Meta review

I plan to do 2 posts based on the 117 WPC replays on the meta employed during WPC.

The posts will contain:

1. Commander picks
2. Commander load-outs
3. Build orders (like, the first 5 units build)
4. List of units build (similar to the list I did for tightrope's tourney, but also including infantry units)
5. Teching choices
6. Faction specific choices (like, where Molotovs researched and when)

Now, I was thinking about adding the 46 replays from Tric's tourney to the pool.

Adding those together might gives a better sample size, in particular for UKF, were only 4 replays are available from WPC alone. Also, I should give a somewhat better picture of the current state of the meta in a competitive setting.

Downside would be that it's not a clear WPC-only thing anymore.

So, what do you think: WPC only, or WPC+tric?

Also, let me know if you interested in a certain detail you want me to look into.

1. Personally, I would like to have a summary about what is the preferred light-vehicle meta play/counterplay.

For instance, which and how many light vehicles were fielded (was it a 222, a t70, 888)?
- What kind of non-vehicle counterplay was employed to counter the vehicles (e.g,, pgrens, guards, AT gun, Partysans)?
(and of course, who ended up winning, in the end)
- If it is trivial to get, ideally how much bleed the light vehicles ended up causing in the end (reinforcement / wipes).

2. Regarding teching choices, it would be nice to see which side-techs are the ones that are most commonly skipped.

I wold say wpc only. The reason I say this is that the new maps being tested in the map contest tourney caused a shift in the meta as people learned how the maps functioned in the first place. Furthermore many of those maps were designed as a reaction to the current meta. Combining them would actually obsure the value of what the current meta is like.

You should still run analysis on both since this will provide some info as to how much maps affect the meta. If they don't differ then no harm in including it. If they do, you can see what changes (though 41 is small, but can't be a chooser) occur because of map difference. Though you would also need to consider the player difference as well, which will confound trends and make your conclusion a little more murky.

If only you had access to every game in coh2 everything would be crystal clear, but hey, you take what you are given.

You should still run analysis on both since this will provide some info as to how much maps affect the meta. If they don't differ then no harm in including it. If they do, you can see what changes (though 41 is small, but can't be a chooser) occur because of map difference. Though you would also need to consider the player difference as well, which will confound trends and make your conclusion a little more murky.

If only you had access to every game in coh2 everything would be crystal clear, but hey, you take what you are given.

I wold say wpc only. The reason I say this is that the new maps being tested in the map contest tourney caused a shift in the meta as people learned how the maps functioned in the first place. Furthermore many of those maps were designed as a reaction to the current meta. Combining them would actually obsure the value of what the current meta is like.

My tourney was so meta, we had to scour the ends of the earth for the cocojambo game. As the tourney progressed as well, the meta become more and more... just like the regular meta that you would typically see. Alluding even more to that certain commanders and play styles are simply just stronger.

1. Personally, I would like to have a summary about what is the preferred light-vehicle meta play/counterplay.

For instance, which and how many light vehicles were fielded (was it a 222, a t70, 888)?
- What kind of non-vehicle counterplay was employed to counter the vehicles (e.g,, pgrens, guards, AT gun, Partysans)?
(and of course, who ended up winning, in the end)
- If it is trivial to get, ideally how much bleed the light vehicles ended up causing in the end (reinforcement / wipes).

I'll see what I can do there. It should be possible to do at least a progression of builds (like, "222", "Guards", "PAK", "T-70"). Which would be the relevant entities here?

Ost: 222, Panzerschreck upgrade, PAK, Puma, StuG-E (?), FHT (?)
SOV: Guards, AT Partisans, AT-Gun, T-70, PTRS upgrade (Tank Hunter)
OKW: Luchs, Puma, Raketenwerfer
USF: M-20, M-8 (lol), AAHT, Bazooka Upgrade (Cpt), Bazookas, Stuart, M1 ATG
UKF: AEC, Tank Hunter Section, ATG

Anything missing?

Re: Who ended up winning
If the game was lost by VPs ticking out, there is no info on this in the replay file. Also, not sure how meaningful that is unless the game ends at about 13 minutes.

Bleed is tricky, wipes are impossible to get. Reason being that the replay files only contain player commands, not what those commands resulted in. So, no record of a unit being damaged or wiped. "Reinforcement" is a command and thus is in the files, but "vault" (the backend of cohdb.com that I use to analyze the replays) doesn't decode which unit gets reinforced. Also, you have no idea, which unit did the damage, so...

2. Regarding teching choices, it would be nice to see which side-techs are the ones that are most commonly skipped.

Sure, no problem.

I wold say wpc only. The reason I say this is that the new maps being tested in the map contest tourney caused a shift in the meta as people learned how the maps functioned in the first place. Furthermore many of those maps were designed as a reaction to the current meta. Combining them would actually obsure the value of what the current meta is like.

