Profile of Hannibal

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3118 | Subs: 2

General Information


Thread: USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)12 Apr 2022, 15:15 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Apr 2022, 13:27 PMVipper No it not. Counter argument? Jump back to quoted post12 Apr 2022, 13:27 PMVipper USF win rates 1vs1: 53/47 vs okw 54/46 vs Ostheer Feel free to explain what in these number indicates that USF are "weak". October until yesterday yielded 52 and 53 for OST and OKW, respectively. Anyway, that's only one of the stats. The all stats for 2v2 and 3v3 is are very even. Do I cite the subpar win rate of 48% for USF and claim they were weak? No I don't, that would be wrong. If you're interested in my reasoning, please re-read the previous posts that I made. I have explained my reasoning on pathfinders in detail. Jump back to quoted post12 Apr 2022, 13:27 PMVipper And I have mostly posted about Pathfinder/Ambulance/Scott all brought by OP and the M1 mortar that imo contributes to issue/strategy. I have responded to what others have brought up in this thead and I have be moderated as "of topic", but if your opinion we should debate a core USF unit feel free to bring it up. Don't quote me on what I said and do not wrongfully imply stuff I did not say. I'll leave it at that, he said she said is not my style of discussing. Jump back to quoted post12 Apr 2022, 13:27 PMVipper Do Pathfinders vet too fast? Can Pathfinders be produced in numbers providing battlefield intelligence? Are Pathfinders able to despite their utility greatly replace mainline infantries in that role? In the end of the day do USF have better win-rates than AXis using Pathfinders than anything else so is that an indication that Pathfinder contribute more to those victories? Definitely paths can replace mainlines, that's what this meta build is all about. Does it make USF overpowered? No. To re-itereate: Airborne is a standard commander. Seeing it as a top loadout pick is to be expected in the "all" data. Win rates across all modes are roughly 50%. So either the commander and USF are both fine factions, or - assuming pathfinders are OP - USF has problems on its own. Commander loadout choices indicate a heavily biased loadout for USF, giving a hint it might actually be the latter option. The last sentence of yours is misinterpreting statistics though. You compare across modes, which by itself is not wrong, but you have to handle conclusions with way more care care. We have better point of reference: For 1v1 and 2v2, there are plenty of games if we filter on the top200. Mode specific effects are completely eliminated. So what do we see there? Airborne gets even more popular. Despite looking only at players that likely play a lot, invest more into the game and have more commanders available, they still pick one of the "free" ones, even more frequently than the players that have fewer options (in numbers: 1v1 18,8% of all USF players have airborne in the loadout, compared to 22,1% of top200 players. For 2v2, the numbers are 34,0% and 46,8%, respectively). So surely the win rate goes up, especially in 2v2, doesn't it? Nope. It doesn't. It stays the same, actually goes down a tiny bit although this might not be significant. Now, if pathfinder spam is OP - and it actually might be - then it seems to make USF perform similar to other factions. In this sense it would be OP compared to other options that USF have. Which has been my whole point since I entered this discussion: Pathfinders fix issues of core USF. For this reason, the strategy as a whole does not seem to be OP. Especially not in 2v2 which OP was discussing originally. USF win rate here is very close to 50% (50,5% and 50,2% for all and top200, respectively) while still relying heavily on pathfinders. If you nerf pathfinders without adjusting anything else, USF win rate will plummet, especially for 2v2. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)12 Apr 2022, 12:42 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Apr 2022, 09:34 AMVipper Not really UKF and USF have different issues. I am not going to argue weather USF as faction is UP or not, Airborne and Pathfinder are dominating the meta and they promoting a certain type of play and that is bad I mean it's a fairly easy equation. We know that airborne and paths are heavily used across all modes. If you assume that pathfinders are OP, yet USF has roughly 50% win rate, then this indicates that USF as a faction could be either weak or easy to exploit. Especially combined with other hints that we have. You were also arguing multiple times about core USF in this thread, so that ship has already sailed. I agree that the pathfinder spam is bad for the game, no doubt about that. But all data we have rather indicates that is a symptom of core USF, not that paths were OP. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)12 Apr 2022, 09:23 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Apr 2022, 22:40 PMVipper Either USF Faction is weak and can only win using airborne which mean that the commander is over performing resulting in high win rates while masking the balance issues. or USF is ok as faction and Airborne is OP. In both cases having limited meta is bad for the game. There are no high winrates for USF. They are pretty much 50%, slightly better in 1v1 and slightly worse in 4v4. We get ~50% WR while seeing heavily scewed commander selection, either for airborne only or a triad of commanders, depending on the mode. I've made those points in the previous post, so I won't repeat them again. It is no proof, but indication that the core faction is not sufficient for competitive play. Therefore, saying that USF generally does not struggle might be dismissive of what actually happens, because the win rates on which the argument is based are biased. This has been a long standing issue for both USF and UKF. Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection. (edited typo) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)11 Apr 2022, 22:30 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Apr 2022, 22:02 PMVipper Regardless if Pathfinder are a necessity or not it is bad for the game. (Same applies to Guard motor) What do you mean by "it"? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)11 Apr 2022, 18:00 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Apr 2022, 17:34 PMVipper You have the right to disagree, but all that is irrelevant to Pathfinder/Ambulance and no there are very few similarities between USF and Soviets. And USF have better win-rates than other allied factions both 1vs1 and 3vs3 so they do not seem to struggle. And once more flexible units allow players to "dictate the fight" easier. The main point that many make is not that USF struggles in all circumstances, but that the only way for them to not struggle is by choosing airborne. I think the only commander where we can see such a heavy bias in loadout is Soviet's Guard Motor commander. Axis commanders seem to be generally more diverse, only Jager Armour stands out for OST in 3v3 and 4v4. OKW commanders in loadout are probably the most equally distributed from all factions. I am not sure if I'd nail down Airborne as the only "fix" for USF, but the commander data is strongly biased for USF in all modes. What is notable though is that the rate of Airborne increases if you switch to the top200 while the win rate stays the similar, indicating that this doctrine might be required to stay competitive. On that point it would be interesting to know if Airborne is part of the free 4 commanders. If so, this effect would be quite exacerbated. Is there any site/post to look up the initial commanders for all factions? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)10 Apr 2022, 15:20 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Apr 2022, 15:03 PMSupport Sapper Ah, as infantry coy and tac support coy is mentioned. I'm very curious on why m1919 cost 70 ammo and 1 commander slot while still being like this Those two weapons are about 4-5% in DPS apart. I assume because you put it on a 5 men squad, allowing you to keep the weapon for longer in the fight while investing similar population. The commander slow also allows you to skip or heavily delay the weapon rack upgrade. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Fantabulous USF stats.9 Apr 2022, 16:38 PM Mate, you got the wrong stats. You're not showing March. And why only show one month when the site gives you the ability to select multiple months to pool more data? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The main problem with balance8 Apr 2022, 16:10 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2022, 13:23 PMEsxile But I never say anything about nerf, I always talked about economy. You're not primarily nerfing the unit by adding a cost to its repair you're nerfing the economy around heavy tank gameplay, the tank is there with the same value but you may have less around in return if you use it badly or if you opponent counter you wisely. The exemples you're presenting are already not about the unit but player's failure in assessing correctly the game and yes it exists but scarcely, honestly unless your opponent already has 2 TDs there isn't a valid reason to not call a heavy tank, now hopefully it's not a 100% win button like before but still you can't counter heavy tank by attrition while the heavy tank will itself wreck infantry and tank alike. What I mean here is the only real counter is to kill it, damaging it is never enough because repair time have been buffed, because the Tiger Ace can auto-repair and simply because once they're fielded they cost nothing more to maintain, while from the player less input required to perform and keep it alive. At the moment heavy tanks are seen in every game modes, so maybe not the elefant but tigers, kt, IS2, ISU etc... they all are suitable from 1vs1 to 4vs4. Every effect that is tied to the unit is a buff or