Profile of Pip

I have not suggested to include "lower skill" matches. The site provides top players games where can choose between top 200 players "only", in that specific mode.

If you're suggesting you use data from games where all players involved are not top 200, then you are advocating including lower-skilled player's statistics. I'm not sure how you could possibly argue against that. Is this some sort of semantic argument, or what?

The stat are different weather uses this choice or not and the number of games less.

Yes, there are a greater number of games, and the stats are different. This is because some of the players in these matches are not in the top 200, which means they are worse players, which pollutes the statistics.


If you're including games like:

[INSERT BEST BRIT PLAYER IN THE WORLD HERE]'s UKF vs Chukiki's OST

And getting a winrate of 99 - 1 in favour of UKF, that doesn't imply that Brits are good and OST is bad, just that a good player beat a terrible one. That's all you're introducing.

Come on, this is some seriously retarded logic.

But why would you want a polluted data base when you can filter games which are way closer ranked wise? I mean, it's not like the sample size is that small.

6K games vs total 15K. Compared to what happens in teamgames (2v2 been barely relevant with 1.5K games from 23K).

DISCLAIMER: I absolutely do not agree with Vipper's suggestion of including lower-skill matches in the data, low-skill players do not provide an accurate view of balance, regardless of how many of them there are. They don't show if a tool works correctly, merely that they don't know how to use it.

Personally I think the issue with this sort of data is it doesn't quite paint the most useful picture. Raw winrates are less useful for balance discussions than the faction's winrate vs each opposing faction shown separately, particularly with the disparity of total games for any given faction. Is there a breakdown that shows the results of specific matchups? Brits being included at all (Despite their abysmal performance/limited number of games) makes the rest of the data rather misleading.

(Similarly: while a 50% winrate is the desirable outcome for each faction; A 50% winrate still doesn't necessarily mean that some balancing work isnt required, especially if that winrate is only achieved through crutching on certain units/strategies. SOV "worked" for a while, but only because the T70 carried the faction, which still warranted changes even if that resulted in a "balanced" winrate.)


With regards to 3v3/4v4 vs 1v1/2v2 winrates: I think this is further evidence that these modes need to be balanced seperately. In teamgames it's far easier to crutch on certain absurd strategies that can only work due to critical mass factors, and that some mechanics don't interact correctly in larger modes due to the comparatively static nature of maps.

I think some of that could actually be solved through mapping. I think that 3v3/4v4 maps could probably benefit from A: A reduction in the amount of resources available, B: an improvement in the layout of sectors, in order to make cutoffs/flanks/etc a little more realistic in these modes, and finally: An increase in the size of maps, while implementing more "walling" to compartmentalise these maps a little better (while avoiding the laney layout present in many popular team maps, this "lane" system causes an unfortunate number of issues)

The rest of it is the over-representation of artillery (both rocket and conventional), and in the case of axis: the strength of vehicles like the Panther when massed. There's a phenomena in games similar to DOTA called a "deathball", where one team rolls around the map as a blob obliterating everything they come across, this is similar to what ends up happening in CoH2 teamgames. The difference is that in DOTA this doesn't work vs competent opponents, because the benefits from doing so are heavily outweighed by what you lose in map control/other objectives. In CoH, having your army obliterated by the deathball puts you in a position in which you can't project yourself back onto the map, and the deathballing team ends up profiting in the long run because of this.


There's also the fact that vehicles like the Elefant, Jagdtiger, and ISU-152 are far too difficult to flank in these modes, but I think that can be solved by changes to the maps.



I find it interesting that 1v1 and 2v2 games have somewhat comparable winrates, whereas 3v3 and 4v4 have a MASSIVE disparity between each other, incidentally. Perhaps that's partially due to sample sizes, but it's interesting that it seems to imply that Allies are slightly favoured in 3v3, but axis are far, FAR ahead in 4v4. Is there something special about the fourth player?

i don't know, this might be a pretty unpopular view but for me the better solution to the healing conundrum wouldn't be to make okw medics even more accessible (for the n-th time) but to make general in-base healing more restrictive across all factions instead. currently hp damage dealt to infantry doesn't really have any impact as healing at base is fast and so universally and cheaply available without any real downside. it would be more interesting if going for a med bunker or base medics actually had a noticable impact on tech timings rather than just being a minor mp/mu expenditure along the way for most factions. as a side effect this would also make stop gap solutions, such as the variety of med packs or troop transport healing a bit more attractive.

Y'know, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, either. The issue is that it would be FAR much more work to effectively rework the entire games healing system as opposed to just filing down the edges of the current system.

Healing sort of needs to work as it does now because you can't really control health damage done to models, and there's no other way to deal with damaged models except to heal them. If you wanted healing to be harder to access/more limited you'd need to provide some other method for factions to deal with damaged models; such as the ability to rotate them out for "fresh" models for MP. Any of this is likely FAR too out of scope for CoH2

Other factions aren't incentivised to backtech with a super heavy stock tank nor their alternative tech offer much, contrary to OKW.

Other than an MG or ATG, and a free utility squad in the case of USF, I suppose? Or literally any type of support weapon for a tier-1 SOV? Being forced to back-tech really isnt the same as being "incentivised" to.

In fact, OKW was never designed with intent of NOT getting all 3 trucks.
1v1 meta allowed skipping one truck, but they always were supposed to eventually deploy all 3 and faction is balanced around that.

Brits were designed around having to choose between various units (AEC/Bofors) and Infantry sections only being able to fight defensively from behind cover, too. Just because this is the "intended" design doesn't mean that it's good design, and that it shouldn't be somewhat changed.

Remember back when the USF Platoon Command pretty much couldn't fight vehicles, and the Company Command pretty much couldn't fight infantry? That was how that was designed, too, but it was terrible, and why it was changed to allow both tiers to cope.

Protip:
If you go straight for BGHQ, you don't need to backtech for it.
Face reality, you never had micro needed to keep that LV alife long enough for it to pay for itself anyway, so you don't need it.

Do you have an allergy to constructive posting?

This is also why you are supposed to deploy ALL trucks before you can call-in heavy, while everyone else only needs last tech.

If you need LVs and repairs more then indirect and infantry healing is 100% up to your own priorities.

Alternatively: You need LVs because LVs are OKW's strongest opening option. I somehow doubt you'd be making this absurd "argument" if Sov had to choose between the T-70 and healing.

It would totally be possible if the options of setting up the repair and medic stations without any unit unlocked was given, like I had proposed before sturmpios receieved their overexpensive medkits.


Other factions also aren't designed to need to backtech like OKW does, which is why still linking the medis to BTG HQ is a stupid idea

It would work even better if BTG itself was reworked to be a cheaper support weapons tier with medics and the tech structure was made linear, always requiring both Mechanized and BTG, since BTG was never an equal option to Mechanized like LT is to Captain.

The options are already there, it's just that the time for reworks is over

I'm pretty much in agreement here. At the very least; The BGHQ should be buildable for a fairly nominal price, providing only the medics until further upgraded. I really don't see any reason that OKW should be without healing unless they go down a certain tech path.

Linear teching for all factions would probably improve the game/make balance rather a lot easier, incidentally. "Real" non-linear teching just isnt all that viable due to a fairly limited number of options available down any given "path".

While I disagree that BG and Mech aren't side grades to each other (I think they're actually quite balanced relative to each other at the moment in spite of OKW's flaws) the real pants kicker is that even if you go Battlegroup, you're probably going to need to use the 45 Muni Medkit ability before you can even get medics if you want to maintain field presence and I think that could be improved on.

I'd like to see the Medic upgrade on Battlegroup decreased in time by a significant amount and as necessary have the secondary Battlegroup tech timing increased to make up for it if total tech timing becomes an issue. OKW has the latest natural healing source of all the factions and it's incredibly rough to be out 45 Muni most games because you needed to heal once before your medics come up in order to maintain field presence.

I'd also be willing to argue for cheaper Sturmpio Medikits since if you do go Mechanized you go from the least Muni starved faction to the most having to spend about 180-270 Muni on healing alone before it's reasonable from a timing perspective to backtech medics, which is kind of ridiculous. Drop that to 30-35 per kit and you're still spending more than any other faction for healing as you should given your tech choice, but it doesn't eat your whole muni bank attempting to sustain your infantry throughout the match.

Just drop the medkit ability from Sturms entirely, and make a healing-only BGHQ buildable. It's a bandaid solution rather similar to Brits getting a Medic squad rather than just being able to build a Forward Assembly sooner, or getting Base Medics like SOV.

I agree that the BGHQ and Mech are rather more balanced against one another now, though. There's really just a couple of niggles here, and some other changes I'd make to OKW and I think they'd be a pretty good/balanced faction. Next step is to try and untangle Brits.

Agreed, it would be more of an incentive to get them if volks and obers didn't had regeneration.

Volks currently have regeneration at vet5, it doesn't factor into the decision to get a permanent healing structure in the slightest. Please try and stay constructive.

Its the worst if you count the whole tech structure. Brits and Sov only pay manpower, Ost manpower and munition. Only Usf has to pay both manpower and fuel. But the cost is more or less fine. The biggest problem is to have no puma/stuka until you backtech.

I suppose, arguably, OKW should be able to build the base Battlegroup HQ structure for approximately the same price as other factions' healing solutions, then. It would need to upgrade further to unlock the ability to produce the MG34, LeIG, etc, and unlock the Volk upgrades (And then upgrade further to unlock the other units within it, as it does currently). If there's a backtech issue, that's probably the way to solve it.