Coh2Chart Update - win-ratios etc.

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 #4 is 11-0....

Learn to analyze data please.

Actually its now team #3. Why do you think such teams shouldn't be taken into consideration? And what else do you propose? Basing "statistic" only on first 2 teams?

Actually its now team #3. Why do you think such teams shouldn't be taken into consideration? And what else do you propose? Basing "statistic" only on first 2 teams?

Rank #4 for axis is 11-0
Rank #3 for allies is 12-0

Sorry for not clarifying.

Well 4v4AT has dried up - most teams abandoned the mode, if this was a year ago the data set would have been better. Still, I think top 25 vs top 25 would be a much better sample for 4v4AT. Top 250 is insanity for 4v4AT.

Rank #4 for axis is 11-0
Rank #3 for allies is 12-0

Sorry for not clarifying.

Well 4v4AT has dried up - most teams abandoned the mode, if this was a year ago the data set would have been better. Still, I think top 25 vs top 25 would be a much better sample for 4v4AT. Top 250 is insanity for 4v4AT.

There is one problem: below sample size of 100 statistical error starts to become a problem. At 25, the error would be so huge the stats won't mean a thing, just random noise every week.

There is one problem: below sample size of 100 statistical error starts to become a problem. At 25, the error would be so huge the stats won't mean a thing, just random noise every week.

Agreed - I still think its better than top 250 though. Top 50 vs Top 50 over a longer period may yield more accurate results. I think top 100 is still too lenient considering how few teams play the mode.

Cookiez brought up an interesting point on another thread saying the 4v4AT tourney was hosted during an pro-allied patch (calliope), the issue with this was the games we're over before calliopes even hit the field.

Agreed - I still think its better than top 250 though. Top 50 vs Top 50 over a longer period may yield more accurate results. I think top 100 is still too lenient considering how few teams play the mode.

Cookiez brought up an interesting point on another thread saying the 4v4AT tourney was hosted during an pro-allied patch (calliope), the issue with this was the games we're over before calliopes even hit the field.

to be thorough in analysis, we had

-AEC buff, probably the biggest culprit in a VP dominated tournament, on top of allies already have good lights, which was just... 4head early game. Which meant VP's were drained so rapidly if the allied team had a clue.

Which wouldnt have been a problem if, Axis late game wasnt gimped:

axis vet

, VERY notably OKW's, which is infact gamebreaking with 4v4 scaling, was not working*

arty cover

neutralizing and outright smashing the axis late game advantage which is basically setting an unbreakable defensive line of simply superior units and support weapons with heavy tank critical mass, KT's and JT's with a shrek ober fusi blob and pak wall on the damn vp's and just crushing the allies

Combined with

calliope, which also helped break these lines as it took care of the ubensmench infantry and support weapon walls.

And even then, that tournament was still biased as any in terms of proving alli op. Every team invited was mostly historically of allied allegiance in terms of games played, except Focus, and maybe ns.

Run the same tournament now without the 'op' mattress, or maybe advanced emplacements, and i bet my life we'd have damn near a 100% axis winrate.

Nice update, thanks!

to be thorough in analysis, we had

-AEC buff, probably the biggest culprit in a VP dominated tournament, on top of allies already have good lights, which was just... 4head early game. Which meant VP's were drained so rapidly if the allied team had a clue.

Which wouldnt have been a problem if, Axis late game wasnt gimped:

axis vet

, VERY notably OKW's, which is infact gamebreaking with 4v4 scaling, was not working*

arty cover

neutralizing and outright smashing the axis late game advantage which is basically setting an unbreakable defensive line of simply superior units and support weapons with heavy tank critical mass, KT's and JT's with a shrek ober fusi blob and pak wall on the damn vp's and just crushing the allies

Combined with

calliope, which also helped break these lines as it took care of the ubensmench infantry and support weapon walls.

And even then, that tournament was still biased as any in terms of proving alli op. Every team invited was mostly historically of allied allegiance in terms of games played, except Focus, and maybe ns.

Run the same tournament now without the 'op' mattress, or maybe advanced emplacements, and i bet my life we'd have damn near a 100% axis winrate.

Everyone was effected by the vet, not just axis. I don't think any games had any vet 5 units anyway considering they all ended around the 20 minute mark. It wasn't just arty cover, people could use Mark Target - multiple British OP abilities whether arty cover or multiple players calling in Typhoon and Mega bombers concurrently, which is still a huge problem in 4s. There should be limits on how many p47s/strafing/megabombers can be called at once; like we had with p47s.

Not sure why you think most teams were allied favored, other than Northweapons. He was able to take an decent group of players and beat really good teams only using USF - which I think stressed how easy allies were at the time. We had FOCUS, SOE, NS, RUKA, and TATUS. (TATUS and SOE both held #1 as axis for lengthy periods, FOCUS was typically ranked around 3 or 4.)

We could run the tournament without those commanders or relic could just fix them and their abilities. It isn't the British core army that is the problem (in fact, they could probably use buffs) but their commander abilities are too powerful. Also allies were winning (4v4AT) even before the brits so I'm not so sure that you'd want to bet your life . Remember b4's percision strike-shootzens Eles/Jagdtigers/KT's/Tigers in one shot with Market Target? Maxim spam (yes this was a 4v4 strat long before it was a 1v1 strat), call in t34/85s with market target, (I could go on and on).

