Some automatch win percentages by map and faction

So, while I was at it, I thought I also made some graphs of the win percentages that the factions achieve on the different maps in automatch in January and February of 2020.

Disclaimer(s): Deriving anything from automatch statistics is somewhat tricky; the matchmaker is supposed to level out player and faction power levels, while on the other hand being limited to the players that actually queued. It seems fair to assume that the matchmaker is only taking into account a player's performance with a single faction and not the map - which is why I think there is some point in looking at these at all - but previous studies showed that map vetoes do depend on the player level so, there might be some imprint of this.

The values below show the difference between a faction's win percentage on a specific map and its average win percentage. I also computed estimates for the standard deviations with a pretty crude boot-strapping technique. I didn't display them in the graphs to not clutter them further, but I'll add some sentence on the estimated accuracy to each section. Note, that generally the values will be more accurate, the more often that specific faction played on this specific map. Conversely, values for less popular maps with less popular factions might be severely less accurate. I put a gray rectangular on the plots to indicate the part that is roughly reflecting the typical uncertainties.

Note: The maps are ordered based on their popularity. The most recent numbers can be found here.

I have no means of checking which side each player started on. In turn this means that maps that have very advantageous starting points (like, "North side will always win!") will end up with very balanced stats.

Finally: Don't fret over the implications. Even the more extreme values below barely exceed a few percent. To put this in perspective: Assuming your faction shows a -2% win percentage on a certain map; this means that out of 100 games you play with this faction on this map, you loose only 2 because of the map; the other 98 games are decided by the players' skill gap and faction balance (so, matchmaking stuff), starting position, random elements and other things. So, practically this will hardly be noticable.

1v1

I recorded 155284 1v1 automatch games (yeah, I think my server had some "disc-full" issues for a few days...), about 82k OH, 78k SOV, 73k OKW, 45k USF, 31k UKF. Win percentages are roughly 0.6% for the more played maps and factions but go up to slightly more than 1% for UKF on the lesser played maps:

2v2

I have data for about 190k games (AT and RT). I broke the numbers down to team compositions. Most common team was OH/OKW (108k), the least common was UKF/UKF and USF/USF (10k and 14k). For the other compositions I found between 34k to 51k games.

Axis teams:


Allied teams:

3v3

I have about 120k 3v3 games. The diagrams below show the axis win percentages (obviously, allied win percentages will be opposite of those). Uncertainties turned out to be 0.4% for the more commonly played maps to the 0.8% for the less commonly played ones.

4v4

I found the data for about 230k 4v4 games. The inaccuracies I found are about 0.3% for the commonly played maps which increases to 0.7% for Vielsalm.

This means that out of 100 games you play with this faction on this map, you loose only 2 because of the map; the other 98 games are decided by the players' skill gap and faction balance (so, matchmaking stuff), starting position, random elements and other things. So, practically this will hardly be noticable.

That said, assuming that the vast majority of games actually is decided by matchmaking mishaps it IS suboptimal if the few last remaining games are actually decided by faction induced map imbalances. Like, if - say - 80 out of the 100 games are decided because of loopsided matchmaking, it kind of becomes relevant if 2 out of the 20 remaining games are actually decided by the map...

characteristic designed Ostheer takes the avarage graphs again

SiphonX, you are a shining beacon. Thanks again for all you do with data in this community.

As always I am trying to get information/communication out here about maps.

What is the community consensus on which maps may favor a certain faction?

For example:
Road to Arnhem - Pretty large and open at main fighting areas may favor Axis long range units if flanks are ignored. Late game center VP slightly favors Ele/Jagd but is flankable if not protected.

Redball - Initial fuel fights have a decent balance of close and far engagement areas. Late game center VP has enough sight blockers to limit Ele/Jadt domination.

Whiteball - More open version of redball allowing Allies to Flank OST Mgs. OKW does very well pushing on sides. Late game center VP has enough sight blockers to limit Ele/Jadt domination.

