Thanks for the answers. Will there be any future changes to OST to make it stronger?
It's very likely that upcoming patches will strengthen OST's lineup (and also attempt to help UKF). Most players seem to agree that OST is on the weaker side of things; the disagreement is in what way (and by how much) they are weaker.
I believe it was mentioned that the next patch was delayed until after the WCS tournament, so it's likely that it will be discussed soon. My guess would be a Jan/Feb update, with a workshop 'test' patch available within the next month or so.
OKW has a stock counter (Puma) to LV play while Ost doesn't.
This is actually a very important point; not sure how I missed this. Considering how important LV-play was in the tournament (every faction went 'rushed' their LV in almost every game), having the puma as an 'easy' counter was likely a deciding factor for many players when comparing OST vs. OKW.
|
There's a pretty huge discussion on this in another thread: link.
The short summary (I'll try to be neutral) of that thread is basically:
- UKF is unusable in competitive play. It's simply missing too many 'core' tools (snare, mobile mortar, etc.) and relies too heavily to gimmicks and/or "crutch" units to carry the team. They were only used 5 times in the tournament (and only against OST), with a 40% win rate.
- Sov vs. OKW, USF vs. Ost and USF vs. OKW were all very close to 'perfectly balanced', in terms of win/loss ratios. In general, the allied factions won a few more games (~53-55% win ratio), but this small of a discrepancy can likely be explained by 'luck'.
- Sov vs. OST seems unbalanced at face-value, due to Sov having a ~71% win ratio against OST. It's been debated fairly heavily weather this can be explained by 'luck' (which players played Sov more) or if it's a balance issue, but there's no consensus on the topic. We'll likely need to wait for more data/analysis to understand what happened here.
- Sov/USF were used about the same amount; USF in 41 games, Sov in 38 games.
- OKW was used a fair bit more than OST; OKW in 54 games, OST in 30 games.
- OKW being used more than OST could be due to balance, but it could also be due to player preference. Some players played exclusively USF/OKW, for example.
My own opinions below
OST is slightly under-performing right now. A while ago there was a thread asking players to rank the factions in order of strongest to weakest in 1v1, and this vote basically matched exactly what happened in the tournament. The general consensus seems to be that OST is vulnerable to Sov's T70, since it has incredibly high 'wipe' potential, which is very powerful against OST's expensive (and small) squads, combined with Gren's slight under-performance in the very late-game when compared to their reinforce costs.
Additionally, OST's T4 is generally seen as "bad" in 1v1; the Brumbarr requires very high levels of micro to be effective (and even then, it's not amazing), the Panther is very expensive, but arguably less effective than a pair of STuGs, and the PanzerWerfer is only useful in certain scenarios. As a result, OST generally relies heavily on "Call-in meta", where their late-game armor is made up almost entirely of doctrine-specific units such as the Tiger and Elefant. Since these units only become available very late in the game, there is a noticeable weakness in OST's unit lineup when Sov/USF 'T4' becomes available, as OST will still be waiting for those late-game Call-in units.
|
Buff the Bren to approximately MG42 levels but cap them at 1 per squad, like the m1919s got, and surely you cap the worst of the double upgrade late game squad issues.
I don't think the Bren should equal the Gren-LMG42, even if limited to one-per-squad, simply because of the current squad's base stats. With Vet3+Bolster+Cover bonus (and ability to build their own SBs) you end up with a squad that's both stronger and cheaper to reinforce than Vet3/LMG Grens, and can also A-Move better because of the Bren's incredibly quick ready-aim (and other) stats. |
The faction is incomplete, but has one or two deeply overpowered units it crutches hard on. The Balance Team of the day finds the OP crutch unit, correctly concludes it's OP, and nerfs it.
Then the entire faction collapses for the next few months until the community finds another overpowered unit to crutch on.
Pretty much this. UKF's core design is missing a ton of basic "tools" all other factions have access to (mobile mortars, snares, etc.), and on top of that, is designed around broken and/or gimmicky mechanics that don't really fit into CoH2's base gameplay (cover bonus, mutually-exclusive tech, etc.). Without allowing a full re-work similar to OKW's a while back, I don't see UKF ever being competitively viable - I could be wrong about this, but I don't see how.
With that said, I think one of the major reasons for UKF infantry being so imbalanced isn't the core stats, but instead the "Double Bren" upgrade when combined with bolster. Without these two upgrades, even at vet 3, IS are incredibly squishy, with very low DPS when they reach end-game. This is quite different than, for example, Grens; who are quite strong with no upgrades at vet 3, and only become stronger with them (LMG and/or VSL).
Double-Bren+Bolster gives IS' an insane amount of DPS (especially with vet) combined with a very high effective HP pool; and it only gets better when in cover. As a result, many UKF games turn into a blob of ~3 double-bren/bolster/vet3 IS' A-moving across the map, melting anything they see. If the Axis player(s) can destroy the blob, they basically win instantly; if they can't, they lose.
