Operation Market Garden
News and Info => News => Topic started by: holoween on May 07, 2019, 12:14:01 PM
-
Upcoming Balance Changes:
Disclaimer: The listed changes are a work in progress, subject to change, and do not include upcoming mapping work.
WarCp
- Max VPs 25
- 1 vp gained per game played
- 5 starting VPs
Doctrines
Wehrmacht
- Terror
- Heroes of the Wehrmacht
- Bonuses from 15% to 10%
- Vp cost from 4 to 6
- Medical Reformation
- Fog of War
- Blitz
- Rush to the front
- Heavy Mortar Bombardment
- Shell droprate and shell number increased by 25%
- Vp cost from 5 to 3
- Blitzkrieg
- Munitions cost from 90 to 70
- Vp cost from 5 to 2
- Defensive
- Advanced warning
- Stronghold
- Passive health regen increaed by 100%
- Extra Hp on bunkers from +20% to +30%
- Karbines
- upgrade option added to pak
- Registered Artillery
- Munitions cost from 60 to 50
- vp cost from 3 to 1
- Rocket Artillery
Panzer Elite
- Tank Hunters
- Schmeissers
- Improved Scopes
- Scorched Earth
- Ignoring the Wounds
- Purchasable for 50 munitions with 3max uses
- Vp cost from 5 to 4
- Luftwaffe
- Shift the Lines
- Supressive Tactics
- Cooldown from 90s to 180s
- Butterfly Bombs
Americans
- Infantry
- Here to clean up this mess
- Rangers can no longer buy quadruple zooks. Ability instead allows removing Bazookas entirely and refunding the base munitions, as well as enabling a four BAR buy on rangers
- Potato Grenades
- Medical Emergency
- Long Tom Support
- Smoke will block out the Sky
- Time between shells from 2.5-3s to 1.25-1.75s
- Vp cost from 5 to 2
- Snare Traps
- Uses from 4 to 2
- Munitions cost from 30 to 20
- Airborne
Brits
- Royal Engineers
- Speaking from the pulpit
- Manouver Training
- Prepared Fighting Positions
- Commandos
- 25 Pounder Barrage
- Vp cost from 5 to 3
- Decoy munitions price from 20 to 5
- Proper Encryption
- Vp cost from 5 to 3
- Munitions cost from 60 to 40
- Radio Disruption
- RCA
General
- Wehrmacht
- Panther skirts cost from 110 munitioins to 90 fuel
- P4 skirts from 100 munitions to 80 fuel
- Stug skirts from 80 munitions to 60 fuel
- Stuh skirts from 90 munitions to 70 fuel
- Pioneer medkit munitions cost from 20 to 10
- Mg medkit munitions cost from 20 to 10
- pak medkit munitions cost from 20 to 10
- mortar medkit munitions cost from 20 to 10
- Puma resupply from 3 to 4
- Halftrack resupply from 3 to 10
- Bike resupply from 4 to 10
- Walking Stuka pop from 6 to 7
- Walking Stuke Manpower cost from 200 to 250
- Stormtrooper 4mp44 munitions cost from 170 to 150
- Pioneer Flamer munitions cost from 65 to 55
- Panzer Elite
- Panther skirts cost from 110 munitions to 90 fuel
- P4IST skirt cost from 80 munitions to 60 fuel
- StuP skirt cost from 100 munitions To 80 fuel
- Fallschirmjäger pool from 10 to 15
- Infantry Halftrack resupply from 5 to 10
- Luftwaffe Infantry manpower cost from 210 to 200
- Americans
- AAB Tompson munitions cost from 180 to 160
- Ranger tompson munitions cost from 150 to 140
- Ranger BAR munitions cost from 160 to 140
- Engineer Flamer munitions cost from 70 to 60
- BAR supression munitions cost from 95 to 85
- Quad Halftrack fuel cost from 100 to 80
- Greyhound resupply from 3 to 4
- T17 resupply from 3 to 4
- Halftrack resupply from 4 to 10
- Jeep resupply from 4 to 10
- Mechanized Infantry resupply from 2 to 4
- Brits
- LT resupply from 2 to 3
- Universal Carrier resupply from 4 to 10
- Kangaroo Carrier pop from 6 to 4
- Stuart Flamethrower pop from 8 to 7
- Sergeant upgrade manpower cost from 50 to 40
We will post our train of thought for those changes on the weekend, along with what we´ll likely look into next.
