CoH2 statistics of top200 ONLY.
Posts: 472
coh2stat site now comes with top 200 ONLY! matches. (My thanks to maintainers of the repo)
From the previous threads such as
What do you think about the new match statistics & UKF?
or
4v4 win rates disparity
some modders claimed that since the stat includes match that includes 200+ ranked player. (Which was somewhat fair, but I don't believe it can be the reason to simply ignore stat. But anyway)
Now the site comes with top 200 player ONLY.
I won't show you all the stats, will just present you one-month stat of March. Which is the only month that is provided for now. See weekly or future month stat from the site later.
Do I have to keep remind you how bad UKF is at the moment...?
42.6% on 1v1
40.3% on 2v2
is that still low but fairly in the range of statistically acceptable...?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
....
Do I have to keep remind you how bad UKF is at the moment...?
42.6% on 1v1
40.3% on 2v2
is that still low but fairly in the range of statistically acceptable...?
Yes UKF seem to be low. It is also worth noting that:
The number of game with UKF is simply very low at that level. (893 game total)
There is huge difference when including only 200+ and the all games with the UKF/OKW increasing the difference from 0.2% to 6%.
This might be an indication that although UKF are weak they are strong vs OKW.
Posts: 472
The number of game with UKF is simply very low at that level. (893 game total)
Do you not think the reason behind it is just like UKF shown 3 games out of 65 in ML, they have very low played game BECAUSE they sucks...?
I myself quit playing UKF, and went to USF & OST. I simply cannot win with UKF.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Do you not think the reason behind it is just like UKF shown 3 games out of 65 in ML, they is very low played game BECAUSE they sucks...?
I myself quit playing UKF, and went to USF & OST. I simply cannot win with UKF.
Yes UKF seem to be low. It is also worth noting that:
It might be worth looking how well UKF do against Ostheer and OKW separately.
Posts: 472
It is also worth noting that
Posts: 472
It might be worth looking how well UKF do against Ostheer and OKW separately.
I have asked for it to the maintainers.
And with probably Kor. community agreeing with me, build JLI if you are having trouble vs UKF with OKW.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Yes UKF seem to be low. It is also worth noting that:
The number of game with UKF is simply very low at that level. (893 game total)
There is huge difference when including only 200+ and the all games with the UKF/OKW increasing the difference from 0.2% to 6%.
This might be an indication that although UKF are weak they are strong vs OKW.
You really are going overboard with mental gymnastics to bend statistics into your narrative.
Perhaps its time to accept that OKW is much stronger then UKF and is on pair with other factions, while UKF is rock bottom instead of attempting to manipulate narrative that can't be contested here?
There is no "hidden OP" here, sample size of almost 900 games is large enough to be accurate and there is no skill disparity games taken into account that would influence win ratios.
UKF is UP, OKW is not, accept reality and cope.
42.6% on 1v1
40.3% on 2v2
is that still low but fairly in the range of statistically acceptable...?
5% deviation from perfect outcome of 50% would be acceptable, anything higher then that I would call is an indicator of imbalance.
These ratios only confirm why UKF is dead on competitive scene.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
...
And with probably Kor. community agreeing with me, build JLI if you are having trouble vs UKF with OKW.
Imo not having any problems but imo it worth checking if there a noticeable gap between UKF vs Ostheer and UKF vs OKW. That might also help come up with more specialized solutions.
Posts: 472
Imo not having any problems but imo it worth checking if there a noticeable gap between UKF vs Ostheer and UKF vs OKW. That might also help come up with more specialized solutions.
Truely it will tell us more. I've just said that because you've mentioned that UKF is stronger against OKW but I think UKF vs OKW is the most broken match in 1v1 currently. In favor of OKW of course. You simply cannot win against JLI + panther with UKF.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
You really are going overboard with mental gymnastics to bend statistics into your narrative.
Pls avoid personal comments (12 time)
Perhaps its time to accept that OKW is much stronger then UKF and is on pair with other factions, while UKF is rock bottom instead of attempting to manipulate narrative that can't be contested here?
