Numbers that show that something is wrong in team games

So I was replying to a dude on the forum talking about http://coh2chart.com/ and I just wanted to share my reply just to inform you guys how uneven the balance is for those of you who are skeptical that Allies are actually in a crisis in 4v4s and haven't taken a look at the numbers:

I feel like I am stating the obvious. So for those who are going "great another one of these threads. We already know!" it's not for you. Its for those who turn a blind eye to the situation

Finally... someone that appreciates NUMBERS AND STATISTICS OVER SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.

4v4 winrates:

Ostheer = 83%
OKW = 88%
USSR = 52%
USF = 56%

3v3 winrates:

Ostheer: 76%
OKW: 81%
USSR: 67%
US: 62%

2v2 Winrates:

Ostheer: 68%
OKW: 69%
USSR: 62%
USF: 64%

Now, whoever likes denying facts and numbers please stand up and reveal yourselves. There is no doubt there is something blatantly wrong with the faction. Allies are SEVERELY underpowered in team games. Numbers speaker louder than words I'm afraid.

Why you may ask? Late game comes really early in team games. The sooner late game comes, the sooner Allies get stomped. USF especially is an early game faction with barely any late game tanks or infantry. All their units WILL die late game. And the maps don't help at all either, very very tiny for eight players. Very narrow, and minimal amounts of flanking routes. It's also very hard to flank when you have four enemy players in a small map with units everywhere.

Nothing survives late game axis. .50 cal MG? It will get killed by Panzerfusiliers or LMG grens or Obersoldaten or vetted Volksgrenadiers extremely easily before pinning. Pack howitzer? Stuka'd to shit. M4 Sherman? I don't even need to explain. Jackson? Will easily get killed by Shreks and Jagdpanzer IVs. I can go on. There's just so many reasons Allies is inferior to Axis in 4v4s that I will consider you insane/overly-biased/trolling if you believe otherwise. The same goes for the Soviets. Conscripts just before manpower drain late game and you'll have to rely on ISUs, mines, demo charges, and katyushas to kill off the hoards of OKW infantry because your core infantry can't do shit.

You can check my playercard, my most played is Ostheer 4v4... so I'm not biased. Axis is so boring in 4v4 because it feels like cheating. It's like using the money cheat in Grand Theft Auto... like what's the point of playing if its not challenging?

You can take a look at the leaderboards too:

OKW top 25 players:
Everyone has around 85% winrate with streaks up to +52

USF top 25 players:
Everyone has around 57% winrate with streaks up to +8

I feel like I am stating the obvious. So for those who are going "great another one of these threads. We already know!" it's not for you. Its for those who turn a blind eye to the situation

Maybe as randoms. When I play with my friends its not so bad. I have no sympathy for 4v4 randos.

Maybe as randoms. When I play with my friends its not so bad. I have no sympathy for 4v4 randos.

People always say this :/ Idk why. Okay lets say playing with randoms is stupid and will get you a loss. So playing as Allies randoms will get you a loss more likely than not. But by that reasoning so would Axis right? So why is Axis randoms getting more wins than Allies randoms? Surely its not the players, its the faction itself. Its harder to use, or maybe its simply weaker.

I am really anticipating the website to add in AT winrates. They said they are going to be implementing it in the features list. Can't wait!

Its quite easy.
Allies need more coordination in 4v4.
You see ISU? Simple elephant or jt will hard counter it without any skills.

But try to counter JT. You need at least 2 players to attack flanks at the same time + some off map to clear infantry etc

Its quite simple, balance issues aside, Allies are HARDER to play and require MORE SKILL (which most players don't have) to play and win.

This past tournament which was full of very highly skilled AT's the win rate between Allies and Axis in 3v3 and 4v4 was almost perfectly even. My team won as many Allied 3v3's and 4v4s (including games were we beat top 10 Axis AT's) as Axis 3v3's and 4v4's.

Simple fact of the matter; Allies are harder to play in randoms. But when you have the coordination of an AT it's much easier. Maps are also a big factor since they are way to small normally and way to boxy.

Relative power of individual factions in 3v3 and 4v4; Ostheer >= Soviets > OKW > USF.

Allies op thats why

Its quite easy.
Allies need more coordination in 4v4.
You see ISU? Simple elephant or jt will hard counter it without any skills.

But try to counter JT. You need at least 2 players to attack flanks at the same time + some off map to clear infantry etc

i wish it's as simple as that for both the elephant/jt

and the countering of jt/elephant.

however a good team can coordinate through this stuff like a hot knife through cheese.
but as random, its a good luck and may one hope that their team isn't the derpiest of the two.

brits have a 100% winrate in 3v3's and 4v4's

The only reason for those ridiculous win rates is matchmaking, not faction balance:

High ranked axis players seal club low rank allies player 90 % of the matches.
And usually as a top ally player you end up with complete noob mates, which lowers your motivation to zero and thus further decreases ally playerbase in 3vs3+ matches.

If you check AT ally win rates they are completely identical to the axis ones. That means, when equally skilled teams face each other, the are no balance issues.

I hope the brits increase the ally playerbase enough to fix that matchmaking gap finally.

Its a well known problem that axis is powerful in team games because:

a) team games have quicker late game
b) axis triumphs in lategame right now.

The devs have stated that they are aware of this and working on it.

UKF will go a long way to redress the balance; is quite similar to ostheer

Are you sure the winrate for 4v4 top 200 axis is just contributed by so-called "axis team game advantage"? Don't forget that in 4v4 top 200 axis play much more games than top 200 allies, which means top 200 axis have been facing more "noob" opponents than top 200 allies.

Also, what does "axis team game advantage" acutally refer to? Does a single King Tiger makes that so-called advantage? I personally do not think so.

Are you sure the winrate for 4v4 top 200 axis is just contributed by so-called "axis team game advantage"? Don't forget that in 4v4 top 200 axis play much more games than top 200 allies, which means top 200 axis have been facing more "noob" opponents than top 200 allies.

Also, what does "axis team game advantage" acutally refer to? Does a single King Tiger makes that so-called advantage? I personally do not think so.

King Tiger? No no no no. Notice how I said "Axis" and not "King Tiger" or a specific unit. Axis can take advantage of fuel caches and extra fuel in team games MORE than Allies can. You know why?

Because units like the Elefant and Jagdtiger are meant to really only show up once a game. And its really hard to save up for them because your sacrificing early game. However when you have fuel caches everywhere, its not that difficult anymore. Allies' best tanks are mediums and maybe the IS-2, so they can't abuse supertanks like Axis can.

Its mainly an OKW issue more than an Ostheer issue. Every unit they have is just so powerful. The Walking stuka, all their infantry. They have so much manpower to use its ridiculous, they can make gigantic infantry hoardes like nothing.

When I play OKW having 10 Volksgrenadier squads isn't a surprise. What I do is spam Volksgrenadiers and then make two Raketenwerfers, and two Ostwinds, and GGWP, cuz there are too many Volks for anyone to deal with.

There's just soooo many issues with OKW ugh

none of us are in the top 150 #samplesize

with that aside, maps need to be larger to actually accommodate the mechanics of a 1v1, for which the game is balanced around, within the team games.

Its mainly an OKW issue more than an Ostheer issue. Every unit they have is just so powerful. The Walking stuka, all their infantry. They have so much manpower to use its ridiculous, they can make gigantic infantry hoardes like nothing.

When I play OKW having 10 Volksgrenadier squads isn't a surprise. What I do is spam Volksgrenadiers and then make two Raketenwerfers, and two Ostwinds, and GGWP, cuz there are too many Volks for anyone to deal with.

There's just soooo many issues with OKW ugh

When it comes to competitive 3v3 and 4v4 OKW is much less effective than Ostheer due to artillery proliferation and the fuel penalty. Typically your 3v3 and 4v4 pro combo will be 2 Ost 1 OKW or 3 Ost 1 OKW maybe sometimes 2 OKW and 2 Ost if your feeling brave.

There just simply is no advantage for taking more than 1 OKW, since just the 1 can get all then Stuka's you need and or the trucks you need.

Also massed Volks are far, far inferior to massed Fuss or simply a more combined arms approach. Someone who knows how to kite or crush will just ruin your day.

When it comes to competitive 3v3 and 4v4 OKW is much less effective than Ostheer due to artillery proliferation and the fuel penalty. Typically your 3v3 and 4v4 pro combo will be 2 Ost 1 OKW or 3 Ost 1 OKW maybe sometimes 2 OKW and 2 Ost if your feeling brave.

There just simply is no advantage for taking more than 1 OKW, since just the 1 can get all then Stuka's you need and or the trucks you need.

Also massed Volks are far, far inferior to massed Fuss or simply a more combined arms approach. Someone who knows how to kite or crush will just ruin your day.

Idk how you are even putting this as debatable. Are people completely denying numbers? Is raw data not enough to convince someone? This is just denial:

OKW Winrates from http://www.coh2.org/ladders/index/2/4/0:
Everyone has around 85% winrate with streaks up to +52

USF Winrates from http://www.coh2.org/ladders/index/3/4/0:
Everyone has around 57% winrate with streaks up to +8

May I repeat that NUMBERS AND STATISTICS show that Axis winrates are staggeringly high and its right in front of your eyes waiting to either be embraced or completely ignored. Not only does http://coh2chart.com/ justify my case, the leaderboards do as well.

And of course, personal experiences. You can check my playercard as well

...
Finally... someone that appreciates NUMBERS AND STATISTICS OVER SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.
...

Sadly those numbers are completely subjective.
These stats do not include which kind of enemy each top150 player is facing, therefore the whole meaning of winratios is absolutely useless.

Do you really think that 3v3 / 4v4 random players on Axis side are so much better, or their faction that much more OP?
Why are the top ATs next to similar in winratios? (btw.: even though on average a top allied team would face more decent axis enemies)


Stats from 62 games, some food for thought:

a year ago it looked similar in 4v4
Edit, sides included


So... right, every win was by this superior late game of Axis.

i wish this would be an exception... it's not


There are certain issues in large team games, no doubt about it (i could fill a whole topic with that), but most of these win ratios are quite simply explained by the insanely bad match making.

dont worry numbers are about to change on the 3rd of september

Dont know if it is a good or bad thing :/

Sadly those numbers are completely subjective.
These stats do not include which kind of enemy each top150 player is facing, therefore the whole meaning of winratios is absolutely useless.

Do you really think that 3v3 / 4v4 random players on Axis side are so much better, or their faction that much more OP?
Why are the top ATs next to similar in winratios? (btw.: even though on average a top allied team would face more decent axis enemies)


Stats from 62 games, some food for thought:

a year ago it looked similar in 4v4
Edit, sides included


So... right, every win was by this superior late game of Axis.

i wish this would be an exception... it's not


There are certain issues in large team games, no doubt about it (i could fill a whole topic with that), but most of these win ratios are quite simply explained by the insanely bad match making.

Thank you for putting the work in to actually breakdown some of the context behind the numbers. More often than not we see people posting, coh2chart in particular, as the rationale behind a balance argument as though they've read it from a moving car.

Dont know if it is a good or bad thing :/

We just have to wait and see