Port of Hamburg - Most engagement areas are mid range or close range if smoke is used. Late game is balanced pretty well for Ele/Jadg. Allied arty seems to be more effective.

Lienne - Forest is the nightmare of most long range axis players. Allies do better.

Essen - Early game favors allies with close range fighting. Strong buildings may give OST MG42 and flame pios an edge. Late game center VP fights slightly favor Ele/Jadg.

Nordwind - Larger open map with buildings on north fuel. Long range and MG42 do well in mid and south fuel. Late game Ele/Jagd do well also. South fuel is large but flankable. Once pushed back it becomes close quarters.

Lorch - Similar to Essen with buildings and close quarters. However Essen has fewer strong positions/buildings. Allies can swarm and overwhelm by occupying other buildings and close quarter engagements.

General Mud - Very large and open map. Lots of long range fighting can favor Axis.


Your thoughts?

General Mud - Very large and open map. Lots of long range fighting can favor Axis.


Your thoughts?

nah its not (mainly) cuz of longrange fights. Brits are amazing on longrange maps too

It's mainly because of the inflated resource income on General Mud. This map has sooo many standard points, even if you hold only 50% of the map you almost have as much resource income as if you controlled the entire map on another map. Axis benefit more from large fuel income compared to allies as they have more expensive but also more durable/better tanks. You can easily have a panther out by the time your enemy has a medium tank.. or a P4 by the time the enemy has a T70, because the teching time is roughly the same for both sides. This just super benefits axis

That Brit win rate on Bayeux FeelsBadMan

It's mainly because of the inflated resource income on General Mud.

Yes, there are seven TPs on General Mud versus the normal five.

That Brit win rate on Bayeux FeelsBadMan

Is that due to not having enough cover objects? Do you think it needs more yellow cover bushes, etc?

How about that balance on Ladoga Karelia? Almost perfect

Yes, there are seven TPs on General Mud versus the normal five.


Is that due to not having enough cover objects? Do you think it needs more yellow cover bushes, etc?

How about that balance on Ladoga Karelia? Almost perfect

And yet its like bottom 2 of the maps. Probably cause people can't play with snow cause their computer keeps over cooking their bread.

Snow maps suck. I don't like how these stupid map-makers make snow maps every now and then. I demand that the game is playable on my Pentium 4 with Geforce 9800. Why do I need a NASA computer to run this game?!?

/s

Snow maps suck. I don't like how these stupid map-makers make snow maps every now and then. I demand that the game is playable on my Pentium 4 with Geforce 9800. Why do I need a NASA computer to run this game?!?

/s

new snowmaps are way better to play from FPS.
Because different snow and effects

new snowmaps are way better to play from FPS.
Because different snow and effects

I was being sarcastic that's why I put /s at the end of my post.

I guess you are talking about Nordwind here when you say "different snow and effects". Nordwind doesn't use any snow added with the elevation editor. The huge trade-off is that the map doesn't look half as good as real snow maps like Ladoga or Novgorod. It doesn't have the same atmosphere. I was happy they added a new winter map but the visuals of Nordwind have disappointed me. I only played the map twice so far so I don't want to comment on the overall design.

My point is: It's not right that COH2 can't have snow maps just because some people insist on running the game with ancient hardware, often without dedicated GPU or decades-old CPUs.

I was being sarcastic that's why I put /s at the end of my post.

I guess you are talking about Nordwind here when you say "different snow and effects". Nordwind doesn't use any snow added with the elevation editor. The huge trade-off is that the map doesn't look half as good as real snow maps like Ladoga or Novgorod. It doesn't have the same atmosphere. I was happy they added a new winter map but the visuals of Nordwind have disappointed me. I only played the map twice so far so I don't want to comment on the overall design.

My point is: It's not right that COH2 can't have snow maps just because some people insist on running the game with ancient hardware, often without dedicated GPU or decades-old CPUs.

Novgorod should have the different snow too. But another one i guess.

So its not the old awesome looking snow from old maps, where everyone gets fps drops.
But yeah relic code...