CoH2 statistics of top200 ONLY.

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?

Well it seems modders already agreed that 200+ players are noobs.

@Sturmpanther
Brits with the highest. But on the other side you don't see brits in 1vs1 Cups, because people know how to counter it.

Allies random don't know how to counter a mg or killing a tank.
(+: Which in this case, axis random don't know how to counter a UKF)

1. Only one player in the match is in top 200 -- current implementation
So sadly the stats are not really good for 3vs3, 4vs4.

And for the record, UKF wasn't always had this low play count back then(http://coh2chart.com/)
You have to focus on WHY they have such a low play count by now. Instead of making it as an excuse to ignore the stat.

I brought ML4 & all player match stats, some complain that it's not worthwhile.

i brought ML5 & top 200 player match stat as they requested, some still complain it's not worthwhile.

What should I bring next time? What stat are you interested?

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.

While I do appreciation of the work which was put to establish new coh2stats, I wish it was never made, because it always brings this number masturbation ppl will use to backup their statements.

While I do appreciation of the work which was put to establish new coh2stats, I wish it was never made, because it always brings this number masturbation ppl will use to backup their statements.

Very good way of saying loud voice crying baby gets what he wants?

If balance is not based on the stats, what they should be based on?

It might be worth looking how well UKF do against Ostheer and OKW separately.

It has been known for months/years that UKF is good vs OKW but struggles vs Ost. It doesn't seem like the balance team is ever going to do soemthing about it.

You can use stats as an indicator but should not balance around it.

You have to keep in mind that the Brit stats are kinda scuffed since the average top200 Brit player is significantly worse than the average top200 with every other faction which leads to a negative winrate by default.

Very good way of saying loud voice crying baby gets what he wants?

Pretty much. No offence, but all this thread is capable of - attracting addicts who will voice their delusions in public.

If balance is not based on the stats, what they should be based on?

It was said multiple times that UKF is not attractive in comparison to USF\UKF case is closed. There is no point of creating 100% threads about UKF having low stats, we got it, we see it.

Not because they are weak or unplayble, its because they are very exploitable and cheesy. They are heavy case of OP cheese mixed with very easily exploitable weaknesses.

And this is what ML guys are stated. They didnt state "british are fine", they said "its expectable to have such picture, considering the state of faction" if you rephrase it, but you for some reason see it as them saying UKF is just fine.

UKF need full faction rework, not a bunch of buffs\nerfs like some ppl propose. Because indeed with desing faction have right now, you either will have OP shit if you buff them or UP garbage if you nerf them.

You can use stats as an indicator but should not balance around it.

You have to keep in mind that the Brit stats are kinda scuffed since the average top200 Brit player is significantly worse than the average top200 with every other faction which leads to a negative winrate by default.

Then again, we have to narrow it down to ML. And we already saw what happened in ML4 & ML5. Did we not?

You can use stats as an indicator but should not balance around it.

You have to keep in mind that the Brit stats are kinda scuffed since the average top200 Brit player is significantly worse than the average top200 with every other faction which leads to a negative winrate by default.

I agree, however USF 1v1 leaderboard is populated with only 1800 players (1400 for UKF) at the moment, yet USF has a ~50% win rate while UKF does not. We don't know how big the effect of +400 players is, but I assume it is not +8% WR. We should wait for a second month of data at least to check what is going on.

Also, this argument should (generally speaking) lead to Allies having slight less than 50% WR by default.

Pretty much. No offence, but all this thread is capable of - attracting addicts who will voice their delusions in public.

I have been active for a 1~2 weeks after seeing ppl writing threads(IS too strong / emplacement too strong...) about how they should nerf UKF, even stats are saying otherwise. And already saw nurfs being done to UKF for recent years. If that bothers ppl in this forum, fine. So be it. God bless UKF with where they are going.

UKF need full faction rework, not a bunch of buffs\nerfs like some ppl propose. Because indeed with desing faction have right now, you either will have OP shit if you buff them or UP garbage if you nurf them.

I 100% agree on the fact that faction rework is needed. But meanwhile UKF needs some buff to compensate current situation.

I have been active for a 1~2 weeks after seeing ppl writing threads(IS too strong / emplacement too strong...) about how they should nerf UKF, even stats are saying otherwise. And already saw nurfs being done to UKF for recent years. If that bothers ppl in this forum, fine. So be it. God bless UKF with where they are going.



I 100% agree on the fact that faction rework is needed. But meanwhile UKF needs some buff to compensate current situation.

The balance of the faction and Commander changes are separately issues and should be treated separately.

Commander changes should focus on bringing as many commander as possible to the meta and not fixing faction balance issues with commander abilities.

If one uses commanders to fix the faction problem one simply hides the issues under the rag without actually solving while increasing the dependence of the faction to crutch commanders.

I have been active for a 1~2 weeks after seeing ppl writing threads(IS too strong / emplacement too strong...) about how they should nerf UKF, even stats are saying otherwise.

Its a common misconception that buffs\nerfs can appear because of the amount of ppl who cry about something. You dont need to counter them with your own threads.

The only damage thouse guys can do - create interception and drow actually potentually productive and good suggestions in the ocean of shit or sabbotaging threads by starting holywars in them.

Its a common misconception that buffs\nerfs can appear because of the amount of ppl who cry about something. You dont need to counter them with your own threads.

The only damage thouse guys can do - create interception and drow actually potentually productive and good suggestions in the ocean of shit or sabbotaging threads by starting holywars in them.

