BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Sleksa » Fri 16 May 2014 18:59

Mitchverr wrote:Ignoring ofcourse, that the people at the top might just simply rather play blufor nations for other reasons? A bit like how blufor was fairly UP by a big chunk in the ALB beta, but still was filling faster then redfor was

....

all it does is show people at the top like blufor nations/coalitions/mixed, nothing else in the context is shown, at all, and whats the overall numbers? I would guess, from all the people who talk about it, that on a player level, 9/10 players would rather play blufor for alot of reasons outside of balance.



I doubt there are any 'pact' or 'nato' players in the top 100 of the leaderboard except for balalaikans, but thanks for telling me why I'm playing nato ;) .

Personally I'll play any deck I believe gives me the best chances to win and it just so happens that 1v1 and 2v2 the advantages are clearly going towards nato and I'd remind you to read http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=155&t=44991&p=564518#p564518 for the precise details why.

I have no national bias, It makes no difference to me to see a leo2a4 shooting at a t80u or a su25 blowing up abramses, it's all pixels and labels instead of national pride. If there ever was a situation where north korean motorized deck would give me the biggest chances to win I'd switch over to them in a heartbeat. But as is playing 1v1 and 2v2 as any pact deck puts the player at a clear disadvantage when facing decent nato ones.
Image

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Fri 16 May 2014 19:03

I have no national bias, It makes no difference to me to see a leo2a4 shooting at a t80u or a su25 blowing up abramses, it's all pixels and labels instead of national pride. If there ever was a situation where north korean motorized deck would give me the biggest chances to win I'd switch over to them in a heartbeat. But as is playing 1v1 and 2v2 as any pact deck puts the player at a clear disadvantage when facing decent nato ones.


This times 1000. That's really all it comes down to. Anyone that can't see that blufor is simply stronger across the board (overall) either isn't good enough at the game to understand why, or is biased because they love having games skewed in their favor by playing blufor all the time.

I'd honestly rather have the game balanced so I could play redfor and actually feel like it's an even matchup. As it is now, I play blufor pretty much every game I play unless im on teamspeak and everyone says they want a challenge then we play redfor. I like to win, so I play blufor every match. If redfor was clearly stronger, I would play redfor every match.

If Eugen actually wants the game to be balanced, they need to look at the top level of gameplay and notice the simple fact that blufor is THE side to play if you want to win. A balanced game isn't balanced with 9/10 top players playing 80-95% blufor.

This thread is amazing and perfectly highlights most of the issues redfor faces, and why blufor is so dominant right now:

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=44991&p=564518#p564518

User avatar
CornProducts
Colonel
Posts: 2959
Joined: Mon 7 Apr 2014 06:48
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby CornProducts » Fri 16 May 2014 20:20

reportforduty wrote:Comrade, are you happy with the state of the East Block? The truth hurts and the truth is, east block is soviet scrap on sale. :cry:


Comrade please. :roll:

Glorious Eastern BlocParty may not get all the fanciest toys of generous motherland but those we do are still sufficient and get a nice availability bonus, something motherland lacks.

In addition, glorious units of indigenous design are numerous and powerful and provide a multitude of options that are not possible with deck of USSR.
Image

SeabeeDaddy
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon 17 Jun 2013 13:27
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby SeabeeDaddy » Fri 16 May 2014 20:47

Alcorr wrote:
I have no national bias, It makes no difference to me to see a leo2a4 shooting at a t80u or a su25 blowing up abramses, it's all pixels and labels instead of national pride. If there ever was a situation where north korean motorized deck would give me the biggest chances to win I'd switch over to them in a heartbeat. But as is playing 1v1 and 2v2 as any pact deck puts the player at a clear disadvantage when facing decent nato ones.


This times 1000. That's really all it comes down to. Anyone that can't see that blufor is simply stronger across the board (overall) either isn't good enough at the game to understand why, or is biased because they love having games skewed in their favor by playing blufor all the time.

I'd honestly rather have the game balanced so I could play redfor and actually feel like it's an even matchup. As it is now, I play blufor pretty much every game I play unless im on teamspeak and everyone says they want a challenge then we play redfor. I like to win, so I play blufor every match. If redfor was clearly stronger, I would play redfor every match.

