[Relic blog] Game Balance: The State of 1v1 for ESL

Coh doesn't have a matchmaking system that puts players against people of a similar skill level.

All of your statistics are meaningless because of this.

Looks to me they are just using the average win rate of the top 250 on 1v1. Which is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Having win rates over 50% for all the factions doesn't indicate balance at all. What it does indicate is that the matchmaking is whack if people in the top 250 have win rates over 50%. It means people aren't evenly matched most of the time.

Looks to me they are just using the average win rate of the top 250 on 1v1. Which is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Having win rates over 50% for all the factions doesn't indicate balance at all. What it does indicate is that the matchmaking is whack if people in the top 250 have win rates over 50%. It means people aren't evenly matched most of the time.

Which is exactly why these stats and ratios should ONLY be top 250 vs top 250. Any large margin outside of that group is moot data, but possibly including another 250 (top 500) would be a good control.

If Relic wants to use such data to justify the current balance to ESL, at least make it valid ffs.

Whaaat?

Good players know how to play and the game is balanced around them? HOW COME!

No one gives a rats ass about balance in 4 digit brackets, because these people lack the basic skill in game and can't be considered as any valid source of data other then "total mp population".

Games are not balanced around noobs, because noobs problems are in no way related to balance.

As you say, but then we must also keep you out of the balance discussion

Thanks OP for this excellent piece of data.

However, these are based on the top250 players.

How about the majority of other ranked players? I'd curious to see those stats.

[Relic blog] Game Balance: The State of 1v1 for ESL

With the Go4 CoH2 ESL Tournament Series just around the corner, the current state of game balance has become a hot(er) topic of late for not only the community but for Relic as well. To add fuel to the fire, the recent revamp of the OKW have made some worried that this faction is now over-performing which may lead to a one sided tilt for Axis players during the upcoming competitions. This is something here at Relic that we have been monitoring very closely over the past few weeks and we feel we have made the necessary adjustments to ensure that all five factions are performing within an acceptable margin.

The data below depicts the win ratio by faction for the top 250 players in CoH2 and is broken down into two separate weeks: December 7 - 13 (Post December 3rd Update) and December 14 - 20 (Post Dec. 10th's Hotfix and Dec. 17th's Modding Update). Each week tells a story about the state of balance and how it has changed with each update that has been released this month.

POST DECEMBER 3RD UPDATE*


*Win ratio of the top 250 players from the week of Dec. 7 - 13

As mentioned, the December Update came with a major revamp to the OKW. As players learned the new meta for this faction, Relic monitored win rates closely to keep an eye on the state of balance. As depicted in the image above, the win ratio for the OKW shot up to around 65%, roughly 9% higher than that of the next closest Allied faction. This fell outside of an acceptable margin and therefore was adjusted in the December 10th Hotfix.

Another faction worth noting in this image is the UKF. As shown above, The UKF were at the time the most under-performing faction and thus were the recipient of a small balance change on December 17th to increase their performance.

POST DECEMBER 10TH & 17TH PATCH*


*Win ratio of the top 250 players from the week of Dec. 14 - 20

As show above, the December 10th & 17th patches had a strong effect on re-stabilizing the 1v1 game balance between all factions, with an average deviation of under 2% between USF/Soviets and Wehrmacht/OKW.

Although still relatively under-performing compared to other factions, the UKF has also seen a performance increase of approximately 8%. With less than a week's worth of data since this faction received an adjustment, we feel it is likely that their performance will increase as we gain access to additional data. If needed, the UKF will receive additional adjustments until it falls within the same win margin as other factions.

BALANCE: THE ROAD AHEAD

In the midst of ESL, our goal is to do as little balance changes as possible to ensure gameplay stays consistent and fair for all tournament participants. As demonstrated in the last two patches, future patches will receive only small, calculated changes to a single over or under performing faction in a continued effort to keep all factions as closely balanced as possible.

Once the team feels that the state of 1v1 is as balanced as it needs to be to run a fair ESL tournament series, efforts will then be focused on ensuring team games fall within the same acceptable margins as well.

Source : http://www.companyofheroes.com/blog/2015/12/23/game-balance-the-state-of-1v1-for-esl

How about the majority of other ranked players? I'd curious to see those stats.