You seem to have completely missed the point. (once more I might add). Try reading more carefully:
Yes UKF seem to be low. It is also worth noting that:
There is no "hidden OP" here, sample size of almost 900 games is large enough to be accurate and there is no skill disparity games taken into account that would influence win ratios.
UKF is UP, OKW is not, accept reality and cope.
The fact that UKF win rates drop are increased by 5% when 2100 games are included is an indication that there is something there. It certainly is not "hidden OP" what ever you mean by that but there is something there.
Posts: 472
Pls avoid personal comments (12 time)
You seem to have completely missed the point. (once more I might add). Try reading more carefully:
The fact that UKF win rates drop are increased by 5% when 2100 games are included is an indication that there is something there. It certainly is not "hidden OP" what ever you mean by that but there is something there.
No 3v3 is where UKF played least games. (around 200) and I'm sorry I played some 3v3 in March. Which probably increased some wr. How sad that one player can influence total faction's wr.
And I am with him on the fact that you are trying to ignore the facts from the stat.
UKF consistently have lowest wr from 1v1 ~ 4v4. Not by little but by far.
If you are not willing to accept the fact, please bring me some data or evidence so that I can understand your side of argument.
Posts: 472
]
The fact that UKF win rates drop are increased by 5% when 2100 games are included is an indication that there is something there. It certainly is not "hidden OP" what ever you mean by that but there is something there.
+ it's not 2100. You added one more 0.
It means 3v3 has so little match counted, it gave us what people say "outlier". Yet it is still one of the lowest.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
No 3v3 is where UKF played least games. (around 200) and I'm sorry I played some 3v3 in March. Which probably increased some wr. How sad that one player can influence total faction's wr.
And I am with him on the fact that you are trying to ignore the facts from the stat.
UKF consistently have lowest wr from 1v1 ~ 4v4. Not by little but by far.
If you are not willing to accept the fact, please bring me some data or evidence so that I can understand your side of argument.
I am not sure why you think I am not accepting facts. My first line is that UKF are low.
Imo you should also not take "sides", this a forum for people to give their opinion not for people to fight.
More over what katitof has posted has very little to do with what I have posted.
+ it's not 2100. You added one more 0.
It means 3v3 has so little match counted, it gave us what people say "outlier". Yet it is still one of the lowest.
When "all players" option is included the total number for games played by UKF in 1vs1 is around 2.100. (1.125+1.018)
Posts: 472
I am not sure why you think I am not accepting facts. My first line is that UKF are low.
Imo you should also not take "sides", this a forum for people to give their opinion not for people to fight.
When "all players" option is included the total number for games played by UKF in 1vs1 is around 2.100.
God... I posted this thread BECAUSE all player is not reliable to see balance.(Which modders already aruged) Because I myself can win eeeeasily anyone behind 200. Or even 100.
The fact that UKF win rates drop are increased by 5% when 2100 games are included is an indication that there is something there.
It does not mean something is there. It's simply people 200+ is very hard to win against top 200 player.
End of discussion. Okay?
How can I not see you as biased when you are trying to find something when there is nothing to find.
I know I'm biased to UKF (obviously), but I have stats and arguments to back me up.
You on the other hand seems biased toward axis, maybe it's just me. IDK.
But to me, it seems you are trying to act as to be faired, but clearly not. You already chose your side. Which is fine, that's the whole point of the debate.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I am not sure why you think I am not accepting facts. My first line is that UKF are low.
You're also trying to tell OKW is closer to UKF, despite the uncontested hard evidence its not anywhere close and is on pair with 3 other factions.
Any particular reason why you deflect that?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
God... I posted this thread BECAUSE all player is not reliable to see balance.(Which modders already aruged) Because I myself can win eeeeasily anyone behind 200. Or even 100.
It does not mean something is there. It's simply people 200+ is very hard to win against top 200 player.
End of discussion. Okay?
This is no way to debate in forum
How can I not see you as biased when you are trying to find something when there is nothing to find.
I know I'm biased to UKF (obviously), but I have stats and arguments to back me up.
You on the other side seems biased toward OKW, maybe it's just me. IDK.
But to me, it seems you are trying to act as to be faired, but clearly not. You already chose your side. Which is fine, that's the whole point of the debate.
That simply does not explain why it makes such a huge difference particularly on UKF.
But you since you are "biased to UKF" we better agree to disagree.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
You're also trying to tell OKW is closer to UKF, despite the uncontested hard evidence its not anywhere close and is on pair with 3 other factions.
Any particular reason why you deflect that?
Now check the "hard evidence again":
https://www.coh2.org/file/19617/stat.jpg
OKW 47.7 winrate
UKF 47.5 winrate
Can you give it rest with your conspiracy theory already?
Posts: 472
This is no way to debate in forum
That simply does not explain why it makes such a huge difference particularly on UKF.
But you since you are "biased to UKF" we better agree to disagree.
Nope I was about to make a reply about it.
As I argued previously, UKF is easy peace of cake IF you know how to counter them. Which is shown is this thread's stat.
200+ players do not know how to counter them. Probably the reason I see many people complaining in this forum about emplacements(which is not usable at all in most cases) & IS.
I know it's kinda harsh, but sometimes you need to l2p to win...
If you do not know how to counter early UC & IS. or against emplacement(not a big issue in 1v1 I guess), UKF can seems tough to you.
Posts: 472
Now check the "hard evidence again":
https://www.coh2.org/file/19617/stat.jpg
OKW 47.7 winrate
UKF 47.5 winrate
Can you give it rest with your conspiracy theory already?
1. this thread is top 200 only stat. I already posted thread about all player. Why keep bring it in?
2. OKW has the highest 2v2 ~ 4v4. While UKF has lowest on 1v1 ~ 4v4 even in all player. How can they are the smae...?
And I already agreed on other thread that OKW is showing weak spots on 1v1. Probably because of pg not doing great at late game. (or maybe I did on Kor. community. Sorry keep posting on the both side. But yes I do agree OKW is a bit behind on 1v1 but not by a huge gap)
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Nope I was about to make a reply about it.
As I argued previously, UKF is easy peace of cake IF you know how to counter them. Which is shown is this thread's stat.
200+ players do not know how to counter them. Probably the reason I see many people complaining in this forum about emplacements(which is not usable at all in most cases) & IS.
I know it's kinda harsh, but sometimes you need to l2p to win...
If you do not know how to counter early UC & IS. or against emplacement(not a big issue in 1v1 I guess), UKF can seems tough to you.
Or
it might be that UKF ranks are overinflated because there far less people playing as UKF.
or
it might be some other reason
Now what is more probable that 200+ players are noobs? or that a UKF is easier to reach +200 than an OKW or Ostheer player?
I will recap and leave here because this debate is not very constructive. UKF seem to be low and they need changes (probably a wider redesign than buff to here and there), but difference in win rates is an indication that something is off.
1. this thread is top 200 only stat. I already posted thread about all player. Why keep bring it in?
2. OKW has the highest 2v2 ~ 4v4. While UKF has lowest on 1v1 ~ 4v4 even in all player. How can they are the smae...?
And I already agreed on other thread that OKW is showing weak spots on 1v1. Probably because of pg not doing great at late game. (or maybe I did on Kor. community. Sorry keep posting on the both side. But yes I do agree OKW is a bit behind on 1v1 but not by a huge gap)
I do not keep bringing it up I am responding to kaitof's bogus accusation that I am making numbers up.
As I said we have to agree to disagree (although I am not sure to what).
Have a nice day.
Livestreams
145 | |||||
66 | |||||
51 | |||||
28 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.921405.695+5
- 5.634229.735+8
- 6.276108.719+27
- 7.306114.729+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1043675.607+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Eastman04
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM