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

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.

Every competitive game's balance is based on top players, if you are causal players,the game balance you.

BTW, your waffen SS avatar looks cool.

Nice data. Now the people saying Allies are played just as much as Axis can just shove it up their ass.

I mean, it's been like that since vCoH.

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)

Maybe that's a SC specific definition, but the definition of "Cheese" I was living with my whole life (and everyone I personally knew used) was basically something that's pretty easy to use (strategy, combo, whatever else) while being very, very effective and hard to counter (when compared to the skill level needed to pull it off at least).

Also, I don't think that's just because something is the current "meta" it can't be "cheese" at the same time. After all, one can be forced into "cheese" strategies just to counter "cheese" from their opponent.

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.



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

The steam chart just represents the max number of people on at one time, not how many play it per day.

Every competitive game's balance is based on top players, if you are causal players,the game balance you.

BTW, your waffen SS avatar looks cool.

Thanks, it's a recruitment poster that says you can join after the completion of 17 years of age .

Thanks, it's a recruitment poster that says you can join after the completion of 17 years of age .

Well, it looks cool, indeed

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

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

1-You go to coh2.org ladder tableboards. You daily check any variation on the numbers for each player. Since only the top200 for each ladder is represented, you can only have sample size of 200.
The top 200 players on 4v4 are 200 players, not 1600. You are a bit confused here. It is not top200 teams.
It takes only into account the performance of those players who goes with X faction to random automatch, being it 2v2 or 4v4.
How the hell Relic considers random Elo vs AT Elo i don't have a clue.
Finally, you could takes samples from AT but that would only tell you if Axis or Allies are in a better or worst situation but not taking into account any combination of armies.

2-He has being taking information since 2 months ago. You can check the other threads. Specifically with each patch.

3- Confused? Each individual has a proper ELO/rank for each faction and mode. So if you are a great player as OH and a crappy one as USF, you might not be top 200 as USF so you won't be taken into account into the top200 USF stats.
Who cares about disparity? That works both ways. You can be match with noobs since you are waiting for a long time as Axis, or as allies you can be match with a noob inmediatly (who has being waiting for a long time).


What you have make me consider now is, what happens with those who fluctuate between top 150 and top200+. I guess we have a steady info from the top150 but how the hell do you incorporate the info of someone who drops/enters top200?

Anybody think Relic is going to respond?

Lelno.

I honestly think that both US and Soviets are really, really powerful in 1v1's. Check my stats for yourselves if you doubt my credibility.

Ostheer has the weakest lategame, and OKW can be extremely frustrating to play because its easy to get overpowered by the Allies in the early to midgame, especially by the US.

Anybody think Relic is going to respond?

Yeha, they will respond, by locking all the threads that features Legends' work. Then, they will send out a team to assassinate him or her

Anybody think Relic is going to respond?

They won't do that. As a company you never admit that you are wrong or you'll just add fuel to the fire. But they did write this in the changelog of the last hotfix:

OKW Economy
The previous increase in munition rate for the OKW significantly increased their potency within 3v3 and 4v4 environments to a point where it became problematic. This compounded a number of issues which resulted in the faction significantly over performing relative to its counter parts. Until we are better able to identify and resolve those compounding factors, we are going to revert the munition change to a lower value.

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/67-coh-2-changelog/page4

They indirectly admit that OKW is overperforming in comparison to the other three factions. OKW is becoming even stronger with Ostheer support (bunkers, MGs, fuel caches) which in return yields a high win rate for the Ostheer players as well. Coordinated Allied teams don't suffer from this as much but I understand why the sheer amount of super heavy tanks and vet 5 infantry becomes uncontrollable for any set up of random USF/SU teams.

Hey Napalm, since you live near Relic HQ, you should go pay them a visit with this info