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

Definition
from Liquipedia

Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. In general, cheese is hard to beat if not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted.

Furthermore, cheese can be defined if there are no valid transitions out of the said strategy.

Cheese is not:
- Kubel openings
- Double Soviet snipers
- Double M3 flamecars
- Maxim spam
as these are all standard openers for their respective factions. They may be easier or harder to execute, but they are all standard builds (the "meta".)

Cheese would be something more akin to:
- 6 RE starts > Fighting Positions
- Lenny's 8 to 11 conscripts
- Barton's 5S strategy
- 3 Kubel starts (prior to 40 range buff)

who'd knew this would derail into a balance discussion

Show Spoiler

Furthermore, cheese can be defined if there are no valid transitions out of the said strategy.

Cheese is not:
- Kubel openings
- Double Soviet snipers
- Double M3 flamecars
- Maxim spam
as these are all standard openers for their respective factions. They may be easier or harder to execute, but they are all standard builds (the "meta".)

Cheese would be something more akin to:
- 6 RE starts > Fighting Positions
- Lenny's 8 to 11 conscripts
- Barton's 5S strategy
- 3 Kubel starts (prior to 40 range buff)

So I guess I am not using a cheese strategy while playing OKW, because I'm using 1 kubel. Thank you. Instead,

- Double Soviet snipers
- Double M3 flamecars
- Maxim spam

I'm seeing all the time....

thi game is still fu broken in 3v3, 4v4

So I guess I am not using a cheese strategy while playing OKW, because I'm using 1 kubel. Thank you. Instead,

- Double Soviet snipers
- Double M3 flamecars
- Maxim spam

I'm seeing all the time....

That indicates a balance flaw...

Plz how else are soviets suppost to beat okw. When their infantry outclass soviet infantry.

how are soviets suppost to win?

I dont know what game mode you play, but clearly no one plays the same game as you. The statistics are pretty clear, and many of us have seen the top players play and thier thoughts are pretty much the same as what the charts show.

You are kind of delusional to not at least igknowlege the fact the USF and Soviet design are flawed in a way that forces two cheese strats to even stay competitive, which get out scaled hard core by Axis late game.

Even if you think the charts dont represent balance, clearly they represent that out of the top 200 players of each game mode the win loss ratios significantly favor Axis. You might want to go brush up on your statistics....

I am a top player tbh.

As for brushing up on my statistics, like I said before, it is stupid to look at these stats and say "ZOMG AXIS SO OP"

I am a top player tbh.

As for brushing up on my statistics, like I said before, it is stupid to look at these stats and say "ZOMG AXIS SO OP"

But we can say:
-OKW synergies better with OH than USF does with SU.
-USF in general is "crap"
-It's easier to handle heavy tanks rather than glass cannons.
-We all know 3v3+ is Axis territory. % more, % less, it has been always like this.
-There are way more maps that benefit OKW vs USF rather than the opposite (if any).

BS Stats....Need to see the whole picture, not just the "Top 200" in order to make judgment.

This is like saying "Top 200 richest people and what they spend their money on" and basing costs off of that. Very skewed, would be nice if we could see the real numbers.

BS Stats....Need to see the whole picture, not just the "Top 200" in order to make judgment.

This is like saying "Top 200 richest people and what they spend their money on" and basing costs off of that. Very skewed, would be nice if we could see the real numbers.

A poll of top 200 players for each faction is an accurate representation of what is going on with the balance, unless you really believe that players of axis side are that much more skilled then players of allied side.

Games are balanced for the people who can play them, don't make many mistakes, know their armies and can pump most out of them-the top players.

You have facts presented right there at your face and you still try to dismiss them. That is obvious denial my friend and sorry to disappoint you, but the only skewed thing we currently have is balance.

A poll of top 200 players for each faction is an accurate representation of what is going on with the balance, unless you really believe that players of axis side are that much more skilled then players of allied side.

Games are balanced for the people who can play them, don't make many mistakes, know their armies and can pump most out of them-the top players.

You have facts presented right there at your face and you still try to dismiss them. That is obvious denial my friend and sorry to disappoint you, but the only skewed thing we currently have is balance.

Try? I'm dismissing them based on the general thought that the top 200 is still a small percentage compared to the big picture. Would be lovely if we had access to the entire playerbase.

Are there balance issues? Sure. Is this an accurate representation of those issues? Nope. Should some things be changed? You betcha.

Try? I'm dismissing them based on the general thought that the top 200 is still a small percentage compared to the big picture. Would be lovely if we had access to the entire playerbase.

Are there balance issues? Sure. Is this an accurate representation of those issues? Nope. Should some things be changed? You betcha.

Denial is great in this one.
So, in other words, you suggest we should make decisions about balance while taking in accout results of matchup of one bad player that use 30% of tools in his disposal vs another bad player using, say, 50% of tools in his disposal?

You need to separate SKILL ISSUE from FACTION BALANCE ISSUE.

You can't talk about balance until there are mistakes in your play. Otherwise, for example, you can think that *something* is OP just because you don't know how to properly counter it, despire there *IS* a counter to that *something*.

Obviously, players from top 200 make less mistakes than below 200, so there is less SKILL ISSUE and more FACTION BALANCE ISSUE.

This is why that chunk of statistics is the best source for making judjement about balance between factions and, as you said, most "accurate representation of those issues" that we possibly could get.

Also it pointed us on that fact that top 200 axis players get FREQUENTLY matched with below 200 allies players, which is another story.

Denial is great in this one.
So, in other words, you suggest we should make decisions about balance while taking in accout results of matchup of one bad player that use 30% of tools in his disposal vs another bad player using, say, 50% of tools in his disposal?

You need to separate SKILL ISSUE from FACTION BALANCE ISSUE.

You can't talk about balance until there are mistakes in your play. Otherwise, for example, you can think that *something* is OP just because you don't know how to properly counter it, despire there *IS* a counter to that *something*.

Obviously, players from top 200 make less mistakes than below 200, so there is less SKILL ISSUE and more FACTION BALANCE ISSUE.

This is why that chunk of statistics is the best source for making judjement about balance between factions and, as you said, most "accurate representation of those issues" that we possibly could get.

Also it pointed us on that fact that top 200 axis players get FREQUENTLY matched with below 200 allies players, which is another story.

Nice strawman argument.

All I simply said is I wouldn't rely on this because it's such a small percentage of the population. I'd rather see REAL statistics based on global gameplay stats.

I never said there wasn't a balance issue. The truth of the matter is I think some people want a 1 for 1 balance and that's simply not going to happen.

I wouldn't rely on the statistics as a great representation of every CoH2 player. I mean, a lot of people play against comps, and that ain't being factored in here anywhere.

But as far as how this game is played competitively, at a competitive level, these stats are quite relevant and a very good representation of how players are utilizing the game mechanics of CoH2.

Try? I'm dismissing them based on the general thought that the top 200 is still a small percentage compared to the big picture. Would be lovely if we had access to the entire playerbase.

Are there balance issues? Sure. Is this an accurate representation of those issues? Nope. Should some things be changed? You betcha.

Ive taken 2 statistics courses

I can tell you that these stats are pretty accurate

If you were to find the statistical mean of all players.

I guarantee it would be shocking.

ive made my own flow chart with a 95% standard deviation.

These statics correctly show the stats of the game up to 95% if we had top 500 player then i could go to 98%

but 95% is close enough.

As a person who has taken two stats courses, i can verify that these stats are accurate.

Of course it would be nice to get info on entire playerbase, but we do not have them yet. Since this is statistics coming from the top 200 players, I'd say it is pretty trustworthy. Why?

Because, as someone said earlier, top players probably have a better skill level. They understand the faction well and know the game mechanics well enough to be at such a top level. Lets just say, they are all equally skilled. These statistics then indicate that there is a FACTION BALANCE ISSUE.

Obviously having data for the entire database is nice, but players under rank 200 probably lack the skill to be ranked higher. It then becomes hard to separate player skill level from balance issues. Lets say a rank 10000 USA player wins 40 percent of his or her games. Does this mean USA is underpowered, or has the player sufficiently acquired the right mechanics and knowledge of the USA faction to compete?


I am confident that the data we have here is fairly accurate.

I think some folks are getting confused that the sample size is only 200. It is 200 per faction. The sample size is 800 players.

I think some folks are getting confused that the sample size is only 200. It is 200 per faction. The sample size is 800 players.

I feel like there would be a bit of overlap. Lots of players who are top 200 in one of the factions are usually top 200 in at least one other or more.

I feel like there would be a bit of overlap. Lots of players who are top 200 in one of the factions are usually top 200 in at least one other or more.

Well if you're using more of the same players, playing different factions, that's even better for an argument in favour of imbalance.

BS Stats....Need to see the whole picture, not just the "Top 200" in order to make judgment.

This is like saying "Top 200 richest people and what they spend their money on" and basing costs off of that. Very skewed, would be nice if we could see the real numbers.

These stats represent 3200 ranks (4 different factions, 4 different game modes, top 200 with each faction/game mode) which is 4x4x200 = 3200.

This could in theory mean that there are 3200 players represented in the stats but since it is likely that some players have several top 200 ranks the amount wouldn't be that high. But just to make it easy we can say that these ranks are roughly divided between a thousand players. A qualified guess would say that people who have reached the top 200 are the most active players.

Now if we look at these stats: http://steamcharts.com/app/231430

You can see that the past 30 days peak amount of players have not been higher than 6953. This would tell us that the stats presented to us by "Legends" is in fact reliable. What you thought was top 200 is nothing less but 3200 positions on the leaderboard.

I think some folks are getting confused that the sample size is only 200. It is 200 per faction. The sample size is 800 players.

It is top 200 per faction and game mode. It is 800 ranks per faction.

the little Gauss in me is crying... again...

1.
Many of you dont even question the source of OPs statistical graphics... who provided the data? how did he operate? he barely explains it on the official forum and nobody felt the need to check if he worked properly/without bias. what is the exact sample size? he mentions the top 200 in every mode thats quite weird since there are teams too... the top 200 positions in 4v4 (both factions) are actually 1600 players... how do they influence the data? which ladder is he using in 2v2+ ? if it is "random ranked", you might as well delete this thread now. its all so frustratingly scarcely sourced, i cant take it seriously, sorry

1.b)
i especially dislike the way the graphs are designed with the y-axis varying in each one (the 4v4 W/L starts at 0.4 W/L, which really distorts the relation between wins and losses in my humble opinion.... ofc the gap is big but it is exaggerated by the way its presented)

2.
The stats only take into account the "Top 200 players" (which as mentioned in §1 isnt properly defined) in each mode over a couple of days. If this didnt ring a bell and you were like "hmmm maybe this isnt representive of the overall W/L ratios or even balance", puh, thats pretty naive of you

3.
Even within the "top200" these graphs dont say that much... just imagine this: every axis player also plays allies once in a while and vice versa. how many of the top 200 prefer axis to allies, yet still play allies and lose? the top 200 dont always fight each other (there been cases where rank disparity reached 5000+) and again the team game problem (see §1). theres so much not taken into consideration at all


I wont go on nor further into detail with this, but if you made any statement on balance based on these graphs, you basically disqualified yourself from any balance discussion in my eyes (and in the eyes of anyone who actually likes a proper discussion and not something along the lines of "X is OP, Nerf IT! BUFF Y cause graph Z says so")

cheers
Dave