My assumption that the average Brit player is worse than the average player at the same rank with other factions is not based on any stat but rather 5 years of "how dafuq is this dude top x with brits"
A playercard with lets say top50 Brit rank and top300 with every other faction is alot more common than similiar distributions with other faction.
But allies do have a slightly negative WR or am i missing something?
Yes, but the most likely reason for this is that Brits are not played as much, so it is easier to get to a higher level than with other factions. This is probably not true for rank 1-20, but likely for rank 100-200.
Since USF ladder at the moment does not seem to be THAT much more populated, I would assume we should see a similar effect.
The last point was mentally uncoupled from your statement and more generally meant. Since Allies have more factions, they have on average a lower skill for the same rank since good players "dilute" or simply do not play all factions all the time. I don't mean the top 20 that play every faction, but the top 150 player that does not "train" all his factions equally and might not even play some at all.
By far and large, I'd also say that Allied win rates are slightly below 50%.
You can use stats as an indicator but should not balance around it.
You have to keep in mind that the Brit stats are kinda scuffed since the average top200 Brit player is significantly worse than the average top200 with every other faction which leads to a negative winrate by default.
I agree, however USF 1v1 leaderboard is populated with only 1800 players (1400 for UKF) at the moment, yet USF has a ~50% win rate while UKF does not. We don't know how big the effect of +400 players is, but I assume it is not +8% WR. We should wait for a second month of data at least to check what is going on.
Also, this argument should (generally speaking) lead to Allies having slight less than 50% WR by default.
I'd like to open up the topic of G43 upgrades on OST infantry:
Currently, they do not provide much bonus.
Graphs:
I focus mostly on the DPS/POP, since I think this metric is worth a little bit more than the raw values. All numbers are late game (fully vetted). Bear in mind that the graphs neglect abilities.
Grenadiers:
- LMG Grens have a very flat DPS curve. Currently they function fine. I'd use this as benchmark to assess other upgrades
- The new VSL upgrade trades their DPS on the long range for a tiny nudge in short range DPS and obviously a good chunk of EHP bonus. I think this is fine, too.
- G43 upgrades give a good boost to close range DPS, but lose heavily from mid to long. It looks like a more emphasized curve of the VSL upgrade, but without getting as much EHP for it.
- I'll include the "power" metric, although it is still under both construction and debate. HP was slightly weighted according to what I saw so far works decently well. VSL upgrade is still pretty strong, although the LMG has its niche when looking at the power/POP graph. I think this is how it should roughly be. G43 Grens really suck in this metric though. They do not get enough DPS to counter the EHP advantage of the VSL upgrade. It is a slightly more aggressive unit, but overall still a worse one.
I'll predict here and now that the current changes are not enough. Long range DPS is worth more than short range DPS. G43s force me to close in with a relatively squishy squad. They have some advantages such as moving DPS, but I doubt it is really worth it when I have to assume that I lose 1-2 models already on the approach.
PGrens:
- I know some people like them. They were also used in previous tourneys, but I can't remember when I saw them last in the competitive scene. Personally, I also found them underwhelming. They are supposed to specialize PGrens at all ranges and add more DPS long range. But their DPS only gets better on the last 5-7 meters. Even if we include moving DPS, it is still the same. Standard PGrens win big on closer ranges.
- Power-wise the same thing: Less DPS, same EHP (or did I forget something) -> less power.
There is just no good reason to get G43s on PGrens. You just pay mun, gimp their DPS on almost all ranges while giving... interrogation? Really? That's probably the most expensive ability unlock there is.
If they are supposed to be all range specialists with good moving DPS, they need better long range DPS. Or the StG needs a more refined profile to have higher short-mid DPS while decreasing faster on the long range. Otherwise they won't have a niche.
I actually meant 3+1 and 1+3 as a term of how many weapons a squad gets (3xG43 as opposed to 1xLMG).
I'll sum the rest up so that we don't loose ourselves in too many details.:
The number of weapons a squad gets determines how much thought you need to put into closing in. If all models are upgraded, each lost model hurts more. That's why most SMG (/close range in general) squads are fully kitted or at least have a large number of weapons: So that you are forced to think about when to close in or not. Those units usually get some type of defensive ability like a smoke or camo. If most of your damage is concentrated on few models, then there is less thought necessary for choosing the moment to push. Those units have to work via "brute force" and generally do not get defensive abilities (Rifles, Volks, Rangers).
Another general design point is long range units having concentrated DPS so that it is harder to take them out of a fortified position by slugging it out.
The number of weapons and the number of high value and low value models is therefore more a function of "how do I need/want to use the squad", so design and balance. Not of "unit A has 2 upgraded weapons, unit B also needs 2 weapons".
There is no reason for G43 Grens to have exactly 3 G43s. But there is also no inherent reason for them not to. It depends on how we want to see the squad designed and balanced. But this has nothing to do with "squad X also gets two weapons with the upgrade". If we can create a balanced 3xG43 Grenadier squad, there is no reason not to. It would at least add something a bit more special to the upgrade compared to every other squad that uses either 2 or 4 weapons.
If I can make a recommendation regarding visualization:
Top graphs, you currently show "games played" with total wins/losses on the left and win ratio on the right. The way you display it is suboptimal.
Reason:
Left graph is a vertical bar graph, right graph is horizontal with reversed Y-axis. This makes it impossible to intuitively relate both graphs. At the very least, you should reverse the Y-axis of the right graph (or X-axis on the left). This way, if you mentally turn one graph by 90°, the factions line up (left faction in left graph then corresponds to top faction in right graph).
My recommandation though is:
- option 1: make both graphs either horizontal or vertical with factions lining up
- option 2 (preference): merge into one graph, with win rate plotted as a line plot on a secondary Y-axis
Further points:
- color of wins should be blue and not green -> helps red/green blind people
- more colors overall: You currently have three types of blue and red each. You could use a color gradient or simply a "boring" gray scale for commanders and intel bulletins that have a huge number of entries.
- you could think about including unused intel bulletins and display them a "0". Currently they are kicked out if not used. I am not sure myself about this one, just as a thought.
- some way to deal with unevenly populated ladders would be nice. Soviet and OST top players are probably better than UKF and USF/OKW because there are more people playing it. Probably not true for the top 20, but at some point the skill disparity will be bigger for the same "rank".
"wish list":
- implementation of the "general" page. What would be super duper dope is line plot showing faction win rate over all modes
- some statistical data: for example, you could show the win rates of the last 2-4 weeks/months as a standard deviation to give an impression of how much the win rates "naturally" change between data sets.
And while I am on this:
How do you intend to deal with patches? They will change balance and therefore win rates and might come out mid-week and mid-month. Will there be a possibility to select only "current patch data"? It's not the highest priority, but might be helpful to more quickly assess how much balance has changed. Also it would be helpful to aggregate more games for better data.
One can balance a unit with changing the number of weapons, that is my point.
The number of weapon affect the behavior of unit when they lose models.
It is good for squad with low entity count to keep the number of weapons low to reduce the DPS drop off when model die. This is part of the reason Commandos are easier to use to than MP-40 ST.
Using 3+1 weapon basically make the unit's DPS profile complicated with no real benefit.
A 3+1 profile is not 'more complicated' than a 2+2 or 1+3. As long as you tell the player that the squad will take significant DPS hits when the third model dies it is fine. Knowing when to retreat and when to keep the squad in a fight, when closing in is worth it and when not is part of properly playing the game.
Having units behave differently is crucial to keeping diversity in fights. Standardizing all of it makes them more boring.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
