Not quite true on "better AI" part. Only way Pershing deals better than Tiger significantly(That we can see wiping squad much faster), is making tank shooting while moving all the time. (Thx to 75% modifier on move accuracy)
accuracy does not make a big difference, it is the scatter that does.
right now 240mm arty freindly fire damage is same as Arty railway. It is too risky to pushing while using 240mm ( being doomed by your whole shell). So NO
New 240mm arty form can have more friendly fire dmg, not current one.
There's a statistical difference because worse players are included. That's the reason.
The "top 200" stat is better because it doesn't include unskilled players muddying the results. I'm not sure why there's a necessity that it "favours a specific faction" before realising that this is a bad thing.
In order for that to happen the "worse" player would have to favor OKW in this case.
You also have to keep in mind that what you call "worse" player are not actually bad player.
In addition top "200" does not mean the same thing for each faction since there is a big difference in the number of player for each faction.
Finally keep in mind that the large the number of games the better the results.
I only used Panther's AOE profile as an example of a TD profile. You can use Jackson, Firefly, SU85. Doesn't really matter. I used Panther because it's an Axis tank and it's in OKW.
About the "price" argument. I mean, elefant is also pricey but it's not anywhere close to being Jagdtiger level in AI with it's cannon (0.5 AOE).
And if you do want to compare it to the Panthers... jagd can snipe models from a distance. 70 range. Doesn't really have to change any shells or anything, and has the ability to really put the hurt on fleshy peeps. Sure it's not HE ISU152, but still decent enough, considering the 300/500 damage/penetration.
Yeah, ISU has deflection damage but even though it's not as punishing, considering the usual values of HP are somewhat in a hexadecimal system (base 16 --> 160). The 120 damage means --> 120/16 = 7.5 --> 8 "hits".
Still, better than 0, especially if the tank is low and has been snared, I agree.
Well I've broadly classified is a semi-wipe machine. Definitely not as wipe-y as werfer or stuka but has that other bonus then... the duration.
Stuka lands and that's it. If you were unlucky enough or the stuka player "guessed" where you would dodge or something like that... Goodnight. Katyusha doesn't have that, but then again, has the "if you don't retreat from this position, you will suffer". If you're unlucky enough to be in smack center of the area, then you can't really dodge anything. Radial symmetry forbids you, so you retreat.
That's my take on the rocket arty.
Point is. It's stock. Displacing anything from the elefant/jagd is not easy if you don't have katyusha or DOCTRINAL calliope/LM. USF suffers here the most. I mostly play USF in competitive and I know first hand how cancerous it is to play against a good OKW opponent. Early game kubel with double spios can easily lock you out on most 3v3 maps and then late game KT or Jagd or both with obers and a stuka is super cancerous to play against. Similar on how cancerous it is to play vs HE ISU152.
You're minding your own business, capping a point uncontested with a squad. Boom, it's wiped from 100 range by a jagd (supporting fire is, according to seralia, 25-125 although I've never actually seen anyone shoot from 125 range). Lost countless rangers to one jagd shot. Especially as the late game terrain is quite crater-y and the squads tend to bunch up in one crater, allowing easy wipes. And if it's not wiped by the supporting fire, a direct hit will take a hefty amount of HP. Again, not ISU152 levels, but definitely not something to ignore.
EDIT: Now that I think of it. I'm dumb. I should have compared it directly to elefant AOE profile only and avoid any confusion. My bad.
Taking about AOE without taking into account scatter does not really say much.
I suggest you play a game using the autofire of the JT to fire on infatry and see how many you can kill or asking MMX to run a simulation for you.
Why bother pointing it out if it isnt useful data? Why bother pointing it out if you're apparently not of the belief that it should be taken into account?
Because it demonstrates there a big statistical difference and one should be careful on how to interoperate the numbers.
It seem that when the number of games is low certain player can have an impact on the numbers.
At no stage have I mentioned it benefiting a specific faction. What including worse players' games in the data does is muddy results and make analysis less meaningful, which is what was explained. If there is a problem with the raw total number of games being assessed; the solution is not to cast your net wider and start using irrelevant games' data.
The data is altered because the outcome of games is less dependent on the stronger faction winning, but on the stronger player winning, as player skill is clearly far too varied in your larger sample for the differences in strength between factions to be as apparent.
This analysis doesn't have anything to do with the idea of including worse players' games in the data, he's doing quite the opposite: Advocating that the system be refined to include only the top percentage of players in each faction, while stating that this has the problem of reducing the number of data points further, and imbalancing the number of potential players of each faction who are eligible for assessment.
If in your opinion does not favor a specific faction you have little reason to claim that one set of stat is better than other especially since the number of games is much large in the second cases.
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?
I am not advocating anything. I simply pointing out a statistical difference.
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.
And you have not produced any explanation how what you describe would benefit a specific faction and alter the win rates when there are 15k games.
Now read what the person doing the analysis has to says:
That match would not be counted. If they are 2at team only their 2v2 games against top 200 plyaers would be counted.
wehr - 3371
brit - 1602
I think we would end up with even less matches. With the current calculation for the top 200, there is only ~12 brit games per day, which is way to low. Even week stat for this would be just 84 games which is not enough... I can see the stats to "stabilize" around 200 games at least.
But let's take a look, if we would take top 10% of players:
That's 160 positions of brits VS 330 positions of wehr.
Hm is there a difference in a skill? I can't really tell. For example if player ranked 160 would play against 330 ?
I am personally around rank 1k - level 10 . When I play against people 1k+ , even just few ranks worse, or level worse. I totally stomp them or usually have no problem winning. But when I play against people from top ~500 I can feel the difference immediately, sometimes someone plays really weird but usually I can feel that those players are on a completely different level them me. Would that be a case in 160 vs 330 player? Or is that more or less on a same level already?
Btw the more I think about it. It makes sense to have it based on the % in the ladder. However it would require way more work. I don't have full ladders, I would need to do additional development of lot of things.
Also another question if we applied different amount of people from each faction - it would affect the amount of games and the statistics what race is more played would be biased but on the other hand we already know this from the ladders. Hm...???
But let's say we want to have it as %, what the number should be?
1v1 - brit - 1450
1v1 - wer - 3158
1v1 - wgen - 2711
1v1 - usf - 1887
1v1 - soviet - 3158
For 2v2
2v2 - brit - 2440
2v2 - wer - 4321
2v2 - wgen - 3852
2v2 - usf - 2504
2v2 - soviet - 3757
team2 - allies - 8097
team2 - axis - 8148
Obviously we would need different values for arranged and random teams, because if we applied the same % it would be completely different amount of people which would be counted in.
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.....
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.
The stat are different weather uses this choice or not and the number of games less.
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).
I have no idea why you call them polluted.
Actually the Top games are probably more polluted since UKF player probably have inflated level since there fewer games with that faction.
The actual games with UKF are significantly lower than other factions and bellow 1.000
In addition UKF probably are doing fine vs OKW which would explain the difference in win rates between the 2 categories.
The 1vs1 stats support my argument tbh. Ost and Sov best, Usf is good, Okw mediocre and Brits are just bad.
The 4vs4 stats are easy to explain.
1. Axis tank roster is way easier to use than that of the Allies. Using Elefant or Jagdtiger requires way less micro and team coordination. On the other side Allies have to play as a team to counter these units. Similar to the old ISU in 2vs2 where you had to play our of your mind to beat this shit unit. Most of the maps favor range compared to speed too.
2. USF and Brits lack some tools like stock Rocket Arty. Thats why in my opinion both factions should have Calliope and Land Mattress as stock units.
If one look at all stat instead of top "200" which included many more games they paint a completely different picture.
Win rates for OKW are about equal to those of UKF in 1vs1.
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
