Profile of Doomlord52

14 times tiger stalling, if they had gone more conventional p4 build,that may have increase the win rates to gcs level or even 2v2 championship level.

The numbers don't support this - in fact they support the exact opposite conclusion (i.e. "Tiger Stalling" is good).

In total, there were 40 OST games played, of which OST won 15 (it turns out, Siphon X missed one game, which was a loss, in the detailed stats - It's really 41/15). Of those games, 24 games had players selecting "Tiger" docs, with 12 of those games resulting in a win (50%). A 50% win rate is the ideal "balanced" win rate, so I'd consider this a good outcome. Note that "Tiger Stalling" was only possible in these 24 games, as by selecting a non-tiger doc, you can't "stall" for one.

The remaining 16 games were ones in which a "Tiger" docwas not picked. Out of those 16 games, OST won only 3 (18.75%). These are the games which completely tanked OST's over-all win/loss ratio, but they're also the in which it was explicitly impossible to "Tiger Stall".

If your assumption that "if they had gone more conventional p4 build,that may have increase the win rates" was true, then those non-Tiger (i.e. standard) builds should have resulted in reasonable win/loss ratios - instead, they provided terrible win rates.

Additionally, as I showed earlier, the vast majority of players were doing normal builds; 84.4% players who could tech to T3 did, and built 2 tanks on average.

The discrepancy is simply massive between the Tiger and Non-Tiger games; it points towards the conclusion that not going for a Tiger is a poor choice. This strongly implies that OST's T3 or T4 is too weak, as it needs to be bolstered by doc call-ins.

From memory, a lot of p4 came after tigers, or had to go emergency p4 since stalling isnt working out well enough..

I believe p4 timings are much longer in wc19 than before, and that's the hole im seeing

I'd need to see some stats to believe it.

As-is, Tigers were only built in 14 times in 12 games, leaving 13 games without Tigers, but with around two T3 tanks (P4/Stug) per game.

That's what im saying. Top players took a chance to stall for Tigers, which causes a hole in ost mid game. Ost is the easiest progressive faction but also dependent on not leaving a hole. So that explains the wc19 result for them. If they had played the ost way, perhaps and very likely % will be close to allies

Of course noobs like me, follow with heavy stalling in our random games.

This is provably false, using the stats I linked before.

In total, there were 40 games with OST played. Of those 40 games, only 24 games had the OST player picking a doc with a Tiger in it, 4 games had no doc picked, and the remaining 12 games had docs picked without Tigers. That gives us a 60% "Tiger Pick" rate. However, there's much more to this.

From there, we can look at other information from the "teching" section of the stats page. Firstly, we need to acknowledge that for a player to "skip" a tier, they need to build a tier after it. If it's NOT built, then they can't be considered to have skipped the preceding tier, since the game had ended. This is important, because we can now see at what points in time OST games ended in.

T1 Built: 78% (31)
T1 Successfully Skipped: 15% (6)
T1 Failed to skip (3)
T2 Built: 80% (32)
This means 13% of all OST games (8) ended before building T2.
Remaining games: 32

T2 built: 80% (32)
T2 Skipped: 0% (0)
T2 Built + Skip = 80% (32)
T3 built: 68% (27)
T3 Skipped for T4: 5% (2)
T3 Built + T3 Skipped: 73% (29)
This means that 7% of all OST games(3) ended between T2 and their next building (t3 or t4).
Remaining games: 29

So that means, out of the 40 total OST games, 29 were still active after building T3 (or skipping to T4) - or 73%. Since we're only interested in T3, as your hypothesis is an under-utilization of it, we can then remove all the "skipped T3 for T4" games (2). That gives us 67.5% of OST games (27 out of 40) with T3 being built.

However, it also gives us the statistic that when OST players are given the opportunity to build T3, 84.4% (27 out of 32) did so.

Ok, but what was the actual utilization of T3?
Out of 30 games, the P4 was built in 20 of them (28 times)
Out of 30 games, the STuG G was built in 10 of them (22 times)
Out of 30 games, the Ostwind was built in 3 of them (6 times)

I'm going to assume that the Ostwind wasn't built as a vehicle counter, so I'm going to ignore it. That leaves us with 20 P4 games and 10 StuG games. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers from individual games, so I can't say what the overlap was between those two units (i.e. how often they were both built in the same game). However, we know that the minimum is 20 games (entirely overlapped) and the maximum is 30 games (no overlap) - so let's take the average: 25 games. Similarly, we don't know the overlap between STuGs and P4s, but we know that a total of 50 were built.

So what's the conclusion?

Out of the 40 games played, OST players only had the opportunity to build T3 in 32 games (80%).
Out of those 32 games where OST players could build T3, they did so in 27 (84.4%).
On average, out of the 27 games where OST players did build T3, they built unit(s) from it in 25 games (92.6%).
On average, in those 25 games with T3 units, OST players built two tanks (P4s or STuGs, or a mix).

84.4% of players building two tanks from T3 is not taking a "chance to stall for Tigers, which causes a hole in ost mid game."

There was no hole.

Tigers were picked half of the time. Just over, 22 out of 43 games. In those 22 games, they won 11 times. In the other 21 games, without a tiger, they won 4.

Maybe they needed to t3 harder.

Evidently, they "T3'd pretty hard". It might be that T3 isn't all that great in late game (60 range TDs), and the Tiger is a strong crutch unit for the faction.

Before removing myself from this thread i would try one more time?

Does this sound too bad?

Its a good concept, but I don't think it would fix the problem for OST.

T70: i would reduce the armor on the unit (70/35) to 60/30. The goal is for the unit to receive slightly more damage from the light vehicles it already counters.

