Volks mp40 vs stg44 vs no update

Against a faction that has almost zero chances to win vs Ost (while Sov are 50/50 vs Ost). WOW. Just cause Okw can compete with the british faction, who has major problems too, doesnt mean that they are competitive vs the top dogs.

They are tho according to this:
https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1617235200/1v1/wermacht?statsSource=top200

They go, in fact, all the way from pretty much perfectly balanced in 1v1 to batshit insanely OP in 4v4.

Against a faction that has almost zero chances to win vs Ost (while Sov are 50/50 vs Ost). WOW. Just cause Okw can compete with the british faction, who has major problems too, doesnt mean that they are competitive vs the top dogs.

Not even worth replying to tbh.
Years of forum warmongering and brain damage go hand in hand

They are tho according to this:
https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1617235200/1v1/wermacht?statsSource=top200

They go, in fact, all the way from pretty much perfectly balanced in 1v1 to batshit insanely OP in 4v4.

The 1vs1 stats support my argument tbh. Ost and Sov best, Usf is good, Okw mediocre and Brits are just bad.

The 4vs4 stats are easy to explain.

1. Axis tank roster is way easier to use than that of the Allies. Using Elefant or Jagdtiger requires way less micro and team coordination. On the other side Allies have to play as a team to counter these units. Similar to the old ISU in 2vs2 where you had to play our of your mind to beat this shit unit. Most of the maps favor range compared to speed too.

2. USF and Brits lack some tools like stock Rocket Arty. Thats why in my opinion both factions should have Calliope and Land Mattress as stock units.

Not even worth replying to tbh.
Years of forum warmongering and brain damage go hand in hand

Then we shall call make-a-wish foundation for you based on your whining about OKW being weak.

270 (370 full) manpower is quite high for just getting healing (leig and flak ht dont offer much later in the game). That could be a mg, a raketen or most of an obers squad. So i dont think the fuel is the problem. Going all 3 tech structures is very manpower draining though.

And that for a faction who has mediocre mainline (Cons get 6,26 HP per manpower at vet3, Volks get 4,1 HP per manpower at vet 5; from that point Cons are 50% more efficient than Volks), expensive elite (cost compared to timing window),and just a few mediocre ways to deal with infantry later on. Imo the faction has major manpower problems later on in the game (atleast compared to SOV/Ost; Usf bleed the same but atleast their inf isnt shit)

270 mp is certainly a lot, especially if you back tech in the later stages of the game when there's less time left to recoup that expenditure. but as said before, i'd rather make healing for the other factions more expensive than to further water down the distinction between okw's two tech paths. imho the mp reduction soviets got for their in-base healing wasn't really needed in the first place, but anyway...

the mediocre scaling of volks, as you put it out in your example, is probably the most universally agreed upon flaw the faction suffers from at the moment. i'm not sure if a vet reshuffle as proposed earlier in this thread will be able to solve this, but a small bonus to RA at vet5 could certainly attenuate the late-game bleed a good bit.

The 1vs1 stats support my argument tbh. Ost and Sov best, Usf is good, Okw mediocre and Brits are just bad.

The 4vs4 stats are easy to explain.

1. Axis tank roster is way easier to use than that of the Allies. Using Elefant or Jagdtiger requires way less micro and team coordination. On the other side Allies have to play as a team to counter these units. Similar to the old ISU in 2vs2 where you had to play our of your mind to beat this shit unit. Most of the maps favor range compared to speed too.

2. USF and Brits lack some tools like stock Rocket Arty. Thats why in my opinion both factions should have Calliope and Land Mattress as stock units.

If one look at all stat instead of top "200" which included many more games they paint a completely different picture.

Win rates for OKW are about equal to those of UKF in 1vs1.

i don't know, this might be a pretty unpopular view but for me the better solution to the healing conundrum wouldn't be to make okw medics even more accessible (for the n-th time) but to make general in-base healing more restrictive across all factions instead. currently hp damage dealt to infantry doesn't really have any impact as healing at base is fast and so universally and cheaply available without any real downside. it would be more interesting if going for a med bunker or base medics actually had a noticable impact on tech timings rather than just being a minor mp/mu expenditure along the way for most factions. as a side effect this would also make stop gap solutions, such as the variety of med packs or troop transport healing a bit more attractive.