If Eugen actually wants the game to be balanced, they need to look at the top level of gameplay and notice the simple fact that blufor is THE side to play if you want to win. A balanced game isn't balanced with 9/10 top players playing 80-95% blufor.

This thread is amazing and perfectly highlights most of the issues redfor faces, and why blufor is so dominant right now:

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=44991&p=564518#p564518


I am sorry to sound condescending or anything but what?

Seriously guys, Eugen come out with COLD HARD FACTS on the win ratio which is close to 50% even and you completely disregard it and try to explain why it is so close?

Really? How ignorant can everyone be. It's half and half (almost) sure more wins in blufor but those can also be explained by many variables. One side is not clearly better than the other. Red for demand a DIFFERENT STYLE of play in which most people cannot adapt to so they say "Hato is OP".

I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely (ala "Blufor doesn't have something's as good as BUK", or "Redfor tanks are too expensive") why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Fri 16 May 2014 21:32

SeabeeDaddy wrote:
Alcorr wrote:
I have no national bias, It makes no difference to me to see a leo2a4 shooting at a t80u or a su25 blowing up abramses, it's all pixels and labels instead of national pride. If there ever was a situation where north korean motorized deck would give me the biggest chances to win I'd switch over to them in a heartbeat. But as is playing 1v1 and 2v2 as any pact deck puts the player at a clear disadvantage when facing decent nato ones.


This times 1000. That's really all it comes down to. Anyone that can't see that blufor is simply stronger across the board (overall) either isn't good enough at the game to understand why, or is biased because they love having games skewed in their favor by playing blufor all the time.

I'd honestly rather have the game balanced so I could play redfor and actually feel like it's an even matchup. As it is now, I play blufor pretty much every game I play unless im on teamspeak and everyone says they want a challenge then we play redfor. I like to win, so I play blufor every match. If redfor was clearly stronger, I would play redfor every match.

If Eugen actually wants the game to be balanced, they need to look at the top level of gameplay and notice the simple fact that blufor is THE side to play if you want to win. A balanced game isn't balanced with 9/10 top players playing 80-95% blufor.

This thread is amazing and perfectly highlights most of the issues redfor faces, and why blufor is so dominant right now:

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=44991&p=564518#p564518


I am sorry to sound condescending or anything but what?

Seriously guys, Eugen come out with COLD HARD FACTS on the win ratio which is close to 50% even and you completely disregard it and try to explain why it is so close?

Really? How ignorant can everyone be. It's half and half (almost) sure more wins in blufor but those can also be explained by many variables. One side is not clearly better than the other. Red for demand a DIFFERENT STYLE of play in which most people cannot adapt to so they say "Hato is OP".

I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely (ala "Blufor doesn't have something's as good as BUK", or "Redfor tanks are too expensive") why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.


Did you even read mine and others' previous posts or just completely miss the point?

First of all, as many others have pointed out, total win ratio being 51/49 is not indicative of game balance whatsoever as that is total over many versions, and does not count other factors such as deck selection/specialization, etc.

More importantly, as some of the best players on these forums have pointed out, at the competitive level, the top 9 out of 10 players all play between 80 and 95% blufor. Anyone with any REMOTELY decent knowledge of game balance knows that games are balanced around the highest levels of competitive play, not low level scrub pubstomps i.e. the majority of games played that contributed to the 51/49 statistic.

The top players in the game all play blufor predominately, because their objective is to win, so they play the strongest factions with the most powerful decks, and overall without a doubt that's blufor.

And it's interesting you make strawman arguments talking about redfor players crying when I'm the one that has over 80% games played as blufor (all I play is blufor because redfor is such a joke in comparison) yet I'm the one asking for redfor buffs, because right now it's not even a question of IS the game imbalanced, but by how much...

Also:

I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely (ala "Blufor doesn't have something's as good as BUK", or "Redfor tanks are too expensive") why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.


No one has a problem with asymmetrical balance, it's definitely what's preferable to make the game flavorful, but still balanced. The problem is that redfor has about 5 or 6 units going for it that stand out, whereas blufor has about 20 to 30. And just generally speaking, blufor units are more effective considering their price point, and more flexible overall. The few units that redfor gets such as li jian, spetz, napalm arty, bmpt etc. isn't enough to makeup for overall inferior/overpriced units in similar categories.

