2vs2 Winrates

Recently I discovered this thread on reddit

I watched 500 a couple months ago, but I decided to change it up a bit. I watched RANDOM 2v2 automatches of ALL rankings via the in-game spectator mode.
I watched until the game ended and I included games that surrendered at any point. This is a random sample of 1000 2v2 games recording the winners.
I did not keep track of units or doctrines or bulletins.

NOTICE: This is just for 2v2s. I can't say anything about the other match ups. I've heard 1v1s are worse for axis and 4v4 are worse for allies so I assume that the more players their are the better the axis does. But I can't say either way.

Allies
Wins: 671/1000 (67%)
Soviet-Soviet: 391/554 (70%)
Soviet-USF: 179/279 (64%)
USF-USF: 101/167 (60%)

Axis
Wins: 329/1000 (33%)
OST-OST: 94/322 (29%)
OST-OKW: 111/276 (40%)
OKW-OKW: 124/402 (31%)

Given my last post, there are a lot of people in this sub that don't know how statistics and sample sets work. These games were randomly selected.
NO custom games were included, only automatches via the matchmaking system. Surrenders and quits were included. There were no special conditions. 1000 games is enough to give a fairly accurate representation of the game considering there are not that many people playing anyways. It is also enough games so that outlying games do not have an impact in the stats. Overall, the patch did not change the win rates much from what I'm seeing.

PS. Yes I know how many hours it takes and I have been on vacation for a long time

What do you guys think is the reason for this imbalance? I personally was astonished that double USF does so well.

༼ ºل͜º༼ ºل͜º༼ ºل͜º༼ ºل͜º ༽ºل͜º ༽ºل͜º ༽ EVERYONE GET IN HERE ༼ ºل͜º༼ ºل͜º༼ ºل͜º ༽ºل͜º ༽ºل͜º ༽ºل͜º ༽

inb4 people argue against the data

so many wins

and they chose to be boring

Soviet wins: 70%

I made a thread about it.

The Soviet fanclub joined and denied it.

All hell broke lose.

It got locked.

Congratulations. Stalin himself couldn´t have done it better. I predict that even with these statistics you will hit a wall of the usual suspects shamelessly denying that the Soviets have every advantage in the game.

I watched until the game ended and I included games that surrendered at any point. This is a random sample of 1000 2v2 games recording the winners.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuure.

But what if this would be actually true...

prepare

I want to see real relic stats not a random reddit post

What do you guys think is the reason for this imbalance? I personally was astonished that double USF does so well.

I am even more astonished that you actually brought that shit over here.

It's not really hard to understand, without writing out too many words, allies dominate the early game, if you dominate the early game you have only yourself to blame if you lose, axis can't counterplay at all, they just get wrecked and hope their opponens aren't good so they don't push them too hard and are able to exploit mistakes to regain control.

This goes for all game modes, but in 3v3s and 4v4s maps are bigger and more resources flow in so the window of time USF can push hard is greatly diminished, thus they have less time to make their moves or lose.

Why I specified USF? because soviets aren't lacking late game at all, they are on par with axis, not worse nor better, but they are also largely better early & mid game.

Forgot a mentition,almost all 1v1 and 2v2 maps are also largely in favour of allies, they are very tight, mid-short range units completely outperform long range ones, they are usually cluttered with buldings, which allies have an easy time with, the cheapest and fastest way to deal with them are molos which force units out in a couple of seconds while an ost mortar would take quite some time and while flamethrowers are the same on both sides I find soviets to have an easier access to them, they get more muni from more map control, they barely have to worry about mines and they don't have to worry at all about demos and their CE cost less than pios incase they need a mine sweeper.

I am even more astonished that you actually brought that shit over here.

When seeing all that pointless whine threads I thought discussing some actual numbers should be refreshing.

Unbalanced maps are the primary problem here along with un-equally early game, the rest is secondary. Atm most maps in 2vs2 are allied favored (such as the new 2vs2 maps). There are also more Axis "rage quitters" in 2vs2 randoms due to allies having an early game advantages in map control. Alot of random Axis players in 2vs2 will just rage quit once they lose the first few engagements.

If all the 2vs2 maps were equally balanced, equally balanced early game and equally balanced learning curve then Win/lose ratio in 2vs2 randoms might be more interesting.

Unbalanced maps are the primary problem here along with un-equally early game, the rest is secondary. Atm most maps in 2vs2 are allied favored (such as the new 2vs2 maps). There are also more Axis "rage quitters" in 2vs2 randoms due to allies having an early game advantages in map control. Alot of random Axis players in 2vs2 will just rage quit once they lose the first few engagements.

If all the 2vs2 maps were equally balanced, equally balanced early game and equally balanced learning curve then Win/lose ratio in 2vs2 randoms might be more interesting.

What specific changes do you suggest?
Or, what features make maps bad for Axis, good for Allies?

But I cannot imagine those numbers are a reflection of the current patch.. Say the average game length is 30 min. That's 500 hrs of watching replays. Smells a bit funky.

And i thought i play games too much.

When seeing all that pointless whine threads I thought discussing some actual numbers should be refreshing.

Ah hah hah. Here?

Good luck trying to get people to check or test anything. It's all armchair history, stat comparisons in a vacuum, and calculating fuel and muni to manpower ratios.

"Zomg I spent 960mp on PAKs, why a 170mp flamer engi able to win? Engis OP!!!111"

Nice data. I think people win because they play better than their opponents. Maps play a big part as well.

But I cannot imagine those numbers are a reflection of the current patch.. Say the average game length is 30 min. That's 500 hrs of watching replays. Smells a bit funky.

Do not forget speed up things. I speed up replays all time lots and lots.

ahh ... good point.

How did he watched 1000 games, made sure there are no AT teams so his "RT only" is valid, made sure its not rank 100 vs rank 2000 games, but similar skill level of teams and didn't took 10 months to do it again?

Thats not any kind of data at all.

There is too much data and variables to believe any other data then that provided directly by relic sadly.
What happened to Legends and his data compilations from relic?