Y'know, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, either. The issue is that it would be FAR much more work to effectively rework the entire games healing system as opposed to just filing down the edges of the current system.

Healing sort of needs to work as it does now because you can't really control health damage done to models, and there's no other way to deal with damaged models except to heal them. If you wanted healing to be harder to access/more limited you'd need to provide some other method for factions to deal with damaged models; such as the ability to rotate them out for "fresh" models for MP. Any of this is likely FAR too out of scope for CoH2

You the coh1 wehrmacht had purchase able slow passive healing. It would be nice to have that kind of option for okw.

If one look at all stat instead of top "200" which included many more games they paint a completely different picture.

Win rates for OKW are about equal to those of UKF in 1vs1.

But why would you want a polluted data base when you can filter games which are way closer ranked wise? I mean, it's not like the sample size is that small.

6K games vs total 15K. Compared to what happens in teamgames (2v2 been barely relevant with 1.5K games from 23K).

i don't know, this might be a pretty unpopular view but for me the better solution to the healing conundrum wouldn't be to make okw medics even more accessible (for the n-th time) but to make general in-base healing more restrictive across all factions instead. currently hp damage dealt to infantry doesn't really have any impact as healing at base is fast and so universally and cheaply available without any real downside. it would be more interesting if going for a med bunker or base medics actually had a noticable impact on tech timings rather than just being a minor mp/mu expenditure along the way for most factions. as a side effect this would also make stop gap solutions, such as the variety of med packs or troop transport healing a bit more attractive.

I think we are entering the territory of how effective healing needs to be to account for how effective mp wise vehicles are.

But why would you want a polluted data base when you can filter games which are way closer ranked wise? I mean, it's not like the sample size is that small.

6K games vs total 15K. Compared to what happens in teamgames (2v2 been barely relevant with 1.5K games from 23K).

I have no idea why you call them polluted.

Actually the Top games are probably more polluted since UKF player probably have inflated level since there fewer games with that faction.

The actual games with UKF are significantly lower than other factions and bellow 1.000

In addition UKF probably are doing fine vs OKW which would explain the difference in win rates between the 2 categories.

But why would you want a polluted data base when you can filter games which are way closer ranked wise? I mean, it's not like the sample size is that small.

Because it suits his narrative better, when you have results distorted by people who can't play.
Statistic doesn't align with opinion? Just change statistic to more suitable one lol.

Sample size of top 200 is more then enough to get accurate results for balance taking into account only top 200 aka people with a clue and some micro capacity.

But why would you want a polluted data base when you can filter games which are way closer ranked wise? I mean, it's not like the sample size is that small.

6K games vs total 15K. Compared to what happens in teamgames (2v2 been barely relevant with 1.5K games from 23K).

DISCLAIMER: I absolutely do not agree with Vipper's suggestion of including lower-skill matches in the data, low-skill players do not provide an accurate view of balance, regardless of how many of them there are. They don't show if a tool works correctly, merely that they don't know how to use it.

Personally I think the issue with this sort of data is it doesn't quite paint the most useful picture. Raw winrates are less useful for balance discussions than the faction's winrate vs each opposing faction shown separately, particularly with the disparity of total games for any given faction. Is there a breakdown that shows the results of specific matchups? Brits being included at all (Despite their abysmal performance/limited number of games) makes the rest of the data rather misleading.

(Similarly: while a 50% winrate is the desirable outcome for each faction; A 50% winrate still doesn't necessarily mean that some balancing work isnt required, especially if that winrate is only achieved through crutching on certain units/strategies. SOV "worked" for a while, but only because the T70 carried the faction, which still warranted changes even if that resulted in a "balanced" winrate.)


With regards to 3v3/4v4 vs 1v1/2v2 winrates: I think this is further evidence that these modes need to be balanced seperately. In teamgames it's far easier to crutch on certain absurd strategies that can only work due to critical mass factors, and that some mechanics don't interact correctly in larger modes due to the comparatively static nature of maps.

I think some of that could actually be solved through mapping. I think that 3v3/4v4 maps could probably benefit from A: A reduction in the amount of resources available, B: an improvement in the layout of sectors, in order to make cutoffs/flanks/etc a little more realistic in these modes, and finally: An increase in the size of maps, while implementing more "walling" to compartmentalise these maps a little better (while avoiding the laney layout present in many popular team maps, this "lane" system causes an unfortunate number of issues)

The rest of it is the over-representation of artillery (both rocket and conventional), and in the case of axis: the strength of vehicles like the Panther when massed. There's a phenomena in games similar to DOTA called a "deathball", where one team rolls around the map as a blob obliterating everything they come across, this is similar to what ends up happening in CoH2 teamgames. The difference is that in DOTA this doesn't work vs competent opponents, because the benefits from doing so are heavily outweighed by what you lose in map control/other objectives. In CoH, having your army obliterated by the deathball puts you in a position in which you can't project yourself back onto the map, and the deathballing team ends up profiting in the long run because of this.


There's also the fact that vehicles like the Elefant, Jagdtiger, and ISU-152 are far too difficult to flank in these modes, but I think that can be solved by changes to the maps.



I find it interesting that 1v1 and 2v2 games have somewhat comparable winrates, whereas 3v3 and 4v4 have a MASSIVE disparity between each other, incidentally. Perhaps that's partially due to sample sizes, but it's interesting that it seems to imply that Allies are slightly favoured in 3v3, but axis are far, FAR ahead in 4v4. Is there something special about the fourth player?

DISCLAIMER: I absolutely do not agree with Vipper's suggestion of including lower-skill matches in the data, low-skill players do not provide an accurate view of balance, regardless of how many of them there are. They don't show if a tool works correctly, merely that they don't know how to use it.....

I have not suggested to include "lower skill" matches. The site provides top players games where can choose between top 200 players "only", in that specific mode.

Show Spoiler


The stat are different weather uses this choice or not and the number of games less.

I have not suggested to include "lower skill" matches. The site provides top players games where can choose between top 200 players "only", in that specific mode.

If you're suggesting you use data from games where all players involved are not top 200, then you are advocating including lower-skilled player's statistics. I'm not sure how you could possibly argue against that. Is this some sort of semantic argument, or what?

The stat are different weather uses this choice or not and the number of games less.

Yes, there are a greater number of games, and the stats are different. This is because some of the players in these matches are not in the top 200, which means they are worse players, which pollutes the statistics.


If you're including games like:

[INSERT BEST BRIT PLAYER IN THE WORLD HERE]'s UKF vs Chukiki's OST

And getting a winrate of 99 - 1 in favour of UKF, that doesn't imply that Brits are good and OST is bad, just that a good player beat a terrible one. That's all you're introducing.

Come on, this is some seriously retarded logic.

If you're suggesting you use data from games where all players involved are not top 200, then you are advocating including lower-skilled player's statistics. I'm not sure how you could possibly argue against that. Is this some sort of semantic argument, or what?

I am not advocating anything. I simply pointing out a statistical difference.

Yes, there are a greater number of games, and the stats are different. This is because some of the players in these matches are not in the top 200, which means they are worse players, which pollutes the statistics.


If you're including games like:

[INSERT BEST BRIT PLAYER IN THE WORLD HERE]'s UKF vs Chukiki's OST

And getting a winrate of 99 - 1 in favour of UKF, that doesn't imply that Brits are good and OST is bad, just that a good player beat a terrible one. That's all you're introducing.

Come on, this is some seriously retarded logic.

And you have not produced any explanation how what you describe would benefit a specific faction and alter the win rates when there are 15k games.


Now read what the person doing the analysis has to says:

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


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

In case you don't understand how the site works:

If you filter by all, you get stats from ALL players who have at least 1 top200 on any mode. This includes 4v4 random or 2v2 AT. So it's more likely you get polluted stats if someone plays more than a single mode.

Top200 is better when possible because on top of having a stable sample of players, all members have to be top200 which filters as much as possible matchmaking deficiencies.

