Not completely true. Well, if the games would have been played in a BO3 you would have a solid point. However, given that this is B05, it seems more tricky. I asked Sturmpanther about the how this actually was played out and if I understood correctly the way this worked was that the player that won the first two games had faction selection in the third match.
So, faction selection was not completely random, the better player typically would end up playing the faction that he would consider to be stronger.
If that's the case, then the WCS rule-set was ignored.
COIN TOSS AND FACTION SELECTION
For all stages of this tournament, the following will apply.
Game 1: Coin toss winner chooses who picks faction first.
(Players alternate Axis/Allies)
Game 2: Coin toss loser chooses who picks faction first.
(Players alternate Axis/Allies)
Game 3: Coin toss winner chooses who picks faction first.
(Players alternate Axis/Allies)
Game 4: Coin toss loser chooses who picks faction first.
Game 5: VP leader decides who picks faction and allies/axis first
It's also important to note that while the players had faction pick, they did not have 'side' pick until game 5; meaning players were always alternating between axis and allies every game (until game 5, where the leading player could chose to no longer alternate).
As EffenNewbie pointed out, "Game 5" only happened five times (1x R32, 2x R16, 2x finals); so that means 27 out of the 32 bracket games must have ended in a win-loss ratio of either 50:50, 66:33, or 33:66 axis:allies, where the player who was playing Axis/Allies was entirely random. In the case of a game 5, regardless of which side a player chose, the win:loss ratio must have been 60:40 for either axis or allies.
As a result of all this, the "worst possible case" (where the better player always played allies more) decreases, since we're now introducing 50:50 and 60:40 games into what was once exclusively a set of 66:33 games - meaning that Sov's win ratio against OST is now even higher than before over that "worst possible case".
For example, if 14 matches were 3:0, 13 matches were 3:1 and 5 matches were 3:2, and all matches went in favor of allies, the "worst possible case" goes down to 58.6:41.4, putting Sov 12.6% over what the maximum possible win:loss ratio is in a balanced game. There is simply no statistical way in which Sov did not over-perform vs ost; even when taking into account impossibly imbalanced matches and exceedingly unlikely coincidences in coin flips.
I'd be able to get a more accurate worst-case by knowing the outcomes (and faction picks) of every single match, but I haven't found that written down anywhere.
Only 4 out of 38 matches (10.5%) were closely split. This means that the selection bias is so strong that you can't look at win/loss and conclude anything about the factions. The results are skewed towards whichever faction the better player picks. Even in the cases where the worse player picked faction, it would have rarely helped them win.
The only conclusion that you could make out of this is that elite players don't choose UKF. I haven't noticed any of them commenting on this thread so everyone else is speculating.
10 times this. UKF, commander pick and unit usage. You can vouche for smaller balance changes but not this monstrosities some people are suggesting.
I discussed this before (on page 2), but even with the current vague stats, Sov are still dramatically over-performing vs. OST. This is supported by looking at the standard deviation from all the other faction win:loss rations as well as the statistical margin-of-error.
TL;DR, statistically, there's over a 99.99966% chance that Sov is over-performing, leaving just 0.00044% chance that the match-ups were so skewed in favor of one player that the win:loss data is irrelevant. There's also a 90% chance that UKF is UP vs OST (no data vs. OKW). The other match-ups were close enough to be within reasonable margins of error.
1. I don't think it needs to be removed, but it definately needs to be toned down. The combination of cheaper reinforcement, increased total HP pool, increased DPS (10-20%) from cover that Cons can build, AND 20% faster EXP gain is just too much. It needs to be much more comparable to UKF Bolster (just +1 model) or OST Veteran Squad Leader (+1 model, -1 weapon slot, +1 G43).
2. As far as I know it has 640hp, just like the P4s, M4A3, etc.
3. The T70 has been pretty heavily discussed in the other thread; it definitely needs adjustments.
4. Penal AT-Satchel hasn't been brought up, but it's an interesting topic. It's pretty strong, but the range is pretty small.
5. The IS2 has a speed of 5, the Panther has a speed of 6.6 - there's no way an IS2 can escape. That said, it's AI power and armor are both incredibly high, and likely needs adjustment. Again, this has been discussed in the other thread.
6. Likely because Sov has no late-game anti-blob solution, other than the Katyusha; compared to OST having both the Ostwind and Brumbarr.
7. Very unlikely to happen, since "large squads" are part of the Sov design flavor. Also, the 6-model squad size for the Maxim is partly required to offset the "death loop" issue.
8. All "60-Range" TDs need adjustments, this has been discussed in the other thread.
9. I agree, and I've brought this up too in the other thread. Many seem opposed to it.
7 men cons weren't a problem during testing phase why all of a sudden everybody finds them annoying?
They are op, but I'd like to know why the sudden change of opinion lately?
Likely they weren't being used to their full effectiveness. Most major patches recently have had public tests, but we've still gotten things like JLI and Falls.
Don't believe so. Unless it was changed in the last few years.
Close The Pocket gives vision around capture points of all types; I think it's about 25-30 vision range. That said, It'll only drop arty on units that are visible in the cut-off sector(s), so if you have vision from other sources on units far away from capture points, they'll be hit too.
Was a reason ever given for why the change was discarded? It seems the range part just never made it to the final patch (whereas the vet and sight did), which has happened in the past to both good and bad ideas.
TDs aren't getting any range nerf, you're a fly that bashes against a window, expecting to pass after just one more slam.
TD ranges have been changed many, many times over the years - just 3 months ago the JT was nerfed to 70 range, after being at 80 since release. There's no reason that the current ranges can't be changed.
