Login

russian armor

GCS2 Citadel faction win rate

1 Jul 2018, 23:54 PM
#1
avatar of Yossarian

Posts: 70

https://gcs2.org/standings/brackets

Out of total 76 games(including HulkSMASH vs Theodosios game 1 and 2),

OKW : SOV = 13:9
OKW : UKF = 2:0
OKW : USF = 7:2
OST : SOV = 10:22
OST : UKF = 2:1
OST : USF = 6:2

Barbarossa

OKW : SOV = 6:10
OKW : UKF = 7:1
OKW : USF = 3:2
OST : SOV = 15:11
OST : UKF = 2:0
OST : USF = 10:8

Combined

OKW : SOV = 19:19
OKW : UKF = 9:1
OKW : USF = 10:4
OST : SOV = 25:33
OST : UKF = 4:1
OST : USF = 16:10
1 Jul 2018, 23:56 PM
#2
avatar of Mittens
Donator 11

Posts: 1252

Looks like Brits might need some sort of buff somewhere along with a slight tweak to USF.

Either that or OKW needs tweaking to compensate...
2 Jul 2018, 06:34 AM
#3
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2825 | Subs: 1

Its difficult to say if Ostheer is balanced or not when everyone insta pick Mobile defense...
Is Ostheer performing poorly vs Soviet because of that and the now well known strat to counter it with Sov? Also mobile defense insta hard counter both USF T1 and T2, if mobile defense was to be nerfed should Ostheer stat be more balanced vs USF without touching anything else?
OKW provides too much early game dominance vs USF, if you manage a good start vs USF, it is really difficult to comeback vs a Luch rush. How to move the balance without impacting OKW/Sov.
UKF is definitively dead today. I hope it will rise again this fall with a hypothetical patch.
2 Jul 2018, 06:45 AM
#4
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2348 | Subs: 5

Mobile Defense is an interesting case. It can make players win because it can counter the mid game light vehicle meta but it also makes players lose just as well lots of times because they just get caught up calling in endless amounts of Pumas and CP4s in the late game instead of teching up. Seen this countless of times in last month's replays.

It's getting pretty boring to see it picked nearly every game though. Let's hope for a Summer patch that will bring more meta variety.
A_E
2 Jul 2018, 07:39 AM
#5
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2221 | Subs: 4

I have to say the one Brit win was awesome gg wp ciez


2 Jul 2018, 09:56 AM
#6
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2030

Interesting...Seems like Ost mobile defence is not as good as before now that everyone played against it so often.

USF and UKF continue the trend of being garbage...But I am sure someone is gonna tell us very soon that their terrible W/L ratio is just a conincidence or L2P issues.
A_E
2 Jul 2018, 12:37 PM
#7
avatar of A_E
Lead Caster Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2221 | Subs: 4

Interesting...Seems like Ost mobile defence is not as good as before now that everyone played against it so often.

USF and UKF continue the trend of being garbage...But I am sure someone is gonna tell us very soon that their terrible W/L ratio is just a conincidence or L2P issues.


Hopefully we finally get to see some other Wehr commanders in the coming tournaments. Saw a bit of Lightening War - hoping for more!

2 Jul 2018, 13:34 PM
#8
avatar of Mr +

Posts: 112

depend player skills and maps so those stats means nothing
2 Jul 2018, 14:29 PM
#9
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Interesting...Seems like Ost mobile defence is not as good as before now that everyone played against it so often.

USF and UKF continue the trend of being garbage...But I am sure someone is gonna tell us very soon that their terrible W/L ratio is just a conincidence or L2P issues.


Wait for iiiiiittttttt.......

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 13:34 PMMr +
depend player skills and maps so those stats means nothing


Ah Ha! There it is.

2 Jul 2018, 15:19 PM
#10
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2348 | Subs: 5


Ah Ha! There it is.


Well he isn't completely wrong, 76 games (and even less players) is still an insignificant amount as a sample for a game that has so many factors contributing to wins/losses.
2 Jul 2018, 16:11 PM
#11
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 450

Soviets shat on ostheer this tournament. I wonder what has changed since the last tournament, and does something need to be done to fix it? Ukf are trash tier, and usf lack options.
2 Jul 2018, 17:55 PM
#12
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1



Well he isn't completely wrong, 76 games (and even less players) is still an insignificant amount as a sample for a game that has so many factors contributing to wins/losses.


I would argue that by saying that the high skill level of the tournament and the best of 3 or 5 nature of the matches, this data is actually more valuable for balance purposes rather than automatch games.

Auto match rankings aren’t by player, rather than the player/faction combo. So in theory, any player with an OP faction would rise in rank until better players with worse factions would be matched with that player. The end result is that players have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning in any given game regardless of faction balance.
2 Jul 2018, 18:07 PM
#13
avatar of FichtenMoped
Editor in Chief Badge
Patrion 310

Posts: 4673 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 13:34 PMMr +
depend player skills and maps so those stats means nothing


I give you the point for the map choices but in terms of player skill it basically can't get much better
2 Jul 2018, 18:08 PM
#14
avatar of siddolio

Posts: 467 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 13:34 PMMr +
depend player skills and maps so those stats means nothing


Dawg if 1 player is substantially better they will 2-0 the series which is +1axis win +1allies win or the weaker player will only pick up a game on the strongest faction. Stats reflect that, these win rates reflect high level meta pretty exactly.

Sov beat mobi def

Okw beat sovs

USF is favoured vs non mobi def ost and they've been bad vs okw since forever

2 Jul 2018, 18:28 PM
#15
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15166 | Subs: 7

Soviets shat on ostheer this tournament. I wonder what has changed since the last tournament, and does something need to be done to fix it? Ukf are trash tier, and usf lack options.

Map balance is also a factor.

Starting on specific side of specific maps can be a massive advantage.
2 Jul 2018, 18:40 PM
#16
avatar of Aimstrong

Posts: 133 | Subs: 7

I think we can all agree after watching Ciez' UKF game that the balance team messed up. Those brens were way too dominating and gave there is just no counterplay available for the germans.

Last time some people told us to wait and see, because they believed UKF just needed time. Do we still not have a large enough sample size? I'd like to hear more from the aspiring CoH2 statistician Ph.D'ers on how to proceed from here (nerfs? buffs?).
2 Jul 2018, 18:48 PM
#17
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Statistical significance is truly a huge problem here. We have around 30 players that are so good, they are almost sure to beat anybody out of this club in tournament setting.

If you try to increase the number of players, you quickly lose on match quality and once you go past top 200 you start to get players who don't even know all the mechanics they can use. This means the data past that point is pretty much worthless. So it is safer to take only best players, especially as the others could also get on that level if they committed so much time.

You can try to increase the number of observations, but as the number of players is so small, it is always going to be biased towards that particular group. If there was some other parallel control group, it would surely seize completely different results.

That means any stat based, or community vote based game ballancing is just a monte carlo method run in multidimensional space of coh2 stats with "ballance" as a hard to define objective function...

In more humanly sounding words, it is simply completely random. We can change the stats, and so the ballance, but we can never be sure that the direction is right.
2 Jul 2018, 19:04 PM
#18
avatar of CieZ

Posts: 1445 | Subs: 4

Statistical significance is truly a huge problem here. We have around 30 players that are so good, they are almost sure to beat anybody out of this club in tournament setting.

If you try to increase the number of players, you quickly lose on match quality and once you go past top 200 you start to get players who don't even know all the mechanics they can use. This means the data past that point is pretty much worthless. So it is safer to take only best players, especially as the others could also get on that level if they committed so much time.

You can try to increase the number of observations, but as the number of players is so small, it is always going to be biased towards that particular group. If there was some other parallel control group, it would surely seize completely different results.

That means any stat based, or community vote based game ballancing is just a monte carlo method run in multidimensional space of coh2 stats with "ballance" as a hard to define objective function...

In more humanly sounding words, it is simply completely random. We can change the stats, and so the ballance, but we can never be sure that the direction is right.


Sure, but I don’t think we need statistically significant evidence to conclude that UKF is weak. I mean... does even a single player in the top 50 think Brits are the strongest faction right now?

As for why Sov got better, my take is that people have gotten better at mitigating the Puma, thus they’re better at making it to the later stages of the game where Sov t4 starts to dominate Ost - especially Ost t3, especially especially when mark and t34/85s are involved.
2 Jul 2018, 19:23 PM
#19
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2926

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 19:04 PMCieZ


Sure, but I don’t think we need statistically significant evidence to conclude that UKF is weak. I mean... does even a single player in the top 50 think Brits are the strongest faction right now?

As for why Sov got better, my take is that people have gotten better at mitigating the Puma, thus they’re better at making it to the later stages of the game where Sov t4 starts to dominate Ost - especially Ost t3, especially especially when mark and t34/85s are involved.

Also despite it not being statistically significant, there is no grey area to the numbers that the tournament showed for ukf. They hardly even got picked and out of the 15 games they did get picked, they only won twice.
2 Jul 2018, 20:01 PM
#20
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jul 2018, 19:04 PMCieZ


Sure, but I don’t think we need statistically significant evidence to conclude that UKF is weak. I mean... does even a single player in the top 50 think Brits are the strongest faction right now?

As for why Sov got better, my take is that people have gotten better at mitigating the Puma, thus they’re better at making it to the later stages of the game where Sov t4 starts to dominate Ost - especially Ost t3, especially especially when mark and t34/85s are involved.


Most of community agrees ukf is underpowered. So it is possible that community will agree on some set of changes aimed to change that. These changes will probably be implemented and the situation will change in some way. That is all certain.

On the other hand, there is no reliable way to estimate effect of such changes, just as there is no good way to measure if they were for the better. This is very important to acknowledge, as some community members try or may try to use small, overinterpreted set of statistical data to prove one of possible directions is universally right.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

174 users are online: 2 members and 172 guests
8miae3485we2, Baba
99 posts in the last 24h
805 posts in the last week
4688 posts in the last month
Registered members: 21892
Welcome our newest member, 8miae3485we2
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM