Addressing the issue of ELO-hell.

Another fun thing to do is go to SPECTATE and see the team makeup of the top page of 4v4 matches. You will see that soviets number 1-2 on a team until you get to level 11 games where it becomes 3-4 soviets. This is the entrance to ELO Hell. From level 11 (80% of players) down you have a stronger chance of losing several games in a row.

Worse players have a higher chance to get a loss streak.
Impressive insights.

Maybe you should stop bitching and find some enjoyment in games you lose instead of getting bitter over losses.

Worse players have a higher chance to get a loss streak.
Impressive insights.

Maybe you should stop bitching and find some enjoyment in games you lose instead of getting bitter over losses.

Maybe you should shut your dick smoking hole you whiny fuck!

See I can make retard comments just like you.

What I posted was an observation supporting my argument that Soviets are the weakest faction in 4v4 right no. And most susceptible to ELO Hell. What is your argument? "I am retarded gaDuhhhhhhhhhh"

Also these stats dont support your claim that soviets are weak. Soviets are simply played by tons of new players only owning the base game.
They also play OST ofcourse, but OST linear teching and more generalist units means its harder to fuck up.

New players = bad players = higher loss streaks.

Also these stats dont support your claim that soviets are weak. Soviets are simply played by tons of new players only owning the base game.
They also play OST ofcourse, but OST linear teching and more generalist units means its harder to fuck up.

New players = bad players = higher loss streaks.

I think you are stuck in a loop or dont remember the start of this discussion.

Let me summarize for new readers:





Graphs show:
1) Top 200 player matches show that axis win about 3% more than allies in 4v4.
2) Soviets are the worst performing army.
3) All soviets against Okw, Okw, Ost, Ost only has a 35% chance to win.
4) 3 soviets and a USF against Okw, Okw, Ost, Ost only has a 37% chance to win.
5) 3 soviets and a brit against Okw, Okw, Ost, Ost only has a 39% chance to win.

Anecdote data (not facts):
1) I personally see SOV struggle in games.
2) I have seen more matches at Level 12 down that have 3 or 4 soviets than at higher levels. These are less likely to be wins.

My Conclusion:
- Soviets are weak in 4v4.
- More soviets = lose.
- Lower ELO sees more soviet matchups and lose more.

Therefore, Soviet players at Level12 and lower are more likely to get stuck in ELO hell and have long losing streaks.

Feel free to interpret the data anyway you see fit. I am not "bitching". I am using science and data to see if a problem exists for the benefit of players. Something Relic is not doing. But keep licking Relics balls and see how far you get with that.

I was just spectating top 4v4 games, to see the SOV team mate counts, and saw an outlier. All top games were only one or two SOV players per team except one.

Four SOVs at a higher rank area in the spectate list. So I loaded the match to see how it went but CELO told me all I should have known before even looking.



Four SOVs in one game? At a higher ranking? How could this possibly happen?

Three players are way below LEVEL 12

#RelicHappens

Seems to show too much of anything has a lower winrate which makes sense.
Having more diverse tools at your disposal is superior naturally.
Also top 200 is quite a wild grab, most players there just got there by playing a shitton of games and are still terrible.

As for that full China team how do people possible get pocket aces out of a full deck of cards. Goddamn ridiculous.

Im only responding because you wrote half a book once more.
I dont really give a damn since i believe its a skill issue and you can only get more skillful if you play the difficult games.
In the end of the day everyone deals with the same system and you only have to do better than the next guy to climb.
And no your enemies are not getting dealt pocket aces every hand.

Show Spoiler

Without wanting to comment on the conclusion:
You've stated some wrong data. You're looking at all the games, not only at the top 200. The top 200 data back until October includes a whopping 4 games with all Soviet teams, as well as obviously way less games than the ones in your screenshot.

Without wanting to comment on the conclusion:
You've stated some wrong data. You're looking at all the games, not only at the top 200. The top 200 data back until October includes a whopping 4 games with all Soviet teams, as well as obviously way less games than the ones in your screenshot.

Thanks Hannibal. I always use the MAP STATS header which has NO OPTION for number of players

I see the STATS header does. I will have to review all of the data now. Or not, since no one cares or reads it. They just blurt some random vitriol and dip out

Seeing only 4 games as all SOVs further illustrates my point that you only see heavy SOV loaded games at level 12 and down. It also shows that the level 12 and down players have the chances to win that I posted since the stats are ALL games.

EDIT:
Seeing this top200 players only map stat made me throw up in my mouth a little.

Seeing only 4 games as all SOVs further illustrates my point that you only see heavy SOV loaded games at level 12 and down. It also shows that the level 12 and down players have the chances to win that I posted since the stats are ALL games.

Looking at all of the data and playing around with some ratios I do believe that 4xSoviets is probably the weakest matchup there is out there at the moment.

However, I am not sure if the 4x Setups is really what we should look at. Those matchups make up a very small part of all games (currently ~3% overall regarding all Soviet teams, which probably increases to whatever percent further down the ladder). I'd not subscribe to your "More soviets = lose." statement, not only because it is "too generalized", but also wrong in many parts.
There seems to be indication that adding a Soviet to a "pure" USF or pure UKF team brings down the win rate. In that regard, the statement is correct. However, adding a second or third Soviet does not do an awful lot. Only a pure Soviet team then again seems to be disfavoured.
Adding a Soviet to a mixed team of USF and UKF often even improves the winrate or does not really diminish it.

To make it short: We can only guess how many "all Soviet" games happen at the bottom of the ladder. However, they are very likely quite rare events. All Soviet teams are likely disfavoured, but it also seems to be unlikely that you get multiple of these games by random chance. I'd say the contribution of these specifically is probably rather low, especially considering that rank 12 is mid ladder and higher rankings go along with more even usage of all factions, thus less chance for all Soviet games.

It would be great to have some data that actually shows what we try to discuss here, at the moment we have to assume so many parameters and other factors that could play a role.