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?
the majority is represented Kappa
Coh2Chart Update - win-ratios etc.
4 May 2016, 04:11 AM
#21
Posts: 1248
the majority is represented Kappa
4 May 2016, 05:44 AM
#22
4 
Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2
yes! awesome thanks.
 | Playercard of Bo-Bobby Lion | |||||||||||||||
|
4 May 2016, 05:54 AM
#23
Posts: 509 | Subs: 1
Good job! Thank you for you work.
4 May 2016, 06:21 AM
#24
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
OKW the noob faction is confirmed, has better stats at low rank 
4 May 2016, 06:33 AM
#25
1 
Posts: 311
I think the top tier should be smaller than top 250. There should be an option to see how the statistics are for the top 50 players. The skill level is totally different between ranks 1-50 and 201-250.
4 May 2016, 07:05 AM
#26
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
4v4 top 500 arranged teams PERFECTLY BALANCED HOLY GUACAMOLE
WHAT
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!
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 May 2016, 12:57 PM
#27
Posts: 12
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.
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.
All righty, makes perfect sense.
A bit gobsmacked by the "high" win rate of OST 1v1 500+ ; especially compared to UKF which seems to be the same kind of slow start strong late faction but easier to play.
4 May 2016, 13:08 PM
#28
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
This is excellent work, most informative, and well done!
Given that you got access to the motherlode, I have a few suggestions to make if you plan on expanding coh2chart!
Would it be possible to...
1) Provide matchup-specific stats for 1v1 (as opposed to faction-specific win ratios)
i.e., give the win ratios of:
- OST vs USF
- OST vs UKF
- OKW vs UKF
- etc..
2) Change the Y-axis values back to 0-100 (rather than displaying the offset). This should make it a bit easier to compare win-rations visually between different game-modes (and also a bit less missleading!)
3) Provide finer-grained stats for the top 250 tier. Basically this:
4) Have a way to filter stats for only evenly-matched games. Basically this:
Given that you got access to the motherlode, I have a few suggestions to make if you plan on expanding coh2chart!
Would it be possible to...
1) Provide matchup-specific stats for 1v1 (as opposed to faction-specific win ratios)
i.e., give the win ratios of:
- OST vs USF
- OST vs UKF
- OKW vs UKF
- etc..
2) Change the Y-axis values back to 0-100 (rather than displaying the offset). This should make it a bit easier to compare win-rations visually between different game-modes (and also a bit less missleading!)
3) Provide finer-grained stats for the top 250 tier. Basically this:
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+
4) Have a way to filter stats for only evenly-matched games. Basically this:
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%.
You have a great idea that improves the QoL aspects of the game? Please, drop your idea here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57860/some-qol-suggestions
Check out Cruzz's DPS calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view?usp=sharing
(Download the file, open it with your browser)
4 May 2016, 13:21 PM
#29
Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1
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!
If you played in the 4v4 circuit you would know 250 is an insanely high amount of teams to look at. Playing 10 games, regardless of skill would get you into the top 250, maybe even into the top 25. It may as well be random. There are maybe a handful of teams that still play 4v4AT this point, it should really be closer to top 25 or 30 for 4v4AT.
4 May 2016, 13:37 PM
#30
Posts: 97
What's interesting is that for most game modes, the ratios among factions are very similar between the top 250 and all the way to 500+.
Basically I'm saying it appears that say in 1v1, if Ost wins 5% more games than Soviet at the top 250 level, at the 500+ level, Ost also wins about 5% more games than Soviet.
I'm wondering even if we did look at the top 50 players, there still may not be any major differences among the factions.
Basically I'm saying it appears that say in 1v1, if Ost wins 5% more games than Soviet at the top 250 level, at the 500+ level, Ost also wins about 5% more games than Soviet.
I'm wondering even if we did look at the top 50 players, there still may not be any major differences among the factions.
4 May 2016, 13:40 PM
#31
Posts: 132
4 May 2016, 13:44 PM
#32
Posts: 1273
http://steamcharts.com/app/231430
The only chart which matters. -1k average since February.
Average -1k, huh?
(-70.2 + (-347.4) + (-507.6) +480.3) / 4 = -111.125
There's a significant difference between the average -1k and -111.125
But you can twist these numbers the way you want to to make any arbitrary points relevant anyway.
It seems you just appear to enjoy spewing irrelevant fallacies. If you keeping posting about how you hate this game and Relic, why do you even bother being in this forum?
4 May 2016, 13:45 PM
#33
Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1
http://steamcharts.com/app/231430
The only chart which matters. -1k average since February.
Using the same chart would also show that this April has been the busiest by 1k players. Either way, April - August are usually the slowest months.
4 May 2016, 19:03 PM
#34
Posts: 160
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%.
I agree with this. It's a bit inconsistent to only include losses within the range but any win counts. You should either, only include wins and losses within the range, or include all wins and losses regardless of range.
Or you can include a toggle where you can see, how many wins are against those within the range, outside, altogether or something like that.
4 May 2016, 19:14 PM
#35
Posts: 2742
Remember it's 2 player AT, not 2v2 AT.
Those 2p AT matches could all be 4v4s for all we know.
Those 2p AT matches could all be 4v4s for all we know.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
5 May 2016, 07:39 AM
#36
Posts: 420
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?
I think even low rank games are important, because we had a time where people claimed "axis are easy to play, therefore in low rank games they win more often"
I will simply lol at anyone expecting such a change to a 2 year old general use infantry.
Equally possible are pershing for USF, IS-3 for soviets or ober nerf for OKW.
5 May 2016, 07:49 AM
#37
9 
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29
Nice update. Keep up the great work
| Playercard of tightrope | |||||||||||||||||||
|
5 May 2016, 18:08 PM
#38
Posts: 174
b b b b b b b Brits are OP, muh balance
Allies 2v2 just so ez, axes no chance
Muh. Muhfuggin balance.
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.
5 May 2016, 18:12 PM
#39
Posts: 738
As long as shrek blobs and command tanks exist Axis will over perform in teamgames
5 May 2016, 18:45 PM
#40
Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1
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.
Top 250 from 4v4AT is going to yield accurate results? Please. You automatically are put in top 50 just by completing 10 games. Look at the leaderboards...
Team ranked #3 is 12-0....
Team ranked #4 is 11-0....
Learn to analyze data please.
2 users are browsing this thread:
2 guests
Livestreams
 |
|
|
7 | ||
 |
|
|
7 | ||
 |
|
|
770 | ||
|
|
|
|
33 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.921405.695+5
- 5.633229.734+7
- 6.276108.719+27
- 7.306114.729+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1237