Thing is, players who can't get to rank 300 at least can't really be considered decent, expanding the statistic through the whole population would skew balance graphs, because there is much more people who can't play and have no idea what they do then players who are above average.

In other words: Not much of a point to show data based on players who can't play the game.

The data doesn't come from OP, but from relic itself and was posted on their blog.
Closest thing to that, which we have, is coh2chart.com .

Coh doesn't have a matchmaking system that puts players against people of a similar skill level.

All of your statistics are meaningless because of this.

The match making is good bro, the player base is just to little. first it research ennemy with your MMR, after some time he enlarge the search.

Blame the player base, not the matchmaking system.

Thing is, players who can't get to rank 300 at least can't really be considered decent,

And the player base who plays let's say, 2v2 is like ...what? 3000? 6000? 10000? If among 6000 players you are place 2000, I don't really see why you couldn't be included in statistics, since you are above average.

For such a ferocious democracy armies defender, don't you think your judgement is a little non-democratic?

And the player base who plays let's say, 2v2 is like ...what? 3000? 6000? 10000? If among 6000 players you are place 2000, I don't really see why you couldn't be included in statistics, since you are above average.

For such a ferocious democracy armies defender, don't you think your judgement is a little non-democratic?

I'd like you to get yourself familiar with the concept of "weighted average", where skill level is the weight in coh2.

There is incomparably greater skill difference between top 50 and top 250 players then between 1000 or 10000 players.

If you aren't able to get yourself to at least top 300, you're either playing team games with randumbs and don't care for the rank and balance anyway or you're not able to pull enough weight to be above average player.

CoH2 learning curve is quite steep, but it doesn't take that much effort or skill to be top 250-350, one have to be pretty bad at this game not to get to that spot and stay there for the preferred mode.

Rank 1000 and up are not included, because they aren't any indicator of balance, they aren't good enough to play on the level for balance to even matter, its 100% "who makes biggest mistake as both do mistakes all the time" case.

So, just like you wouldn't include African shamans in evaluation of worlds medicine level, you shouldn't include players who can't play the game at any competitive level because all it would do is give you inaccurate results. You can use whole player database to measure popularity of certain armies, but not the balance between them.

To measure the data, you need to know HOW to do it.

It makes me feel really joyful that people are finally coming around to understanding that coh2charts presents a contorted view of game balance and shouldn't be taken at face value.

and to Katitof, you would include shaminism in a global survey of wellness because for those who practice it, that is their version of modernity.

and to Katitof, you would include shaminism in a global survey of wellness because for those who practice it, that is their version of modernity.

I could've worded it more clearly, but you should see the point, just like we don't count shamans for the medicine achievements and their current insight in development of modern medicine, we can't count noobs for balance estimations, only general population.

Classic "the noob" also believes he is a pro with a balance opinion that actually matters, just like said shaman believes he cures diseases by farting on fire and yelling at moon.

In resume:

1- Coh2charts shows Top250 players vs ANY statistics, not Top250 vs Top250. It is like balancing Starcraft around elite league (don't know its name) playing potentially vs Bronze league. If Starcraft devs have created leagues in multi-players it is not only for the fun of it.

2- Stats analysis is always interpretation. You can argue around your interpretation of those statistics but not make it a true statement, not with that few information available.

Don't let the charts fool you, top players know how to counter almost everything. If we take the player base outside of the 250 top range, things will go south very quickly.

We can't deny that certain factios are more noob proof and easier to win with than others. Above the top 250, skill level varies enormously, which makes exploiting noob friendly factions all the more potent. To add to this, having non linear factions, means we have certain factions that have a disadvantage tech wise from the very beginning, just for the sake of a unique feeling to the game. This in combination with the teching of the noob friendly factions, is a recipe for balance disasters.

That means that some ppl have to learn to adapt.

Thing is, players who can't get to rank 300 at least can't really be considered decent, expanding the statistic through the whole population would skew balance graphs, because there is much more people who can't play and have no idea what they do then players who are above average.

You seem to be using terms with little knowledge about them. Average is defined by the middle aground and in order to be set at 300 there should be 600 players. If the number of active players is around 2.000 the average would be around 1.000.

In Gauss distribution, as this seem to be, you cant have: "much more people who can't play...then players who are above average."

Thing is, players who can't get to rank 300 at least can't really be considered decent...

So just because im around 900th on the table, means my opinion doesn't matter?
Just because I don't waste countless hours in this game, and I'm not in the top 300 my opinion doesn't matter? I have, and the rest of the playerbase payed the price for this game... What are you, what do you think of yourself? Are you somekind of übermensch, just because you managed to played 299th in a game?

You better get down from that high horse of yours, and accept it: The balance should be based on everyone's data/opinion, since everybody who plays this game, payed for it, and bought it!

"But, but the top 250 player know how to play...." yeah, 1/20 of the playerbase... Why does relic want to favour a minority of the playerbase?
Putting in another perspective: A car factory should manufacture only racecars, because the 250 racecar pilot around the world knows how to drive it properly... sounds like fun to the rest of the world...

You better get down from that high horse of yours, and accept it: The balance should be based on everyone's data/opinion, since everybody who plays this game, payed for it, and bought it!

See, this is where you're horribly wrong.

Balance is not based on opinions and definitely not on opinions of lesser players, we can discuss balance all we want and that is why we are here on this boards, but about 99% of this feedback here is, well, worthless.

Balance is based on complicated relations between game mechanics, units performance, army concept, its performance alone and in team games against usual opposition, the popularity of units or the lack of it, but it most certainly isn't based on anyone's opinions.

We can judge the balance by the prism of our own experience in the game, the better we are, the more accurate insight we -might- have.
Why only might?
Because even top players can say utter bs at times and be biased, opinions are always subjective.
You can have your own, but it won't be as important as one of Luvnest or Jove for example.

"But, but the top 250 player know how to play...." yeah, 1/20 of the playerbase... Why does relic want to favour a minority of the playerbase?
Putting in another perspective: A car factory should manufacture only racecars, because the 250 racecar pilot around the world knows how to drive it properly... sounds like fun to the rest of the world...

Because that is how it works, always did and always will.

You create balance with competitive players and high level play in mind, because these players know the game, know the mechanics and can use them to their benefits. Low skill players often don't see certain unit relations or even map details that make a difference, not to mention lack the micro and awareness level needed in competitive play, issues they often accuse balance of come from their own lack of ability.

You don't balance competitive multiplayer games around players who can't play the game effectively, otherwise you wouldn't have "skill shot" abilities in mobas and competitive FPS games like CS would have aim assist.

If we considered balance for the amount of people playing, instead of the skilled top, blobs would be considered high level, micro intensive play.

You better get down from that high horse of yours, and accept it: The balance should be based on everyone's data/opinion, since everybody who plays this game, payed for it, and bought it!

"But, but the top 250 player know how to play...." yeah, 1/20 of the playerbase... Why does relic want to favour a minority of the playerbase?

So basically we should favor players who want to rush AT guns with their tanks and win? We want to favor blobers, we want to favor cheese players, we want to favor noobs who don't know how to play?

Here is a little tip: balance shouldn't be turned around and changed based on random 1000+ players, simply because they dont know how to use all opportunities of their faction.

If you look at the game in its correct state, there are not so many "cheese" tactics in it. We have like Rifle blobs, Maxim spam, volks schreck blobs and blobs in general - here is the main faults of game design\mechanic, but guess what ... they are COUNTARABLE. Yes, its harder to counter them, rather then play with them, but all those tactics are countarable.

CoH2 had times when it has INSANE cheese tactics (sniper in clown car, flame HT rush, MG insta-suppres time, soviet sniper spam, brits after release in general) which were almost impossible to counter, but this times has passed.

Main problem of coh2:
1) Blobs
2) Few bad design choses
3) MatchMacking in general
^ And because of bad MM players could face lower skill or superior opponents, whats why its sometimes hard to play better and learn how to play better.

But you know, when someone comes to forums and acts like "Hurr durr I dont wanna improve myself, same opponent tactic beat me over and over again. nerf it plox" when its not that hard to guess why Relic collect information only from top lvl player base.

