Login

russian armor

Spamm or skill ?

27 Aug 2014, 12:34 PM
#41
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



Imagine you have 8 people searching as axis, 2 people searching as allies. Finally, matchmaking puts two if them into a game. If one new axis an one new allied player starts searching (which would be a 50/50 split for the newcomers), you still stay at 80% axis.
A constant 80% searching axis does not neccessarily equal 80% wanting to play as axis at first, in fact you can't derive anything from these numbers alone (especially not your statement of "80% want to play axis first").


Hum
8-2=6+1=7
2-2=0+1=1
1/7x100=14%, 100-14=86%, no 80%.


edit: To make it clear: you can't derive what people want to play from these numbers (no % of player preferring axis over allies everytime), you can only derive how many people actually play a faction (what I already did in this thread).


I don't try to state anything, number are already there. The problem is coming from your method. Here we have 2 distinct populations and not just one as you state.

1)People that are actually playing a game
2)People willing to play a game

Our interest cover people willing to play a game.
We always have 100% of people looking a game.
We have X% of this population looking for a game as Axis
We have X% of this population looking for a game as Ally

Many analyses from many players state that between 70-80% of the population is more interested to launch the game as Axis than Allied on a regular basis.
Some people made some statement about the reason like the sensation of playing the bad boys. In fact They maybe right or not, it doesn't matter, the average is there, 70-80% of people willing to play COH2 in multiplayer ranking mode want to do it as Axis in first instance.

Why do I say first instance? Because as many here mentioned before, looking for a game as Ally is a matter of second before being matched. So there are no 2nd instance for an ally 1st picker, or your are really fast in changing your mind and your faction or you made a mistake selecting an Allied faction but in fact since it also happens on the other side, the % or error is negligible.
On the opposite side when you are looking for a game as Axis, you have plenty of time to change your mind before being matched, not only because you selected Axis by mistake but because people don't want to wait 5 minutes before being matched.

So the population willing to play a game isn't that stubborn, people wants to play a game first. And from then, as Axis in 1st instance , which is not every time possible. So people just switches faction and get matched faster.

From that point, they then leave the group of people looking for a game to the group of people playing the game.
Are all Allied players in that group wanting to play Allied in 1st instance, my conclusion is no with a negligible % of error.
Are all Axis players in that group wanting to play Axis in 1st instance, my conclusion is yes with here again a negligible % of error.
27 Aug 2014, 12:36 PM
#42
avatar of steel

Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1

I thought this thread was about spam or skill not the percentage of axis-soviet players. Where exactly is this thread heading to ? :S
27 Aug 2014, 13:19 PM
#43
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400



Did you even read what I wrote? You will get ~51/49, probably less, if you consider everybody playing and searching, which is what you have to do to calculate percentage for each faction. Which shows that there is almost no difference in player base. (Even less than) 51 out of 100 people prefer axis.

I guess I should have listened to SlaYoU, some people are not good enough with numbers to understand the basics... :(


I told you, it is a lost cause, let them believe what they want. One day, Relic will release the official stats and all those maths ignoramuses will probably fall from their chair when they see it is closer to 55/45 than the 80/20 they believed was "real" for so long. They can't understand how numbers work in a case of a bottleneck (my first thoughts were it was working as a stack, but since ELO has a role in matching players, it is more of a bottleneck with the players of the 55% side accumulating in the queue; which implies your calculation is correct).

PS: Since it seems we are having a discussion with someone that actually can use some numbers, i'll just add this: the only way of knowing exactly the % of each faction players, would be to log in right after a server restart, and log the searching %. If, as i and bambabam think, it is something like 55/45 (even less maybe), it should start at these %, then slowly increase in axis favor until we reach that constant 80/20 ratio. From the rate at which it increases, we can roughly estimate what the real discrepancy is, but not until then. The easier way is still to ask Relic (if they are ok to provide the numbers).
27 Aug 2014, 13:22 PM
#44
avatar of FrikadelleXXL

Posts: 390

Permanently Banned
Very funny. Instead of accepting what stands black on white, no we have to do math lel it's fan fiction what are you doing right now.
27 Aug 2014, 13:34 PM
#45
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400

Very funny. Instead of accepting what stands black on white, no we have to do math lel it's fan fiction what are you doing right now.


The idea is to simply try to understand how you reach that black on white result. Too bad majority of people prefer to believe what they see as evident that trying to understand what lies beneath. But again, i know i'm wasting my time.
27 Aug 2014, 17:50 PM
#46
avatar of bämbabäm

Posts: 246

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Aug 2014, 12:34 PMEsxile
Hum
8-2=6+1=7
2-2=0+1=1
1/7x100=14%, 100-14=86%, no 80%.


Read every word I wrote, but I guess that's too much to ask here :P


jump backJump back to quoted post27 Aug 2014, 12:34 PMEsxile
Our interest cover people willing to play a game.


:facepalm:
"Yeah, we want to see the preferences of CoH2 players concerning faction choices, so let's just ignore 99% of the players."
Ahhh I understand.... that's why during elections, only the votes of the people, who still wait in line 2 minutes before the election offices close, are counted when determining the will of the people! That makes total sense!

Yeah, I guess even the best explanations are useless when even the most basic math skills are missing... SlaYoU, I will stop beating these dead math horses from now on (at least in this thread :D ).
27 Aug 2014, 20:38 PM
#47
avatar of The_Courier

Posts: 665

Axis are more popular, that's a fact. I doubt the ratio is anything bigger than 55/45, but they still are. My queue times as Axis are easily twice as long if not more.

About the OP, some people will always call you spammer, especially if they are losing. It's the old ''if I'm losing, it's because my opponent is using X unit, not me sucking'' mentality. I had this guy trash talk me all game because I made a sniper, lost it, and made another. That's apparently ''spam''. To say nothing of people who complain about me having 4 rifles as US. Yeah sherlock, what the hell am I supposed to do until I get my LT out, build 3 ambulances?
27 Aug 2014, 22:00 PM
#48
avatar of Ducati
Benefactor 115

Posts: 164

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Aug 2014, 12:34 PMEsxile
"Observationally, the percentage of players looking for games, while I'm online, favors the Axis factions". Followed by faulted logic and assumptions.



It is impossible to do a statistical analysis of player preference without a survey of the player base. You can't draw conclusions of what motivates people based on the observational data.

Even if Relic released their actual numbers of players search/playing it doesn't really tell you anything of why it's that way. Nor can you draw any conclusions on balance, or faction design.

From the mathematical examples given by you and Bambabam, Bambabam's model most closely reflects reality of player faction distribution.

TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER: Spam, skill, who cares? Are YOU having fun? <- That's the real question.
28 Aug 2014, 06:23 AM
#49
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



Read every word I wrote, but I guess that's too much to ask here :P




:facepalm:
"Yeah, we want to see the preferences of CoH2 players concerning faction choices, so let's just ignore 99% of the players."
Ahhh I understand.... that's why during elections, only the votes of the people, who still wait in line 2 minutes before the election offices close, are counted when determining the will of the people! That makes total sense!

Yeah, I guess even the best explanations are useless when even the most basic math skills are missing... SlaYoU, I will stop beating these dead math horses from now on (at least in this thread :D ).


If you're good at math, definitively not at analytic. That's not a problem, it doesn't change anything, spamming your theory and taking weird example doesn't make it more "true".

28 Aug 2014, 07:36 AM
#50
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 06:23 AMEsxile


If you're good at math, definitively not at analytic. That's not a problem, it doesn't change anything, spamming your theory and taking weird example doesn't make it more "true".



If you are so good in the "analytics", why can't you even understand how a bottleneck works ? You have on one end, more liquid to put in a bathtub that it can drain (liquid = axis, drain = allies). Obviously, the level of water raises in the tub.

I understood what you meant with your "first intention preference", as it actually makes sense. I kind of agree that among the allies players, there are probably a fair share who would have played axis if the queue wasn't so long. It contributes in the flushing process (to stick with the example i provided), but having a constant 80% axis searching doesn't mean there are 80% axis players. I took the time to compute what a real 80%/20% bottleneck is, and it spirals out of hand very very fast, since by the time you match 2 axis players with 2 allies, there are 4 new axis waiters for 1 new allie, and the % raises even higher than 80%. You would see a constant 100% axis players search if that was the case. Still observing 80/20 most of the time just shows that axis players are accumulating in the queue, yet they are matched frequently enough to not reach 100% ratio.

I lack some english vocabulary in the math department, so maybe i didn't make my point clear enough.
28 Aug 2014, 13:18 PM
#51
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 07:36 AMSlaYoU


If you are so good in the "analytics", why can't you even understand how a bottleneck works ? You have on one end, more liquid to put in a bathtub that it can drain (liquid = axis, drain = allies). Obviously, the level of water raises in the tub.

