Why is no resource cache not viewed as asymmetric balance? I keep asking for more non doc tools for USF as well but keep being told its asymmetric balance. In fact, like you said, OKW no longer has the original design they did on wfa release, resource starved, late war faction. So if thats not the case anymore, isnt that more support evidence they dont need caches?
I mean, this "feature" - let's just call it that way - can 100% be implemented as asymmetric balance. I'll phrase it in a very general way now since there otherwise is no way to get it right:
The only question is how much can the CoH2 community afford. Getting asymmetric balance right is difficult and requires a lot of changes, surveillance of the meta and therefore work/manpower. We have a team of community patchers and testers that have - although being very dedicated - limited resources. At this point every change has be be checked if it is really worth it. The current status quo is very well playable, large changes are risky.
I don't know what exactly you are asking for for USF. If it is say non-doc Calliope, this might be a big change since it fills a whole in the rooster of USF that is at least partially filled with other units (like HE Sherman, Scott, Howitzer etc). Adding the Calliope non-doc would need a rebalance of all these other stock units so that USF does not become OP. Additionally, this is true for all modes.
So, is it worth it adding the Calliope? USF will get better, less dependent on commanders, but potentially OP. And we might not have the time to patch it back properly.
What has happened for the most part now is instead of depriving factions from core mechanics handing out OP ones to make up for it (see UKF snare, OKW healing accessibility, USF tech rework etc), they get most/all of the tools but with different mechanics to keep some form of flavour. Is that better flavour-wise? No, surely not. But way easier to balance with limited resources. So overall likely a benefit for the game.
Coming back to caches:
Resource starvation was one form of asymmetry, OKW had salvage but it is not working very well. The balancing is done mostly towards 1v1 and a bit of 2v2, in these modes caches are non existant/not as important. This topic only targets 3v3+, and here only the random ones. Premades can communicate better who build a cache and when, and most importantly make sure they have at least one OST player. Randoms can't, that was my whole point. And due to restriction in map design leading to resource inflation, team games are heavily decided by who can generate more of those. So no, I would not say that OKW becoming standardized towards performance in 1v1/2v2 is good evidence that they don't need caches in 3v3+.
We've already established correct number, I was going by the hp amount it had prior to this change.
No need to vipper around, Hannibal.
All good, just wanted to make sure you have established it for yourself as well so that we are all talking about the current version on the game, not 2018
OKWs general feature of being resource starved is gone. All their abilities and units (including the KT) have since been rebalanced to match their cost and their counterparts of other factions. All those abilities you mention are not comparable to the -25%(? I forgot already, too long ago) resource debuff they got previously.
The core faction of OKW has become very standardized, with some faction gimmicks just like every other faction. But they are far from the original design of resource starvation. While salvage is not useless, it is far from being really useful to generate enough additional income. You'll probably not be able to salvage more than 2-4 wrecks at the very best in a normal game, since not all of them are recoverable.
The early aquisition of OKW tanks does not cause issues, at least there is no reason to believe so. As I already said, OKW tanks have been balanced to their cost already compared to the other factions. Premade teams buils caches and there are no issues, I personally have not seen issues in game and I can't remember when the last serious complaint was that OKW tanks come way too early in team games. I can't even remember the last non-serious one.
Regarding the random teams:
You are missing the point. I have never said that random games will ALWAYS be balanced, what I said is that we could remove one additional layer of pure chance when there is no reason to keep it. If you play OKW, there is a decent chance that there will be no caches. Even if the matchmaking algorithm worked perfectly and you got a balanced match, you are at disadvantage by default. This is completely different from being screwed over by matchmaking because the community is small. Using random matchmaking as an argument is not adding anything to the topic. If it was then there would be no reason to simply delete units from time to time in random games, because accordingly that is what people want from these games or at least what they sign up to: total randomness.
But playing random is not about randomness. It is about having a match that is as fair as possible, with all restraints given the match making system.
The intended role of the tank - damage sponge/break through tank with weak ass gun.
It has the same effective health as Panther.
Lower health and damage reduction are there to make repairing it faster.
Its all balanced if you actually understand what stats it has and why they are thee.
We all know the intended role of the tank.
But just because stats fit the role doesn't automatically mean the unit was balanced
Why don't you have a look at weapons report and the formula it uses?
Because 1. my import into the table program is screwed up completely, but also this formula is super convoluted and 2. I have reason to believe that this 0,125 "jitter"/correction times between different phases exist which will behave differently between weapons. And even only a quarter of a second makes a decent difference if the whole shot cycle is only 3-5 seconds long. At least enough that a lot of the balance discussion revolving around DPS will still stay false.
i wouldn't say useless, but surely they should be taken with a grain of salt. in the end, i guess only rigorous testing if and how stuff like the alleged frame limitations and rounding affect the true dps output in-game could give an answer to how accurate these formulae really are.
but given how difficult this can be even for relatively simple things like tank guns (where usually most of the variables are neither range dependent, nor randomized between min/max bounds), i'm afraid proper testing would be an enormous undertaking.
I specifically meant balancing discussions since those in parts often resolve around "unit A is 5-10% stronger than unit B". And if this seems to be the general error margin of Serealia than we can't really judge unless the difference is really big.
I did some tests yesterday, currently working on it. What I can say is that the current formula is 100% not correect, but I need some more testing and modding before I can make a decent statement. Give me maybe 1-2 weeks until I can work it out (if I can at all).
Well maybe that's it. But that would mean that the stats as shown there might be pretty useless to assess unit balance if we apparently get 7% difference.
Their near aim distance is set at 0 so I think you should be using mid values for cooldown, ready aim, and fire aim.
Thanks for the reply. Did not do the trick unfortunately.
This yields a DPS of 3,66, which in turn also does not correspond to the reference of Serealia neither at range 0 nor at range 25 (the intended mid range).
Given how values in CoH2 are generally calculated, I also would not assume that values that are both range dependent AND are randomly picked from an interval suddently "jump" once you cross a certain range. I personally would assume that the minimum and the maximum get calculated depending on range, and then a number between those is picked. However I have no data on this, so if anyone knows, it would be great to share that knowledge.
I'll reactivate this since I have a question that is not really worth opening a separate thread for, especially since there is a lot of discussion going on at the moment.
I am trying to recalculate the DPS of infantry. I have used the formula that is posted somewhere here as well as in Vipper's DPS guide from 2016 (see spoiler)
For the K98 of vet0 Grenadiers, Serealia gives a reference of 5,988 DPS at range 0.
When I calculate it however, I can't reproduce this.
For total damage, I use the following stats (see spoiler, all stats taken from Serealia; if there is only a range of values given I use the mean of the borders of the interval) and get to a value of 77,792 damage for a full cycle.
For the time needed for this full cycle, I get 12,1725 seconds using the values below. This overall brings me to a DPS of 6,39 which is almost 7% off the value given in Serealia.
At range 35 I get a value of 2,28 which is fairly close to 2,263 given in Serealia using the same formula.
Now, one oddity that I can't check at the moment is that Grens have a MIN of 5 and MAX of 6 for the reload frequency. From my understanding this means that they fire sometimes 6, sometimes 7 shots (i.e. 5/6 cooldowns) before reloading. Assuming that this is wrong and they'd always fire 7 shots (for whatever reason, a standard clip had 5 shots plus potentially one chambered), I am able to almost match the DPS at range 0, but applying this logic to range 35 will then yield a DPS value that is about 6% less than the reference on Serealia.
What am I doing wrong?
For reference, I'll give a short explanation of my calculations below:
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
