Login

russian armor

GCS2 Barbarossa faction win rate

A_E
21 Jun 2018, 06:55 AM
#41
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2231 | Subs: 4

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.

Two Brit players spring to mind: Aimstrong and HelpingHans these two only used Brits in tournaments before this one, they no longer feel they can due to the Brit crutches being removed and the faction now being woefully underpowered, so they're playing USF and Soviets instead. These two players are the most successful tournament Brits players of all time... and they now won't play brits.

We may not be able to prove this due to the 'low sample size' but given hardly anyone is even going to play Brits any more you're kind of defending the balance by saying "oh look no one is playing them, so you can't prove they're underpowered....".

Come Citadel and 7 Brit games total, we'll see them go 1W 6D probably. Then maybe we can revisit how ridiculous anyone defending balance of Brits is in this thread.
21 Jun 2018, 06:57 AM
#42
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2837 | Subs: 1

The real question is the absence of stat, who trained and win consistently with Brit for GSC2, didn't see mainy people doing it. So maybe best players haven't find a way to make Brits competitive on 1vs1 or maybe the way doesn't exist.

1- Best players didn't pick brit and if they did, didn't win game except for once.
2- Challengers picked brit but couldn't win with vs other challengers or better players.
A_E
21 Jun 2018, 07:00 AM
#43
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2231 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 06:57 AMEsxile
The real question is the absence of stat, who trained and win consistently with Brit for GSC2, didn't see mainy people doing it. So maybe best players haven't find a way to make Brits competitive on 1vs1 or maybe the way doesn't exist.

1- Best players didn't pick brit and if they did, didn't win game except for once.
2- Challengers picked brit but couldn't win with vs other challengers or better players.


As said in my above point, people did train as Brits but they found them to be so woefully under-powered they refused to go them in the tournament.

The two main examples being Aimstrong and HelpingHans. Aimstrong got to number 1 Brits whilst training and HelpingHans is the most consistent Brits player in CoH2. Yet both now refuse to go Brits.

It's kind of stupid that people are saying no one trained Brits or because not enough people went Brits we can't know if they're underpowered. Kind of like saying "well doctor he's stopped breathing so he no longer has trouble breathing".
21 Jun 2018, 07:12 AM
#44
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2837 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 07:00 AMA_E


As said in my above point, people did train as Brits but they found them to be so woefully under-powered they refused to go them in the tournament.

The two main examples being Aimstrong and HelpingHans. Aimstrong got to number 1 Brits whilst training and HelpingHans is the most consistent Brits player in CoH2. Yet both now refuse to go Brits.

It's kind of stupid that people are saying no one trained Brits or because not enough people went Brits we can't know if they're underpowered. Kind of like saying "well doctor he's stopped breathing so he no longer has trouble breathing".


Hum, I'll say they did test Brit to see what could be done with them, but they definitively trained on other factions. Didn't watch Aimstrong but Hans trained on USF and Soviet, not Brit.
But this is mainly semantic discussion here.
21 Jun 2018, 07:40 AM
#45
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5055 | Subs: 19

The problem is more about that many people playing Wehrmacht. Okw vs brits are OK.
In 2vs2 to 4vs4 brits are strong vs okw. Atm there is really no fun to play OKW vs brits in 2vs2.
21 Jun 2018, 07:54 AM
#46
avatar of Stark

Posts: 589 | Subs: 1

Maybe those players should say why they didn't play brits???
A_E
21 Jun 2018, 08:16 AM
#47
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2231 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 07:54 AMStark
Maybe those players should say why they didn't play brits???


Hans said repeatedly on stream, he said he couldn't make them work and has had to lean on USF instead.

Aimstrong is in this thread on the first page being sarcastic and annoyed at the gradual nerfs, he is very much of the opinion Brits have been slowly nerfed into uselessness.

Hans has played nothing but Brits as Allies in tournaments for two years before this tournament most notably winning the final ESL EU Major.

Aimstrong played nothing but Brits as Allies in tournaments for three years before this tournament, most notably getting runner up in OCF.

I'm not suggesting that these players didn't use the crutches Brits needed to be successful, I'm saying that Brits are absolutely worthless at an elite level without those crutches.

You can deny these statistics all you like, you can pretend the two most successful Brits tournament players ever don't know what they're on about or were 'crutch' players. But quite frankly over the next few weeks the rest of the tournaments will further prove you wrong, and I'll ping this thread to remind you.
21 Jun 2018, 10:36 AM
#48
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1151

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jun 2018, 22:02 PMKatitof

Brits are pretty bad in team games as well - they were supposed to be allied late game faction, but that late game was removed from the game with last 3 community balance patches.
Like OKW. Nerfed vet, underperforming KT, Panther nerfs (before the latest adjustment), no caches. OKW went from good lategame to barely competitive. Both need a serious buff.
21 Jun 2018, 10:41 AM
#49
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15450 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 10:36 AMButcher
Like OKW. Nerfed vet, underperforming KT, Panther nerfs, no caches. OKW went from good lategame to barely competitive. Both need a serious buff.

OKW is pretty solid.
They do struggle a bit against HMGs in early game, but by the time you put down first truck, you'll do fine.
Don't bring up KT, because it was never a reliable unit, it used to be IWIN button which it should never be.

P4 and panther are solid.

KT was rarely used in competitive games and you know why is that?
Because just like with all other heavies in current meta, it'll be just vet feeder for TDs unless you dominate and its hardly KT fault, people say IS-2 is fine with its accuracy, then so is KT, without even needing a doctrine.