nerf, regardless if it it directly influences its stats or something else. Changes in population costs and price are also considered nerfs and buffs despite them having no direct influence on the unit. Technically, the concept you mention has been implemented, although only at a very extreme level: The old tiger ace wrecked your economy to the point you'd either win or lose within the next minutes. At least at this extreme level it did not work out very well. At some smaller level? Probably. I'd extend this to all vehicles, but I also don't think that this is a system you can just put on top of the current economy and assume to have no major problems. The current game is heavily balanced around late game MP attrition, introducing other types of attrition would need a larger overhaul. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The main problem with balance8 Apr 2022, 13:00 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2022, 12:45 PMEsxile But they require twice the micro, their armor values don't stack and their penetration either. If you look at any tournament the majority of games have heavy tanks engagement because the moment they hit the field is also the moment players start losing concentration and APM, heavy tank unless really bad RNG let you absorb this reduction with high outcomes for a rather low level of input. If i'd make a suggestion it would be to make heavy tank reparation have a cost, like 100% repair costing something like 1/3 of the tank initial price. That's exactly the point. There's advantages and disadvantages for both. I've seen players in game and in tournaments throwing because they got a heavy. Sometimes because they stalled too long for it, sometimes because it just wasn't a good choice. It's an inherent issue of CoH2. Light and fast vehicles perform very well in small modes, but scale worse in larger modes. That's why you see more heavies in large modes, because you get the benefits while the drawbacks are not as severe. Similarly, medium spam works well in small modes. If there is no common ground that makes a unit perform decently in all modes, we have to decide which mode works best for it. E.g. the Elefant does not work well in 1v1. Does it need a buff? Only if you think it should be used in 1v1. The community has mostly accepted that the unit will always be useless in 1v1 and only viable in larger modes. At this point, it just got balanced for larger modes. Is that good design? Definitely not. But it sometimes is the only thing that is possible. Considering that heavies really don't need a nerf. They're not used in 1v1, perform decent in 2v2 and 3v3 (depending on the map obviously), and are always a good choice in 4v4. We can of course discuss buffs and nerfs, but bear in mind that it might break other modes. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The main problem with balance8 Apr 2022, 11:43 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2022, 08:41 AMEsxile ... I agree with the general notion that high resource games currently favour heavy units, albeir for different reasons. High resource games are usually 3v3+. Combine this with laney and small maps that are 1) easier to defend and 2) there will always be a lot of concentrated firepower, lighter units will just be deleted more easily than in smaller modes. Major advantages of mediums like high mobility also don't matter as much the larger the mode becomes. Comparing two mediums to one heavy does not really make sense. Yes, losing one medium compared to half health of a heavy tank is obviously more expensive. It is meant to be like that. Two mediums still offer the huge advantage that you usually have at least one operable, that you have higher mobility and flanking opportunities and (potentially, not sure about this one) higher AI firepower. Discussing this without context will end up in a debate that just keeps circling, because one guy is debating over 1v1 and the other over 4v4. These modes are hugely different, and so often is the role and cost efficiency of vehicles. Jump back to quoted post8 Apr 2022, 10:26 AMBasedSecretary ... There are quite some factual mistakes in your post, but as Esxile already wrote: Reality has only been a very rough guideline for any strategy game that wants balance. Usually they are only followed as much as necessary to not completely destroy the expectations. CoH2 is no simulation game, most of the community does not care if the in game models stray away from the actual performance. That would also be hard to do. There are so many variables, starting from differences in steel and build quality between factories and years to other simple things like differences in armor of different parts of the tank, angling etc. All of this has to be simplified into a handful of numbers, otherwise we'd end up with a sim, not CoH. Most of the elements like critical hits etc that actually convey more realism have been removed from the game to make it more balanced and less frustrating. In: COH2 Balance