This needs to change, and the best way I can see this happening is by either (1)lowering the long-range DPS for Brens, (2)limiting them to one per squad, or by (3)drastically increasing the ready-aim/fire-aim/etc. times, so that they aren't so quick when A-moving (should be as slow as the Gren LMG). Once that happens, the base stats of IS' can be brought up to levels comparable to other mainline infantry units. Without those changes, any buffs just power-creep that bren-blob even more. |
I'm going to be honest; this probably isn't a balance issue. I'm not sure what your skill level is (player card link is broken?), but most players, especially at a high level, will say that USF's early game is very strong, mostly thanks to Rifles. the MG42 is fine.
Really, just post a replay of what you're having trouble with. Early game balance is actually really good right now, probably the best it's ever been. The balance issues are mostly related to unit scaling into late game, and certain late game units themselves. |
But there is no random faction assignment...
If I check out the games I have for the four semifinalists (and seems I have everything there except VonAsten vs. Stalingrad):
VonAsten played exclusively as OKW and USF.
Luvnest almost exclusively went SOV and OKW. He had 3 games as OH, none of these vs. SOV. He also was the only one playing as SOV against OH.
Noggano played mostly OKW and USF; he has 2 games as SOV, and 2 games as OH vs. SOV (winning 1).
Jove played 6/5/5 games as SOV, OKW and USF and only 2 as OH (one against SOV, one against USF, winning both).
Faction assignment isn't random - that's true. Side assignment, however, is.
Take VonAsten; as you said, he played exclusively OKW and USF. Again, for simplicity, let's say all of his games were 3:0. There might have been some 3:1 games, but it likely doesn't matter. Because all of his games were 3:0, that means any G1 as USF resulted in G2 being a win for OKW, then G3 going back to USF. If, however, G1 had him as OKW, then G2 was USF and G3 was again OKW.
G1's SIDE assignment was always random, so, this should average out to an equal number of games where he played G1 as OKW, and where he played G1 as USF. That means any match he played where he won 2:1 as USF/OKW should be balanced out by a future 2:1 OKW/USF match - resulting in an over-all USF/OKW win loss for him of 50:50.
And then number of games is still limited...
I'm not saying the numbers are meaningless, they certainly can indicate a trend. However, I doubt that the data base is sufficient to prove something without the shadow of a doubt given the many factors that play a role.
This is actually a valid concern. However, it's pretty much this data vs. no data. Like I said before, a +/- 10% win/loss ratio probably wouldn't be of note, simply because there weren't than many games; so random chance and match-ups could probably offset it by a reasonable amount. It's the +/- 21% over a dozen or more games that's suspicious.
No, you're still not understanding. When the matches are almost all 3-0, wining faction rate is determined solely by which faction was picked. Imagine for a second that instead of 64 players, there was just 2 players, Player B who won all of the matches and Player A who lost all of the matches (matches were all 3-0). If Player B plays more than half of his/her games as Soviets, you would conclude that Soviets are OP because the win rate was more than 50%
You keep trying to assert that players choice is random and follows a normal distribution, but it isn't and doesn't.
I literally just posted a chart showing how Player A can win every single game against Player B, and provided there's even ONE extra player, it'll still evens out. Yes, if you simplify it down to 2 players, you get the result you're talking about - but it's not a 2-player tournament, and it's also oversimplification.
If you can re-balance that chart to give roughly 50:50 win/loss ratios for Sov vs. OKW, USF vs. Ost, USF vs OKW, and somehow 72:28 for Sov vs. OST, you'd have a point. However, it's not possible if the starting side is randomized via coinflip, and also because it goes against your claim that the better player always won (which is likely true, due to the numerous 3:0 games).
Further more, as I've said several times now, player choice regarding SIDE (i.e. Axis or Allies) is random - it's a coin flip, as per the rule set. It's the faction choice that is player driven.
|
You seem to badly want this conclusion, but the data doesn't say that at all. You can't take the results of a bunch of 3-0 matches and conclude anything. The "effect" of the player is so much stronger than faction, map, rng, or any other factor.
You absolutely can; I've shown this multiple times now. A single 3-0 match concludes nothing, a TON of 3-0 matches actually concludes a lot, provided most (or all) players play each faction an equal number of times. The effect of the individual player is mitigated almost entirely because of the number of games AND due to the random 'side' assignment.
Here's an example: a 12-match/5game series between 3 players (A, B and C), where A is very skilled, B is intermediate, and C is new. Let's also assume there's only 4 factions (Sov, USF, Ost, OKW) in this example, and players chose to alternate when they can (Sov -> USF, Ost -> OKW). For the sake of simplicity, let's say that only 2 factions are allowed per "match", otherwise calculating totals gets crazy, and we need a lot more games for the example to work (So Match 1 / Game 1-3 is always Sov vs. Ost, and Match 2 / Game 1-3 is always USF/Ost, etc.). I think this is reasonable, since the actual series had 84 games, not including the round-robin matches; we're using a total of 36 games (12 matches x 3:0 games).