-
Medical Reformation
From 5 mp40s to 2
Why? This was never an issue.
-
These changes are extremely underwhelming. We have something like 8 or 9 active gripe threads addressing serious problems in the game. People are starting to get turned off by this stale meta, and allies are winning 20% less games than they should be. I do not believe vp nerfs and especially fuel changes are the answer. In fact I really believe that skirts costing fuel is a huge buff. When will you guys be posting official balance team responses to the forums over some of these more active gripe threads?
-
These changes are extremely underwhelming. We have something like 8 or 9 active gripe threads addressing serious problems in the game. People are starting to get turned off by this stale meta, and allies are winning 20% less games than they should be. I do not believe vp nerfs and especially fuel changes are the answer. In fact I really believe that skirts costing fuel is a huge buff. When will you guys be posting official balance team responses to the forums over some of these more active gripe threads?
Dont see how this is underwhelming at all.
-
These changes are extremely underwhelming. We have something like 8 or 9 active gripe threads addressing serious problems in the game. People are starting to get turned off by this stale meta, and allies are winning 20% less games than they should be. I do not believe vp nerfs and especially fuel changes are the answer. In fact I really believe that skirts costing fuel is a huge buff. When will you guys be posting official balance team responses to the forums over some of these more active gripe threads?
The gripes, from both the forums and the discord, have been compiled and are the first thing for us to go over for the next balance meeting. A lot of these changes are pre-site-down changes that never made it in and a long overdue (and I would suggest, reasonably comprehensive) doctrinal price rebalancing.
I am not sure I agree that there are "serious problems" with the game currently, but the meta has definitely started to converge on quad-zook Rangers versus KCH Terror builds, and I think this patch goes a decent way towards addressing that. It is only the first balance patch since the game has been back up so give us a bit of time, plenty more to follow!
-
Thanks for taking the time to address some balance concerns. I know it takes time and effort and is often met with more demands for change or ingratiation.
If possible, I would like to make the following suggestions:
- Wehr LMG price adjustment (75 MU is cheap IMO, as much as i love them)
- AB RR price adjustment (200 MU is too expensive)
- Recon Tommy price or cool down adjustment
That is all that really stuck out, everything else is negligible
While we all may not agree with the changes, some change is better than no change. Lets give the new concepts a shot and see how they fit in. Im particularly interested to see how Fuel-priced skirts will effect the use of axis armour
-
The gripes, from both the forums and the discord, have been compiled and are the first thing for us to go over for the next balance meeting.
That is very nice to hear, thank you. As to your comment on the seriousness of the balance concerns and state of the meta, perhaps I was being dramatic, but I do believe people have become hyper aware of a lack of viable options Americans have.
-
Well i will say that I am happy you are doing something finally. Its not just terror running rampant with KCH its every doctrine and its acknowledged by the majority of the community that they are over preforming, also the switch of skirts from munitions to fuel is a huge buff, alongside a nerf to the AT capabilities of the allied best preforming doctrine, this may be extremely annoying. I think you should spend some time considering direct buffs to weak doctrines such as commandos and airborne and making their elite infantry more competivitely priced for what you get. This looks like another win for the axis, so what else is new ::)
-
got to love the axis buffs
-
Even with the quad zooks being removed, Infantry now probably has the best pound for pound assault infantry in the allied (us and cw) arsenal with 4x Thompson/bars and having a 130hp elite armor buffer for those weapons. Hopefully it will also make infantry company snipers less of a pain to deal with now that they dont get such pop efficient protection via 4/8 zooks for 6/12 pop.
The skirts change is an indirect buff for AB meta wise. Skirts shit on zooks, but overall dont change the performance of RRs too drastically. AB is still not a very interesting doctrine to play, but this is still technically a minor bump in their relative performance in the meta. Even so, if a skirts meta develops and axis players start taking Fuel RBs over Muni/MP, that will also be a major shift in the meta, as currently, MP bonuses are king.
I would have preferred seeing a 3x thompson upgrade and drastically reducing the muni price on Assault AB or removing them entirely and giving the weapons options to standard AB, but thats just wish-listing.
US armor got kinda overlooked though.
The PE re-supply changes are great as well. Maybe we will see less blobbing and a bit more clowncaring introduced to the meta. I feel IHTs are currently criminally undervalued by PE players.
-
Wehr doctrine winrates
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19yQeIVBznsfe3bUXUE4BkZh91rNW-HjFNdKHyTY_Yxs/edit?usp=sharing
Would love to know why Wehr is not seeing more nerfs that arent just specifically targeting Terror KCH. Balance team?
-
Razor is right with his stats, it really shows KCH are a no the issue. Defensive players barely use them. Me and another blitz player are responsible for most blitz wins and razor is a massive outlier in the terror wins.
Allies need to be buffed more than anything else right now. Hopefully the balance team gets this :-\
-
Making medkits on axis mgs and other support weapons cheaper....seriously?
-
Take out the 1 absurd outlier and the winrate is already negative. Take out the players spamming KCH (Less than 4) and the winrate is abysmal.
Perhaps if using grenadiers and volks were not an automatic loss people would use things other than the 1 unit that can, with a PE ally, achieve positive resource attrition.
Terror is only being propped up by 1 absurdly powerful ability on one of the only viable units that gets much stronger with a PE ally. Outside of that the doctrine doesnt have much impact, mostly just fun stuff. Although I think that the Propaganda Tower might be underutilized and stronger than people give it credit for. Would be easier to tell if I had seen more than 1 outside of my own.
Would really like to see the winrates other factions and doctrines. Also this just shows current companies that exist and not the ones with migrations. Honestly showing just this data is highly disingenuous because Id bet you anything the winrates of migrated accounts are lower than current - it is entirely possible that the current winrate for all factions and doctrines is positive using this methodology.
-
Unfortunately the way we are currently set up we lose all stat data for the migrated or deleted company. We still have aggregate win data by SIDE
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CFHGEoRXhO-tY3wWp6RCvn6oVJ-fshbpc_ANyfxH958/edit?usp=sharing
Total games 272
Allied wins 114
Axis wins 158
Axis win rate 58%
-
Either it is a massive coincidence or the winrates should not total to 100%. The winrates should total to the rate of existing companies, and not those that have ever existed. Im guessing what you just pulled up is the toral winrates for the war that includes deleted companies but correct me if Im wrong. This doesnt show how Terror or KCH compare to other factions at all. It is a different statistic drawn from a different data-set. It isnt really relevant or comparable.
Edit: somehow didnt see that second link or other pages on the first. What I guessed here should have been obvious, and we can at least compare between Wehr doctrines
-
This is an unbelievably high win rate for this many games played. Past 100-150 range it should start to even out. In League of Legends if a champion has a 42% win rate its considered a dead champion.
This huge axis advantage is indicative of two possibilities:
A: Axis is the favored side for better players, meaning in your average game the axis team is a stack or something similar to a stack and thus wins the game more often than not.
B: Allies is incredibly under powered, this means on average despite even teams the axis have the on the field advantage.
I believe both of these problems are a serious concern, which ever one it is. Id feel much more comfortable if its option A for the numbers to be reversed in the allies favor. Axis is generally the favored faction in terms of design by OMG players, by being both the favored faction and the more powerful faction it especially discourages allies play.
Option B Is an especially bad situation because this balance patch may likely help axis as Dr. Nick suggested based on experience from previous years. This could have dramatic effects on player base morale if the situation does not improve for another month. I am literallly not having fun playing allied companies at the present moment. This mod only has so much steam before players lose interest and stop checking in. It could be months before the often called "revive occurs" if this stiatuion is as bad as it seems to me from talking to players.
-
These stats are fairly worthless without any proper context or sourcing. Also, once again, given the small number of players in the community, individuals can have a huge impact on W/L ratio of each side. It is also incredibly irresponsible for a member of the Dev team to post such statistics in support of an argument they are making to people who do not have such access to the raw data. Especially given that the dev in question has been identified as a major statistical outlier in his own data set. I would even go as far as to call it an abuse of power.
