|
Just look at the stats.
Commando bren stats weren't touched by the latest patch.
Commando brens are insanely strong.
Commandos with double brens are insanely strong at max range because they have, as vipper pointed out, similar dps to obers even considering the fact that the stens basically do nothing at that range.
To that end, commandos with brens have similar dps to obers at max, but the commandos lose dps slower with model loss than obers do.
Vet bonuses are generally in obers' favor. Good to note though that commandos get the ambush bonus with vet.
Commandos with brens are pretty nicely priced compared to other similarly performing infantry. Vipper already compared them to obers, but you can also compare them to double lmg paras, which perform worse than commandos. 380 mp (if im not mistaken) and 120 muni for a squad thats less durable than commandos (6 models at target size 1.0) and drops DPS quicker. |
Thread: OKW UP?24 Jun 2018, 03:55 AM
Aside from what everyone else said, I found your evaluation of OKW's support weapons to be interesting.
In my opinion, the mg34, leig, and raketen USED TO suck.
The mg34 has since had accuracy and damage increases (in exchange for a higher cost), so while it's lackluster in every area, its not really lacking in any area. I'd call it a very functional HMG.
The leig had its aoe range buffed (though it did receive the near damage nerfs that all indirect fire received) and its cost quite noticeably decreased. Though the range was nerfed, it still has a good barrage range and is very accurate. Most importantly, it was given smoke which is massive. It's about as deadly as other factions' indirect fire options while having a longer barrage range.
The raketen received reliability buffs. The vet nerfs hurt, but they were fairly necessary. That said, the raketen was never really bad except for when it would hit terrain or get 1 shot. It still has a propensity for dying the instant a tank sees it, but its cheap and can camo so it's still very useable. As a side note, I'm pretty sure people say "LUL raketen" in situations where every other AT gun would have performed exactly the same way...
As for sturmpios, in the 2 years that I've been playing this game, I'm pretty sure they've only been buffed (reinforce and build time) besides the repair nerfs which applied to all WFA engineers and the vet nerfs which were applied to most OKW units, and it's not like anyone got sturms to high vet often and then used them in a combat role.
All of that said, OKW's teching options are pretty diverse and most builds involve at least a fair amount of combined arms. Battlegroup is the default, but mech is viable if you're a good early game player in the right matchup and map. |
Do you honestly think you're going to magically win 8 games in a roll to make up the loses?
If higher seed players were to spam brits? Most definitely. Again, context matters.
Also, he was right about the sample size. This isn't a sample of 75. This is a sample of 17... and of 8, and 5, and 26, and 2, and 18. Each matchup is its own sample, and you can't really combine them all as a "super sample". Again, the point is to not continue on with a kind of willful ignorance towards the obviously small sample size and the huge impact that spawns, maps, and players have on these stats. |
So many people dancing around the idea of UKF being trash, they make so many excuses, so many far fetched allegations, the win rate doesnt matter, the players were bad, they didnt find a way how to play them yet, like you need months to find a fucking viable strategy to play a faction that you played for years.
Come on guys, stop bullshiting already, the faction is bad and at the moment it needs a lot of things to be viable otherwise it's just a practice dummy on how to vet your enemies.
It's not about UKF being bad or not. It's whether or not these win rates, in context, support that assertion. If someone wants me to say that UKF is underpowered/dead/useless against ostheer and situationally (or possibly always) underpowered against OKW, I'll say it. However, if someone wants me to agree that these win rates, in context, show the above is true, then I'm going to respond with skepticism.
In this situation specifically, the win rates support UKF being underpowered, but given the context, small sample sizes, and overall uncertainty, there are A LOT of other arguments it can also support, which is why I disagree with drawing any single conclusion. |
So how does this line up with the fact that apart from VonIvan beating steffenbk1 2-0, every single player who played brits won a game as axis against the same opponent they lost to as brits?
And tobis.
Anyway, that means you're looking at 5 players if I've been thorough. Quiritz (my opponent), refero, steffen, tobis, and stuve.
Given what I personally know about how my series with quiritz worked out, allow me to say that I wouldn't say balance had a significant bearing on the result you saw.
Talking to refero after we both bombed out in the round of 16, he (if I recall correctly, and I apologize to him if I am misremembering) said he was personally disappointed in his brit performances throughout the qualifier. The loss in the first round still seems pretty relevant, but, again, I don't think you can take much from him losing his games against noganno.
I don't think steffen dropping matches to barton is unexpected, and you already spoke about his match against vonivan.
Stuve won his game with brits, but again, thats not unexpected.
Tobis...let's just say that as of right now, he has logged 2.2 hours on coh2 in the last 2 weeks and has no visible automatch ranks whatsoever.
Beyond that, all of the axis wins that you are referring to are ostheer wins. This begs the question of whether it was UKF that pulled these players into losses, or ostheer that pulled them into wins (or neither).
To me, if you consider the context, UKF being underpowered (against OKW, that is) far from the only reasonable conclusion or take away from these win rates. |
|
As small of a sample size it would give, I think doing separate stats for the semi (or maybe quarter) finals and up would tell a lot more. Well, youd essentially have to throw out all of devm's games since hes basically boosting factions, but I think taking from games where the players are more closely matched in skill and taking play rates from the top players is just more meaningful. |
Regardless of the sample size not being ideal and the statics not being strong enough etc etc.
Whatever holes you want to poke at it, I think you're 100% wrong if you think Brits aren't woefully under-powered in elite level 1v1.
In reference to this post and all of your other ones, I dont disagree. But to some extent for me, its about keeping the thread on topic.
This thread is about barbarossa win rates, so I figured the only relevant balance discussions are those that derive from these win rates. As ive already said though, I dont think that these win rates really mean much since in basically every ukf vs okw game played, you would probably expect the okw player to win no matter the factions.
(Though ukf vs ost is probably another story).
Since this seems to be closer to a general discussion instead of a discussion of the win rates though, I'll agree and say that I do think its extremely telling that hans and aimstrong have given up on brits. To a large extent, I think its because ukf dont do well vs ost and especially mobile defense which everyone is playing. Regardless, they were probably the most loyal tourney brit players, and to see them just give up entirely on trying to make them work in a tournament setting says more to me than anything. |
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  ) |
Snipers cannot cloak while "in combat". Which means if they're being shot at, and for a brief time after, they retain the "in combat" effect. If your squad started shooting a squad that was inbetween you and the sniper, then its possible the sniper wasn't being shot at for a time.
Important to note that "in combat" isn't determined by whether the squad is being shot at or not, it's determined by whether the squad is being hit or not. This means that if all of your shots miss a sniper while you chase it, it can just recloak, which is likely what happened. |
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.
Don't have luvnest pegged as a brit player (does he play brits?), and considering talisman's overall performance this quali, I don't think tali's okw beating luvnest's brits is really unexpected. To be even more blunt, Luvnest just hasn't looked like the player his name would usually imply.
Refero losing to ost you could probably easily attribute to UKF just getting destroyed by ost. Refero losing to Noganno's OKW is again something that people probably wouldn't call out of the ordinary.
Point is, I don't think any of those results are really out of the ordinary. |
United States
1
Jae for Jett
VonIvan
RtN. momo4sho
Burmie
Burmie
Relic Entertainment