I don't think the maps introduced a significant shift in meta. Actually, as long the maps are not well know, I figure most player will tend to stick even closer to what they think will work in most cases (aka, the "meta"). Then again, I probably would be more hesitant to use the newer replays, if they were just some weired ass maps, but 6 out of the 9 are now in the automatch pool, so...

Even if there was a shift: Ok, there might be some historical interest in what the meta was during WPC, but I guess for most people it is more interesting what the current meta is so they can either use it (or try to go against it).

I haven't looked at both in depth, but like Tric said: In terms of commander choices they are very, very similar. The top three OH/USF commanders are identical, the top SOV commander is identical, and the rest very similar, likewise for OKW and for UKF there are so few WPC replays that I actually would not do a review there are all...

You should still run analysis on both since this will provide some info as to how much maps affect the meta. If they don't differ then no harm in including it. If they do, you can see what changes (though 41 is small, but can't be a chooser) occur because of map difference. Though you would also need to consider the player difference as well, which will confound trends and make your conclusion a little more murky.

Actually, the player difference to me is actually the strongest argument for merging the two. As ESL showed personal preference played a very important role even for the top of the tops. The most replays for WPC are involving either Devm or Jesulin. So any analysis would be biased towards their preferences (which to some extend is justified, because apparently it worked out for them). However, neither of them participated in tric's tourney, so this gives a little more weight to other players like HelpingHans, Noggano, Talisman, Paul, Barton and Price.

Actually, the player difference to me is actually the strongest argument for merging the two. As ESL showed personal preference played a very important role even for the top of the tops. The most replays for WPC are involving either Devm or Jesulin. So any analysis would be biased towards their preferences (which to some extend is justified, because apparently it worked out for them). However, neither of them participated in tric's tourney, so this gives a little more weight to other players like HelpingHans, Noggano, Talisman, Paul, Barton and Price.

Actually going to use the same argument against you: you are looking for the current meta so that people can adapt/counter no? So most sane people will gravitate towards build orders that will win. So Jesulin and DevM in total have both beaten all the people you have mentioned, would that not suggest that their strategies are better? Introducing new people would make their builds more prominent but would those build orders beat Jesulin or DevM? Or it can just be a difference in skill rather than build orders, it's hard to tell skill is equated to win in tournaments.

Actually going to use the same argument against you: you are looking for the current meta so that people can adapt/counter no? So most sane people will gravitate towards build orders that will win. So Jesulin and DevM in total have both beaten all the people you have mentioned, would that not suggest that their strategies are better? Introducing new people would make their builds more prominent but would those build orders beat Jesulin or DevM? Or it can just be a difference in skill rather than build orders, it's hard to tell skill is equated to win in tournaments.

On a not too serious note:
In fact they didn't beat all those guys: Jesulin and DevM where in the lower half of the brackets together with only Barton out of that list. Everybody else was in the upper half, which Noggano won (who wasn't beaten at all). And during ESL, Hans and Price both managed to kick out DevM on occasion. Actually, there isn't any hard data that would rule it out that you might have won the whole thing if only you would have been in the lower bracket .

On a more serious note:
Well, I probably should have explained this a little better... (damn, I tend to produce too long posts already).

It's totally fine that whatever DevM played is emphasized because it was successful (and it still would be). But, realistically, it could totally have happened that he would have been kicked out of the tournament early using the very same builds, because of his or his opponents day's form, or a series of unlucky incidents.

I doubt there is THE best faction/doctrine/BO, it always has to do with personal preference as ESL showed. And with your personal skill level. Clearly, if I copy DevM's build, I wouldn't suddenly be successful as he is, far from it. Actually, I'd expect the opposite because his build might not be the best for me, as e.g. I can't make snipers work, I'm just not good enough.

So, rather then trying to find out what THE BEST meta is, the goal (I guess) would be to find out what (good) players consider viable commanders/BOs. So, rather than carving out the best strategy, it's more about deemphasizing those that seem not overly viable.

This gives a little more options for people looking for advice on how to approach a game.

Me personally I'm more interested in numbers that tell me something about the state of the game. You can find a lot of strong claims here on the forum, do those hold up? Like: How many commanders are viable? Do people exclusively go for BG-HQ? Relic tried to make OH T3 and T4 more accessible in the last patch, did that work out? Everybody seems to go Cpt. or 444 these days. Really? Stock units vs. call-ins? A lot of people say conscripts are useless, are they?

At then end of the day it comes down to what more people would like to see, hence the poll (which I wouldn't have done if I would lean strongly either way). In case I go with "both" I'll throw in a sentence when I find that a specific statistic differs significantly between the tourneys, ok?

