Login

russian armor

Which Commanders are players using (Stats)

5 Sep 2014, 16:14 PM
#1
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

I would love to see Statistics from Relic about this.
Which commanders are we (COH 2 Players) using the most and which not. I am really curious to see how many commanders are get left out :-)

Relic, do you think you could show us this statistics? I am not really expect an answer (for obvious reasons that i am not gonna write) but hope does dye last!!!

Edit: It would be nice to categories them per game mode. 1v1, 2v2 ans so on...

5 Sep 2014, 18:41 PM
#2
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

Those which have any of these: Any soviet call-ins, heavy tanks and guards + isu-152s are being used more, b4s, Rifle Company and Infantry. Any german commander with Tiger of Ele + Luftwaffe Supply. Scavenge and Luftwaffe.

Anything left out are rarely used atm.....like Infantry Doctrine, Cons support, Recon Company, Elite Armor etc.
5 Sep 2014, 19:23 PM
#3
avatar of Stafkeh
Patrion 14

Posts: 1006

Thanks to this commander rotation other commanders are used to. So that brings some more variety to the game wich is nice.
5 Sep 2014, 19:47 PM
#4
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21

Soviet Reserve Army. Has everything I need; irregulars, rapid conscription, howitzer, PPsH, and conscript repair kit for if I ever need to quickly repair my vehicles.
5 Sep 2014, 20:45 PM
#5
avatar of synThrax
Donator 11

Posts: 144

Relic once told us that they are collecting stats of just anything in this game.
I would love to see them publicly. Would like to see the win / loss ratio of commanders. There could be so many interesting things out there once seen in a bigger stat-context...
5 Sep 2014, 20:49 PM
#6
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

I don't know why they do not release these things. maybe it will cause a shitstorm when they do
5 Sep 2014, 21:01 PM
#7
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

I don't know why they do not release these things. maybe it will cause a shitstorm when they do


Ok, I'm gonna say it. I believe that they never gonna release this stats because this will prove that over 70 % of them never or almost never get used. This would mean that the commander design is not that good (trying to be polite here). So if they do that, it would mean that they have to do something about that which I doubt. They can tell us what they want, this commander design is made so to make money, nothing else. This is my opinion! I hope relic prooves me wrong!
5 Sep 2014, 21:07 PM
#8
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9



Ok, I'm gonna say it. I believe that they never gonna release this stats because this will prove that over 70 % of them never or almost never get used. This would mean that the commander design is not that good (trying to be polite here). So if they do that, it would mean that they have to do something about that which I doubt. They can tell us what they want, this commander design is made so to make money, nothing else. This is my opinion! I hope relic prooves me wrong!


Not going to fight you on this. :(
5 Sep 2014, 21:15 PM
#9
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

Yeah I agree. If what they release confirms our suspicions or refutes our observations, then it could cause a lot of trouble for them. It is too bad that we suspect them of doing this though.... sigh
5 Sep 2014, 21:17 PM
#10
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1


They can tell us what they want, this commander design is made so to make money, nothing else. This is my opinion! I hope relic prooves me wrong!


of course the commanders are meant to make money, so are the skins and faceplates. thats not a reason to make shit commanders though. that might make sense if all the free commanders sucked and the premium commanders were the viable ones. thats not the case though. i believe most of the commander design is just an oversight since the commander meta changes quite a bit with each patch.

for example, assault grens never saw much use after they got nerfed right after release, but is now quite good after americans were released. conscript support tactics (a paid commander that no one has ever used or purchased) was and probably always will be shit. if the idea was to just make p2w commanders, why would they sell commanders that are obviously terrible and would never get used?

even changes unrelated to commanders have had indirect changes to the commander meta. like the increased teching costs is entirely to thank for the call in meta we have today, which completely restricts the number of viable commanders.

so id say its not a greedy business model as much as poor balance foresight that makes most commanders bad. it would actually be in relics best interest to make all commanders desirable if they wanted to make the most money
5 Sep 2014, 21:23 PM
#11
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

What it is truly sad is how many good ideas are locked in crappy commanders that nobody uses and that could make the core game much more interesting.
5 Sep 2014, 21:51 PM
#12
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

What if Relic's stats really did show a lot more people choosing Axis over Allies? hahaha there would be rage for days
5 Sep 2014, 22:08 PM
#13
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Sep 2014, 21:17 PMwooof
conscript support tactics (a paid commander that no one has ever used or purchased) was and probably always will be shit.


I purchased it, and I used it a LOT. It was actually very powerful back when the meta was not all about call-ins. Back in those days, PPSH41 upgrades were cheap and actually improved the performance of the unit greatly. Hit the dirt was not useless back then either. Rapid conscription would give your fresh squads without having to invest manpower, enabling you to both build tanks and increase your infantry force at the same time. Then there was the always useful conscript repair kit and the nice fire barrage for when you didn't need rapid conscription anymore.
5 Sep 2014, 22:19 PM
#14
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

I don't know why they do not release these things. maybe it will cause a shitstorm when they do

I'm thinking they don't want to release them because it will strongly suggest which commanders are the best and should be used, and even fewer players will use the unpopular commanders because they now know how few people waste their time on them. It would have the opposite effect of what they would want, and reinforce players choosing only a few commanders.
5 Sep 2014, 22:25 PM
#15
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Sep 2014, 22:19 PMTobis

I'm thinking they don't want to release them because it will strongly suggest which commanders are the best and should be used, and even fewer players will use the unpopular commanders because they now know how few people waste their time on them. It would have the opposite effect of what they would want, and reinforce players choosing only a few commanders.


and force them to do work :D<444>_<444>
5 Sep 2014, 22:49 PM
#16
avatar of wooof

Posts: 950 | Subs: 1



I purchased it, and I used it a LOT. It was actually very powerful back when the meta was not all about call-ins. Back in those days, PPSH41 upgrades were cheap and actually improved the performance of the unit greatly. Hit the dirt was not useless back then either. Rapid conscription would give your fresh squads without having to invest manpower, enabling you to both build tanks and increase your infantry force at the same time. Then there was the always useful conscript repair kit and the nice fire barrage for when you didn't need rapid conscription anymore.


youre right. i actually had forgotten about the old op ppsh and how broken hit the dirt used to be. i think this supports the idea that commanders arent made to be bad though. some just get hit harder with nerfs than others.
6 Sep 2014, 03:51 AM
#17
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Sep 2014, 22:49 PMwooof


youre right. i actually had forgotten about the old op ppsh and how broken hit the dirt used to be. i think this supports the idea that commanders arent made to be bad though. some just get hit harder with nerfs than others.


When in doubt, hit the dirt. Behind a wall of stone? Don't worry, HTD, keep shooting (eventhough i don't know how you could do it) and enjoy inmortality.

Rather than commanders, i would like to see W/L ratio divided in gamemodes and ELO rank.
6 Sep 2014, 11:38 AM
#18
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1



When in doubt, hit the dirt. Behind a wall of stone? Don't worry, HTD, keep shooting (eventhough i don't know how you could do it) and enjoy inmortality.

Rather than commanders, i would like to see W/L ratio divided in gamemodes and ELO rank.


Well, even after the HTD nerf the commander was still very good. Only now that PPSH41 are sword-range only, stock tanks are more both more expensive (due to tech costs) and less performing than call-in tanks, and OKW infantry is pissing all over soviet infantry, is the commander truly bad.
6 Sep 2014, 11:39 AM
#19
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Sep 2014, 21:17 PMwooof


of course the commanders are meant to make money, so are the skins and faceplates. thats not a reason to make shit commanders though. that might make sense if all the free commanders sucked and the premium commanders were the viable ones. thats not the case though. i believe most of the commander design is just an oversight since the commander meta changes quite a bit with each patch.

for example, assault grens never saw much use after they got nerfed right after release, but is now quite good after americans were released. conscript support tactics (a paid commander that no one has ever used or purchased) was and probably always will be shit. if the idea was to just make p2w commanders, why would they sell commanders that are obviously terrible and would never get used?

even changes unrelated to commanders have had indirect changes to the commander meta. like the increased teching costs is entirely to thank for the call in meta we have today, which completely restricts the number of viable commanders.

so id say its not a greedy business model as much as poor balance foresight that makes most commanders bad. it would actually be in relics best interest to make all commanders desirable if they wanted to make the most money


I think the truth is somewhere in the middle wooof. Of curse you have a point, i think you are right. But i will tell you this, there are toooooo many people who dont care what the "new stuff" is (in this case the commanders), as long there IS new stuff. They buy everything and Relic knows that (and every other commpany, not only in the gaming bussines). So i still believe that this is the main reason for this commander desing.
As i said before, i hope i am wrong and i really hope that you suggestion (to make all commanders worth playing) becomes reality!
7 Sep 2014, 05:35 AM
#20
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

i dont see any value in releasing commander stats. I choose the same commanders over and over mainly because those are the only commanders i have.

and if one commander "wins" more than others, it would be a misleading statistics becuase it woudldnt be weighted with other factors like skill level.

itd hurt balance discussions IMO. I think its better to reference specific scenarios and replays than "if you look at the stats this commander isnt used that much so it should have a buff"
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

998 users are online: 998 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM