Coh2Chart Update - win-ratios etc.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 19:19 PMaaa

With current playerbase top 250 is too low skill level to make conclusion s about balance. It must be top 50-100 normally, 150 as before at least. Outside 250 is just no skill clusterfak there. So why bring it in?

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2016, 02:15 AMJaedrik

4v4 top 500 arranged teams PERFECTLY BALANCED HOLY GUACAMOLE
WHAT

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 20:57 PMferwiner

win rate would be .5 only if the ladder was infinite. As it is finite, the closer you are to an end the higher the possibility that you will find opponent from the huge "middle" part instead of the small "end" part, for example if you are top 100 there is only a 100 people better than you and none of them may be searching, so you more often get matched with people worse than you than better.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 21:06 PMPaid_Player

If a player has played under 10 matches, his/her stats are not included. So, that is why the average win rate is a bit higher than 0.5 when top 500+ is selected.

When top 250 is selected, win-ratio is clearly higher than 0.5 since all games played by top 250 players are counted. So, if a player (rank 150) won a player (rank 700), the victory would be counted. The lose wouldn't be counted because the ranking of the loser was worser than 250.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 21:26 PMelchino7

Nice job!

I'll say that the skill categories should be moved, at least for the 1-250. Top100 or top150 would be a bit more accurate.

Having a separate category would be way better, something along the lines of 1-100 ; 101-250 ; 251-500 ; 500+

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2016, 03:54 AMRobocopHighlander

This is exactly why looking at these stats as they are is not particularly informative - I want to be able to filter the win/loss ratios by only looking at games where the players involved were relatively equal in skill (say, within 50-100 spots from one another, whether they are in the top 50 or the top 500). This is the only way to actually look at balance. Otherwise it could very well be that top 150 players lose 85% of their games with axis or allies against other top 150 players (implying awful balance) but you can never see it because 80% of their games are against much lower ranked opponents so their ratios even out towards 50%.

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2016, 07:05 AMKatitof

Pretty much all team games are balanced, leading to what I was always saying-you either play team games to win(AT) or random.

There goes the whining and bitching of 4v4 heroes about having imbalanced game.
GET TEAM AND GET GOOD SCRUBS!

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2016, 13:40 PMNeris

http://steamcharts.com/app/231430

The only chart which matters. -1k average since February.

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2016, 13:40 PMNeris

http://steamcharts.com/app/231430

The only chart which matters. -1k average since February.

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2016, 03:54 AMRobocopHighlander

This is exactly why looking at these stats as they are is not particularly informative - I want to be able to filter the win/loss ratios by only looking at games where the players involved were relatively equal in skill (say, within 50-100 spots from one another, whether they are in the top 50 or the top 500). This is the only way to actually look at balance. Otherwise it could very well be that top 150 players lose 85% of their games with axis or allies against other top 150 players (implying awful balance) but you can never see it because 80% of their games are against much lower ranked opponents so their ratios even out towards 50%.

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 19:19 PMaaa

With current playerbase top 250 is too low skill level to make conclusion s about balance. It must be top 50-100 normally, 150 as before at least. Outside 250 is just no skill clusterfak there. So why bring it in?

Jump back to quoted post3 May 2016, 21:52 PMCookiezNcreem

b b b b b b b Brits are OP, muh balance

Allies 2v2 just so ez, axes no chance

Muh. Muhfuggin balance.

Jump back to quoted post5 May 2016, 18:08 PMLuGer33

Nice to see these stats dispel the laughable myth that "AT Allies are literally unbeatable," which was based on a handful of games from the 4v4 AT tournament awhile back.