COH2stats.com match and player statistics 2.0

This is beyond outstanding. You guys are heroes, very well done! Looking forward to future improvements!

Quality of players in 2v2s is substantially higher than 3v3 and 4v4 in my experiences. Both teams and randoms.

Is it possible to see it for months?I guess yes but only for future?

Month view and March has been added https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/1v1/wermacht
We started regularly logging on 8th March. So it's data 8.3 -> 31.3

Currently month view can be seen only when month ended.

Hi guys, I Have a question. Do you think the site should be accessible from mobile devices? Because there is a lot of people (about 30% - which is hundreds) who are opening the site from mobile devices.

It's extremely hard to make those fck charts work on smaller screen...
So the question is, should we try to do something with that. Or it's more like fuck them, unless you have at least 1080p display you won't see shit on the site.

Thanks for the feedback!

I'd say finish what you want to finish first and care about mobile access afterwards.
Everyone who plays CoH2 has a PC to look up the data there if needed. It is more important to present the data properly and get the most information out than having mobile access to it because you just want to look up something quickly.


(EDIT: Btw you are stating in the info section that there were 100k games per day. The site you linked shows about 110-120k games per week, if I understand it correctly. So only about 17k games per day.)

Great job, guys!

(EDIT: Btw you are stating in the info section that there were 100k games per day. The site you linked shows about 110-120k games per week, if I understand it correctly. So only about 17k games per day.)

You are right, I did not noticed that the chart does aggregation. However if you count on that page all the modes/ranks I counted 244k games/week , that's 34k games.

But thanks for pointing that out!

Btw my next plans is to really filter only top 200 games - all players needs to be in that range. Will see how many games will stay. But not sure when I will have time to look into it - hopefully next weekend.

You are right, I did not noticed that the chart does aggregation. However if you count on that page all the modes/ranks I counted 244k games/week , that's 34k games.

But thanks for pointing that out!

Btw my next plans is to really filter only top 200 games - all players needs to be in that range. Will see how many games will stay. But not sure when I will have time to look into it - hopefully next weekend.

I also just saw I only looked at random teams and not arranged ones.
Nevertheless, my point was more that you are currently analyzing more than 4% of all played games. Probably more like 20-ish if the total amount of games has not changed by much.

The new filter will be quite cool, but let's see if enough games remain to really derive something from the data. Probably not, at least not for the first week(s).

Hi guys

I have the "raw" data for the top 200 players only.

How it works, players are split into the modes 1v1,2v2,3v3,4v4 - the faction doesn't play a role.
The match is counted ONLY if ALL players from the match are in the TOP 200 for that mode (for example 1v1, 2v2 - team players are added too).

What does it mean that faction doesn't play a role?
Show Spoiler

FYI This is the ladder data:

Amount of unique players in modes: 1v1: 472

Amount of unique players in modes: 2v2: 891

Amount of unique players in modes: 3v3: 1266

Amount of unique players in modes: 4v4: 1309

How come there is so many players in 4v4? Even though we have just 5(races)*200(positions) the teams are added too. Each team adds 4 players.

Anyway here is report for the last ~5 days ( 17k matches before filtering only top 200 players).

https://imgur.com/1oLyhyN
(Sorry I can't really easily export the formatted data as text right now)

Why is there so little 3v3, 4v4 games?
Show Spoiler


You can see that the win-rate is much closer to the 50% ==> Aka the game "looks balanced" . Except for Brits, it looks like they suck anyway . But I think it's sill not enough data. When I had data for just 1 day, in 3v3,4v4, it's often just 20 games and with that - the data was completely unbalanced 0.7 winrate was not uncommon. I think we will need more and more games + this statistics is not enough to have some strong conclusions. For example with the team games we should try to track the team composition which might play a big role in a winrate (for example team of 4 brits vs 2w,2wg \\ team of 1b,1u,2s, vs 2w,2wg \\ there is several combinations) + maps, I mean this is extremely complicated thing with huge amount of variables.

-----------------------------
Please let me know what you think. If you see some significant flaw in my calculations or something looks off - let me know. Thank you

Hi guys

I have the "raw" data for the top 200 players only.

How it works, players are split into the modes 1v1,2v2,3v3,4v4 - the faction doesn't play a role.
The match is counted ONLY if ALL players from the match are in the TOP 200 for that mode (for example 1v1, 2v2 - team players are added too).

What does it mean that faction doesn't play a role?
Show Spoiler

FYI This is the ladder data:

Amount of unique players in modes: 1v1: 472

Amount of unique players in modes: 2v2: 891

Amount of unique players in modes: 3v3: 1266

Amount of unique players in modes: 4v4: 1309

How come there is so many players in 4v4? Even though we have just 5(races)*200(positions) the teams are added too. Each team adds 4 players.

Anyway here is report for the last ~5 days ( 17k matches before filtering only top 200 players).

https://imgur.com/1oLyhyN
(Sorry I can't really easily export the formatted data as text right now)

Why is there so little 3v3, 4v4 games?
Show Spoiler

You can see that the win-rate is much closer to the 50% ==> Aka the game "looks balanced" . Except for Brits, it looks like they suck anyway . But I think it's sill not enough data. When I had data for just 1 day, in 3v3,4v4, it's often just 20 games and with that - the data was completely unbalanced 0.7 winrate was not uncommon. I think we will need more and more games + this statistics is not enough to have some strong conclusions. For example with the team games we should try to track the team composition which might play a big role in a winrate (for example team of 4 brits vs 2w,2wg \\ team of 1b,1u,2s, vs 2w,2wg \\ there is several combinations) + maps, I mean this is extremely complicated thing with huge amount of variables.

-----------------------------
Please let me know what you think. If you see some significant flaw in my calculations or something looks off - let me know. Thank you

Team composition def plays a role in 3v3+. 2 games I played today were so unbalanced. Lasted 15 minutes. Played with both rank 1000+ even though the steam reported 7700 players in the game. So was hoping for some better MM, but alas.
For teamgames, I'd probably take top 400. The larger number of players means that more people "share" the same level of play.

Glad to see some updates in the methodology.

I still think it should be based on a % rather than the top 200. The 1v1 Wehr ladder has nearly 3150 players, while the 1v1 Brit ladder is 1400. This means you are comparing the top 6% of the Wehr ladder against the top 14% of the British ladder.

As far as the smaller game count, we may just have to accept that it will take longer to accrue enough games to get a meaningful idea of the current game balance.

"I would consider top 400 still as high level player."

Sadly no.


"We require all the players in the match to be in top 200 for that category. With more players in the match the probability that all of them are from top 200 is much lower. Even though the amount of players in this mode is huge. Not everyone is playing at the same time and I would bet the solo 4v4 players are very often queued together with low rank players - thus their matches does not count."

Indeed. It happens quite often but its good that those games don't count.

Question:
Did you consinder the fact, that a 2at premade team ofen search for 4vs4 and playing it? Does your system get those players then or not?

And a 4AT premade team 200 is WAY WORSER than random 4vs4 top 200 guy. It is ultra easy to get good rank as 4AT premade. You can see in the top 30 4AT premade ladder teams, who have single skill from around 400 or something.
So acutaly it could maybe better to use % instead of a fix number as IntoTheRain suggested. Then you would see that top 200 4AT premade would not count.

On the other side then you would have even less matches in your stats
I think its very hard and probably with the amount of players in coh2 not really working at all.

Question:
Did you consinder the fact, that a 2at premade team ofen search for 4vs4 and playing it? Does your system get those players then or not?

That match would not be counted. If they are 2at team only their 2v2 games against top 200 plyaers would be counted.

I still think it should be based on a % rather than the top 200. The 1v1 Wehr ladder has nearly 3150 players, while the 1v1 Brit ladder is 1400. This means you are comparing the top 6% of the Wehr ladder against the top 14% of the British ladder.

wehr - 3371
brit - 1602

I think we would end up with even less matches. With the current calculation for the top 200, there is only ~12 brit games per day, which is way to low. Even week stat for this would be just 84 games which is not enough... I can see the stats to "stabilize" around 200 games at least.

But let's take a look, if we would take top 10% of players:
That's 160 positions of brits VS 330 positions of wehr.

Hm is there a difference in a skill? I can't really tell. For example if player ranked 160 would play against 330 ?
I am personally around rank 1k - level 10 . When I play against people 1k+ , even just few ranks worse, or level worse. I totally stomp them or usually have no problem winning. But when I play against people from top ~500 I can feel the difference immediately, sometimes someone plays really weird but usually I can feel that those players are on a completely different level them me. Would that be a case in 160 vs 330 player? Or is that more or less on a same level already?

Btw the more I think about it. It makes sense to have it based on the % in the ladder. However it would require way more work. I don't have full ladders, I would need to do additional development of lot of things.

Also another question if we applied different amount of people from each faction - it would affect the amount of games and the statistics what race is more played would be biased but on the other hand we already know this from the ladders. Hm...???


But let's say we want to have it as %, what the number should be?
1v1 - brit - 1450
1v1 - wer - 3158
1v1 - wgen - 2711
1v1 - usf - 1887
1v1 - soviet - 3158

For 2v2
2v2 - brit - 2440
2v2 - wer - 4321
2v2 - wgen - 3852
2v2 - usf - 2504
2v2 - soviet - 3757

team2 - allies - 8097
team2 - axis - 8148

Obviously we would need different values for arranged and random teams, because if we applied the same % it would be completely different amount of people which would be counted in.

But I am too tired getting the values for 3v3,4v4

Analysis for top 200 rank only has been released.
https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/1v1/wermacht?statsSource=top200

I've generated it for all the past days too. However with that - march still has only < 300 games in 3v3,4v4 so I am not sure how accurate those stats are.

But we can see that axis is not dominant in the team games any more. They still have slightly higher win-rate. Will be interesting to see how it changes with more games.

Btw you can also spot difference in the picked commanders. It looks like with the top ranks some are preferred little bit more than others. For example with USF 1-1
https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/1v1/usf?statsSource=all
https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/1v1/usf?statsSource=top200

I think that's pretty good sample for 1v1, that while it cuts the sample by half it's still 5K games taken into account.

In other modes, yeah, the cut is too deep. At least on 2v2 you still get almost 1.3K games.

Its interesting how much play OKW gets regardless of win rate and team size. They don't do very well in 1v1 and are still played equally to OST. And 2v2-4v4 they get about 20% more play time than OST, while only being dominant in 4v4. 3v3 and 4v4 don't have great data, as discussed, so take that with some skepticism.

And UKF ain't doing so hot, jesus they don't see 1v1 play. I was suprised at the drop in USF play as well.

Cool next feature would be faction match-ups, winrate of faction A against faction B.

If I can make a recommendation regarding visualization:

Top graphs, you currently show "games played" with total wins/losses on the left and win ratio on the right. The way you display it is suboptimal.
Reason:
Left graph is a vertical bar graph, right graph is horizontal with reversed Y-axis. This makes it impossible to intuitively relate both graphs. At the very least, you should reverse the Y-axis of the right graph (or X-axis on the left). This way, if you mentally turn one graph by 90°, the factions line up (left faction in left graph then corresponds to top faction in right graph).

My recommandation though is:
- option 1: make both graphs either horizontal or vertical with factions lining up
- option 2 (preference): merge into one graph, with win rate plotted as a line plot on a secondary Y-axis


Further points:
- color of wins should be blue and not green -> helps red/green blind people
- more colors overall: You currently have three types of blue and red each. You could use a color gradient or simply a "boring" gray scale for commanders and intel bulletins that have a huge number of entries.
- you could think about including unused intel bulletins and display them a "0". Currently they are kicked out if not used. I am not sure myself about this one, just as a thought.
- some way to deal with unevenly populated ladders would be nice. Soviet and OST top players are probably better than UKF and USF/OKW because there are more people playing it. Probably not true for the top 20, but at some point the skill disparity will be bigger for the same "rank".


"wish list":
- implementation of the "general" page. What would be super duper dope is line plot showing faction win rate over all modes
- some statistical data: for example, you could show the win rates of the last 2-4 weeks/months as a standard deviation to give an impression of how much the win rates "naturally" change between data sets.



And while I am on this:
How do you intend to deal with patches? They will change balance and therefore win rates and might come out mid-week and mid-month. Will there be a possibility to select only "current patch data"? It's not the highest priority, but might be helpful to more quickly assess how much balance has changed. Also it would be helpful to aggregate more games for better data.

...

And while I am on this:
How do you intend to deal with patches? They will change balance and therefore win rates and might come out mid-week and mid-month. Will there be a possibility to select only "current patch data"? It's not the highest priority, but might be helpful to more quickly assess how much balance has changed. Also it would be helpful to aggregate more games for better data.

It would be great if patch dates separated stats.

Important thing I just noticed:

The wins and losses do not fully add up, neither in "all data" nor in the "top200".
For example, the current 3v3 top200 data:

https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1614556800/3v3/wermacht?statsSource=top200

If you add up all the wins and losses, you don't get 0. This means for some reason very few wins or losses are not counted for either Axis or Allies.