but still managed to trash the UKF consistently.
20 Jun 2018, 06:39 AM
#22
avatar of Rubberluck

Posts: 44

The lack of indirect fire as Brits really hamstrings the faction, especially against the heavy support weapons playstyle of OST. Not having tools to dislodge MGs from a distance without sacrificing precious MP leaves you consistently at a disadvantage.

> I've given up playing as Brits at a high level, especially against double OST teams/ in the 1v1 pool. I get hit by the same strategies that are relatively difficult to impossible to counter with the current roster of factional competencies for the UKF.
20 Jun 2018, 06:40 AM
#23
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1





OKW : UKF = 7:1

this means that OKW won seven times against the UKF, while the UKF won once. How does this suggest OKW struggle against british?

Look at the other match up:

OKW : SOV = 6:10
OKW : UKF = 7:1
OKW : USF = 3:2

The OKW basically struggle against the soviet, but still managed to trash the UKF consistently.


OKW struggles aka isn't immediately a free win vs brits. :snfPeter:
20 Jun 2018, 07:48 AM
#24
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

You forget that one win of the Soviets over Ost in 1941.
20 Jun 2018, 14:21 PM
#25
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4



this is just Begging the question. You're assuming the brit is secretly OP and figuring out how to warp the evidence.



OKW : UKF = 7:1

this means that OKW won seven times against the UKF, while the UKF won once. How does this suggest OKW struggle against british?

Look at the other match up:

OKW : SOV = 6:10
OKW : UKF = 7:1
OKW : USF = 3:2

The OKW basically struggle against the soviet, but still managed to trash the UKF consistently.


Using these stats is an absolute horrible sample now. You think its a fair assumption to assume a faction is unbalanced when a seed 32 gets dumped on by seed 1? Seed 1 will win with ANY faction.

Furthermore as I responded to Cruzz, if all of the games he stated were part of the quali tourney (4 of them), and the stats only post 3, then who knows what other kinds of mistake this post has. I don't know the OP, nor do I know of him.

The wins also don't compensate for the map strength and starting positions. There are simply to many factors here to just say, "faction OP, nerf all"
20 Jun 2018, 14:26 PM
#26
avatar of vonAsten

Posts: 462 | Subs: 4

I'm interested in the context: who played each faction?

Generally, you would assume that whoever has the higher seed would win and get a W for their faction, so if all of the high seeds are playing ostheer, you would assume ostheer would have higher win rates.

If I recall, every semi finalist played ostheer and soviets (with vonivan having that one OKW game).

For the really concerning 7:1 okw vs ukf matchup, I would assume that its a mix of UKF's balance state, small sample size, and possibly lower seeds playing UKF. I know personally that my first round opponent played UKF for two games.


Jae is right about this. Player skill difference and mental aspect are much bigger factors than faction ''A'' vs faction ''B'' in a tourney.

Maps are also a big factor, since most maps favor axis factions because of startinglocation 2. This explains the 7:1 okw vs brits matchup imo.

Tho I do think the axis factions are the best atm.
20 Jun 2018, 14:53 PM
#27
avatar of Yossarian

Posts: 70



All in the quali tourney? If so then obviously the stats in OP are incorrect. Which then nullifies all of his information.




Furthermore as I responded to Cruzz, if all of the games he stated were part of the quali tourney (4 of them), and the stats only post 3, then who knows what other kinds of mistake this post has. I don't know the OP, nor do I know of him.


Please elaborate what is an error. I would like to fix if there is any.
20 Jun 2018, 15:02 PM
#28
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4





Please elaborate what is an error. I would like to fix if there is any.




Luvnest played Brits on a very good map for Brits (crossing in the woods) against Talisman's OKW and lost.

Refero (#1 Brit on ladder) played 3 games as Brits against CreativeName's OST(1 game) and Noggano OKW(2 games) and lost all of them.

Must be the players and not the faction.


Cruzz stated 4 games where UKF was played here, however only 3 appear in your stats. I asked cruzz if all these games were in the tourney and he didn't respond.
20 Jun 2018, 15:07 PM
#29
avatar of Yossarian

Posts: 70





Cruzz stated 4 games where UKF was played here, however only 3 appear in your stats. I asked cruzz if all these games were in the tourney and he didn't respond.


Stats have 10 UKF games and Cruzz only mentioned a part of them.
20 Jun 2018, 15:24 PM
#30
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4



Stats have 10 UKF games and Cruzz only mentioned a part of them.


Oh i'm reading their wins FailFish
20 Jun 2018, 16:15 PM
#31
avatar of |GB| The Hooligan486
Senior Referee Badge

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

Imma just say, just bcs nobody plays brits this doesnt mean that brits are bad. It just means that sov and usf have more op strats atm. You see some okw players playing ost now, just bcs of how good mobile defensive is.
20 Jun 2018, 16:31 PM
#32
avatar of zarok47

Posts: 587

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jun 2018, 19:47 PMCruzz


Luvnest played Brits on a very good map for Brits (crossing in the woods) against Talisman's OKW and lost.

Refero (#1 Brit on ladder) played 3 games as Brits against CreativeName's OST(1 game) and Noggano OKW(2 games) and lost all of them.

Must be the players and not the faction.


4 games of brits, and that is enough eh?

Apart from that, I also expect you to make the "why every faction that DevM plays is OP" thread today.