I don't understand why the soviet player shouldn't be rewarded for keeping his conscripts alive till the late game especially when they drop like flies.
They require 10 fuel and mp for molotov
10 fuel and mp for at nade.
And then 50 ammo more for the 7 man upgrade. Why they shouldn't perform like they performing? After all this investment in a squad i see no reason why they shouldn't be able to hold their own. OST get free tech unlocks as they proceed. Okw get the same treatment. Volks can even salvage stuff. My point being this thread looks like a Christmas soviet nerf list which i hope balance team pays no heed.
It's a combination of resilience and MP cost. Vet 3, 7-man cons have a combined 560hp pool; that's a LOT of HP to deal with, especially with their decent vet and free/easily available green cover. Additionally, when in that self-built green cover, they're doing 10-20% more DPS, depending on range.
Having a powerful unit, if you've managed to keep them that long, is fair. The problem is, in that late-game state, even losing 6 out of the 7 models only means paying 102mp to reinforce the squad back to 100%. That's simply far too cost efficient for the amount of HP your able to put on the field, let alone the DPS.
Then, on top of that, if you manage to somehow lose that vet 3 squad, a new vet 0 squad pays 50muni for the upgrade, does 10-20% more DPS from their self-built green cover, AND gains vet 20% faster, giving you that lost vet 3 squad back incredibly quickly - and it's not costing a ton of MP to keep them reinforced.
You forgot about Eye of Sauron from OKW, cheap unit wich give you maphack and ability to see even cloaked units. Extremely usefull in late-game. Especially in pair with arty units.
If anything, that makes the late-game scaling of the Luchs/Puma even worse, since LOS is basically pointless. That said, the IRHT is a very, very broken unit (especially with the retreat bug) that never should've been in the game in the first place; at least, not in the current form (maybe convert it to true-sight?).
I understand your points, but as I've said, I think the T-70's late game utility scaling should be (should've been) the base line for all light vehicles. It rewards a player to keep their light vehicle alive and it creates very interesting scenarios in which killing a vet 3 T-70 could be more beneficial than killing a big tank. Other light vehicles should've gotten similar powerful late game utility scalability. Although the 222 isn't bad for sight and AA, and the Puma and AEC can help turn tank engagements with turret lock and mobility stun. And the Stuart... well it can at least swap a vet 3 vehicle crew into a new tank.
If anything, the T-70s bloated anti-infantry is its main problem (I think the Luchs is a much better design in regards of TTK, as it's powerful enough to force off squads and even wipe very late retreats, but isn't powerful enough to solo entire squads within seconds). But the Soviets need the T-70 as a crutch unit, as their mid game drops off quite steeply without it.
So, to summarize;
T-70 has bloated AI power
T-70 is a crutch unit, and is required so that Sov mid-game doesn't drop off steeply
T-70 scales better than any other LV
Vet 3 T-70 can be more beneficial than a big tank
and arguably
T-70 over-performed in WCS
T-70 is the strongest LV in the game
I don't see a lot of solutions here. If we nerf the AI power a bunch to bring it in-line with the Luchs (point 1), then sov mid-game drops off steeply (point 2). Meanwhile, at vet 3, it's bringing more power and/or utility than a much more expensive medium tank (point 3 + 4) - and it can get to vet 3 easily, because of its AI power (point 1). All of this results in it over performing, as per points 5 and 6.
We could buff other LVs to match the T70, but then we run into OKW's Luchs/Puma completely crushing USF/UKF, as well as the possible return of 444/666 - and it would also mean further power-creep, which I'm personally against. Furthermore, as we saw from WCS, OKW/OST vs. USF is close to balanced, and UKF's issues aren't from the LV matchup, so drastically reworking these units would likely cause more problems than it would fix.
Considering all those points, the only solutions I'm seeing are either reworking Sov's mid-game to not rely on the T70 (and then nerfing its AI power dramatically), or making the T70 only a temporary power-spike by making it scale much worse.
Odd statement, to be frank. Scaling because of utility is exactly how all light vehicles should have been designed, so they are still useful in the late game when they can't fight effectively anymore. The utility scaling of the T70 is great, and other light vehicles should've been designed like it (Puma and AEC are to some extend, with handy disable abilities to help fight enemy tanks). Not the other way around. Players should be rewarded for keeping their light vehicles alive, instead of being encouraged to send them off to die because they just take up popcap.
That's fine if that's the intention, and I'd prefer if this was the case. However, as it is in-game, most LVs simply don't provide utility to anywhere near the degree the T70 does by late game.
The 222's gets 65 LOS at vet 3 and 'Infantry Awareness' at vet 1. Note that 'Infantry Awareness' has 65 range, meaning it's only useful before vet 3, or for detecting past LOS-Blockers. It also costs muni, is a timed ability, and only shows units on the mini-map.
The Luch gets cloaking at Vet 1 and suppressing fire at Vet 5. Cloaking can be detected by infantry at 20 range, and by 'detector' units at 25 range. Vet 5 is also very rare to reach.
The Puma gains the 'Aimed Shot' Ability at Vet 1.
The M5A1 gets 60 LOS at vet 3.
The AEC gets Target Tread at vet 1.
The T70 gets 45 LOS at vet 3, 70 if in Recon mode, and can capture points.
I'd say the T70 is easily in the lead here, considering the important of LOS in late-game; and this is in addition to it being arguably the strongest LV in the game, so it's also providing combat power even against late-game infantry (unlike 222). Meanwhile the 222, Luchs and M5A1 are nearly useless in late-game, even with vet.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