Lastly, since these are horribly stacked games, let's assume any win is a clean sweep - 3:0. This pretty much describes my "worst possible case", except that each player has played each team an equal number of times.
| Match # | Allies | Axis | Winner | Faction |
| Match 1 | Player A | Player B | 3:0 Player A - B | 2:1 Sov/Ost |
| Match 2 | Player A | Player C | 3:0 Player A - C | 2:1 USF/Ost |
| Match 3 | Player B | Player C | 3:0 Player B - C | 2:1 Sov/OKW |
| Match 4 | Player B | Player A | 3:0 Player A - B | 2:1 Ost/USF |
| Match 5 | Player C | Player A | 3:0 Player A - C | 2:1 OKW/Sov |
| Match 6 | Player C | Player B | 3:0 Player B - C | 2:1 OKW/USF |
| Match 7 | Player B | Player A | 3:0 Player A - B | 2:1 Ost/Sov |
| Match 8 | Player C | Player A | 3:0 Player A - C | 2:1 Ost/USF |
| Match 9 | Player C | Player B | 3:0 Player B - C | 2:1 OKW/Sov |
| Match 10 | Player A | Player B | 3:0 Player A - B | 2:1 USF/Ost |
| Match 11 | Player A | Player C | 3:0 Player A - C | 2:1 Sov/OKW |
| Match 12 | Player B | Player C | 3:0 Player B - C | 2:1 USF/OKW |
From what I understand, this is pretty much what you've described as 'bad data' due to selection bias. The player's skill isn't matched well, so the games are always massively in favor of one player, and always 3:0.
Now let's look at the totals.
| Sov vs Ost | Sov vs OKW | USF vs Ost | USF vs OKW |
| 3:3 | 6:6 | 6:6 | 3:3 |
| Sov Wins | USF Wins | Ost Wins | OKW Wins |
| 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
Despite the players being horribly matched, the faction win/loss ratios are perfectly even. This is because for every 3:0 match between the uneven players, the factions actually win 2:1. When you average this out over enough matches (this is just 12), every 2:1 USF/OKW match ends up being balanced out by a 1:2 USF/OKW match - resulting in 50:50 win/loss ratios.
Conveniently, 50:50 is pretty much what we saw with Sov/OKW (54.2%), USF/Ost (54.5%), USF/OKW (53.3%), and even UKF/Ost (40%). Since we know that the vast majority of games were 3:0 (or close to that), it aligns my theory on even distribution. The better player always won, but over time, their wins with each faction/side balanced out.
So how do we get to 71.4% for Sov/Ost? Could the Sov player consistently be the better of the two? This is possible, but given the outcomes of the FOUR other match-ups, it's unlikely. I think it's much more likely that the 'worse' of the two players happened to win a few times due to game balance. |
No. If Soviets, or any other faction were OP, game 5 would always happen and the winner would always be Soviet. This was so far from that result that I would have a hard time believing it had it not happened. The results look like something you would expect from a Warcraft II tournament, where all of the factions were actually the same but had different skins.
The only other thing that was abnormal was how well the seedings actually matched the players. There were practically no upsets, with the biggest upset being the #5 seed beating the #4 seed. The finals were between the 1, 2, 3 and 5 seeds. Whoever ranked them was either really good or really lucky.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14xEZNFVV08mLTxAxXHoepNUijXY-Elciyxx8GTrcCb4/edit#gid=1975264398
That would assume Soviets had a 100% win rate - they don't, and no one is claiming that. They had a 54.2% win rate against OKW and 71.2% against OST.
I'm just pointing out that the Soviet vs. OST win rate is so much higher than any other matchup that they are OP beyond any reasonable doubt. If their win rate against OST was 55%, or even 60%, there would be a discussion to have. |
Looking at just the round of 32, the winner of the match won 48 out of 52 matches played (92%). If one faction was overperforming like you think, the win rate would have been 48 out of 80, (60%) and the winner of the coin toss would have picked Soviets every time. In the round of 16, the winner of the match won 83% of the games, again not anywhere near 60%. The quarter finals and semi-finals had a 86% win rate by the match victor, again not anywhere near 60%.
We're not looking at the win:loss of individual players, we're looking at factions and sides. Players having an 85%+ win rate is irrelevant, since even a 100% win rate (3:0) translates into a 66% side win rate.
This is why I pointed out the "worst case possible", since that's what the side win:loss ratio can realistically be, assuming that the coin flips were actually random (i.e. no incredible coincidences of the better player ALWAYS playing allies first).
/edit
Like I said, this would be a lot easier with the complete data of every match - winner, and faction selection. Right now it's a pretty incomplete picture with a lot of extrapolation. |
Button to deploy it permanently, removing the capability to decrew.
It now gains the same HP as a bunker and removes popcap.
+1
I think someone mentioned something like this before, but either way, it's a good idea.
Right now the Ambulance is balanced around risk:reward. You get an incredibly rewarding unit; mobile AoE healing and reinforcement, with the possibility of it being combined with an FRP, with the risk of it being incredibly fragile and fairly expensive. Giving the option to remove most of the risk (fragile) for most of the reward (mobile) seems fair.
|
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