As to the points Robie made. First, you cannot compare a game that has, on a good day, about a dozen to two dozen matches, to a game that has literally thousands of matches a day. Matches that are auto-matched to boot. The margin of error is just too great because of the low data set. I mean even removing just one players stats, the outlier company from the terror list, from the total win loss ratios of axis and allies. This changes the balance from 58/42 to 54/46. A single player had an 8 point W/L ratio impact on the entire mod. This means that we have to take great care in how we use what numbers we have, and not quote them like scripture blindly.
-
How is it an abuse of power to post stats players do not have access to? Its not like there are more stats hanging around the corner that are being hidden... this is transparency and your accusing him of literally the opposite.
I mean even removing just one players stats, the outlier company from the terror list, from the total win loss ratios of axis and allies. This changes the balance from 58/42 to 54/46. A single player had an 8 point W/L ratio impact on the entire mod. This means that we have to take great care in how we use what numbers we have, and not quote them like scripture blindly.
Quote them like scripture blindly? I am taking great care in how I utilize the statiscs, I spelled out the two possibilities. If your suggesting that for some reason axis has this winrate because extremely good players such as razor prefer axis than its option A of my post.
Every time people bring statiscs up in this mod there is a fury of reactionary comments that suggest stastics are worthless becaus the mod is so small. What evidence do you believe we should utiliz, player speculation? Its very frustrating to see this kind of response to a single post offering context to a greater problem many players are speaking out about.
Also for the record you cannot remove a single players impact in the stastics because this is an aggregation of non 1v1 games. Every game has more then a single winner and loser, when you remove one player from the data set there are multiple others who were effected in the data set stil there.
-
These stats are fairly worthless without any proper context or sourcing. Also, once again, given the small number of players in the community, individuals can have a huge impact on W/L ratio of each side. It is also incredibly irresponsible for a member of the Dev team to post such statistics in support of an argument they are making to people who do not have such access to the raw data. Especially given that the dev in question has been identified as a major statistical outlier in his own data set. I would even go as far as to call it an abuse of power.
As to the points Robie made. First, you cannot compare a game that has, on a good day, about a dozen to two dozen matches, to a game that has literally thousands of matches a day. Matches that are auto-matched to boot. The margin of error is just too great because of the low data set. I mean even removing just one players stats, the outlier company from the terror list, from the total win loss ratios of axis and allies. This changes the balance from 58/42 to 54/46. A single player had an 8 point W/L ratio impact on the entire mod. This means that we have to take great care in how we use what numbers we have, and not quote them like scripture blindly.
Dude calm your jet, that a bucket of hyperbole
-
It will require some dev effort to persist old companies for stat purposes. I have tried to show the source data so you know exactly what I am working with and can reinterpret or recalculate using them. I do think these have some value for showing trends.
Not sure how to respond to your other points matrin, I have already expressed my opinion that wehr needs nerfs generally and I believe the limited and imperfect data I present supports that. We can certainly add a stats viewer to the new site, on this one they are tied with the admin panel.
-
Should atleast keep some kind of zook buff.
-
Before we get worked up about the battle stats, there are some things to remember:
- Are all players skill-levels even? Nope
- Do players evenly play both factions? Definitely not
- Would more information from more battles be helpful? Certainly
- Are there other factors at play that effect win rates? (Teams, strategies used, random outcomes, etc) Absolutely
Our data set is imperfect. No doubt about it. It doesnt tell us why or how the axis are more successful, and should not be treated as scripture.
But at the end of the day, it shows us a bit of the bigger picture, which is that the axis are coming out on top. It is evidence (however imperfect) that shows that this is more than just a frustrated sentiment of some of our players (including myself at times).
Before folks complain about the proposed changes or discredit opposing points, try an unfamiliar faction or doctrine and feel how the shoe fits on the other foot. For me, going back to Wehr (and for a time, American Armour) this war has definitely been an interesting experience.
-
This is an unbelievably high win rate for this many games played. Past 100-150 range it should start to even out. In League of Legends if a champion has a 42% win rate its considered a dead champion.
If you plot the cumulative wins over the war, allies were winning at 150 games. a meta developed from around ~175 games in, that has seen the 100 or so games yield epic axis winrates around 70:30, its a very recent development. The range of cumulative axis win rate this war has ranged from 44% to its current 58%. I would take any numbers you can derive here some scepticism.