Everyone was effected by the vet, not just axis. I don't think any games had any vet 5 units anyway considering they all ended around the 20 minute mark. It wasn't just arty cover, people could use Mark Target - multiple British OP abilities whether arty cover or multiple players calling in Typhoon and Mega bombers concurrently, which is still a huge problem in 4s. There should be limits on how many p47s/strafing/megabombers can be called at once; like we had with p47s.

Im not sure what your point is here,both sides actually have stupid the most stupid offmaps, skillplanes, and mark target combos.

Im also not sure why you're only naming allied abilities....Does axis not have like, the most AA in the game

Not sure why you think most teams were allied favored, other than Northweapons. He was able to take an decent group of players and beat really good teams only using USF - which I think stressed how easy allies were at the time. We had FOCUS, SOE, NS, RUKA, and TATUS. (TATUS and SOE both held #1 as axis for lengthy periods, FOCUS was typically ranked around 3 or 4.)

im not gonna go look it up again but every single team except the ones i mentioned played a noticeable amount more allies 4v4 at than axis.

northweapons team.. pls. i started the 4v4 only usf vs the world meme, js, and it hinged completely on the calliope because otherwise it was not 'ez' even vs complete morons.

Also allies were winning (4v4AT) even before the brits so I'm not so sure that you'd want to bet your life . Remember b4's percision strike-shootzens Eles/Jagdtigers/KT's/Tigers in one shot with Market Target? Maxim spam (yes this was a 4v4 strat long before it was a 1v1 strat), call in t34/85s with market target, (I could go on and on).

Yes that was a bit of an exaggeration.

Im still deeply confused as to why you're just pointing out mark target like its some end all be all, considering, again, axis has a more cost effective and more powerful version of it on the cpanther.

This is also a totally different argument but 4v4 AT is pretty much vs randoms 98% of the time and it is not difficult at all for any team or strategy to dominate with, axis or allied.
which is pretty much what you're basing a huge amount of your argument around, i'd imagine. Theres been like 2 4v4 tournaments ever. Neither of which, based of the opinions of most of the 1v1,2v2 elitists that dared played in them, were taken THAT seriously. I'd imagine things would be different if we convince Jesulin or DevM to take 4v4 100% dead seriously for a while
and b4 one shotting? what is this, 1995? How long ago was precision strike and the damage veterancy removed?
Either way I'd imagine people learned pretty quickly to have one of out of 4 players pick a recon/divebomb doctrine for the b4, especially since those docs usually include the lulzy beat my dick while playing with one hand Elefant

...
Well 4v4AT has dried up - most teams abandoned the mode, if this was a year ago the data set would have been better. Still, I think top 25 vs top 25 would be a much better sample for 4v4AT. Top 250 is insanity for 4v4AT.

i know i love not running into you or bray or other top tiers.

i know i love not running into you or bray or other top tiers.

Such nostalgia Remember all the good teams we had? GOHARD, Gulls, TATUS, SOE, Cohbros, MoD (now basically a 1v1/2v2 clan), TAB, StC, FOCUS, cB, Schnugglers Crew, I'm sure I am missing others.

Now I look at the leader board and see aladin and 3 other randos holding every rank by going 11-0... Ugh...

Im not sure what your point is here,both sides actually have stupid the most stupid offmaps, skillplanes, and mark target combos.

I'm referring to Mark Target before it was nerfed - when coupled with those abilities it was ridiculously OP.

Im also not sure why you're only naming allied abilities....Does axis not have like, the most AA in the game

I'm naming the allied ones because they are more prevalent than the axis ones. The axis commanders that have good off map planes are part of commanders no one used for 4v4. You rarely saw Ju-87 commanders being used in 4v4 for axis teams.


im not gonna go look it up again but every single team except the ones i mentioned played a noticeable amount more allies 4v4 at than axis.

northweapons team.. pls. i started the 4v4 only usf vs the world meme, js, and it hinged completely on the calliope because otherwise it was not 'ez' even vs complete morons.



Yes that was a bit of an exaggeration.

Im still deeply confused as to why you're just pointing out mark target like its some end all be all, considering, again, axis has a more cost effective and more powerful version of it on the cpanther.

Again, im referring to pre-nerf, sorry for not clarifying.

This is also a totally different argument but 4v4 AT is pretty much vs randoms 98% of the time and it is not difficult at all for any team or strategy to dominate with, axis or allied.
which is pretty much what you're basing a huge amount of your argument around, i'd imagine. Theres been like 2 4v4 tournaments ever. Neither of which, based of the opinions of most of the 1v1,2v2 elitists that dared played in them, were taken THAT seriously. I'd imagine things would be different if we convince Jesulin or DevM to take 4v4 100% dead seriously for a while
and b4 one shotting? what is this, 1995? How long ago was precision strike and the damage veterancy removed?
Either way I'd imagine people learned pretty quickly to have one of out of 4 players pick a recon/divebomb doctrine for the b4, especially since those docs usually include the lulzy beat my dick while playing with one hand Elefant

Yes 2 tournaments, one which had a ton of data for team games ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ5dSgScQ7YVEjBhzhSpl2A/videos - load more videos till you reach the LOH games ), many games were played under league of heroes and the 4v4AT invitiational had a small sample of very good 4v4 teams. If jesulin and devm spent time doing 'x' is a poor argument. Pretty sure there we're tons of people saying RtN would dominate 4v4 during LOH(luvnest, OMGPOP,Ciez,Momo, dusty etc) and they got destroyed by 4v4AT teams. Obviously they are great 1v1 players but being good at 1v1 has never translated into being good at team games. You know were lucky its not 1995, because if it was we'd be on AOL and wearing JNCO's, be grateful .

Could you please discuss this elsewhere. Everyone read those discussions a 100 times already and any feedback someone gives on the amazing Coh2Charts will be lost under the usual discussion.

Anyway I have a bit of feedback.
I noticed that in the games-played-this-week diagramm there is an insane number of games played listed, especially for 4v4.
After a tiny bit of math I realized that the problem is that it counts every player playing 4v4 and thats why there are ATM 108950 games played for 4vs4 and 23755 for 1vs1.
If you divide it through 8 and 2(the number of the involved players) you get the more reasonable 13618 Games of 4vs4 and 11877 Games of 1vs1.
If you could include that in your code it would make comparing the numbers of games played per gamemode a lot easier.
The old diagramm should stay of course because you see how popular a certain gamemode is by the playercount.

I love your statistic thanks for all the effort.

Hello,
---
Regards,
Paid Player

Hi Paid Player.

I like what you did with coh2chart, but especially now it would be great to also see the day by day stats you used to have (even if it's just for top 150 and even if its sometimes bugged). Is this possible? It would be helpful to understand what's going on with this patch and the bug fixes etc. A week averaged doesn't cut it in that regard. Of course I am only suggesting it in addition to what you already have.

Could you please discuss this elsewhere. Everyone read those discussions a 100 times already and any feedback someone gives on the amazing Coh2Charts will be lost under the usual discussion.

Anyway I have a bit of feedback.
I noticed that in the games-played-this-week diagramm there is an insane number of games played listed, especially for 4v4.
After a tiny bit of math I realized that the problem is that it counts every player playing 4v4 and thats why there are ATM 108950 games played for 4vs4 and 23755 for 1vs1.
If you divide it through 8 and 2(the number of the involved players) you get the more reasonable 13618 Games of 4vs4 and 11877 Games of 1vs1.
If you could include that in your code it would make comparing the numbers of games played per gamemode a lot easier.
The old diagramm should stay of course because you see how popular a certain gamemode is by the playercount.

I love your statistic thanks for all the effort.

Hey MADsquirrel, thanks for a feedback. Sorry for a super late answer, I didn't notice your reply. That is a great suggestion, but sadly I might not have time to do it. I will explain down below.

Hi Paid Player.

I like what you did with coh2chart, but especially now it would be great to also see the day by day stats you used to have (even if it's just for top 150 and even if its sometimes bugged). Is this possible? It would be helpful to understand what's going on with this patch and the bug fixes etc. A week averaged doesn't cut it in that regard. Of course I am only suggesting it in addition to what you already have.

Hey Rappy,

thanks for a suggestion. I really agree with you. A week average is a kind of boring and it's difficult to notice the balance changes after a patch. I would like to add that feature but sadly I won't have time.

I live in Finland where we have a mandatory military service, conscription. I have to join the army next week and I have to serve in the army for next 11 months. That means that I am not able to add new features into the site

Hey MADsquirrel, thanks for a feedback. Sorry for a super late answer, I didn't notice your reply. That is a great suggestion, but sadly I might not have time to do it. I will explain down below.



Hey Rappy,

thanks for a suggestion. I really agree with you. A week average is a kind of boring and it's difficult to notice the balance changes after a patch. I would like to add that feature but sadly I won't have time.

I live in Finland where we have a mandatory military service, conscription. I have to join the army next week and I have to serve in the army for next 11 months. That means that I am not able to add new features into the site

Anyone you trust to take over development until you return?

It is a great resource, nice work.

Hey Rappy,

thanks for a suggestion. I really agree with you. A week average is a kind of boring and it's difficult to notice the balance changes after a patch. I would like to add that feature but sadly I won't have time.

I live in Finland where we have a mandatory military service, conscription. I have to join the army next week and I have to serve in the army for next 11 months. That means that I am not able to add new features into the site

Thanks for the response. Do you still have the code for the old site? Perhaps you could just put a subtle link to it as a subsite on the main page.
I wish you good luck in the army. Hope that coh2 has taught you invaluable things, like stay close to the guy with the minesweeper....

Hope that coh2 has taught you invaluable things, like stay close to the guy with the minesweeper....

Real Men stays close to the guy with the flammwerfer

I live in Finland where we have a mandatory military service, conscription. I have to join the army next week and I have to serve in the army for next 11 months.

Fresh conscripts have arrived!

Aamuja!

The army starts where logic ends....