More power to my argument when we considered that there are less UKF players on the ladder, as only considering top200 makes it a way more homogeneous sample of players (i'll argue the cut should be made at top100 but we have what we have).

...

I agree but we have to work with the limited tools we have at our disposal. The site offers a filter to look at how each faction performs against each other, but as of the moment, we don't have a bigger pool of information as that feature was added recently.

You have to look at it weekly.

Week 17:

Brits vs OH/OKW / Number of games respectively
All
47%/47% - 260/265
Top200
51%/44% - 96/88

Week 18

All
53%/50% 310/228
Top
45%/48% - 101/42

So the LIMITED data points we have atm are not telling us that UKF is doing fine against OKW or leeching wins against it.

I am not advocating anything. I simply pointing out a statistical difference.

Why bother pointing it out if it isnt useful data? Why bother pointing it out if you're apparently not of the belief that it should be taken into account?

And you have not produced any explanation how what you describe would benefit a specific faction and alter the win rates when there are 15k games.

At no stage have I mentioned it benefiting a specific faction. What including worse players' games in the data does is muddy results and make analysis less meaningful, which is what was explained. If there is a problem with the raw total number of games being assessed; the solution is not to cast your net wider and start using irrelevant games' data.

The data is altered because the outcome of games is less dependent on the stronger faction winning, but on the stronger player winning, as player skill is clearly far too varied in your larger sample for the differences in strength between factions to be as apparent.

Now read what the person doing the analysis has to says:

This analysis doesn't have anything to do with the idea of including worse players' games in the data, he's doing quite the opposite: Advocating that the system be refined to include only the top percentage of players in each faction, while stating that this has the problem of reducing the number of data points further, and imbalancing the number of potential players of each faction who are eligible for assessment.

Snib DD

That's rather interesting, I'm surprised that winrates appear to be fluctuating so wildly week-to-week (For the top 200, i mean. The "all" winrates are obviously irrelevant).

I agree, by the way, that we pretty much have to work with what we have, just so long as /too/ large an emphasis isnt put on this sort of data. It's good for a vague sense of balance, but it's much too unreliable to take as gospel, except in cases like Brits where their winrates are absurdly anomalous, even this unreliable data isnt causing that sort of disparity. Though, to be fair, it's not like you even really need to do an analysis like this to see that UKF are simply not a well functioning faction.

Why bother pointing it out if it isnt useful data? Why bother pointing it out if you're apparently not of the belief that it should be taken into account?

Because it demonstrates there a big statistical difference and one should be careful on how to interoperate the numbers.

It seem that when the number of games is low certain player can have an impact on the numbers.

At no stage have I mentioned it benefiting a specific faction. What including worse players' games in the data does is muddy results and make analysis less meaningful, which is what was explained. If there is a problem with the raw total number of games being assessed; the solution is not to cast your net wider and start using irrelevant games' data.

The data is altered because the outcome of games is less dependent on the stronger faction winning, but on the stronger player winning, as player skill is clearly far too varied in your larger sample for the differences in strength between factions to be as apparent.

This analysis doesn't have anything to do with the idea of including worse players' games in the data, he's doing quite the opposite: Advocating that the system be refined to include only the top percentage of players in each faction, while stating that this has the problem of reducing the number of data points further, and imbalancing the number of potential players of each faction who are eligible for assessment.

If in your opinion does not favor a specific faction you have little reason to claim that one set of stat is better than other especially since the number of games is much large in the second cases.

If you're including games like:

[INSERT BEST BRIT PLAYER IN THE WORLD HERE]'s UKF vs Chukiki's OST

And getting a winrate of 99 - 1 in favour of UKF, that doesn't imply that Brits are good and OST is bad, just that a good player beat a terrible one.

Because it demonstrates there a big statistical difference and one should be careful on how to interoperate the numbers.

It seem that when the number of games is low certain player can have an impact on the numbers.

There's a statistical difference because worse players are included. That's the reason.

If in your opinion does not favor a specific faction you have little reason to claim that one set of stat is better than other especially since the number of games is much large in the second cases.

The "top 200" stat is better because it doesn't include unskilled players muddying the results. I'm not sure why there's a necessity that it "favours a specific faction" before realising that this is a bad thing.