*All based on Razers sheet.
-
This is an unbelievably high win rate for this many games played. Past 100-150 range it should start to even out. In League of Legends if a champion has a 42% win rate its considered a dead champion.
If you plot the cumulative wins over the war, allies were winning at 150 games. a meta developed from around ~175 games in, that has seen the 100 or so games yield epic axis winrates around 70:30, its a very recent development. The range of cumulative axis win rate this war has ranged from 44% to its current 58%. I would take any numbers you can derive here some scepticism.
*All based on Razers sheet.
Thats a very interesting observation and provides good insight on why the morale feels suddenly so rock bottom. 70:30 games is terrible.
One thing I will say is I do not believe it is the players causing it; pretty much everyone I have seen in the last 30 or so games has been playing both sides of the field. Perhaps some a bit more than others.
Really I think the biggest cause Stormtrout is the Allied meta that kept allies competitive became stale and countered well. Not nearly as many Infantry spam companies and the fee that do are playing at this point against players who know what they need to do to beat it. Additional allied strategies that are effective will undoubtedly help.
-
I may have been a little overzealous in my points regarding Razor, but the sentiment still stands.
First of all, I understand the spirit of what you want to do and are trying to do Razor. However, I think there are better ways you could have gone about it. I think it is important to recognize that OMG has a long history of people blurring the lines between jobs and, frankly, of people with power abusing that power for their own self interest. The information you are able to retrieve is dramatically greater than that a normal OMG user could, and as such you have a duty to responsibly disclose it before you use it and disclose it - partially or even entirely - for your own purposes.
After all, was not that supposed to be a big part of the new OMG restart? That we would have a clearer separation of powers between the service branches and that outside of a core group of leaders, so users would not get a louder voice or special privileges just because of who they were?
Second of all, my point is that relying on incomplete, fundamentally misleading stats is only going to create more incomplete, misleading agendas.
How exactly are we supposed to use a set of data that is heavily skewed, massively incomplete and potentially misleading? Would you get on board a 737 if your pilot told you that someone had smashed his instruments the night before, but its okay, hes sure he can manage the flight with a compass and a road map from 1954?
If you would not, then why would you say - for sure and for certain - that these stats are our best bet? That we should cling to them and follow their wisdom. Even and especially when it is clear, for instance, that there are some massive outlier users in every category of the data presented alone (for instance, 5 out of 12 Terror doctrine companies that exist right now have statistically exceptional performance - that is, a more than 20% deviation from a 50% WLR - some for the worse, some for the better.)
This data even has a massive self-selecting bias problem. Players who are on losing streaks tend to delete their companies, fundamentally removing some of the most important data - the individual losses. For all I know, there are individual axis players with sub 20% win ratios, and individual axis players with over 80% win ratios, and both could be having a massive impact on the gross factional Win/Loss scheme but we cannot see it. The point is though, I dont know. You dont know. Nobody knows, so it is fundamentally, objectively false for somebody to say that they know, or even say they have evidence that suggests they know.
All we have evidence of, even minor evidence of, is that there is a massive WLR disparity between all of the current, active Wehrmacht war companies.
To me, that disparity looks like a mighty personal one, not a systematic one.
That doesnt seem like a good justification for any sort of balance argument, unless we want to start nerfing and buffing individual players.
Because that is the point. Balance changes are not meant to, and cannot, target individual players. They have to address systematic issues with balance. They have to resolve reoccurring, identifiable issues. Personally I think at this stage we will only be able to address those issues in a qualitative, often theoretical way, without much big data to support us.
We also cannot deny or turn aside balance concerns just because weak, frankly unrelated data suggests that perhaps there is a mysterious bigger issue lurking over the horizon. Otherwise we may as well give up on trying to balance OMG entirely because somebody will always have some tangential data that loosely indicates that maybe X is not the problem so we should study Y instead, until the Y supporters point the finger at Z, and we pass the buck further down the road accomplishing emphatically more nothing.
