Pak Howitzer needs adjustment

then in 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 soviet are same or better than okw

That´s why I said 2v2?

I only look at top 10% elo win rates the rest is meaningless because of how matchmaking works. None of the new players would have played in the top 10% elo bracket

I'm really not sure what you're arguing for or against, since your first post to this thread was what the stats are based on and so far you've not made an argument.
Also please elaborate why matchmaking for the 90% of the playerbase is so broken that you could not use the data based on it, as this argument does not make much sense to me.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing for or against, since your first post to this thread was what the stats are based on and so far you've not made an argument.
Also please elaborate why matchmaking for the 90% of the playerbase is so broken that you could not use the data based on it, as this argument does not make much sense to me.

There isn't enough people playing the game, matchmaking isn't proposing balanced matches due to lack of players available. Below elite playing ranks most of the game aren't balanced and the faction played has little impact on the game outcome.

There isn't enough people playing the game, matchmaking isn't proposing balanced matches due to lack of players available.

This is true also for the top 10%. You do not improve this effect by shrinking the player base you look at even further to the top 10%.

Below elite playing ranks most of the game aren't balanced and the faction played has little impact on the game outcome.

I agree that high level play reflects better the strengths and weaknesses of the respective faction.
In contrast, if you're an average player at (for the sake of the example) 50%, you have way higher chances of getting a balanced match than being at the edges of the skill curve due to the fact that you can get an opponent slightly above AND below your skill level.
High skill players get obviously more often matched with lower skill players, low skill players get more often matched with higher skill players.
The question is if the game should be balanced around top tier play or somewhat the main player base, but that would heavily derail the topic.

We have to live with the fact that different skill levels play with slightly different metas. Units like the Brummbär require heavy micro to be effective but die more easily in low skill level. Is the unit OP? Is it UP? There's no easy way to say that, but balancing it only according to the top players that can give the unit the high micro it needs will basically kick out the main player base.

I agree with the general conclusion that low skill data is not really representative of the whole game, but first the argument given does not make sense to me as well as the conclusion that only top tier play shows game balance while 90% of the games played are purely luck is also bullshit.

How is that "often"?

Last time it came up it was from a player that plays exclusively single faction and floats around 7000 rank.
And its the thread you link.

2+2 is still 4 regardless of who says it is, how about you pose an actual argument instead of gatekeeping.

In team games they are good against Ost.

Okw's stuka makes most support weapons irrelevant.

2+2 is still 4 regardless of who says it is, how about you pose an actual argument instead of gatekeeping.

Yeah, except other thread states that 2+2=10 while this one asks if 2+2 is too much and should be changed.

Stats seem to show that USF is the strongest faction.

I can't believe how many people reference that post for balance arguments. In the post Siphon literally says don't use for balance arguments. I mean most of that data comes from before the last patch...

Even if you could use it, it shows a whopping 4% difference in winrate, and that's for all rankings. The graph that breaks it up by ladder position shows the winrates fluxuating all over the place

Yeah, except other thread states that 2+2=10 while this one asks if 2+2 is too much and should be changed.

The point I'm trying to make is that every argument needs to be challenged and should never be dismissed just because of some arbitrary standard of who is allowed to pose an argument. In other words, you thought the other thread was being unreasonable, but that this one is just asking a question, in both cases the arguments being used are what matters, not the rank or faction preference.

Outside of reworking the unit:

-Increase number of shells on barrage.
-Nerf AA

Pak Howie, post balance changes done to ALL INDIRECT fire units which made them weaker, should be at equivalent levels to the 120mm mortar.

Comparison:

If coh2db stats are up to date:
-AA RoF:
Howie: 9.94s
120mm: 14.15
OH 81mm: 10.81s

-Scatter (Angle/Distance Ratio/Distance offset)
Howie: 6/0.1/8
120mm: 10/0.1/10
82mm: 10/0.08/8

-AoE (Radius, Distance near, Mid, Far)
Howie: 5, 1.5 (68dmg), 3 (40), 4.5 (20)
120mm: 6, 1.5, 3, 4.5
82mm: 4, 1, 2, 3

Outside of reworking the unit:

-Increase number of shells on barrage.
-Nerf AA

Pak Howie, post balance changes done to ALL INDIRECT fire units which made them weaker, should be at equivalent levels to the 120mm mortar.

Comparison:

+1, but would rather have a shorter cooldown than increasing the number of shells

This is true also for the top 10%. You do not improve this effect by shrinking the player base you look at even further to the top 10%.

That why he trust more tournaments.

That why he trust more tournaments.

Tournaments would be great if the sample size wasn't so small.

I can't believe how many people reference that post for balance arguments. In the post Siphon literally says don't use for balance arguments

He literally said, "I would be careful to draw premature conclusions about the state of balance based on these numbers"

He didnt said not to use this data as valuable balance information.

And he explains why one must be careful reading statistics.

Tournaments would be great if the sample size wasn't so small.

The funny thing is I stand by tournament stats before I know the outcome. I don't know if the tourney is going to show axis op or allies op, but I still go by them. The other guys go by outdated stats because they are only interested stats that support their claim. The tourney is not over yet, and we can't base our conclusions on the latest games.

He literally said, "I would be careful to draw premature conclusions about the state of balance based on these numbers"

He didnt said not to use this data as valuable balance information.

And he explains why one must be careful reading statistics

Go read the person I quoted and tell me if that's a "careful reading of statistics". He looked at the one graph that doesn't even break down the percentages by rank and said that faction was the strongest

Nevermind that the difference in percentage was tiny, nevermind that different factions have better winrates at different ranks, nevermind that there's 3 other game-types to consider

Its not valuable balance information if you ignore most of the post and pick the graph that supports your argument. It's certainly not important info to a conversation about how to balance just the pak Howy

The funny thing is I stand by tournament stats before I know the outcome. I don't know if the tourney is going to show axis op or allies op, but I still go by them. The other guys go by outdated stats because they are only interested stats that support their claim. The tourney is not over yet, and we can't base our conclusions on the latest games.

We can't base anything on the latest tourney, even when it's finished, since there will be too few games with every team composition. At the end of the day we can't tell apart if a victory was based on rng, day-to-day performance of some teams or truely due to imbalances.

The funny thing is I stand by tournament stats before I know the outcome. I don't know if the tourney is going to show axis op or allies op, but I still go by them. The other guys go by outdated stats because they are only interested stats that support their claim. The tourney is not over yet, and we can't base our conclusions on the latest games.

There is no statistics on small samples and you should know that before defending some tournament outcome. Or do you size the amount of sugar on your coffee using shovels? That's the case of the amount of uncertainty a small sample has.

People love statistics when they say what you like, huh?

Go read the person I quoted and tell me if that's a "careful reading of statistics". He looked at the one graph that doesn't even break down the percentages by rank and said that faction was the strongest

Nevermind that the difference in percentage was tiny, nevermind that different factions have better winrates at different ranks, nevermind that there's 3 other game-types to consider

Well, doomlord posted the link to the statistics, so anyone can read it and understand what they are able of them. Nothing wrong about it. There is not a single word other than the link header.
It is though a wrong assumption of you to think that strongest means "USF always win", because the sentence can be perfectly read as "USF has dominance over all other factions by a 5-2% margin. You dont need to see a whopping 80% to say a faction is the strongest.

It also shows that USF has dominance in all gamemodes, except 2v2 becasue of OKW+OKW, but apart of that only case, from random teammates, to party matches, from 1v1 all to 4v4s, in all USF dominates winrates over Axis and over its allied counterparts too. In 4v4s all allied factions performed better than axis.

Its not valuable balance information if you ignore most of the post and pick the graph that supports your argument. It's certainly not important info to a conversation about how to balance just the pak Howy

But it is valuable information what a single graph can show, but to understand graphs you must first know what are they showing, and understand how it relates to the others. At best you can conclude that on specific maps, USF had 50% winrate, dead even vs OKW, but on the rest of maps the advantage margin could even rise over 55%. That simple fact shows that USF is the strongest faction, since no other axis faction can have as high as USF winrates.

At least tell everyone that you understood the graph to prove the guy wrong...

As i have shown, the collection of graphs shows an even worse picture for USF, so i would stay quiet instead of accusing others of cherrypicking.

1v1 wise, you can read the winrate vs skill level + games played vs skill level and you can easily see that from above the median axis faction have lower winrate compared to allied average. An average of allied of 55+% and an average of axis of 52% and coupled with the amount of games played, USF is picked as often as SU and OST is picked more than OKW. It clearly shows that the winrate % is cause due the USFvsOST component. That every single one on this forum were talking about. Stats meet reality.

At least tell everyone that you understood the graph to prove the guy wrong...

At least try to explain what any of this has to do with the pak howitzer?

Not only are you putting way too much reliance on the data (2-5% advantage apparently equals "dominance" in your world) but what could you possibly deduce from those graphs that would tell you what to do about the pak Howy? Not surprising you avoided that question...