I won't be here for long anyway, I don't expect me to be here til next balance patch. I guess I have already made my point to the moders & players in here. I just hope that will do something in next patch.

The reason I created 3~4 threads are to fulfill the need of them.

I gave them new stat site. -> not valid because the match count also includes 200+ ranked people
Provide ML4 stat -> not valide because it's preview mode(Isn't that almost same as current version? but anyway)
Provide ML5 stat -> ML5 is still in progress but I don't expect to see more UKF playing.
Provide stat site with top 200 only match -> Still not valid because UKF top 200 are noobs compare to other faction?

Hm.... very very hard to show them that current balance is broken.

Hm.... very very hard to show them that current balance is broken.

Not sure why you are surprised about that. No matter what arguments you present certain people will reject them. Most people only believe what they want to believe and fits into their worldview. The same can be said about coh2 balance.

Then again, we have to narrow it down to ML. And we already saw what happened in ML4 & ML5. Did we not?

Yes tournament results should be taken into account. One thing to note tho (unless a specific strat is very dominant) tournament players will choose the strat and faction they are the most confident with. Im not suprised that ost and sov are the mpst picked factions in ml5 as they both dont suffer as much from commander vetos and are the most complete factions.
I dont think this will ever change

Theres also a very distinct difference between tournament and automatch (which doesnt mean either statistic is less important).
Guard motor for example is the most common sov 1v1 doc while only 30% of ML players bothered to veto it. Armored Assault is maybe the most infamous tournament doc of all time yet is only 6th pick in automatch.
OKW spec ops is only 5th pick in automatch but was worth a veto for 83% of tournament player (dont know which brain nugget didnt veto that one, should be 100%)

To balance every faction you have to somehow keep most relevant stats in mind, listen to 4v4 heroes and keep the tournament scene clean from abuse... doesnt seem like an easy task. I would agree that Brits are not in a very good state atm but i would rather have one ded faction than an overly dominant one.

i would rather have one ded faction than an overly dominant one.

UKF is in coffin for few years now, they just nailed it during the last winter patch. And from what I've seen from commander balance, they are nailing a few more nails into it.

I don't want a OP faction that consistently can win the match. I just want to see a proper faction.(Which is the reason they need to have a rework.)

In other games like LOL, (Obviously they have much more match count to show stats) champs with 49~51 are considered balanced. 53+ or 47- means OP or troll pick.

And yes, they also suffer the difference between pro-league & auto match. But they still try to balance both sides.

With current stats in UKF, they are broken anywhere you see it. pro-league or auto match in 1v1 to 4v4. I'm surprised that I'm the only one seeing this as serious imbalance.

Yes tournament results should be taken into account. One thing to note tho (unless a specific strat is very dominant) tournament players will choose the strat and faction they are the most confident with.

Yes, truly many players from tournament doesn't play UKF. I do know of that. But there was a few good players like Asha or Hans who used to play UKF.(There should be more, but sorry for my lack of insights here) But we do not see them playing anymore.

I agree, however USF 1v1 leaderboard is populated with only 1800 players (1400 for UKF) at the moment, yet USF has a ~50% win rate while UKF does not. We don't know how big the effect of +400 players is, but I assume it is not +8% WR. We should wait for a second month of data at least to check what is going on.

Also, this argument should (generally speaking) lead to Allies having slight less than 50% WR by default.

My assumption that the average Brit player is worse than the average player at the same rank with other factions is not based on any stat but rather 5 years of "how dafuq is this dude top x with brits"
A playercard with lets say top50 Brit rank and top300 with every other faction is alot more common than similiar distributions with other faction.

But allies do have a slightly negative WR or am i missing something?

Edit: i do agree that we shoudl wait for abit more data

Just remove Brits from the game and nothing of value would be lost.

Remove section cover bonus, make sections 5men regardless of Bolster and balance them around them being 5 men, give sections snares, remove sections trenches, remove sappers snare, put UC in T1, nerf the shit out of the AEC, nerf hunt, put mortar team in T1, put every UKF emplacement in Advanced emplacements doctrine, remove phosphorus rounds from Comet, put land mattress in T2 and make it a useful non cheesy unit.

Anything less than that is not acceptable. Better have a dead Brit faction than an OP Brit faction.

This. You cant just buff british units or timings. The hole faction design is the problem and i dont think a faction redesign is going to happen. The balancing of Brits in the last 1 or 2 years was worthless and without any major scope. Sections went from broken to mediocre and back to brocken and... T0 and t1 units got swapped, new abilities and units got added. And in the end it made almost no difference. Emplacements got nerfed and are getting buffed now and so on.

Either full rework or let them rot in the current state.

My assumption that the average Brit player is worse than the average player at the same rank with other factions is not based on any stat but rather 5 years of "how dafuq is this dude top x with brits"
A playercard with lets say top50 Brit rank and top300 with every other faction is alot more common than similiar distributions with other faction.

But allies do have a slightly negative WR or am i missing something?

Yes, but the most likely reason for this is that Brits are not played as much, so it is easier to get to a higher level than with other factions. This is probably not true for rank 1-20, but likely for rank 100-200.
Since USF ladder at the moment does not seem to be THAT much more populated, I would assume we should see a similar effect.


The last point was mentally uncoupled from your statement and more generally meant. Since Allies have more factions, they have on average a lower skill for the same rank since good players "dilute" or simply do not play all factions all the time. I don't mean the top 20 that play every faction, but the top 150 player that does not "train" all his factions equally and might not even play some at all.
By far and large, I'd also say that Allied win rates are slightly below 50%.