Otherwise, we are just reinforcing the same bad habits we always have
Which leads me to my final point. I believe that we need to take serious stock in whether or not the the current ideas and attitudes we are using. I argue that it is not and that is what is driving most of the dim perceptions of balance in the mod. No amount of VP changes, stat buff changes, pricing changes, or availability changes can fix the fact that OMG doesnt feel like a functional game with a responsive balance and design team. It is haunted and beholden to the decisions of people who are no longer involved with the mod and who had some frankly and I think agreeably poor sense for design and for balance. To top that off, I see a lot of responses from Dev members in forum posts defending the status quo with many arguments akin to "that is how we have always done things."
If that is all there is to expect, changes based on how things have always been done, then that is fine, but I hope that you and everyone playing OMG are okay with the mod continuing to be the same satisfied group of people, a group that tends to get smaller with passing time.
-
How exactly are we supposed to use a set of data that is heavily skewed, massively incomplete and potentially misleading? Would you get on board a 737 if your pilot told you that someone had smashed his instruments the night before, but its okay, hes sure he can manage the flight with a compass and a road map from 1954?
If you would not, then why would you say - for sure and for certain - that these stats are our best bet? That we should cling to them and follow their wisdom. Even and especially when it is clear, for instance, that there are some massive outlier users in every category of the data presented alone (for instance, 5 out of 12 Terror doctrine companies that exist right now have statistically exceptional performance - that is, a more than 20% deviation from a 50% WLR - some for the worse, some for the better.)
I will keep what I want to say about this as short as I can: The data does point to problems, with outliers or not, and utilizing it to contextualize a problem is in no way intentionally misleading players. For instance, in the last few days I have talked with about 10 different people about the recent state of the game, and all of those people have offered personal testimony that there is an issue. This personal testimony is valuable, but alone is this going to drive change in the mod? To further exemplify this issue, despite the fact that I have heard from so many people, are these people all willing to testify to their feelings on their forums? No, they havent. Now however, with the further bit of evidence that suggests axis games have swung (FOR WHATEVER REASON) wildly into axis favor, we can confirm at some level a problem exists. Personal testimony should not be the sole drive in recognizing possible issues. Possibly misleading data or not, offering it has helped establish the very real fact, as in without any possible chance to refute, that the axis have somehow won about 70 games of their last 100.
Players can choose to interpret the above information in many ways, what they cannot do is ignore the fact that 70 of the last 100 games should never be happening.
Please note I will be creating a new thread specifically for discussing data and why I believe data is reliable, and the form of evidence we should pay the most attention to in the mod (as far as evidence goes). This thread will be in general discussion. I encourage all players to pursue this discussion there.
-
This is just upsetting to read
everyone is putting a ton of effort in to the mod just to receive harsh criticism and accusatory remarks.
We constantly talk about how we can make decision making more transparent every time we meet. We are on our first balance patch and people are losing their minds.
How about providing some constructive feedback rather than baseless accusations and moaning?
-
Can I get a tldr for that post there matrin... its like a 1000 word essay, goddamn.
Razor plays axis, axis is strong, Razor agrees that axis is strong, everyone agrees axis is strong, Razor can back it up with stats that support his argument, get over it.
Lets start addressing the problems with the current meta game, lets mix it up and allow allies more options to counter the axis strength, and its not like the Allied side doesnt have answers, its that the answers are too expensive and get outvalued.
-
In the good old days, allies would have had a defensive timer.
-
Can I get a tldr for that post there matrin... its like a 1000 word essay, goddamn.
Razor plays axis, axis is strong, Razor agrees that axis is strong, everyone agrees axis is strong, Razor can back it up with stats that support his argument, get over it.
Lets start addressing the problems with the current meta game, lets mix it up and allow allies more options to counter the axis strength, and its not like the Allied side doesnt have answers, its that the answers are too expensive and get outvalued.
Last time i checked rifles with bar suppression cost less than kch, But that might just be me misremembering.
-
In the good old days, allies would have had a defensive timer.
Man what fun that used to be. I remember hopping into games, asking to rebalance teams, getting tactfully ignored by players pretending to play dumb to the teams, and then when on the field having to wait 2 minutes to deploy my stuff into a team ripe and ready for my sphincter. I miss the days I had 30 minutes to kill on games that fun.
Also please note I have been working on my post for general but so far Im unsatisfied with what I have written out
-
I was 50% sarcastic with the defensive timer line haha