Profile of Siphon X.

What?! Tank Hunter Tactics is actually in the meta? Is there any place where I can find all casts of that tournament?

For WPC:
The biggest chunk here in the replay section. The ones for the finals are listed here, for earlier rounds a list is here. However, the replay section also contains several replays that are listed in neither thread.

Some can also be found in the in this section of the offical forums.

For TT:
Most are listed here but there are a few in the replay section that are not in the thread.

although the sample is quite small I think it is interesting that double Soviet or double Ostheer seem to be doing bad indicating that faction have good synergy...

Well, the "double x" counts are pretty low, so we're on shaky ground here.

If we add the results for this tourney and the NMC cup (yes, different patches and different commanders, but the basic faction design wasn't changed), we get this:



so the win percentages for single faction teams are lower than for mixed factions (given the low sample counts this has to be taken with a truckload of salt; USF/USF has only two games, the difference between OH/OH and OKW/OKW on one hand and OH/OKW on the other isn't significant, same for UKF/UKF and SOV/UKF; the only faction were this is close to significant SOV/SOV).

If we compute winrates for all mixed teams, we get about 53% while single factions teams end up at 37%. Again, no rock solid proof, but some hint that single faction teams might be weaker.

So USF was theleast played faction yet had the highest winrate.

while

Whermacht was the most played faction with the lowest winrate? Correct me if I am wrong.


Was this because of the callin meta(pershing, callie, m10)? I haven't watched any of the games.

Well, due to there only being two axis factions, it is no surprise that one of them ended up being the most played faction.

I should have noted that while I didn't include confidence intervals, they ended up being 5% or more for all factions so that the confidence interval in all cases covered the 50% mark (with the exception of OH, which was slightly below that).

But yeah, in particular USF+x was somewhat more successful than SOV+UKF.

That said, this is just data for 58 games so this at best is one data point and not an authoritative statement of the 2v2 faction balance. In comparison, the WPC series or ESL stats included more than 3 and 8 times as many games, respectively; and that was for 1v1 without effects of faction synergies and so on. If the same trend shows up consistently in upcoming tourneys, the numbers might be considered more reliable .

Thanks for the reply.

I don't play 1v1 often. Yet, to me it seems that Penals are already okish-balanced for 1v1 purpose. Except for the flamer for certain maps.

[...] In teamgames, the high-reward part stays, because you have flamers on a fast-moving 6-man squad. [...] With respect to risk, that goes out of the window.

Ok, I see. I can't comment much on teamgames, but risk mitigation via teammate works for more than SOV-T1 (most prominently OKW BGHQ/Mech.-Reg.). And I think that's a good thing, because it requires some cooperation between the players.

I don't think it's a good idea to keep the flamethrower in its current form:
- Good long-range dps (SVT)
- Good short-range dps (flamer)
- Ability to engage enemies regardless of cover (oorah! + flamer)

Well, you could leave the flamer and replace oorah with a token vet 1 ability ("trip wire flares" would make matters very consistent , or maybe OHs new-and-improved medkits).

Brainstorm-esque idea to nerf them would also be to make it so you can half only two on the field so you have to supplement your infantry with conscripts (not sure if that's implementable for buildable units).

If you go with PTRS, is the nerf against infantry on the weapon or the penals? Like, does it matter if I pick up a guard or penal PTRS or would they perform the same? If they are not the same, maybe you can name the penals version "PTRD" (same model and everything)? That would make both weapons distinguishable and makes a little bit of sense historically...

It's really great that that you put so much effort in communicating the thoughts behind the changes. I have a couple of questions/remarks, if you don't mind:

1. Keep Penals OP, as they are. Thus, a T1 investment will be worth it. The only issue is which gamemode you balance this opportunity cost to?

Because you allude to gamemode: Are they considered OP in all gamemodes? Asking because while they clearly see more use nowadays, it's not like everybody is going for a T1 start, far from that. Yes, commanders that provide some means of light AT seem to be used predominantly, but it doesn't seem like penals overshadow everything else...

A question regarding the risk-reward thing, just so I'm on the same page there: What I think the idea is that a player picks a risk by going for penals. He has to be fairly aggressive with them, push other units off the field. If he manages to do so, he is ahead and probably can bring out his first T3 unit before the other player starts to have a significant impact with his LV (if he manages to field one). If he fails, he is confronted with a LV early and has to fall back on guards, partisans or even build T2. So, he is not out at that point, but at an disadvantage. Is that the same concept you have as well?

If so, this whole thing is about that you mean that it will no be possible to get to the sweet-spot in the balance to this risk/reward thing by tweaking the current penals a bit? Or did some other dynamic (re LVs?) change that required the further changes to penals?


Re: "The Soviet guy can always build T2 to get a Zis gun"
In your example you assume that somebody would build two penals before going T2. Why? Because the typical number of Penals seems to be more like 3, also typically augmented with an M3 or sniper...

Re: If Penals & Guards is the prescribed solution, how can PTRS Penals ever cause an issue? (in other words, what are you even complaining about?)

Valid point, but crossreading these comments I have the impression that the main issue is that once you settled for penals, there is nothing wrong in spamming them, because if things don't work out, you can transform them into whatever the situation requires.

Like, if somebody overcommits to penals now, the opponent can punish him by calling in a LV, to which you react by calling in e.g. guards which in turn costs popcap and manpower. With PTRS, one can simply turn one penal squad into a PTRS squad and be done with it. Similar to like if PGs would be available from OH T1.

Also, for guards at least you need to commit to a commander and buy a separate squad (granted, the "committing" part is not that hard since GMC overall is pretty good).

Re the part "I don't agree with the Anti-infantry direction of current Penals because..."
In the points below that one, most of your comments are along the line of Penals scaling too well. Also you say that the penals in v1.0 where perceived as too weak. Well, ok, in v1.0 it seems like penals received four nerfs: No flamers anymore, reduced accuracy at vet3, increased pop-cap and higher vet requirements. The first point I'd say is related to their impact on the game, the other three (arguably) relate to their scaling.

Later you address the point of "take away flamer". Now, I know that flamers on inf are a sensitive subject, but looking at this more pragmatically: When people say penals feel too weak, they likely mostly mean the missing flamethrower because early game we are not at vet3, regardless of the requirements. So, what would you expect to see if you left the flamer, but applied the other three nerfs? Like, this would not decrease the chance to get the reward, but would up the risk a bit, no? Also, this would make roving late game penal blobs less effective and more expensive...