Since it must be the faction, not the player, the map, the starting positions, the seeds or RNG.




That is so utterly retarded it doesn't deserve anymore of a reponse.
20 Jun 2018, 16:35 PM
#33
avatar of siddolio

Posts: 471 | Subs: 1

UKF being bad is indicative of the overarching theme of how things are balanced by Mr Smith, you cant just nerf the things UKF crutch on forever patch after patch but he hates the faction and has 0 leeway to actually change how units/factions work so any push for things being buffed he says "we dont want 'x' Brit meta to come back" but still has to nerf whatever the fotm crutch is.

People at Relic like Duffy would have to swallow their pride and let things like Mortar Pit be locked behind commanders or taken out of the game so that you have space to make Brits perform consistently.

The games obviously being balanced to try make so that every faction is competent at playing multiple different ways but Brits straight up doesnt have access to the same types of units as every other faction so you get gimpy shit like Bolster never getting touched while all their tanks and off-maps have been consistently nerfed instead of just making Brits 'fit' in to the game and letting them have snares/mortar/movingaccuracy etc.
20 Jun 2018, 16:37 PM
#34
avatar of siddolio

Posts: 471 | Subs: 1

As an aside if people could actually identify the reasons they lost a game instead of diving straight into i lost because of balance you might be able to talk about how aids UKF are in a productive way.

Lads its coming home
20 Jun 2018, 17:18 PM
#35
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2

As an aside if people could actually identify the reasons they lost a game instead of diving straight into i lost because of balance you might be able to talk about how aids UKF are in a productive way.

Lads its coming home

Seems you just identified the premise of most balance arguments (possibly even mine :oops: )
20 Jun 2018, 18:14 PM
#36
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

GCS 2 is an excellent opportunity to gather stats about balance and the evolving meta.

However, it is too early to say definitively what, if anything, is blatantly OP or UP.

Despite this, I think Brits could use a looking at, especially in the snare department. Please check out my poll and discussion on British snares and be sure to continue to support GCS 2.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/79043/british-snare-problem-and-potential-fixes/page/2#post_id686527

21 Jun 2018, 01:48 AM
#37
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

Imma just say, just bcs nobody plays brits this doesnt mean that brits are bad. It just means that sov and usf have more op strats atm. You see some okw players playing ost now, just bcs of how good mobile defensive is.


the british was still used ten times in the tourny, and they lost all but one of them.

even the other allies's trend isn't that great. The USF lost more than it won. The soviet did great against the okw but still under perform against the ost.
21 Jun 2018, 02:31 AM
#38
avatar of CieZ

Posts: 1468 | Subs: 4

Give a snare when you research Brit nades, even if it’s something low range like the PTRS penal satchel.

Remove mortar pit and give them some real indirect fire to help against MGs.

Slightly buff Comet again.

Other than that I think Brits aren’t as bad as people think. Sections are great, UC is good, AEC is good, 6 pounder is insane, Vickers is good, sniper is fine, etc. It’s really just the lack of snare and lack of ability to dislodge MGs since sections suck at flanking and commandos are doctrinal.

Edit: I think every faction should have access to some form of flamer engineer, mines, AT gun, and mortar outside of commanders since these are such core components of the game.
21 Jun 2018, 05:53 AM
#39
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

UKF being bad is indicative of the overarching theme of how things are balanced by Mr Smith, you cant just nerf the things UKF crutch on forever patch after patch but he hates the faction and has 0 leeway to actually change how units/factions work so any push for things being buffed he says "we dont want 'x' Brit meta to come back" but still has to nerf whatever the fotm crutch is.

People at Relic like Duffy would have to swallow their pride and let things like Mortar Pit be locked behind commanders or taken out of the game so that you have space to make Brits perform consistently.

The games obviously being balanced to try make so that every faction is competent at playing multiple different ways but Brits straight up doesnt have access to the same types of units as every other faction so you get gimpy shit like Bolster never getting touched while all their tanks and off-maps have been consistently nerfed instead of just making Brits 'fit' in to the game and letting them have snares/mortar/movingaccuracy etc.


jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 02:31 AMCieZ
Give a snare when you research Brit nades, even if it’s something low range like the PTRS penal satchel.

Remove mortar pit and give them some real indirect fire to help against MGs.

Slightly buff Comet again.

Other than that I think Brits aren’t as bad as people think. Sections are great, UC is good, AEC is good, 6 pounder is insane, Vickers is good, sniper is fine, etc. It’s really just the lack of snare and lack of ability to dislodge MGs since sections suck at flanking and commandos are doctrinal.

Edit: I think every faction should have access to some form of flamer engineer, mines, AT gun, and mortar outside of commanders since these are such core components of the game.

in the absence of change like giving the british snare, flamethrower, and mortar I still believe it is possible to salvage the faction.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/70767/state-of-british-artillery

https://www.coh2.org/topic/70796/better-british-grenade-wp-and-rifle-grenade

the game files actually contain building block of a victor target for mortar.
Phy
21 Jun 2018, 06:07 AM
#40
avatar of Phy

Posts: 509 | Subs: 1

A sample of 27 means nothing. J4J and Zarok had already point out some of the issues with the results, basically because the sample is too low. When you have statistics than can explained with particular causes then you know the stats have no value.
I'm not getting into if balance statements said are true or not, i'm just saying stats over 30 samples mean absolutely nothing.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

854 users are online: 854 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM