COH2stats.com match and player statistics 2.0

I don't know what you are talking about and why you bring a terminology discussion into this.

OST and OKW are the most played factions because there are only two to pick from. Allied faction picks dilute out over three factions and are therefore less per faction. That's not an advanced concept, and that's all I said.

Because you told me there are only two factions. There are more than two factions. There are five factions. Three allies factions and two axis factions. Both axis factions are the most played factions out of five. I even quoted you.

Because you told me there are only two factions. There are more than two factions. Both axis factions are the most played. I even quoted you.

Yes. In the context of you talking about OST and OKW. There are two Axis factions. Those having higher pick counts is due Axis only having two factions in contrast to three Allied ones. It has nothing to do with balance as you claimed.

Yes. In the context of you talking about OST and OKW. There are two Axis factions. Those having higher pick counts is due Axis only having two factions in contrast to three Allied ones. It has nothing to do with balance.

I have a feeling you're completely misreading everything I say and focusing on one single sentence.

I have a feeling you're completely misreading everything I say and focusing on one single sentence.

I understood "most played" as most picked, in the sense of their game count on the stats site (left graph) is higher than the one of Allied factions. That was the only thing that made sense to me since Axis and Allied games should be equal.

If that's not what you meant I'd kindly ask you to explain it to me.

I honestly don't know if you're serious. Instead of explaining in a lengthy way, I'll keep it very simple and I'll ask you some questions. Look at the graph, which faction is the least picked? Which faction is the most picked? Now order each individual faction per side from least picked to most picked. Remember, there are five factions.

Good, then I understood you correctly. My point still stands.

They are the most played factions because there are only two...

This is your post that started this off topic schematic and terminology discussions focusing on a single sentence. Your point is still that there are only two factions, whereas I must insist that there are five.

I suggest we'd just leave it as it stands and agree that we're clearly not understanding each other.

Apparently you still didn't at all. Your point is still that there are only two factions, whereas there are five.

I would suggest we'd just leave it as it stands and agree that we're not understanding each other.

You're heavily misrepresenting what I said both initially and even clarified later on. But I agree that we'll just leave it at this point.

You're heavily misrepresenting what I said both initially and even clarified later on. But I agree that we'll just leave it at this point.

Hey, don't point the finger at me now. From my perspective you're the one heavily misrepresenting what I said - but I did not say that and I kindly attempted to clarify my thoughts. No need to point fingers, really. I kindly asked you that we just agree to disagree. No need to say that I am misrepresenting. We are both misunderunderstaning each other, yes, but I am not misrepresenting you.

So, to settle this, JohnSmith means there is Absolutely more plays for both Axis faction in 4v4, which makes sense due to 2v3 factions, as all Allied plays should == all Axis plays.

What Hannibal means is the relative play ratio between factions for Axis vs Allies is problematic. OKW vs OST is about 1:1. USF or UKF vs SOV is about 70%.

The why for the ratio is trickier. DLC factions, incomplete factions, or straight weaker factions are all likely factors.

Thank you!

To add an extra level of complexity, there's more than just 4on4 in this game and the stats. You have to take into account all the stats, not just one particular game setting if one wants a full overview.

Also about the ratio, I did this bit of maths on the older stat sheet of one gametype:

It's very intriguing that if you do some basic summative analysis (and simplified for forum discussions), on these 5146 1on1 top 200 games posted in the first post, you get...

Out of 5146 games, Axis (OKW+Wehrmacht):
won: 2602 (50.56%)
lost: 2544 (49.43%)

...against UKF, SOV and USF.

During that time, when Axis (OKW+Wehrmacht) 1on1 searched for a game, out of 5146 games they faced..
UKF for 893 games (17.35%)
SOV for 2521 games (48.98%)
USF for 1732 games (33.65%)


Out of these 5146 games Axis (OKW+Wehrmacht) won 2602...
against UKF: 513 games (19.71% of all the 2602 victories)
against SOV: 1235 games (47.46%)
against USF: 854 games (32.82%)

Out of these 5146 Axis (OKW+Wehrmacht) lost 2544...
against UKF: 380 games (14.93% of all the 2544 losses)
against SOV: 1286 games (50.55%)
against USF: 878 games (34.51%)


It is up to you people how you intend to interpret these numbers, but there is clearly a trend in the data presented for the given time period for the given player for the given matches which 1on1 matchup Axis is facing the most, which one they have the most potential to win/lose, and which one they face the least, and which one they are going to win/lose the least. This is a literal Monty Hall problem & situation right there.

...

Worthless to compare only top200 vs top200 stats for 3v3/4v4 (and probable 2v2) because the sample size for this games is too low. Less than 1% of the total games of top200 are BARELY balanced matchmaking wise.

2v2 at least get's around 5x to 10x times the number of games even if the total games is lower (close to half compared to 4v4).

This metric only works for 1v1 which get's at least closer to half of their games in this way (6273/15150).



Just use the total games metric for 3v3/4v4 because at least you get some relevant information.

The overall message is the same: Axis is steamrolling on teamgames, specially 4v4.

So, to settle this, JohnSmith means there is Absolutely more plays for both Axis faction in 4v4, which makes sense due to 2v3 factions, as all Allied plays should == all Axis plays.

What Hannibal means is the relative play ratio between factions for Axis vs Allies is problematic. OKW vs OST is about 1:1. USF or UKF vs SOV is about 70%.

The why for the ratio is trickier. DLC factions, incomplete factions, or straight weaker factions are all likely factors.

Yes, that is the logical conclusion from that. My initial point of concern was more that you cannot deduce faction balance by seeing that - when looking at a single faction - each of the two Axis factions has more absolute picks than one of the three Allied factions. It is to be expected, Axis having more picks/being most played doesn't prove they are stronger. It just means there are only two factions for Axis player's to chose from.

I agree that pick rates are really, really hard to use for balance, especially in team games. 3/5 factions are paywalled and USF and OKW are paywalled together, yet you cannot really compare those because of the existance of Brits as a third one...
But even if the sample size was higher, I don't think we could say too much from 4v4 and probably also not from 3v3 because most of the games there are random teams. Artillery is so important in these modes and USF and UKF do not have stock long range artillery. So either you have a higher chance of losing because you randomly got "too many" USF and UKF players without artillery, which scewed the win rates. Or those players are forced to pick Artillery commanders to even it out, which makes the commander pick rate scewed.

I disagree. You can deduce a state of balance from the pick rates of the five factions. You cannot conclude UKF is the least played faction only because of the paywall/DLC. UKF, plain and simply put, just suck plain and are a bad faction. That's why they're the least picked. They suck. That's it. They're not fun to play with. They are bad. UKF is not even fun to play against. Even in tournaments, the pick ratio of a faction (out of five) shows the perceived game faction balance of that set of players. UFK disappears quickly from any recent tournaments. Tournament, or public play, people will pick the faction they consider to have the best chances to win with. There are people in this forum who confirmed that they are picking and learning different factions just because they're the current meta. And UKF is the fart of the current meta.

post edited to emphasise some phrasing.

Snip

Its not either too many without or forced commander picks, its both. I hold my commander pick specifically to ensure arty as allies. Because no artillery, players must hold their picks.

Thats why Axis players really hate SPGs, even though they are in only 1 commander per faction. They end up required. Calliope is in only 2 commanders, but in every 4v4 game with USF for the same reason. It massively stagnates commander pick rates.

Turns out this applies to Axis as well. SHTDs solve Axis's single biggest issue: heavy tank destroyers shutting down Axis armor. Jadgtiger and Elephant shut down heavy tank destroyers. Breakthrough and Jaegar Armor are both top picks for this reason. ISU-152 spam was a direct response to this by sniping units from under the SHTD protection envelope without any response.

For some reason, all of these commanders are also some of the best designed and heavily loaded ones in CoH. USF Infantry currently has the only consistent howitzer kill off-map in USF, on a commander with the best anti-howitzer unit in the game, the Priest. JA has self-spotting and a cheesy off-map AT. Breakthrough has Sector Assault and its HE barrage, letting it hammer infantry while still maintaining its AT envelope.

A fix generally is make the commanders that DON'T have these mandatory tools strong enough to compensate (heavy tank meta, new Rifle company) or make these dominating doctrines straight weaker (as discussed). We are seeing this now with the nerfs to ISU-152 so SHTDs can snipe it, removal of howitzer control from JA and ISU doctrines, removal of spotting scopes from JA. Someone mentioned nerfing Sector Assault on Breakthrough, and I would add nerfing HE barrage on the Jadgtiger. This would make paradigm breaking commanders dramatically weaker, as it should.

The other necessary fix is to give proper shock indirect to the factions that don't have it. All tools for all factions. Calliope and Land Mattress would be made non-doc and adjusted for proper shock artillery statistics. USF had the Pack Howi and Scott for that job previously, but the change to focus on barraging means they can't consistently punish infantry blobs just team weapons, so they need actual shock arty. UKF has had issues literally since release.

I disagree. You can deduce a state of balance from the pick rates of the five factions. You cannot conclude UKF is the least played faction only because of the paywall/DLC. UKF, plain and simply put, just suck plain and are a bad faction. That's why they're the least picked. They suck. That's it. They're not fun to play with. They are bad. UKF is not even fun to play against. Even in tournaments, the pick ratio of a faction (out of five) shows the perceived game faction balance of that set of players. UFK disappears quickly from any recent tournaments. Tournament, or public play, people will pick the faction they consider to have the best chances to win with. There are people in this forum who confirmed that they are picking and learning different factions just because they're the current meta. And UKF is the fart of the current meta.

post edited to emphasise some phrasing.

The tournament setting is quite different. The vast majority/all players there have bought all DLCs, so they have the choice which one they play and will pick the on that gives them the best chances (which can also be also backfire for tournament statistics. The best players contribute most games and his choice of faction might also not reflect what is objectively the strongest, but what he personally feels most comfortable with. This has also been confirmed by top players). However, I doubt that we can say the same of a top 100 to top 200 player. They might have all DLCs, they might have some, they might only have the base game.
Technically speaking, what matters is also not the faction pick out of all five, but the pick rate within either the Axis or Allied side. Allies should get a 33%, Axis a 50% in a perfect setting. But we don't know if some factions, especially UKF, is even a choice for all players. UKF not scoring 33% might indeed be due to them being UP, but it might also be a reflection of them being paywalled.

That being said though, I agree that UKF is on the weak side in team games unless they pick Royal Arty regiment. I wonder how they will do after the patch, but I assume not too great.

Its not either too many without or forced commander picks, its both. I hold my commander pick specifically to ensure arty as allies. Because no artillery, players must hold their picks.

Thats why Axis players really hate SPGs, even though they are in only 1 commander per faction. They end up required. Calliope is in only 2 commanders, but in every 4v4 game with USF for the same reason. It massively stagnates commander pick rates.

Turns out this applies to Axis as well. SHTDs solve Axis's single biggest issue: heavy tank destroyers shutting down Axis armor. Jadgtiger and Elephant shut down heavy tank destroyers. Breakthrough and Jaegar Armor are both top picks for this reason. ISU-152 spam was a direct response to this by sniping units from under the SHTD protection envelope without any response.

For some reason, all of these commanders are also some of the best designed and heavily loaded ones in CoH. USF Infantry currently has the only consistent howitzer kill off-map in USF, on a commander with the best anti-howitzer unit in the game, the Priest. JA has self-spotting and a cheesy off-map AT. Breakthrough has Sector Assault and its HE barrage, letting it hammer infantry while still maintaining its AT envelope.

A fix generally is make the commanders that DON'T have these mandatory tools strong enough to compensate (heavy tank meta, new Rifle company) or make these dominating doctrines straight weaker (as discussed). We are seeing this now with the nerfs to ISU-152 so SHTDs can snipe it, removal of howitzer control from JA and ISU doctrines, removal of spotting scopes from JA. Someone mentioned nerfing Sector Assault on Breakthrough, and I would add nerfing HE barrage on the Jadgtiger. This would make paradigm breaking commanders dramatically weaker, as it should.

The other necessary fix is to give proper shock indirect to the factions that don't have it. All tools for all factions. Calliope and Land Mattress would be made non-doc and adjusted for proper shock artillery statistics. USF had the Pack Howi and Scott for that job previously, but the change to focus on barraging means they can't consistently punish infantry blobs just team weapons, so they need actual shock arty. UKF has had issues literally since release.

Big +1 to this.

I assume we have to go with option #1, since Balance team repeatedly confirmed that Relic does not allow any large scale faction reworks to, for example, give UKF and USF non-doc artillery for the late game.

Snip

The fact USF and UKF have the same play rate in 4v4 is weird as UKF has a significantly lower win rate. That means something is drawing people to Soviets dramatically more and USF less.

OKW and OST are equally picked and OKW is DLC locked, so DLC lock is not a likely suspect.

I think UKF play rates in general are bolstered because they are actually a LOT of fun to play. They have amazing flavor and a lot of interesting tools, though most of them exist BECAUSE they were band-aids. They still suck though and are effectively missing a bunch of baseline tools, either because the answer to indirect is movement and emplacements can't do that, the basic answer to MGs is smoke or enough of infantry to flank and UKF are specifically designed to not have either affordably, or the lack of wide spread snares resulting in the LV toxicity of early game UKF (UC is king till any LV drops and UKF just gets blasted till AEC).

Sanders had a post on how to fix UKF, its a pretty friggen long list of necessary changes and they'll come out looking like Allied OST.

I've suggested some changes before. Aim to decrease IS spam, as IS are not a healthy mainline with Bolster/no snare/cover bonus/double bren complicating their job. Make Pyro smoke barrage much faster, it gives itself away unlike mortar smoke AND costs the munis of a smoke grenade, and/or make base arty smoke chuckable from suppression or longer range (I really want to arty MGs again... even if its friggen munition intensive).

The next patch REALLY HELPS. Recovery engineers means you get full power Ro.E from the start which can contest un-upgraded baselines, and flamers are much more widespread. More Land Mattress doctrines too! Raid Sections look like a test of revising IS so they don't become juiced Grens washout snares in a few patches.

The fact USF and UKF have the same play rate in 4v4 is weird as UKF has a significantly lower win rate. That means something is drawing people to Soviets dramatically more and USF less.

I too wonder what it could be.

I too wonder what it could be.

I agree.
Also, USF having 11k games played in April, whereas OKW has 21k is...
Sure there are 2 axis factions and 3 allies, but it's 3v3, not 1v1. And as long as there is at least one USF player in the game, then it's added to this list. 11k Only.... really sad