On a not too serious note:
In fact they didn't beat all those guys: Jesulin and DevM where in the lower half of the brackets together with only Barton out of that list. Everybody else was in the upper half, which Noggano won (who wasn't beaten at all). And during ESL, Hans and Price both managed to kick out DevM on occasion. Actually, there isn't any hard data that would rule it out that you might have won the whole thing if only you would have been in the lower bracket .

On a more serious note:
Well, I probably should have explained this a little better... (damn, I tend to produce too long posts already).

It's totally fine that whatever DevM played is emphasized because it was successful (and it still would be). But, realistically, it could totally have happened that he would have been kicked out of the tournament early using the very same builds, because of his or his opponents day's form, or a series of unlucky incidents.

I doubt there is THE best faction/doctrine/BO, it always has to do with personal preference as ESL showed. And with your personal skill level. Clearly, if I copy DevM's build, I wouldn't suddenly be successful as he is, far from it. Actually, I'd expect the opposite because his build might not be the best for me, as e.g. I can't make snipers work, I'm just not good enough.

So, rather then trying to find out what THE BEST meta is, the goal (I guess) would be to find out what (good) players consider viable commanders/BOs. So, rather than carving out the best strategy, it's more about deemphasizing those that seem not overly viable.

This gives a little more options for people looking for advice on how to approach a game.

Me personally I'm more interested in numbers that tell me something about the state of the game. You can find a lot of strong claims here on the forum, do those hold up? Like: How many commanders are viable? Do people exclusively go for BG-HQ? Relic tried to make OH T3 and T4 more accessible in the last patch, did that work out? Everybody seems to go Cpt. or 444 these days. Really? Stock units vs. call-ins? A lot of people say conscripts are useless, are they?

At then end of the day it comes down to what more people would like to see, hence the poll (which I wouldn't have done if I would lean strongly either way). In case I go with "both" I'll throw in a sentence when I find that a specific statistic differs significantly between the tourneys, ok?

Oops you are right on the first bit. I took a look at the brackets this morning to check my validity of my statement and I guess my brain refused to function correctly.

I just worry about getting too granular. You are right that not everyonr can replicate devms strategty because of their skill level, but wouldn't people be more comfortable countering in a certain way instead of another? And being more comfortable in countering vs. countering and winning becomes another issue. I think deemphasizing what isnt viable needs to be broken down. Some units never see the day of light e.g. valentine, sexton, etc. while some units are used a little more often and contribute to a victory or a loss.

I do like the claim busting thing you bring up though. I'd imagine it in the same vain as mythbusters, which would be quite funny.

And since tric brought up the "sameyness" of each tournament, theres no reason to specifically find a differing statistics other than the obvious maps and players.

Apologies for busting your balls, I'm always interested in how people construct / back up their stats.

My tourney was so meta, we had to scour the ends of the earth for the cocojambo game. As the tourney progressed as well, the meta become more and more... just like the regular meta that you would typically see. Alluding even more to that certain commanders and play styles are simply just stronger.

I was only able to catch a few games of the tourney, so I was basing most of my assumptions on what I'd seen of people playing the maps outside the tourney.

It's kind of interesting that the metagame was so stagnant through the tournament though. I feel like when the playing field changes people stick to the first thing that works and abuse it until it doesn't.

But hey, I'm the one whose been calling for more WorldBuilder tools (more territory points, etc) for years which has fallen entirely on deaf ears from both the community and Relic. Three resource points is entirely too few to design maps that scale for team games or accommodate the playstyles and designs of 5 factions.

USF: Pershing
OKW: Call in Ostwind
Ostheer: mobile defense
UKF: lol did they even play?
Soviets: Guard motor

I was only able to catch a few games of the tourney, so I was basing most of my assumptions on what I'd seen of people playing the maps outside the tourney.

It's kind of interesting that the metagame was so stagnant through the tournament though. I feel like when the playing field changes people stick to the first thing that works and abuse it until it doesn't.

But hey, I'm the one whose been calling for more WorldBuilder tools (more territory points, etc) for years which has fallen entirely on deaf ears from both the community and Relic. Three resource points is entirely too few to design maps that scale for team games or accommodate the playstyles and designs of 5 factions.

You and I both know, that there are many many things wrong with the worldbuilder.

I just worry about getting too granular.

Well, depends a bit of what point one tries to make, doesn't it? If the statistics end up being all over the place, yes, you won't know why that is.

However, it turns out (spoiler alert) that unlike ESL certain doctrines dominate for their factions. Now, if you have only a limited number of people contributing, it might seem like it's due to that (you know, because DevM is totally into German Infantry). If you add more people that also played on more maps, and they also all used German Infantry, you have a much stronger case that German Infantry is (perceived to be) damn strong right now.

Btw, right now I don't plan to include any win ratios for e.g. certain doctrines or tech choices because a) I don't think we have enough data to get much meaningful and b) it's a bit awkward to do