Profile of Lokust22

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 79

General Information


Thread: How it could be ...22 Oct 2014, 23:11 PM I don't think it takes into account whether a player is winning or losing when they drop. If it did, it would be very easy to just drop from games where you have had a strong start and get the win. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: October 30th Patch Predictions 22 Oct 2014, 20:30 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Oct 2014, 11:13 AMAerohank I actually think the IL-2 bomb strike will now no longer kill the PAK-43. It used to drop 4 bombs at the same spot, so every bomb would do damage to the PAK43, wrecking it every time. Now that they are dropped in a line, the outer 2 bombs probably won't even hit it. The IL-2 strike is now harder to completely dodge, but it does less damage to targets that can't/won't move because the damage is done in a line rather than in a concentrated spot. I don't think thats what it does. You can now just decide which direction the plane comes from. That doesn't make it drop in a line. In: Lobby
Thread: 50% win loss ratio1 Oct 2014, 11:09 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 20:19 PMHagen67483 That means if the overall win ratio deviate strong from 50% in an unbalanced gamemode than your theory is wrong. Now we just need the data of all 4vs4 players (the most unbalanced gamemode currently) and see if it deviates from 50%. I'm not sure which part of the reasoning you're objecting to. The ELO system aims to get players evenly matched games. Someone should have a 50% chance to win an evenly matched game. If someone is not winning around 50% of their games, their ELO rating will drop and they'll start facing easier opponents. This will break down at the extreme ends of the ladder, hence the "given a large enough player pool" condition. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 20:19 PMHagen67483 Since we don`t have that data, I want to ask the others in the forum. Do you think that the win ratio of all allied players without the worst 10% and all axis players without the best 10% in 4vs4 is around 50% for axis and allies? Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 00:57 AMHagen67483 Or maybe we should just let the players in a Poll decide how to balance the game. God I get nightmares just by thinking about it. You seem to have mixed feelings about the efficacy of polls. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Addition of T34 to the Soviet HQ to resolve tech problems30 Sep 2014, 19:22 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 18:26 PMElSlayer Better add KV-85 to tier 3 or 4. It is EXACTLY the kind of non-doctrinal unit needed for soviet late game - mediocre DPS, high survivability, adequate penetration. They were built on base of KV-1S, which was faster than KV-1 and had better mobility on weak grounds because of wider tracks and lesser weight. Tier may be reworked like: T3 - M5, T-34, SU-85, Katyusha T4 - T-70, SU-76, KV-85 Also you won't have to change any existing commanders. That is plausible. My issue with this approach is that 1) You have to create a whole new unit, which I think is a fair bit of work from Relic's side, and therefore less likely. 2) It has less flexibility than my method, imo 3) I really like the symmetry between the conscript, T1, T2 set up and the T34/76, T3, T4 proposal Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 18:47 PMsoylientgreen Making the T34-85 a T3 immediately would basically rule the T34-76 at HQ useless, it would turn into another t70. There has to be some sort of fuel cost to gain access to the 85. Yeah, I have worried about this too. The problem is, there is currently no precedent for a unique upgrade for a single unit. I think the T34/85 could alternatively have its AI reduced (or something along these lines) to solve the issue. Its hard to say without testing how it would play a little first. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Addition of T34 to the Soviet HQ to resolve tech problems30 Sep 2014, 16:58 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 13:29 PMElSlayer I think you won't see T4 anymore. EVER. Because early T-34/76 + late SU-85 just don't cut it. Also most players will just ignore T-34/76 option and go straight to T3 and T-34-85 spam ALWAYS. So when I was suggesting this to the people I play with, their worry was that no one would go T3. They thought that the superior AT ability of the SU85, combined with the T34/76 for AI and the Katyusha for arty would just be too tempting to ignore. I personally think that both T3 and T4 will be viable as a stand alone, self sufficient option. Even if one is slightly better than the other, the important thing is it will be possible to go the other one, and when that situation arises where you think you will need a katyusha (or whichever), you won't be hamstringing yourself in the process. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 15:05 PMdaspoulos So you think relic should rip all the t34/85s out of their respective commanders and replace them with what exactly? My suggestion was to replace them with a vetted T34/85 option. But as Brachiaraidos said, there are plenty of possibilities. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: 50% win loss ratio30 Sep 2014, 12:15 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 00:57 AMHagen67483 Basicly you say that win ratios doesn`t work to messure balance. Than how shall we messure the balance? Yes. Exactly. Win ratios over the entire data set do not show anything. It is neither evidence for balance or for the lack thereof. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 00:57 AMHagen67483 Maybe the Tournaments? To bad that the COH2 release tournament finals (TFN Network) and the WFA release tournament finals were always won by the allied players. Both tournaments forced the players to change their faction every game, it ended 2:3 for the players but 5:0 in favor of the allied faction. Yes, tournaments are a better test of balance I think. I took those results to suggest that Allies were over powered in 1v1 in those respective patches. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 00:57 AMHagen67483 Or maybe we should just let the players in a Poll decide how to balance the game. God I get nightmares just by thinking about it. That isn't a very good method I don't think. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 00:57 AMHagen67483 Good sir, statisics and win ratios may have their downsides, but they are the best thing we have to messure the balance in my opinion. Because they are the most objective thing. Everything else is just subjective. Win ratios under certain circumstances may be informative. For example, the top 200 players win ratios this patch isn't a useless stat I don't think. But if you can demonstrate that the win ratio won't deviate from 50% under a condition (in this case, over the whole datset) using theory, I don't understand why you would try to use it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Addition of T34 to the Soviet HQ to resolve tech problems30 Sep 2014, 11:54 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 09:36 AMJaigen The current 85 is to powerful to be non doctrinal tank. A slight increase in cost, to account for the fact that it is no longer doctrinal could be added if necessary. However when considering the non-doctrinal Panther for both the Ostheer and OKW, I don't think it is inherently too powerful to be a non-doctrinal tank. You can think of it as the Soviet version of a Panther if you like. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2014, 09:36 AMJaigen that said i believe that the soviets should have access to tier 3 and 4 As has been mentioned, Relic doesn't like that idea. The suggestion I present above does not allow the Soviets to build both buildings any more than before. I view my idea as a compromise that increases utility, while maintaining the asymmetrical teching. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Addition of T34 to the Soviet HQ to resolve tech problems30 Sep 2014, 09:16 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2014, 21:19 PMpantherswag Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, but Relic has already stated a bunch of times that they do not want players to be able to build both T3 and T4 in a game. The idea is you're supposed to supplement each tiers weakness with commander abilities. Not saying this is a good idea, but that's what Relic seems to think is a good idea. It's why they dramatically raised the price of T3-T4 a while back. Yeah, I am aware of them saying they don't want the Soviet player to go both buildings. I thought this was a good way to maintain that sort of teching structure, while at the same time introducing more stability and flexibility. I'm not sure if they specifically said they wanted the Soviets to rely on their commanders though, did they? I always assumed that was a product of how they wanted the soviets to tech, not an explicit aim of the Soviet faction. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: 50% win loss ratio29 Sep 2014, 23:41 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2014, 22:48 PMHagen67483 Sry the argument is flawed, to show it, here some numbers from legends post: Faction Total games Soviet 3301 OKW 7926 US 3438 Ostheer 5456 http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/coh-2-balance-feedback/106966-win-lose-ratio-from-15-9-25-9-2014-much-more Since that are only the numbers of the best 200 players, that means that the best axis players play more axis games than the best allied players play allies games. But since every axis player needs an enemy, that leads to the fact that the top 200 axis player play often vs players that are not in the top 200 of the allied players. Because of that the axis players win more. Only if the Top 200 allied players would play as much as the 200 Top axis players we would see the real state of balance. And this most likely means a higher win ratio for the allies since the better allied players would play more and most likely win more. I tried to address this in the other thread, which I linked to in my first post, but I'll repeat it here and save you some time. (slightly edited from there for clarity) The difference between the number of played games between the axis and allies in the top 200 could be an artifact of how the data was generated. If you assume that the Axis is currently over-powered, but once weren't, then you would expect that it would be very easy for players this patch to beat the ELO rating of players who played in previous patches, but have since become inactive. This would result in the majority of the top 200 axis players being active. The opposite will occur in the Allies ladder, where an active player now can expect to fall below a player who earned a high ELO rating when the game was more balanced. This will result in a larger portion of the top 200 players on the allies side being inactive accounts. What this would basically result in is that the effective sample size of the axis side includes more active players and is therefore larger, hence the more games played. This seems plausible to me, since I see no reason why good axis players would consistently and to such a large degree play more games than good allied players. It could possibly be a combination of both effects, but for the most part I think the "games played" statistic is too flawed to use for anything other than a pseudo measurement of sample size. Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2014, 22:48 PMHagen67483 A second thought why the argument of the OP is flawed can be seen in the leaderbords. If OP is right than the best axis players (1 in his example) would have a higher win ratio compared to the best allied players (A in his example). Here the Quote: The average win ratio of the 25 Best 1vs1 WM Players is: 0,73 Soviets: 0,74 OKW: 0,74 USA: 0,76 And we see no real difference. That means the Problem that the OP described is not real in COH2 1vs1. It could be in teamgames since we know that here the axis wins more. But than we can go back to my first argument about the numbers played by the best players. The point of this topic is that people shouldn't expect the global win loss ratio to deviate from 50%, regardless of how poor the balance is. This should be true for 1v1 to 4v4, assuming my two assumptions are met. That being said, the win ratio's you posted do not show any flaw in what I have proposed, and this is not only because what I said should hold true even under perfect balance, but also because those win ratio's are not limited to games played this patch. A large portion of those games played will come from different patches, where balance trends differed. If what I said earlier in this post was true, this should disproportionately affect the allied stats. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: 50% win loss ratio29 Sep 2014, 21:57 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2014, 15:48 PMRomeo He is basically saying that even if game is unbalanced, for a little while allied players will lose a lot to people of their equal skill. But then their ELO will drop, and they will matched against people of LOWER skill and since game is unbalanced the games will be even, and win/loss will trend back to roughly 50%, as the elo will start to stabilize vs players that are beatable. Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. Jump back to quoted post29 Sep 2014, 15:48 PMRomeo So by this logic maybe the win/loss ratio is not even useful information to describe game balance. I don't think the overall win/loss will be helpful. I think the approach used in the other thread of only looking at the top players is a decent approach though. It gives an idea of how far the two ladders have shifted apart. In: COH2 Balance