The theory that there is a "massive" difference in fuel between 1vs1 and 4vs4 is simply not supported by numbers.
Where are these mythical numbers you speak of?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The theory that there is a "massive" difference in fuel between 1vs1 and 4vs4 is simply not supported by numbers.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Where are these mythical numbers you speak of?
Posts: 1273
Right here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/61229/resource-income-per-game-mode/page/1#post_id609470
and there not "mythical", they are quite reliable and tell a different story than your theory.
"That said, the difference between 1v1 and 4v4 is smaller than I expected (around 200 fuel after 60 minutes). Also, it is noteworthy that before about 14 minutes the fuel incomes is slightly lower in the larger game modes. "
Yes.
Map dynamics/map control change completely mode to mode, influencing timings massively.
In 1s and 2s you have map constantly changing hands, making tech and units arrive later, in 3s and 4s its pretty static once you claim it and cache spam doesn't help either.
And units are balanced with assumption that player can use them to their full extend, that clearly doesn't help players who can't even spell units name properly.
Posts: 92
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
Is it technically possible for the balance modding team to limit certain units depending on the game mode?
Right here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/61229/resource-income-per-game-mode/page/1#post_id609470
and there not "mythical", they are quite reliable and tell a different story than your theory.
"That said, the difference between 1v1 and 4v4 is smaller than I expected (around 200 fuel after 60 minutes). Also, it is noteworthy that before about 14 minutes the fuel incomes is slightly lower in the larger game modes. "
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Not as far as I know.
Nothing against SiphonX, but the data shows weird oddities that do not make sense. You cannot use it as an argument.
MP earnings of below 100 for 3v3 and 4v4 within the first 3 minutes? 1v1 and 2v2 generate MUCH more FU and MUN income in the first three minutes, while 4v4 stays at the base income and 3v3 slightly elevated above the base income? This would mean that in larger game modes, there would be next to no territory captured in the beginning. No mode generates a CP until after minute 6? This makes me believe that the binning logic he uses has some inconsistencies.
Additionally the cumulative graphs say the FU/MUN income in small modes were higher early on (which does not make sense as stated above), while the per minute income in large modes is higher from the second bin onwards.
This data has clearly issues.
Posts: 1273
You can argue the stat with SyphonX, they might or might not have issues.
Point here is the according to stats there not a "massive" fuel difference between 1vs1 and 4vs4 as claimed by a certain user especially early in the game.
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
You can argue the stat with SyphonX, they might or might not have issues.
Point here is the according to stats there not a "massive" fuel difference between 1vs1 and 4vs4 as claimed by a certain user especially early in the game.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
This data probably has severe issues. You cannot use it as a backup for your claim. It is not about who to argue with, it is about drawing conclusion based on proper data. Period.
Ahh...so I use all all games then people complain Allies players are simply noobs and don't know how to play and if I choose Top 200 the sample size is too small.
I guess that proves the game is totally balanced then. How could I ever doubt the balance team?
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
No one claimed that the game is totally balanced or that you shouldn't doubt the balance team. The point that was made was only that you need to be careful drawing conclusions from these stats, because they likely do not paint a complete picture. The non top 200 stats are likely more heavily influenced by some external factors such as map pool and (lack of) player skill, while top 200 stats are too small a sample size to be reliable and obviously vary too wildly (60/40 wr in 3v3 vs 40/60 wr in 4v4) to be anything close to conclusive. Which really is a shame.
Are Axis a bit too powerful in teamgames at the moment? I'd say probably yes.
Is it as bad as these raw stats seem to suggest? I don't think so.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
What?
Absolute nonsense. If there is reason to believe that the data might be wrong, you can't say "don't argue with me" and still try to push your statement.
This data probably has severe issues. You cannot use it as a backup for your claim. It is not about who to argue with, it is about drawing conclusion based on proper data. Period.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
So if someone really thinks that this 5% difference in win rate were real proof, by lord I urge you to publish your method in some high level statistics journal because I guarantee you that there are literal millions of people out there waiting for a proper and reliable statistical test to draw good conclusions from such type of data.
Posts: 1515
Even though this went off topic, ultimately this conclusion leads us back to what is at hand.
No one claimed that the game is totally balanced or that you shouldn't doubt the balance team. The point that was made was only that you need to be careful drawing conclusions from these stats, because they likely do not paint a complete picture. The non top 200 stats are likely more heavily influenced by some external factors such as map pool and (lack of) player skill, while top 200 stats with 200-400 games are too small a sample size to be reliable and obviously vary too wildly (60/40 wr in 3v3 vs 40/60 wr in 4v4) to be anything close to conclusive. Which really is a shame because as they'd likely be the best representation of balance.
Are Axis a bit too powerful in teamgames at the moment? I'd say probably yes.
Is it as bad as these raw stats seem to suggest? I don't think so.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
But then every tournament statistics would be invalid as they have an inherent low sample size.
Posts: 3029 | Subs: 3
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
That's not how standard deviation works. If we had factions being on the top 5% on certain modes and on bottom on other modes, I'll agree with you. But after 3 months seeing the same factions on top on each mode shows different things.
Few game are decided by early game in teamgame, what decides the game are late game units able to crutch on the opponent and we've seen the balance team working on downgrading Allied late game options while keeping Axis one intact.
It wouldn't surprise me to see the gap increasing once the new patch kick on.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Fact is that the win rates can jump vastly between different months and even between related game modes such as 3v3 and 4v4. I agree that standard deviation is no indicator of balance being good or bad at all. But people here claim that some factions are clearly UP because of their win rate being lower than another faction's by a couple of percent, while next month or in the next game mode the difference is much smaller or even reversed. This is a strong hint that the data we have is not robust in the first place.
My point is that we have to consider much, much more than just the win rates that the site gives us. We cannot solve the balance issue on the current "hard" data alone. Like it or not, we have to make a ton of "educated guesses", and that's exactly what the balance team is supposed to do. The win rate data can help, but I get the impression that too many people assume it should be the main or even the only metric for balance. Given the quality of the data, this is quite naive.
Especially if we consider that the data is highly interdependent in team games. One bad faction will drag their Allied faction(s) down in the win rate. Some of the win differences can literally be a good team suddenly having two free weekends. Again, those win rates are a hint that something might be off, but definitely overblown in the discussions here.
I think this has mostly to do with USF and especially UKF having so many holes in the line up compared to Axis factions that picking doctrines is not a nice addition, but essential to the faction. Allies have 2/3 of their factions hampered by this, while both Axis factions unlock all "basic" tools in a normal teching path (OKW having some quirks but still).
Overall the patch still goes into the right direction in my eyes, but as with every patch we have to check which changes do not work. Overall the patch should not be seen as a general faction balance patch, since fixing the factions via commanders will create more issues once core units get changes later down the line. Previous patches have fallen short on more fundamental changes to mostly UKF, but I'd attribute this more to Relic than the balance team.
Off note, I am quite happy though that team games are finally discussed for general balance. It actually shows us how far the game has come that the biggest issues have moved from easier to analyze 1v1s to chaotic large modes.
Posts: 163
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
130 | |||||
36 | |||||
27 | |||||
18 | |||||
10 | |||||
88 | |||||
15 | |||||
12 | |||||
11 | |||||
3 |