win-lose-ratio from 15.9. - 25.9.2014 + much more

i'd skip usa, they are effectively handicapped at most phases of the game, unless someone goes all out grens/volks on rifles.

they have no counters to the current meta of kubels, insta pin mg34s, heavy tanks, lmg spam, snipers, except smoking the hell out of everything. nor do they have good non doctirnal building counters and grenades dont cut it.

soviets have a better fighting chance but not that much different since they suffer from inferior support teams, inferior infantry and inferior tanks.

only real way to beat axis now is to fight people who spam volks/sp without support teams/kubels and troll them around with m3 scout cars and flamers. against the mass majority of averagely decent people, you need to play better to match them in team games.

i'd skip usa, they are effectively handicapped at most phases of the game, unless someone goes all out grens/volks on rifles.

they have no counters to the current meta of kubels, insta pin mg34s, heavy tanks, lmg spam, snipers, except smoking the hell out of everything. nor do they have good non doctirnal building counters and grenades dont cut it.

soviets have a better fighting chance but not that much different since they suffer from inferior support teams, inferior infantry and inferior tanks.

only real way to beat axis now is to fight people who spam volks/sp without support teams/kubels and troll them around with m3 scout cars and flamers. against the mass majority of averagely decent people, you need to play better to match them in team games.

word my brother. and shermans smoke and a few others don't work while moving now.... is that a bug?

but this is why when u search u hardly ever find allies playing, cuz its harder to play

Great work.

My 2 cents:

Firstly, there are more team games than 1v1 games. I really do not understand why people must insist, that balance must flow up from 1v1. More people are playing team games, thus more people would gain greater enjoyment if games were balaned from a team perspective. It is my firm belief, that Relic has made a mistake with its balance philosophy by focusing on the least played game mode. Perhaps it is thus unsurprising that 1v1 is the closest to balace game mode, at the EXTREME EXPENSE of 77.6% of the games played.

Secondly, the 'most popular faction' is misleading. Axis and allies must always add up to 50% each, because you can't get into a mirror match in random queue. What this means is that due to the smaller number of allied players, top200 Axis players are constantly fighting lower ranked allied players. This creates an unfun experience for both sides; it can often be a roflstomp for one team, and far too challenging for the other.

Finally, USF needs massive help in 4v4. When the top 200 players are on occasion winning less than 50% of their games, something is seriously wrong.

Top 200 players don't always play top 200 players so yeah, these stats can be a bit skewed but still, I was suprised to see the win rates THAT lopsided in team games.

The problem is simply economics. okw gets balls out insane from the economic buffs the ostheer factions bestows on the okw. a similar issue was present in coh 1 with the brits+ us .

The best way to counter this is to make sure the okw cannot benefit from fuel caches .

in 1vs1 the us need a slight buff to their early game anti vehicle power.

LeL most of the playerbase hates russians and americans ,but loves high tech fictional nazis...

He is not describing his method of pulling stats or have i missed that? If he is just scraping the stats pages from coh2.org ladder boards from time to time we have some errors in the stats. You can't count i.e. USA (what was his better known name again?) because he played no games since at least 1 week. You would have to calculate the difference from time to time and then calculate the stats from these differences...otherwise you would always recount the previous stats!

My 2 cents:

Firstly, there are more team games than 1v1 games. I really do not understand why people must insist, that balance must flow up from 1v1. More people are playing team games, thus more people would gain greater enjoyment if games were balaned from a team perspective. It is my firm belief, that Relic has made a mistake with its balance philosophy by focusing on the least played game mode. Perhaps it is thus unsurprising that 1v1 is the closest to balace game mode, at the EXTREME EXPENSE of 77.6% of the games played.

Secondly, the 'most popular faction' is misleading. Axis and allies must always add up to 50% each, because you can't get into a mirror match in random queue. What this means is that due to the smaller number of allied players, top200 Axis players are constantly fighting lower ranked allied players. This creates an unfun experience for both sides; it can often be a roflstomp for one team, and far too challenging for the other.

Finally, USF needs massive help in 4v4. When the top 200 players are on occasion winning less than 50% of their games, something is seriously wrong.

To be fair, 3v3 was the least played game mode during this period. "Most popular Faction" is counted by how many games are played with each faction by the top 200 players.

He is not describing his method of pulling stats or have i missed that? If he is just scraping the stats pages from coh2.org ladder boards from time to time we have some errors in the stats. You can't count i.e. USA (what was his better known name again?) because he played no games since at least 1 week. You would have to calculate the difference from time to time and then calculate the stats from these differences...otherwise you would always recount the previous stats!

I think he wrote somewhere on the official forums about how he is doing this. I don't know if you didn't see the links but he have collected data for about 4 weeks in total and the pattern is the same.

He is not describing his method of pulling stats or have i missed that? If he is just scraping the stats pages from coh2.org ladder boards from time to time we have some errors in the stats. You can't count i.e. USA (what was his better known name again?) because he played no games since at least 1 week. You would have to calculate the difference from time to time and then calculate the stats from these differences...otherwise you would always recount the previous stats!

He explained that in one of his earlier threads.

He got stats from relic basically.

nerf allies

Good work with these statistics.
I see there are many people who thinks that Axis "popularity" is due to the fact that they are more "easy" to play. Let me ask you something: If a game has several factions, what would be the faction you would play the most? The most OP (strong overall, standard units and easy to play) or the one who is more challanging (high risk-high profit, cool units, etc)
That's the question you need to ask yourselves.

Good work with these statistics.
I see there are many people who thinks that Axis "popularity" is due to the fact that they are more "easy" to play. Let me ask you something: If a game has several factions, what would be the faction you would play the most? The most OP (strong overall, standard units and easy to play) or the one who is more challanging (high risk-high profit, cool units, etc)
That's the question you need to ask yourselves.

But in CoH2 we have one faction with both the coolest units and at the same time the strongest and the easiest to play. okw

And i was already wondering why i was forced to go ISU all the time since WFA came out.

^Seeing nowadays players and ther mentality?

Easiest goes without saying.

Sorry, but hardly anyone except very best players are looking for a challenge, players love to have stuff instantly and effortlessly.

Developers have spotted that years ago, so let me ask you JohnnyB, why do you believe 99% of "mainstream" non indie games are extreemly easy to play and even if you do a fuck up you are either rewarded for it in some way or just game automatically loads you back just moments before the event that messed you up?

If you believe axis armies are high risk high reward and people play them for the challenge, well, you're lying to yourself.

If people wanted challenge they would play AGAINST okw this symbol, not with it.

Good work with these statistics.
I see there are many people who thinks that Axis "popularity" is due to the fact that they are more "easy" to play. Let me ask you something: If a game has several factions, what would be the faction you would play the most? The most OP (strong overall, standard units and easy to play) or the one who is more challanging (high risk-high profit, cool units, etc)
That's the question you need to ask yourselves.

We dont need to answer anything. Every body knew that OKW and wermacht were the strongest

Now we have stats to prove it.


What we need to ask ourselves? is how is relic gonna fix this

Good work with these statistics.
I see there are many people who thinks that Axis "popularity" is due to the fact that they are more "easy" to play. Let me ask you something: If a game has several factions, what would be the faction you would play the most? The most OP (strong overall, standard units and easy to play) or the one who is more challanging (high risk-high profit, cool units, etc)
That's the question you need to ask yourselves.

I would, that is why I play mostly allies.

When I play OKW I just spam volks, throw 10 ammo mini nuke grenades everywhere, spam panzerschreks for AT, get a single Ubersoldaten squad that easily racks up 60+ kills every game and get some panthers or a KT to finish of my opponent.

Teching costs are absolutely nothing with OKW and their volks are incredibly cheap to reinforce in the lategame considering their effectiveness as both AT platforms and mini-nuke lobbing AI platforms. That is, if it ever gets to that and the game does not end with kubel/pio/truck cut-off push shenanigans.

If you want a challenge, play Soviets while using doctrines without call-in tanks. See how your first T34/76 gets insta-countered by 3 panzerschreks and how your basic infantry gets shredded by übersoldaten.