Honestly, they should only take the stats of the top 50 players but given how small the player base is that's statistically questionable.

Above 250 - your understanding of the game is competent.
Above 50 - your CPM and multitasking are competent.

I used to play 1v1 - but I hit my skill cap due to age a long time ago. At a certain level there's no amount of clever play or surprises that will put your opponent off-balance enough to make up for slow retreats or generally low CPM/multitasking.

Play COH1. In that game strategy still counts at least as much as APM. And the interface is much more reactive.

I am over 50, and now that I have hit about 1000 games played I feel I am becoming "competitive" though my apm is certainly below par. And yes, there are still enough players to play random 1's through 4's.

There seem to be two arguments here. One about whether it the game is balanced because it is balanced at the top levels and one is whether you can balance it in any other way.

The problem really is different.... If the factions are designed in such a way that balance at the top means there are glaring imbalances along the learning curve, then you have a HUGE BUSINESS PROBLEM. If it isn't fun along the way for people then they are less likely to play your game. I don't' see how that is a good thing. This is where the huge differences in the factions become not some sort of gorgeous design element but a detraction from the growth of the franchise and the player base. The factions don't have to mirror each other, but to be so different, especially with some sort of designed asymmetrical-balance-over-time, makes a balance across skill levels that much harder.

They had such a beautiful model to work from. The Wehr/US balance in COH1 was not perfect, but the imbalances of noob cheese switched from faction to faction as the skill levels progressed. rifle blob > Wehr blob, then you learn that one mg can stop rifle blob, then that a flank can kill the mg, then that a mine or some wire or a bunker stops the flank, etc. And blobbing lost its potency pretty early in the learning curve. Sure late game Wehr was really powerful (because they couldn't lose their vet with squad wipes), but that late game also came really late as compared to COH2. In fairness the "late game" in COH2 keeps getting pushed back (now at 20 minutes instead of 12-13?), but I think it isn't back far enough yet considering the point system is the same.

Did those factions LOOK to similar to the designers so they came up with the Opposing Front Factions and then the COH2 factions? Why can't each faction have a doctrinal mortar, an mg, etc. without that of one factions or the other being crap?

I am not arguing that balance now is crap. I am arguing that if you can design so that there are balances (or at least a shift in balance) at all or most levels of the learning curve then you are more likely to increase the player base, and then the arguments of whether to balance around the top 100 vs top 500 players becomes less critical.

See, this is where you're horribly wrong.

Balance is not based on opinions and definitely not on opinions of lesser players, we can discuss balance all we want and that is why we are here on this boards, but about 99% of this feedback here is, well, worthless.

Balance is based on complicated relations between game mechanics, units performance, army concept, its performance alone and in team games against usual opposition, the popularity of units or the lack of it, but it most certainly isn't based on anyone's opinions.

We can judge the balance by the prism of our own experience in the game, the better we are, the more accurate insight we -might- have.
Why only might?
Because even top players can say utter bs at times and be biased, opinions are always subjective.
You can have your own, but it won't be as important as one of Luvnest or Jove for example.



Because that is how it works, always did and always will.

You create balance with competitive players and high level play in mind, because these players know the game, know the mechanics and can use them to their benefits. Low skill players often don't see certain unit relations or even map details that make a difference, not to mention lack the micro and awareness level needed in competitive play, issues they often accuse balance of come from their own lack of ability.

You don't balance competitive multiplayer games around players who can't play the game effectively, otherwise you wouldn't have "skill shot" abilities in mobas and competitive FPS games like CS would have aim assist.

If we considered balance for the amount of people playing, instead of the skilled top, blobs would be considered high level, micro intensive play.

Everyone's opinion on how fun/enjoyable the game is matters.

Everyone's ideas on how to fix the game matter, unless they're insane.

Everyone's opinions matter but Relic has no responsibility to incorporate all our opinions into their game.

Not everyone's win/loss statistics matter when it comes to estimating the current state of balance. That isn't to say that lower ranked players don't matter, just that you have to balance from the top down. Looking at the win/loss statistics of the upper echelon of players is going to provide a more accurate representation of the current state of balance.