VonAsten played exclusively as OKW and USF.
Luvnest almost exclusively went SOV and OKW. He had 3 games as OH, none of these vs. SOV. He also was the only one playing as SOV against OH.
Noggano played mostly OKW and USF; he has 2 games as SOV, and 2 games as OH vs. SOV (winning 1).
Jove played 6/5/5 games as SOV, OKW and USF and only 2 as OH (one against SOV, one against USF, winning both).
Obviously you can argue that the players that mained OH didn't get to the semifinals because OH is shut down hard by SOV, but that's conjecture.
And then number of games is still limited...
I'm not saying the numbers are meaningless, they certainly can indicate a trend. However, I doubt that the data base is sufficient to prove something without the shadow of a doubt given the many factors that play a role.
The data set is terrible for trying to make conclusions. Having the four finalist rarely play Ost means that Ost will have much fewer victories than other factions and look like it is UP. If someone was going to analyze this like an actual statistician, the first thing they would do is throw out all of the outliers (3-0 or 3-1 matches). They would then be down to 5 matches with 25 games. However, win/loss is nominal data. You can't calculate anything on nominal data, you have to transform it into some type of numerical data. In this case, you would transform it into winning percentages. The problem now is that you only have five data points from the five matches. With just five data points, you couldn't calculate standard deviations for all the factions. Without a standard deviation, you cannot calculate a margin of error, compare means, or any other statistical check.
That said, it would be interesting to find out why they didn't pick Ost, in the same way that they didn't pick UKF. It may be that the four finalists didn't pick Ost because it is worse. Without input from them, we can only speculate.
Can you stop mocking me? I don't know why you insist on continuing to be an absolute jerk, but I have shown that the ability is still good
You on the other hand have repeatedly been wrong about multiple facts related to the ability. First you got the cost wrong, then you got the travel time wrong, and then you suggested I was faking tests in order to argue with you
All I have done to you is disagree/correct your false information. You could try to respond with less of an attitude for once. At least have the balls to quote me if you're going to talk shit about me, I really don't understand your fucking problem
Since you're clearly clueless on a lot of things, I'll explain this in a way you should be able to understand. I was off on the cost of the bombing run by a little bit. I hadn't used it in years and wasn't going to play a game just to get the cost exactly. Instead of simply saying I made a mistake, you absolutely shit yourself going everywhere claiming that I am a liar. You've put it in multiple threads and even the shout box. Maybe you're too stupid to understand that calling someone a liar is an insult, or maybe you just don't know the meaning of words.
You, on the other hand, are bordering on lying when you say the bombing run is a great ability. You would have had to have tested it a bunch of times and know that it doesn't do a lot versus PIV's, Stugs, Panther's etc. You found one unit where it did well, when the bombing run is done at some strange angle, and then said the bombing run is great. By anyone else's description, a bombing run that is good against one particular type of target at some strange angle is either bad or bugged, not great. Your statement is a lie, because you know it is not true and you have the intent to deceive.
Lastly, you make really stupid statements whenever this subject comes up. It eventually leads to responses like these that were replies to you from other players:
Penal snare is actually easier to pull off, unlike grenades it will always go off once you start animation. Also you're not ambushing anything of value once enemy sees you have PTRS cons, it does not take 200 IQ to send infantry ahead of tanks especially since PTRS cons cant do anything to infantry and you're giving up on shocks and guards by selecting this doctrine.
Anyway I'm done with you, you can pretend it's good doctrine all you want I think everyone who played it would rate it as meme or gimmick at best and the fact thats it's one of the least seen doctrines in the entire game speaks louder than theorycrafting
Congratulations, you just proved you used tank hunter commander vs easy CPU.
In real games, only in an already won 4v4 fuckfest and against a plant level of reaction player you can succesfully pull a Conscript AT assault vs heavy TDs... its literally punching the dead horse.
Of course tank hunter packs quite a punch, but it is so predictable...
B4 adds some 'excitement' RNG + a direct fire revamp
In short, if you stop insulting and stop saying stupid shit then I, and others, won't mock.
You absolutely can; I've shown this multiple times now. ..
No, you're still not understanding. When the matches are almost all 3-0, wining faction rate is determined solely by which faction was picked. Imagine for a second that instead of 64 players, there was just 2 players, Player B who won all of the matches and Player A who lost all of the matches (matches were all 3-0). If Player B plays more than half of his/her games as Soviets, you would conclude that Soviets are OP because the win rate was more than 50%
You keep trying to assert that players choice is random and follows a normal distribution, but it isn't and doesn't.
That would assume Soviets had a 100% win rate - they don't, and no one is claiming that. They had a 54.2% win rate against OKW and 71.2% against OST.
I'm just pointing out that the Soviet vs. OST win rate is so much higher than any other matchup that they are OP beyond any reasonable doubt. If their win rate against OST was 55%, or even 60%, there would be a discussion to have.
You seem to badly want this conclusion, but the data doesn't say that at all. You can't take the results of a bunch of 3-0 matches and conclude anything. The "effect" of the player is so much stronger than faction, map, rng, or any other factor.
Not completely true. Well, if the games would have been played in a BO3 you would have a solid point. However, given that this is B05, it seems more tricky. I asked Sturmpanther about the how this actually was played out and if I understood correctly the way this worked was that the player that won the first two games had faction selection in the third match.
So, faction selection was not completely random, the better player typically would end up playing the faction that he would consider to be stronger.
Regardless of how the coin flips went, the four finalists got to choose factions roughly half of the time in six matches, versus players that left in the first round getting to choose factions in one match.
If that's the case, then the WCS rule-set was ignored.
It's also important to note that while the players had faction pick, they did not have 'side' pick until game 5; meaning players were always alternating between axis and allies every game (until game 5, where the leading player could chose to no longer alternate).
As EffenNewbie pointed out, "Game 5" only happened five times (1x R32, 2x R16, 2x finals); so that means 27 out of the 32 bracket games must have ended in a win-loss ratio of either 50:50, 66:33, or 33:66 axis:allies, where the player who was playing Axis/Allies was entirely random. In the case of a game 5, regardless of which side a player chose, the win:loss ratio must have been 60:40 for either axis or allies.
As a result of all this, the "worst possible case" (where the better player always played allies more) decreases, since we're now introducing 50:50 and 60:40 games into what was once exclusively a set of 66:33 games - meaning that Sov's win ratio against OST is now even higher than before over that "worst possible case".
For example, if 14 matches were 3:0, 13 matches were 3:1 and 5 matches were 3:2, and all matches went in favor of allies, the "worst possible case" goes down to 58.6:41.4, putting Sov 12.6% over what the maximum possible win:loss ratio is in a balanced game. There is simply no statistical way in which Sov did not over-perform vs ost; even when taking into account impossibly imbalanced matches and exceedingly unlikely coincidences in coin flips.
I'd be able to get a more accurate worst-case by knowing the outcomes (and faction picks) of every single match, but I haven't found that written down anywhere.
No. If Soviets, or any other faction were OP, game 5 would always happen and the winner would always be Soviet. This was so far from that result that I would have a hard time believing it had it not happened. The results look like something you would expect from a Warcraft II tournament, where all of the factions were actually the same but had different skins.
The only other thing that was abnormal was how well the seedings actually matched the players. There were practically no upsets, with the biggest upset being the #5 seed beating the #4 seed. The finals were between the 1, 2, 3 and 5 seeds. Whoever ranked them was either really good or really lucky.
TL;DR, statistically, there's over a 99.99966% chance that Sov is over-performing, leaving just 0.00044% chance that the match-ups were so skewed in favor of one player that the win:loss data is irrelevant. There's also a 90% chance that UKF is UP vs OST (no data vs. OKW). The other match-ups were close enough to be within reasonable margins of error.
Um, no. Selection bias wasn't a term that I cooked up for this. It comes up relatively early in even a entry level statistics class.
Looking at just the round of 32, the winner of the match won 48 out of 52 matches played (92%). If one faction was overperforming like you think, the win rate would have been 48 out of 80, (60%) and the winner of the coin toss would have picked Soviets every time. In the round of 16, the winner of the match won 83% of the games, again not anywhere near 60%. The quarter finals and semi-finals had a 86% win rate by the match victor, again not anywhere near 60%.
If you were analyzing this correctly, you would have came to the conclusion that faction didn't matter at all. The only thing that determined win rates was the choice that people made before starting the match.
It means that this doc must be choose only against elef? Want more simple choice against elef - mark target+ bombing run could kill elef or JT. I could agree with ptab, if it take engine damage, but with so small damage against more numerous armor as p4, stugs and panthers, it's just laugh. Just make test, how much ptab deal damage to p4 or stug? It just waste of muni for such pesky results.
And again - in docs with frag bombs you could have - tiger and still have good ability+heavy, while in pure AT doc, you don't have elite infantry or elite armor. Ability should be reworked or replaced by AT overwatch. Beacuse current state just waste of muni.
Yes, it is the best ability in the game when used against Elefants at a 23.47 degree from the primary axis of the Elefant. Against any other armor or when used at any other angle then you would want a different ability. It is incredible when used in cheat mode against Elefants with a protractor. /sarcasm
It used to do around 960 damage to everything caught in the AOE. It changed at a patch a couple of years ago. It's always been slow but it was somewhat okay because it hit really hard. Now it is just slow.
I've went several rounds with Sky about this. Evidently you decided to play with him also.
Button to deploy it permanently, removing the capability to decrew.
It now gains the same HP as a bunker and removes popcap.
Alternative: USF base could had a little less "stupid" design and more space to put units around.
I like your first idea. I think they looked at the second and had problems with it being buggy. The current base design looks like there should be an elephant in the middle of the circus tents.
No guys he is right remove the ambulance, add a 15 fuel 100 MP 3 medic at base after any captain and give RE medic drops
The size of the USF base combined with the range of medics and different retreat paths would make this almost impossible to implement.
The ambulance's long pack up time and slow speed make it too vulnerable. Even when you see something diving, you often can't save it. Also, most of the time, it isn't a trade for a Puma. The Puma dives in, destroys the ambulance, and leaves in a cloud of smoke.
It doesn't even have to be a Puma. I traded a Panther for a Pershing, Jackson, Katy, Major, and two ambulances in this video. Clearly the Panther is UP and needs buffs.
Effen.Newbie
CHANGE
Relic Entertainment
