Relic defines Ost, Okw, UKF, and Usf as factions that are part of the game. There are more than two factions. Arguing about the terminology of the word faction is irrelevant schematics.
So yeah, Ost and Okw are the most played factions by far. Fact supported by stats.
I don't know what you are talking about and why you bring a terminology discussion into this.
OST and OKW are the most played factions because there are only two to pick from. Allied faction picks dilute out over three factions and are therefore less per faction. That's not an advanced concept, and that's all I said. |
Total number of players not that relevent since in order of a game to count the player must be above ranked 200 in 4vs4 with specific factions.
It is, because fewer players also means fewer good players. Top200 is probably not good enough to have a similar skill level across all factions, at least 1v1 data indicates that.
I was talking about Soviets Top200 in 4vs4 which are played as often as OKW and almost as often as Ostheer, way more than USF/UKF.
Soviets about 10.600 ranked players
OKW about 10.400 ranked players
Ostheer about 11.700 ranked players
I would assume that there shouldn't be a difference between the Top200 of this three factions. this argument can be applied partly to UKF/USF maybe which only have a ladder about 7100-7600 ranked players.
I just realized I did not refresh for the last page at some, but still: on these leaderboards I see approx 7-8k for USF and UKF, 10k Soviets and 10-11 for the Axis factions each.
It still means that Axis win rate should be slightly higher because you win against "lower skill" USF and UKF factions. This is not 1v1, as Allies you will get lower skill USF/UKF players more frequently because the pool of better players is smaller.
What are those numbers? I see 439 and 506 games for Soviets, so this is slightly below 1000 games in two month. You can't calculate how many games you really had in total, because you don't know how many Soviets were in that games that lost or won together.
The total winrate in both month at average is 41,8%
These are the number of games that were played in total. I would be careful with counting on a per faction basis in team games since this assumes that the win rates are independent of each other, which is not the case. Your sample size is the number of games in total, not the number of times of picks for a faction, because the win/loss condition is chosen on a game level and not on an individual faction level.
|
Also both OST and OKW are the most played factions, easy showing that the balance in 4on4 is totally axis dominated. Are people still arguing they're the most played faction because they have the cooler tanks? No, they're just waaaaaaaay more fun to play with, and way less stressful.
They are the most played factions because there are only two... |
|
I would be really careful with reading too much from these statistics.
With the aggregated data of the second month in, you can see how hugely the win rates fluctuate. +/- 5% in 4v4 is apparently easily possible. Especially if you have a look at game count and which factions are played. You'd need a really, really good reasoning to deduce something from that kind of data. And on top of all this, if we really assume that factions with smaller playerbase are in general also of lower skill, Axis should have a win rate of slightly above 50%. However for 4v4 ladder population seems fairly even, on OKW has more players than the others.
Given all this, 3v3 win rates look fairly even in both months, I'd say we really need more months to draw any conclusions. |
Thread: RK 43 5 May 2021, 16:27 PM
Regarding the 57mm ATG, I'd rather get rid of the take aim ability and either replace it by some other utility, or just flat out change it to a vet bonus for penetration and/or reload. The problem with this ability is that it only makes sense with HVAP rounds, otherwise you'll just likely bounce, but now on range 70 instead of 60.
The overall vet reload bonus of the 57mm could go up to -50% (most of its delays are wind up times compared to other ATGs, a bonus of 50% is similar to a 30% bonus for other ATGs). Barring though that a double ATG should not outright delete mediums. However other ATGs get big bonusses as well, this would simply keep some of the ROF advantage that the 57mm has. At this point the HVAP rounds could maybe get a slight readjustment to give less pen, but also cost less. |
to be fair the only time this would really be a concern, if anyone was dumb enough to charge an mg head through it's arch head on. And if one suddenly find them self in front of an AI tank. In both cases Any amount of defense vs these is sort of pointless.
It is true for the Grenadier LMG as well, and also for pintle MGs which almost ignore Shock armor. The Grenadier squad does about 3-6% more damage (on most ranges) than it otherwise would if the LMG42 had a penetration value of 1. Obersoldaten show similar behaviour. It's not huge, that's why I made it a side note, but overall still worth mentioning. |
Thread: RK 43 5 May 2021, 15:34 PM
You are comparing only penetration when M1 has other benefits over other ATG like:
33% Wider arc
28% faster weapon rotation
Higher speed
lower scatter angle
a second ability for extra range and sight.
Yes, because I was responding to someone that was talking about penetration only.
The 57mm has other perks. However I am not sure about the higher speed and weapon rotation, I thought they were normed at vet0? At least serealia shows they were, is that wrong?
Unfortunately it also loses one of its main advantages, the higher ROF, with vet. |
Yeah, but with LMGs you generally fight shocks at far range with pen of 1, which is the same as other small arms. HMGs on the other hand care a little bit more that none at all about their armor, especially hmg42.
At exactly range 35 it has 1 penetration, but no fight is fought at perfectly long range. It goes up to 1.1 at range 28, which is still a good range for the LMG42.
An LMG at range 28 shooting at "normal" infantry has a DPS of 8.9. When shooting Shocks, the DPS goes down to 6.5 as opposed to 5.9 when just applying the armor and not caring about penetration. In general, the LMG drops "only" to about 75-77% damage instead of the expected 67%. This is obviously only the LMG and not the other 3 dudes with their Kars, so I assume the overall benefit of the penetration increase is a couple of percent. |
Technically Comet, Churchill and KV series are not true heavies because you can field more than 1. Cost is not in the 200+ fuel range either. Add ISU-152 as a true heavy. Pershing is a fake heavy because it has the same stats as Panther but with the gun of a Tiger but its very mobile for a 'heavy' so theres that.
That was unclear wording on my part. What I meant was heavily armored and durable, not heavy in the sense of a "heavy tank" like Tiger, IS and the lot. Axis have options to fight durable Allied tanks, therefore they could probably effectively deter a durable EZ8, thus it might not be a balance issue to design the EZ8 as a durable tank. That was the point I was trying to make. |
There isn't too much difference between vet3 shocks and vet3 6 man ass grens.
Ass grens have around 10% lower dps and around 11% lower defenses (shocks have 66% to be dealt damage with 83% chance to be hit which is around 44.4% to avoid damage, while 6 man ass grens have 40% chance to avoid damage)
@Zero that is good to know. Thank you. I was not aware of these stats
Shock troops have about 14% better EHP and DPS on close range, they are a decent bit better in raw combat. Assault grenadiers have (my opinion) the better nade though and also bleed you a tiny bit less.
And on a small side note: Some weapons like HMGs and LMGs have increased penetration. Depending on your opponent, the Shock troop armor is worth less than calculated in a "standard" formula.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