This would only really change things for the Luchs, Flak-HT, Ostwind, and 222 (and the CommandP4, but that's way later). Everything else either has more than 70 pen at far, or so little pen that changing the T70s armor wouldn't have much of an affect.

For the units that the change would affect (listed before), it wouldn't be a massive change.
Chance to pen T70's front armor at far - Old vs. New:
Luchs: 29% to 33%
Flak-HT: 43% to 50%
Ostwind: 79% to 92%
222: 57% to 66%

We're mostly focusing on OST, so let's look at the 222.

Considering the T70 has a target size of 18, the 222 only has a 54% chance to hit (0.03 far acc) at max range, which drops to 27% when moving (0.5 moving acc mult). Going back to those pen values, that means the 222's "Chance to Damage" goes from 31%/15% to 36%/18% (stationary/moving) at far if the T70's armor was lowered. I don't think that would change very much.

OH
221/2: re-introduce 221. The 221 would be the sniper/light car killer and having current 222 AI. Lower the cost, lower the HP.
The 222 upgrade (should be mp/fuel instead of the old munition) would cut down the AI performance but increase the HP to 400 and slightly increase armor values. Same gun as of now.

Without having to count with panic Puma, this gives OH a unit which they can rely with for not getting over run by light vehicles. The reduce on lethality on the T70 but increase on HP really screwed OH from having a soft counter in the 222.

Considering this is specifically about the OST/Sov matchup, I don't think a lower HP "221" would be viable. Sov can bring out a lot of light AT fairly early on, in the form of PTRS'; and on top of that, the 221/222' 9/4.5 armor means its going to take damage from almost everything. I just don't see an even squishier LV being useful against Sov, specifically.

If the HP on the 221 was kept at its current value (320), then this could be an interesting choice when combined with a "222 upgrade" that pushes it more into an AT role. The increased armor values would need to be carefully considered, though, otherwise 444/666 could return and basically erase LV play from USF/UKF.

OKW:
AA HT: because i always found how sad the AT performance against other light vehicle it is, i would give it a dmg modifier against vehicles (just like PTRS). The current dmg is 16 and i would give it a +4.
If you ask why? It would make it less risky to go Battlegroup and because it has always been stupid how even if you are setup ahead of time, the AA HT (USF) kills it straight ahead. Not sure if this would be enough though.

This would be pretty interesting, and I agree that the current OKW/USF AA-HT matchup really doesn't make a lot of sense. Alternatively, when setup, the OKW Flak-HT could gain some sort of (small) armor bonus. This would likely have the same affect, as the increased armor would let it survive longer against the AA-HT and T70 allowing for more damage to be dealt, without causing balance issues/knock-on problems for other LVs (since TTK wouldn't change).

We actually looked into something similar but an Ostheer 221 would have a major readability issue with the OKW 221. And using the OKW 221 would be such a significant downgrade in durability that it'd likely be a net nerf.

Not to be dismissive of readability issues (especially considering my earlier posts in this thread), but there is a precedent for similar/identical looking units with different stats. The "M3" half-track from USF's mechanized company looks identical to UKF's "M3 Supply Halftrack" from the 'Special Weapons Regiment' doc, despite having different stats, and they both look very similar (though not identical) to Sov's non-doc "M5 HT Transport".

I'll admit that intentionally adding similar/identical looking units isn't the best practice, but the OST 221 and OKW 221 would have different faction symbols on them, as well as different team colors (if enabled). Additionally, the overlap would only be between the non-upgraded variants, since the upgrades convert the vehicles in 222s and 223s. The possible confusion may be worth the balance implications.

There are also 3 model 'variants' (from what I can tell) of the OKW 221, with small differences (notably, bags on the front), that could be made into the distinct OKW/OST variants.

4v4 team games are most popular mode and it may even be harder to reach rank in 4v4.

It is the next step and maintaining is hard in 4v4.

While I agree that 4v4 is the most popular mode, I can't agree with it being harder to gain or maintain the rank (at least, intentionally). Because the mode is so popular, it's extremely variable in terms of skill, which means that while some games will be fair, other games will have very large skill ranges (I've had games with top 30 players against 2,000 to 5,000 rank players). This means that while it does take some effort to gain and maintain a high rank in 4v4, its highly influenced by what is essentially "RNG", in terms of team selection; whereas in 2v2 or even 1v1, its rare to see a range of over a few hundred places, making 'teammate RNG' much less of an influence.

CoH2 was NEVER balanced to a 4v4 player whether or not 4v4 is the most popular game mode.

This is the unfortunate truth to it. Its pretty clear that CoH2 was never designed around 4v4, from a basic standpoint. Resource income in larger games is simply too high (especially with caches) to balance. If the game had some sort of "game mode income multiplier", where resource incomes in 3v3 and 4v4 could be adjusted independently from smaller modes, then a legitimate case could be made for 4v4 being 'balanced' (or at least attempting to balance it).

However, in the current state, where losing a Panther or other expensive late-game unit isn't that significant of a loss, it's hard to make a case for the mode being balanced.

4vs4 requires just as much skill as 1vs1, if anything it requires more knowledge about the game because of how powerful certain abilities can be when combined with allies. Previous tournaments have proven this where top 1vs1 twitch streamers have struggled against good 4vs4 AT teams.

Do you mean individual top-tier steamers queuing as "random" against a 4 player arranged team, or groups of top-tier streamers as a team against a 4 player arranged team? Coordination is arguably the most important aspect of the larger modes, so I could easily see a streamer playing with a bunch of random players losing against a "lower skill" arranged team. If it was the later, i.e. 4x top-tier streamers with voice-chat, then this would be an interesting point (and I'd like to see the replay/VoD).