Why always such drastical balancing changes?

If there are more than 2x as much "whine threads" about a certain faction, than another, dont you think there might be a reason?

If there are more than 2x as much "whine threads" about a certain faction, than another, dont you think there might be a reason?

And you know what is that reason?

Much bigger population on the axis side, which by default means much bigger population of bad players who don't understand the game and go to forums right after loosing to something they can't understand.

Meanwhile, the number of actually decent players on both sides is similar.

There is also case of certain vocal trio(one of them disappeared somehow, not gonna miss you lolcake) who spams threads over and over, believing quantity is the only quality that matters.

Where is your evidence there is "much bigger population" on axis side?

I would be very interested to see your source and evidence.

The last graphic of population Relic released (was a long time ago though) showed almost a 50/split in population preference.

And if there are twice as many whine threads about a certain faction, it is reasonable to conclude, and Ockhams Razor would dictate, that that is because that faction has proportionately more issues than others.

Umm, the last graphic didn't showed any population, but win loss ratio.
Nothing more.

And guess what? To have win loss ration you need to include the games that were played.

And guess what again? The graph, for obvious reasons do not include people that were sitting in the que.

We never had any population difference graph. Only the one showing win-loss ratio difference and THAT was more or less balanced(except for the part where it was over 60% wins for axis, which was the bigges fluke in the graph and that spike in german favor was during march deployment failure).

And last but not least-where was still 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 whine threads difference with more being whined about soviets when the graph showed almost 50% win loss ratio.

What is the conclusion there? Simple. More numerous clueless noobs of more numerous faction. If you had played the game, you'd noticed permanent 10:90%-30:70% search ratios in favor of axis constantly except late night where everyone sleeps.

Its not really a secret that much more players play axis therefore much more noobs are within them due to sheer population disparity between armies and thats why you always have twice as many whine threads about about "allies op axis up" then the other way even when the graphs show 1:1 win loss ration in general.

So you have no actual evidence to support the presumption on which your arguments rest, that there is "much bigger population" on axis side?

The matchmaking % has been repeatedly explained why it is not an indicator of population preference, for a whole comprehensive list of reasons. Its timezone and geography dependant, completely subservient to what faction a player happens to be using at that time (most play several), and most importantly, apparently related to ELO by a factor of time waiting, where it is narrow at first and then widens the range over time (if reports of that are correct).

I dont say this lightly, but only an uneducated idiot thinks it is an actual valid indicator of faction preference.
It has too many incidental variables, that only a subjective perspective that ignores those factors, would take as somthing conclusive. Its the intellectual equivalent of looking at the sky in Denmark, and claiming you can predict the weather in New Zealand from that.

You then go on, again, to assume a sequence of logical leaps, that somehow 1) Axis has more bad players in proportion 2) These players are somehow more likely to make whine threads than other factions. Neither is supported by any evidence.

Does anyone happen to have the old Relic released graphic on hand?

Hey Babaroga,

Thanks for replying, I'll explain you why your post got invisibled

Yeah, I see your point. Especially since I didn't realize I made a typo in the last bit and that sentence is badly worded, it can be seen as implying as you said.

I meant to say since QD got on board and not PQ, as in since OF and asymmetric faction design. Since it's lot harder to balance (yeah, I see how that can be twisted 2. I'll try not to use names)

Nvrm, it wasn't meant to be attack

Thanks for clarification

It's Relic. They have been known for dodgy balance since CoH1/DoW1. They seem to overnerf/buff things at the same time, and as someone else stated here there seems to be some miscommunication going around at Relic seemingly.

As much as I love Relic games, just remember the multiplayer will have balance issues.

So you have no actual evidence to support the presumption on which your arguments rest, that there is "much bigger population" on axis side?

The matchmaking % has been repeatedly explained why it is not an indicator of population preference, for a whole comprehensive list of reasons. Its timezone and geography dependant, completely subservient to what faction a player happens to be using at that time (most play several), and most importantly, apparently related to ELO by a factor of time waiting, where it is narrow at first and then widens the range over time (if reports of that are correct).

I dont say this lightly, but only an uneducated idiot thinks it is an actual valid indicator of faction preference.
It has too many incidental variables, that only a subjective perspective that ignores those factors, would take as somthing conclusive. Its the intellectual equivalent of looking at the sky in Denmark, and claiming you can predict the weather in New Zealand from that.

You then go on, again, to assume a sequence of logical leaps, that somehow 1) Axis has more bad players in proportion 2) These players are somehow more likely to make whine threads than other factions. Neither is supported by any evidence.

Does anyone happen to have the old Relic released graphic on hand?

they should simply add the amount of players searching to the search info. so ppl could see its 7 axis players searching and 1 allied, while thousands of ppl are actually in a game with a SET population ratio of 1:1

they should simply add the amount of players searching to the search info. so ppl could see its 7 axis players searching and 1 allied, while thousands of ppl are actually in a game with a SET population ratio of 1:1

It used to be that way iirc!

There used to be a numerical figure, rather than a %.

But even then, it still simply is not a valid measure of preference for many many reasons.
For every screenshot one guy shows of % at any given time, another guy will have one to the exact opposite.

The matchmaker % just doesnt work as an indicator of preference, although it is easy for someone to think it does, from their own subjective experience. I understand "why", someone would think it is, and it is hard to teach "why" it is not, to someone who doesnt yet have that kind of understanding of how statistics and data are compiled, and what is involved in validity of those.

Like let me give an example. Recently there was a radio-news broadcast I heard that stated "Studies show that watching TV increases your weight". Now, the automatic reaction is to connect the two directly, causally. But when you think about it a bit, you realise there is no magical radiation from the TV that makes people fat. Watching TV does not make you fat. Not excercising and eating wrong, makes you fat. Not the TV. But it just so happens, statistically (and predictably) that someone who does infact watch a lot of TV, is watching so much of it, that they dont take time to excercise.

See what I mean? Such data is only as valid as the means whereby they are collated. Its easy, but wrong, to draw conclusions feom them that are actualy not causally related

Unfortunately, Relic has been very tight-lipped about releasing actual stats.

We simply dont know what preference is. Perhaps Steam data can be mined to reveal the facts.
But, Steam synch with CoH2 stats has a very poor and problematic history. So even that data, has validity issues.

Ultimately, only Relic knows for sure. But for one reason or another, they have rarely chosen to share that.