So the NORMAL w/l ratio would not be 50/50? Then what would it be? Remember that I reacted on the 21 streak as a result a new game imbalance since patch (still more search as axis), as a normal w/l ratio in a balanced game with skill matchmaking would result in 50/50 overall. Look, you won't be able to plausibly argue anything else. Maybe you just misunderstood. But by all means, bring the rest if you have any.
as a normal w/l ratio in a balanced game with skill matchmaking
I think you were looking for a game which is not CoH2.
In fact, I think you're looking for a game which has a theoretically infinite number of players to ensure the MM never manages to induce any sort of skill based imbalance.
The 'normal' average W/L in a perfectly balanced game with limitless players and a skill based system that worked perfectly would fluctuate around and gradually trend towards 50/50, yes.
But no game is perfectly balanced or has infinite players and a perfect matchmaking skill algorithm.
CoH2 sure as hell doesn't.
All of this is massive amounts of conjecture, regardless, about the foibles of statistical trends when subjected to reality and not idealized constructs. Which is meaningless.
The point is that players having a +21 win streak is nothing new and nothing abnormal. The best players are going to win lots and the worst players are going to lose lots, so waving around '+21!' is a pointless exercise. |
You doubt the normal win ratio would be 50/50? When the game tries to match people with similar skill? I'd like to see your statistical explaination behind that. In slow and small words if you like.
As requested, small words slowly.
There are two possible results to a game of CoH2. Win, or Loss. Simple, easy. Does not mean the probability of each is 50/50. Does not mean the average trend of all players on a particular side is 50/50.
Of course, for every game played there has to be a winner and a loser, but I'm making the assumption you're not assuming I somehow don't realise that. Right... right? We split the win ratios against Allies and Axis and examine each separately because the data is otherwise utterly meaningless
Examples of things which will skew results:
State of Balance in the game.
Americans in 1v1, for example, are considered very, very powerful, whilst Ost is often marked as the biggest struggle. Win ratios for Americans and Allies in 1v1 will likely be skewed in respect to this.
Automatch mechanics and player weights
A long standing abundance of axis players in the queue against a minority allies and a generally imperfect automatch system mean that we're not, in fact, all guaranteed to face off against people of equal skill. Nor does it mean we will average people of equal skill. Just because more games are being made does not mean that the system in place will trend towards a match of people against their opposite number as a net average.
There's two. Want more? |
Because it's the most likely that the one case we hear about is freak outlier?
You asked me how someone can have 21 wins when the 'average' would be 50/50 (which, frankly, I very much doubt. I don't have the win ratios of all nations and game modes on hand to verify, but it's a very unlikely outcome, let's be honest.)
The reason is because there is no reason this should not happen and a single case proves literally nothing.
Anything else you need spelling out slowly and in small words? |
I mean - They got supressed, but they ignored that suppression (The PTRS guys) and still hit the HMG in 2 volleys. And it was just destroyed instantly!
No squad is incapable of firing while suppressed. They obeyed the suppression perfectly.
Good luck and small scatter combined to land a lot of hits on the weapon in question. Remember; any time a con rolls a hit with a PTRS, it lands on a crew member regardless of things between shot and target. |
So how would you explain more searching as axis when allies have been op?
The few patches in memory since the beta I began in where the allies had the absolute advantage, I saw allied automatch rise and overtake axis. Such times have been rare, especially when the majority of players aren't in 1v1 but in 2v2 and above, where the axis have rarely (if ever) been on the back foot.
In the days of snipers in M3's and M5's zooming about the map having a merry yolo life I regularly saw the searching as axis hit 0%.
How come it is like that now when DeadManzShoes has 21 straight wins although a normal ratio would be 50/50.
Learn 2 statistics, specifically standard distribution with respect to outliers. |
|
'A large number of squads with anti-material rifles are capable of destroying my thin metal objects'
Gee gosh golly.
I'll say it as many times as is needed. That many MP and MU from any nation will wipe a single MG unless spent on nothing but rear echelon with sweepers. There is nothing unique here except the weapon involved.
The PTRS is a heavy weapon with no small arms profile, and fires at infantryman height, so hits the MG/PaK/Mortar instead of the crew a lot. Just remember to watch both HP bars if there's lots of them around. You can't hit a packing up/carried MG, so you have your full crew HP pool to retreat on.
If your gun does blow up, good job, your opponent can't use his cheap ass con swarm to man it and point it at your face, resource denied to the enemy.
As far as blob effectiveness goes, it still can't fire on the move and has lower DPS than most alternatives to it. Yes, the alpha on a lucky roll is higher, but once that's done they're on the back foot every other step of the engagement.
The number of times in MP games I've now seen axis players casually walk up to cons behind green cover, used to being pretty much immune to even the hint of damage from such a god awful unit at medium range, only to have to run away because they stood around trying to win the firefight. It's honestly shocking. Adjust your play, guys. If a con squad tried that against grens -ever- it would lose horribly, the same is now also true the other way. |
But imagine the LMG42 for Grens wouldn't just kill the crew of a Maxim, but the whole weapon as well - with a straight forward bumrush in seconds. And the sniping capability on retreat paths is also "fun".
Would you consider this a decent and intended feature?
A bunch of MG42 grens will just obliterate the crew from max range instead. With or without rifle nades.
The fact the crew weapon dies is just by merit of the gun interfering with the PTRS hitting the crew. Solving the gun blowing up won't change the fact that the 360 damage required to kill it will, instead, wipe the crew from the gunner's seat 4 times over. |
|
People always seem to yell about connecting territory as if it's somehow hard in 4v4's.
Take Ettelbruck. You can stick a squad right into the building you want, have your and your ally back cap all points between yourself and it with the first squads to arrive, and the building will keep your engineers alive long enough to pop it as soon as you hit 60 fuel as usual.
It may change the exact building you pick in some instances, but pushing your enemy off their fuel is massive anyway. One player loses 60 fuel, but the enemy team loses 20 per minute between them if not more. So long as you only have to swap house every 4 minutes or so you're onto a winner, will horribly out tech your opponent and win with ease.
Teamwork and good play provided, of course. By the time you get to 3cp for the mortar halftracks it should be a done deal. |
I would say it's more about the "coolness" factor. Just look the forum arguments. PANTHER WAS DA BEST TANK, TIGER IZ DIS, KT IS DAT, MG42 DAKADAKA HISTORY GERMAN OP SHERMAN PAPER ARMOR. There is an aura of coolness around German army which makes players to play axis more.
There is an aura of historical disillusion amongst fanboys, I think you meant to say.
Seriously, though, there are just as many fans of the Soviets, Brits and Americans in WWII. They just tend to be less shouty, in my modest experience.
People always fall back to the mainstay 'oh it's just for the aesthetic' or whatever when time and time again we see clearly that the player distributions in games follow the relative balance of available options unfalteringly, with a slight delay after patches while a new meta evolves.
Your special game isn't special enough to be immune to global trends, sorry. |
|
I like the way people call the PTRS being able to actually hit things a bug. Really shows off the kind of mind set we're dealing with here. |
United Kingdom
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