OKW went from batshit insane to balanced.
UKF was plain removed from the game above rank 1000 noob fests(which is why you still find players like ullumulu saying every single unit they have is stil op, if you can't play all units will be op against you).
21 Jun 2018, 11:07 AM
#50
avatar of swordfisch

Posts: 138

The problem is more about that many people playing Wehrmacht. Okw vs brits are OK.


1vs1 you would say OKW vs UKF is ok how? On larger maps I would say OKW have a slight edge with better lategame vet and tanks (comet and church are just vet bags for command panther and PIV).

But on close range maps where you can't rely on 6pdr like Semois brits struggle hard with the lack of snare. 5 volk into fast luch and puma (command panther doc usually too) is straight up nightmare fuel for brits to deal with, your WASP/AEC will have to deal with fausts behind every building, 6pdr is useless due to shot blockers and easily flanked by luch, tommies just constantly lose engagements due to inc nades and forced into retreats while volks can just in and out your nades in return.

Then there's the stats in this thread something like 7:1 i favor of OKW, and most of those games were played on brit friendly maps like crossing.

However I would agree in 2vs2 brits are stronger than they are in 1vs1, but only because you have crucially an ally with a snare, mortar and lategame arty to fix up your factional weaknesses.
21 Jun 2018, 11:55 AM
#51
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1055

Even in 4vs4 brits are decent now because this mod is arty spam were brits sux hard mortar pit is useless, land matres has short range and sexysexton do nothing if u ask me i suggest to rework sexton commander and delete that last abilty and add normal mortar then maybe buff sexton range and maybe make valentine cp4 and problem with indirect fire solved
21 Jun 2018, 12:35 PM
#52
avatar of siddolio

Posts: 470 | Subs: 1




in the absence of change like giving the british snare, flamethrower, and mortar I still believe it is possible to salvage the faction.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/70767/state-of-british-artillery

https://www.coh2.org/topic/70796/better-british-grenade-wp-and-rifle-grenade

the game files actually contain building block of a victor target for mortar.


The only way of making Brits good is adding new stuff, Relic always say no to adding new stuff or any wholesale changes to faction design. So the only other way to make Brits good is making them totally overperform in specific areas which just leads to section spam or crom spam or comet spam or vickers spam or whatever the unit that gets made op is spam.

There's a bunch of stuff you can give Brits that make them good without being totally obnoxious but it's just air if Relic don't want to change anything about the faction but unit values.
21 Jun 2018, 12:42 PM
#53
avatar of siddolio

Posts: 470 | Subs: 1

Also I've in the past played pretty much exclusively Brits as my allied tournament faction though thats mainly been 2v2 there's also been SCC and SMC and now i'm defaulting on USF and Soviets too.

Hans practised Brits a shit load and was just a constant stream of losing to Ostheer so he finally gave up, Aimstrong still plays Brits a bit on ladder and does way worse than with his Soviets.

At this point Brits dont do anything USF and Soviets dont do better/more efficiently throughout the course of a game. Brits have the lowest 'skill' ceiling of any faction, they're the simplest to play and easiest to counter because of that. They might be good in people's poo elo games where no one knows how to counterplay but in high level games its a no-brain shit faction.

After last patch they really arent the best way to counter OKW either, aslong as they dont have mainline snares (Section are 280mp and have garbage utility) you just get abused by luchs, last patch you could crutch on how broken Treadshot was or you could comeback into a game with Centaur wipes but both those units are pretty meh now.
21 Jun 2018, 13:06 PM
#54
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1055

I guess we can all agree that brits are not in the best position right now, what u say Ulumule viper or shadowlink ? Any ideas how to fix that ?
21 Jun 2018, 13:13 PM
#55
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8528 | Subs: 1

I guess we can all agree that brits are not in the best position right now, what u say Ulumule viper or shadowlink ? Any ideas how to fix that ?

Imo they need a redesigning.

The basis of that redesigning could be the anvil/hammer choice that could available for every tier giving the player different choices for his/her game play at different stages of the game.

Anvil could be more about defense and emplacement and anvil could be more about aggression and mobility.
A_E
21 Jun 2018, 13:40 PM
#56
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2231 | Subs: 4



The only way of making Brits good is adding new stuff, Relic always say no to adding new stuff or any wholesale changes to faction design. So the only other way to make Brits good is making them totally overperform in specific areas which just leads to section spam or crom spam or comet spam or vickers spam or whatever the unit that gets made op is spam.

There's a bunch of stuff you can give Brits that make them good without being totally obnoxious but it's just air if Relic don't want to change anything about the faction but unit values.


I agree that they need new stuff, but disagree that Relic aren't open to fundamentally adding new stuff.

Historically:

OKW were formally the worst faction in CoH2 from a design perspective... I mean they still are but they're now viable and palatable from a balance perspective due to the adding of the Panzer IV, the MG34, and the moving of schrecks to SPs. Before those three changes OKW were a shitstain, after that they're just a bit rubbish, but acceptable.
21 Jun 2018, 15:00 PM
#57
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3656 | Subs: 1

I guess we can all agree that brits are not in the best position right now, what u say Ulumule viper or shadowlink ? Any ideas how to fix that ?


? Why am I being asked about brits?
21 Jun 2018, 15:17 PM
#58
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 997 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 06:55 AMA_E
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.
21 Jun 2018, 15:21 PM
#59
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 997 | Subs: 2

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.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag Reto.GarGamel
  • The British Forces flag °NOOBMarkov.-
uploaded by Augustine

Board Info

277 users are online: 2 members and 275 guests
VonIvan, Panther
144 posts in the last 24h
941 posts in the last week
4347 posts in the last month
Registered members: 24643
Welcome our newest member, tadalista20online
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM