3vs3 and 4vs4 will never be balanced, in those games you are to much relied upon the general IQ or depths of stupidity that is called your "teammate".
their is a big different beiging good in a rts game and and have a high IQ.
Posts: 281
3vs3 and 4vs4 will never be balanced, in those games you are to much relied upon the general IQ or depths of stupidity that is called your "teammate".
Posts: 196
Posts: 1439
With OZ making that kind of a comment, there is no need for him to even look at the spread sheets, Statistics is clearly above him
Posts: 612
i can only say this : LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. 1 vs 1 is balanced. in fact soviets and usf have far less things to complain about then the ostheer who are only being propped up by the tiger. nearly every single faction is close to the 25% marker. a few weeks a ago the soviets had 28 % btw it simply fluctuates slightly but overall the balance is good in 1vs 1.
Posts: 612
Then please enlighten me how this kind of statistics represents the game balance and how exactly it has been measured?
Was the skill of each player measured and compared? What was the size of initial sample? What's the data distribution in term of player skill? Their ELO? Was the number of games even for each faction? In team games, was the skill of each player (or ELO) even for each team for each game?
Posts: 196
A few weeks ago soviets only had a marginal greater win ratio in 1v1s only. My statement still stands about Axis being favored heavily in 2v2's, 3v3's, and 4v4's.
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
Posts: 612
Allies, according to these statistics, won 50.2% of the 2v2 matches. Does not compute how that's supposed to be a massive Axis Advantage.
If anything, the problem I see with 2v2 is that OKW is so much better than Ostheer. Still, compared to 3v3 or 4v4 it's all pretty close.
Posts: 658
i beleive that the okw should only receive 2 fuel and not 3. It would fix a lot of issues.
Posts: 301
Posts: 1439
This statistical experiment shows there is an un even win loss distribution between the factions. In an RTS balance being achieved can be measured in how close the win loss ratios are to each other or number of wins in a given sample. In this case the numbers show a correlation between axis and higher wins/ win loss ratio in higher player count game modes. The numbers are also pointing that in a 1v1 situation the game appears to be balanced. A statistical representation in this case has no way of proving why something is the case, that would revolve around unit statistics and end game stats, but this is a good way of proving there is a problem.
The sample is games from the top 200 players of each faction, they have a good representation of how the game is supposed to work with out as many learn to play issues as lower ranked players. This means the statistics can be trusted as a reasonable example of the state of the game. He could of done a pure random sample, but then you could have very skewed results from the majority of players playing casual and suffering from player issues rather than balance. Not that balance isn't affecting them, but lower level players run into issues of loosing units to multi tasking rather than something being over powered.
Posts: 612
Sorry but no.
All this statistics does is show the win ratio for all factions and that's it. You can't read game balance from these statistics due to the fact that although the size of the samples is equal, you can't guarantee that quality of these samples is equal as well. Top 200 of OKW players maybe be slightly more skilled than first 200 of USF players. What's more you can't even provide that each match will be against equally skilled opponents all the time because auto match will expand its brackets when no suitable opponent is found within specific period of time. I fought against JellyDOnut once and I don't have to tell you how this game ended due to skill level difference between us. It is quite common to get lower skilled opponent in a match up and it's quite common that your opponent will be much more skilled. The number of equal games I had is quite low. I am pretty sure it's the same when you're top 200. Maybe you get less skilled opponents more often because 200 players that's not that high number and they won't be able to play any games at all if match making only paired them against other top 200 player every time.
Also you can't guarantee that none of this data wasn't affected by balance differences, for examples maybe OKW win ratio would have been much lower if it wasn't for over performing Obersoldaten or Kubel Wagon, etc.
What we have here is a classic example of interpretation of the data to suit your need. First thing they are going to warn you against on every Statistics lecture.
Edit:
One more thing. Test sample is not even big enough to safely draw any conclusions.
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Great work, thanks. Can you make same but not with top200?
Posts: 1439
Except it is, there is a reason statistic samples do not need to have thousands upon thousands of numbers to be accurate. As long as you have a sample that is correct enough (which this is). If the top 200 are not accurate enough for you, then your samples will never be good enough unless you take the whole population. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the OKW players are just all strait up better than all the allies players, the same could be said of when the Soviet win loss ratios were out of control
The sample quality is fine here, you could take a larger sample size and the results would not change very much (because this sample was chosen adequately).
It seems you want the sample to be absolutely perfect, which is absolutely absurd
Posts: 101
yuou know if their was a rifleman with a bar for each volks the result would be a horrific slaughter of all those volks.
Posts: 140
Posts: 45
Except it is, there is a reason statistic samples do not need to have thousands upon thousands of numbers to be accurate. As long as you have a sample that is correct enough (which this is). If the top 200 are not accurate enough for you, then your samples will never be good enough unless you take the whole population. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the OKW players are just all strait up better than all the allies players, the same could be said of when the Soviet win loss ratios were out of control
The sample quality is fine here, you could take a larger sample size and the results would not change very much (because this sample was chosen adequately).
It seems you want the sample to be absolutely perfect, which is absolutely absurd
Posts: 2070
I think these stats are all fake
Sorry but no.
All this statistics does is show the win ratio for all factions and that's it. You can't read game balance from these statistics due to the fact that although the size of the samples is equal, you can't guarantee that quality of these samples is equal as well. Top 200 of OKW players maybe be slightly more skilled than first 200 of USF players. What's more you can't even provide that each match will be against equally skilled opponents all the time because auto match will expand its brackets when no suitable opponent is found within specific period of time. I fought against JellyDOnut once and I don't have to tell you how this game ended due to skill level difference between us. It is quite common to get lower skilled opponent in a match up and it's quite common that your opponent will be much more skilled. The number of equal games I had is quite low. I am pretty sure it's the same when you're top 200. Maybe you get less skilled opponents more often because 200 players that's not that high number and they won't be able to play any games at all if match making only paired them against other top 200 player every time.
Also you can't guarantee that none of this data wasn't affected by balance differences, for examples maybe OKW win ratio would have been much lower if it wasn't for over performing Obersoldaten or Kubel Wagon, etc.
What we have here is a classic example of interpretation of the data to suit your need. First thing they are going to warn you against on every Statistics lecture.
Edit:
One more thing. Test sample is not even big enough to safely draw any conclusions.
You are right and wrong at the same time.
The test sample, in this case, is in fact, too small. A Test sample needs be somewhere ~1.000 to be accurate.
If you have a sample of ~1k then every other sample higher than that, 10k, 100k will change or deviate the 1k statistic by roughly x<2% (at most, it's actually closer to 0 < x < 1 ).
Posts: 101
20 | |||||
119 | |||||
39 | |||||
18 | |||||
11 | |||||
5 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 |