I understood what you meant with your "first intention preference", as it actually makes sense. I kind of agree that among the allies players, there are probably a fair share who would have played axis if the queue wasn't so long. It contributes in the flushing process (to stick with the example i provided), but having a constant 80% axis searching doesn't mean there are 80% axis players. I took the time to compute what a real 80%/20% bottleneck is, and it spirals out of hand very very fast, since by the time you match 2 axis players with 2 allies, there are 4 new axis waiters for 1 new allie, and the % raises even higher than 80%. You would see a constant 100% axis players search if that was the case. Still observing 80/20 most of the time just shows that axis players are accumulating in the queue, yet they are matched frequently enough to not reach 100% ratio.

I lack some english vocabulary in the math department, so maybe i didn't make my point clear enough.


I never said 80% of people are playing Axis, it is of course impossible, I'm talking about preferences, people saying 80% of people play as Axis is a language dis-formation to say actually they want to play Axis and I don't understand why you guy are focusing on it, it sounds like demonstrating water is wet.

Today people prefers playing Axis and it doesn't sound so incredible to understand.

Anyway, Bambabam theory is still wrong and you shouldn't base you own assumption on it.

28 Aug 2014, 15:00 PM
#52
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 13:18 PMEsxile


I never said 80% of people are playing Axis, it is of course impossible, I'm talking about preferences, people saying 80% of people play as Axis is a language dis-formation to say actually they want to play Axis and I don't understand why you guy are focusing on it, it sounds like demonstrating water is wet.

Today people prefers playing Axis and it doesn't sound so incredible to understand.

Anyway, Bambabam theory is still wrong and you shouldn't base you own assumption on it.



Still you dodge the real question: do you understand what is a bottleneck ? I don't think so, and Bambabam theory is completely valid, unless you bring some miracle out of nowhere, but i fear you won't convince anyone, since we "fail at analytics" when we talk numbers, and you are just able to talk about feelings and "what if". Not a good enough approach, so i'll leave you there with your broken dreams. Bye.
28 Aug 2014, 15:29 PM
#53
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 15:00 PMSlaYoU


Still you dodge the real question: do you understand what is a bottleneck ? I don't think so, and Bambabam theory is completely valid, unless you bring some miracle out of nowhere, but i fear you won't convince anyone, since we "fail at analytics" when we talk numbers, and you are just able to talk about feelings and "what if". Not a good enough approach, so i'll leave you there with your broken dreams. Bye.


Ok, so let's demonstrate in couple of lines why this theory is wrong.

This is the base of the theory: remember it?
So, to make it easier to understand for you, I'll use absolute numbers. Whenever I'm online, there are around 6000 players online. Let's assume ~100 people are searching for games (which will be far to high, I guess it will be 10-20, but nevermind for now) and half of the players are playing online ( => 3000; which surely is not enough). So among these 3000, 1500 are playing allies, while the other 1500 play as axis. (please don't tell me you don't understand why) Now, in case all of the 100 peolpe searching selected axis, that makes a total of 1600 axis vs 1500 allies. 1600 / (1600 + 1500) = 51.6%. Not that much you see? With less people searching and more than half of the people playing, let's say 50 searching and 4000 playing, you have 2050/4050 = 50.6%.
There is practically no difference in the player bases! For every player playing axis, there is exactly one player playing allies. Not more, not less. The few people searching do not change a thing.


Well, so where does come from those numbers? is it an Estimation? So if he can use his own estimation, I'll use mine:

Let's assume 1000 people are looking for a game and 20 people are playing the game. It's my own estimation.
Over those 1000 persons, 800 are looking for a game as Axis and 200 as Ally. we are around 80%/20%
Now, let's add those 20 actual players. 810 Axis and 210 Ally, 79.5% Axis and 20.5% Ally. Far from what he says isn't it?

And now, I know what you're thinking and going to reply, but stop here already... stop stop tatatata :)!!!! Give me your sources!! You want to demonstrate you're right, give me the proof that your numbers are more realistic than mine, except from you own assumption or estimation.
You cannot, because Relic doesn't communicate them.

You cannot imagine numbers that confirm your theory, with no proof of their relevance and come to say "Look, my theory is right, those number I invented confirm it"!! It doesn't work like that. Otherwise, using the same schema I can demonstrate you that in 2015, Christmas Day will be the 34 of August.

It is why I excluded the pool of players in game, because we don't know them, and I theorize over what people wants to play, and not what people is actually playing. We only know what the ratio of people willing to play Axis or Ally, the % showed while looking for a game.
28 Aug 2014, 15:39 PM
#54
28 Aug 2014, 15:47 PM
#55
avatar of THTCookieCrumbles

Posts: 26

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Aug 2014, 21:29 PMChris
I think it´s only poor that the Soviet only is effective when he spamms maxims ? This is the only effective way to dominate the OKW fact is the stormpios will crush you. When you get the M3 you have a lack of at... I think the Soviets need a better starting unit ( Conscrips a bit stronger and maybe a weaponpack to counter ostheer lmg).




I don't really agree that soviet is only effective with maxim spam. Opening with 4 cons is still viable against OKW. People seem to be careless around sturmpio's. I really don't see any problem with conscripts
28 Aug 2014, 16:18 PM
#56
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

I don't really agree that soviet is only effective with maxim spam. Opening with 4 cons is still viable against OKW.


Maybe in 1vs1, where the OKW player can't attack both fuel/ammo points at once.

In 2vs2 or higher, conscripts openings are condemned to fail.
Wherever you choose to go, there will be waiting a Sturmpio+volk or a Sturmpio+Kubel. Even if you manage to win the first engagement and seize a fuel, all manpower invested in conscripts will be useless past midgame when they can't do nothing angainst OKW infantry or vehicles.

28 Aug 2014, 16:35 PM
#57
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 16:18 PMGreeb
I don't really agree that soviet is only effective with maxim spam. Opening with 4 cons is still viable against OKW. /quote]

Maybe in 1vs1, where the OKW player can't attack both fuel/ammo points at once.

In 2vs2 or higher, conscripts openings are condemned to fail.
Wherever you choose to go, there will be waiting a Sturmpio+volk or a Sturmpio+Kubel. Even if you manage to win the first engagement and seize a fuel, all manpower invested in conscripts will be useless past midgame when they can't do nothing angainst OKW infantry or vehicles.




that's why you use merge man. it is an OP ability







What you are saying is somewhat true though. Sturmpios decimate conscripts. I wouldn't say they are that squishy. They can close the gap easily due to conscripts poor dps
28 Aug 2014, 16:44 PM
#58
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

Is true that you can hold your ground with conscripts against OKW.
But against good players, molotovs are useless, and each battle is a manpower bleed for the Soviet player even if he wins the engagement.
In 1vs1 is more easy to push with infantry and outcap your enemy but 2vs2 games are much more defensive and conscripts doesn't do well in them.

You can't blame soviet players if they prefer spamming maxims/snipers instead, as they require much less micro, are more effective, doesn't bleed as much manpower, and the most important, they remain effective all the game.
29 Aug 2014, 06:17 AM
#59
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 15:29 PMEsxile

Let's assume 1000 people are looking for a game and 20 people are playing the game. It's my own estimation.
Over those 1000 persons, 800 are looking for a game as Axis and 200 as Ally. we are around 80%/20%
Now, let's add those 20 actual players. 810 Axis and 210 Ally, 79.5% Axis and 20.5% Ally. Far from what he says isn't it?


Lol, for the first and only time you bring numbers to the table, you manage to screw up.
So you basically have 800/200 players waiting, and then you add 20 players, and split them 50/50 ? What are you trying to prove exactly ? That the player base is evenly split ? You are a math clown, you should have just shut your trap from the get go.

PS: Moderators, we need an ignore function, i don't want to read that guy anymore.
29 Aug 2014, 10:33 AM
#60
avatar of Flamee

Posts: 710

Ok, this is about right time that this thread takes a few steps towards the original tracks or then this discussion is over and percentages will be counted in some other thread.

On topic:

Based on my yesterdays games, I would really like Relic to implement some kind of penalty when blobbing too much. I understand that US is really depended on that but too much is too much. I think at the moment it is too rewarding.

IMO there should be some sort of reduce in units status if blobbing over 3 squads (or four, this was just example). That would reward then again more flanking. I know flanking is still valuable game mechanic but atleast in early game this issue is really frustrating when you don't yet have the tools to control the blobs.

What do you guys think?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 8
Russian Federation 4
United States 2
unknown 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

667 users are online: 1 member and 666 guests
Jolliyastefan
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49108
Welcome our newest member, Jolliyastefan
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM