Profile of Grumpy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1954

General Information


Thread: Allied Comeback from being down 7 to 380 and base-pinned11 Dec 2015, 07:25 AM Hope for allies? This game had some huge swings. We started even, went down to (roughly) 32 to 438 and briefly base-pinned. We stopped losing VP's at 7 to 380 and held on for a 7-0 win. Several times the other team almost took one of the VP's and would've only had to hold it for around 20 seconds. In: Replays
Thread: The OP utility of engineers. 10 Dec 2015, 14:22 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 16:03 PMKatitof Where are these popular strats then? I hear a whole lot about them, but haven't seen ANYONE do any kind of engi spam, maybe except Romeo who tried to RET spam, sprice who is sprice and does weird shit that somehow works but exclusively for him and Redxwings, who usually fails if he tries stuff like that. I hear a lot about how heavy REs were OP, but not once faced heavy RE spam-the apparently most powerful "engies are core" strat out there, at least according to forums. So, if these engi centric strats are so strong, why no one plays them? I bet a lot of people have tried RE spam, failed, and then went back to what they were doing before. Before the price increase, RE's were something like 20 mp to reinforce so if you could keep 6-8 of them going while not losing any then it would work out. As soon as you lose a whole squad then your cost is 40/model for the new one which is expensive for the low combat ability of a new squad. Also, in the previous patch you had to outnumber Grens at least 2 to 1 to win any of the early battles. If you had to retreat a few times you would dig yourself a big hole. I didn't enjoy it, even on the few games that I won. It felt like I lost almost all the battles but won the game because I didn't lose squads and simply out-capped the other player. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics10 Dec 2015, 02:27 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:46 PMcr4wler did the numbers myself as well Gamemode: 1v1 Timeframe (including): 29.10.15-2.12.15 Code Faction: Games won Games played Ratio OST: 1890 2920 64.72603% OKW: 1526 2453 62.20954% USF: 1721 2376 72.43266% UKF: 1357 1989 68.22524% SOV: 1073 1533 69.99348% (there could be minor mistakes in there, but i'm fairly certain that at least the math part is entirely correct) clearly the numbers for the axis factions are not as low as i said i remembered them, but, to be fair, i was talking about a different timeframe (since brit release, so basically starting 19.09.15 instead). especially if you look at that timeframe (19.09.15 until, lets say 29.10.15, so your start date) the numbers should come down to what i remembered them as. but even with your timeframe, all allied factions have significantly higher win percentages than the axis factions. and i guarantee you, if you go further back, the winrates for axis will go down further. on a side note, as others have already explained, these statistics are at least flawed, if not downright false, at least at times (see oct 31st for sov/ost). but since only relic has the "real", the useful data, we'll have to make due with what we have. The data you showed has a 63.6% win rate for axis versus a 70.4% win rate for allies. During that time, allies played 525 (9%) more games than axis. Normalizing for number of games played brought the difference down from 6.8% to 3.9%. I didn't get the data for the last week but it looks like about a 30%+ advantage for axis since the patch. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The game is too damn FAST10 Dec 2015, 01:40 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:39 PMOmega_Warrior or we can just stop letting teammates benefit from caches which is actually the problem. It's not like teamgames have more default points then 1v1. It's just that caches put out 4x the resources into the game then they would in a normal 1v1. Is there any doubt in your mind that people who play random 4v4's would start killing their own team's caches so they could get the extra resources for themselves? It might be funny to watch, but only from a safe distance as things go nuclear. If you want something like this, just reduce the added fuel or muni per player. Right now, a cache makes +20 total fuel or muni per team in a 4v4 instead of the +5 that it does in a 1v1. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: The game is too damn FAST10 Dec 2015, 01:34 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:56 PMLeodot I would expect that 4v4s will go much more than an hour, or 2, and that is not practicable. There are still only 500 VP's, and someone is almost always losing one every 3 seconds. Occasionally games go beyond an hour but that usually requires contested VP's to be uncapped at times. Resource inflation happens partly because capping is faster and partly because it's easy to build caches early in team games. Fuel and ammo drops help make it go faster also. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics9 Dec 2015, 14:33 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 08:00 AMJohnnyB This is rubbish. Statistics said otherwise. LOL - please show us any statistics that showed the game was unbalanced before the patch. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Place your bets9 Dec 2015, 04:12 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 07:02 AMRMMLz You didn't get the point mate. I'm talking about 90% of team players. True, I don't play 3s and 4s so I might be wrong. But as I said, more people play team games thus there are more noobs in that player base (again, the number is more but the percentage of scrubs might be the same between game modes). These people infest the forums while talking out of their asses. You've probably been to official forums. I was just stating my opinion on "why do people pick on team players?" not if team games are good or not in general. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the group that I most commonly play with are currently ranked in the 100-150 range, which probably puts me in that bottom 90%. Even at my "noob" level, your comments aren't true. Coordination wins team games, and rarely do they turn into arty-fests. Arty can't hold ground, and decent players counter it. Random 4v4's aren't fun, but AT can be, especially when matched against a good team. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics9 Dec 2015, 03:47 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 02:30 AMDullahan I'm using made up numbers to explain the logic. The numbers of games varies wildly day to day due to the small sample size. December 6th OKW played 200 games and Brits only played 30 for example. 30 games isn't even enough to have a decent statistical representation of british players in the top 150. I also fucking hate the new OKW design and have been quite vocal about that, so don't accuse me of bias. I play everything pretty equally. I said the exact same thing when allies Op was all the rage. You didn't have to make up the numbers, they were there and don't support what you were trying to say. It looks like you used the 4v4 numbers for December 6 so I'll use those. The numbers of games played were: OKW 216, OST 133, SOV 144, USF 94 and UKF 30. That's 349 axis to 268 allied. If you assume that the game is balanced, then the top 150 should more or less split the 268 games. Assume then that the other 81 games were all won by the "better" axis players. That would have the axis wining 215 games of the 349 that they play, for a wining percentage of 62%. Instead, the percentage was around 89%. I'm not trying to make this personal and don't know you or anything about you. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Time for Statistics8 Dec 2015, 14:02 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 03:14 AMDullahan Yes, it's actually pretty easy to follow if you're not retarded, asshole. Sentence 1: "If 1000 games are played with axis and 500 are played with allies in the top 150 players, that means that axis played 500 games against players who are outside that skill bracket." 1000-500 = 500. pretty easy to understand. I kept it extremely simple and clarified in detail in another post. ..... Your numbers are simply wrong. There are still more games played by the top 150 as allies than as axis. You're disregarding the stats because they show that the faction you like is really broken. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Time for Statistics8 Dec 2015, 01:45 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 00:36 AMCieZ Uh... wat...? Are those even coherent sentences? I think I get what you're saying, but wow. That wording though. Why not just say that these graphs do not account for the high likelihood that the vast majority of these matches were played between players with a significant skill gap, therefore the data should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyways, I don't think anyone can defend the fact that OKW is vastly over performing this patch. Most of us could tell this was going to be the case just from reading patch notes. In 1v1's, the top 150 axis players (OKW + OST) played a total of 240 games. The top allied players (UKF, USF, & SOV) played a total of 252 games, so if number of games was the reason, 1v1 would be skewed in favor of allies. In fact, the numbers are the same across the board. This "number of games played" reason has about as much validity as the "cool uniform" or "bad guys" theory. There have been times that it did affect the results, but now isn't one of them. There are some things that I like about the patch. The pack howie and LeIG were ruining 1v1's and needed a nerf. I like the idea of not having the resource penalty on OKW but when they did that, they should have added the tech costs that other factions have to pay, meaning shreks, grenades, etc should now cost fuel. The Panzer Schwerer should cost at least as much fuel as the Major, etc, etc. Also, if they were going to do a major redesign, they should have left everything else alone and just changed OKW instead of all the changes. WTF was Relic thinking? In: COH2 Balance