This thread was a great elaboration on this:

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=44991&p=564518#p564518

Overall, considering how many players play this game and how many are absolutely terrible, it's not difficult to understand why the overall win ratio is close to 50/50. The true balance indicator is what happens at higher levels, where every unit is used to it's maximum potential. And when that happens, blufor is just clearly superior across the board with a few exceptions.

Anyone who argues that wargame shouldn't be balanced around the highest levels of play is either a moron, or doesn't want the game to be competitive.

Any competitive game is ALWAYS balanced around the highest levels of play. Always.

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Mot » Fri 16 May 2014 22:13

Alcorr wrote:At the highest levels of gameplay in ANY game people are going to use the most powerful units/factions to win, end of story. Perhaps if the breakdown was 60/40 you would have a point, but 90% is too much to simply write off as people merely liking blufor more than redfor for whatever silly reason.

Precisely.
A statistic that has context can be used to draw conclusions from.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:I am sorry to sound condescending or anything but what?

Oh you are about to be sorry for being condescending.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:Seriously guys, Eugen come out with COLD HARD FACTS

I'll give you an example, a very widely known example of blatant misuse of statistics, the american pay gap between males and females. The statistic says that females earn 77 cents per each 1 dollar a male earns, does this mean women are paid less than men? It must right? After all its so clear, its such a COLD HARD FACT!
or maybe... maybe...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender- ... lete-myth/

SeabeeDaddy wrote: on the win ratio which is close to 50% even and you completely disregard it and try to explain why it is so close?
It's half and half (almost) sure more wins in blufor but those can also be explained by many variables.

Oh wait... the fact that it isn't clearly 50% for each side can be explained by many variables, but everything else just can't... let's just disregard what we need and say that what favors our view is a COLD HARD FACT! Amazing logic!

SeabeeDaddy wrote:Red for demand a DIFFERENT STYLE of play in which most people cannot adapt to so they say "Hato is OP".

Please elaborate on this argument, otherwise I'm calling this absurd bullsmith.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely

Always lovely to see the "they lose" argument, another example of a pointless speculative argument with zero value. Because you been tracking every single player who claims the unbalance to be real, and you checked their in game stats (see statistical fallacy below) and concluded they are all Redfor losers, right? right?

SeabeeDaddy wrote:why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.

Why can't you just understand that most people already know that and already know how to play with redfor? Do you have any proof or argument to prove your point? I mean other than subjective speculative nonsense...
But thank you for telling us, why we hate redfor, in fact I didn't even know I hate it and since you are telling me it must be true right? right?

My recommendation is to inform yourself before speaking about stuff you don't understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
"A misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy."
I hope this link isn't too much of a heavy reading for you.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:Really? How ignorant can everyone be.

No no no, how ignorant can you be?
Last edited by Mot on Fri 16 May 2014 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Sleksa » Fri 16 May 2014 22:17

SeabeeDaddy wrote:I am sorry to sound condescending or anything but what?

Seriously guys, Eugen come out with COLD HARD FACTS on the win ratio which is close to 50% even and you completely disregard it and try to explain why it is so close?

Really? How ignorant can everyone be. It's half and half (almost) sure more wins in blufor but those can also be explained by many variables. One side is not clearly better than the other. Red for demand a DIFFERENT STYLE of play in which most people cannot adapt to so they say "Hato is OP".

I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely (ala "Blufor doesn't have something's as good as BUK", or "Redfor tanks are too expensive") why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.


The initial posting of the statistics was idiotic at best in itself as we can only deduce that there are games being played and that each side is being played pretty much evenly in terms of matches played. However we can't see what the statistics are in 10v10 games or 1v1 games, ranked or unranked, seamaps mixed maps or landmaps. We also can't see stats from the latest patches, or numbers comparing blue vs blue games to red vs red games as well as blue vs red and their respective win ratios.

What we can see though for absolute certainty is the prevalence of the blue side in the competitive side of the game that started in the ALB's ESL tournament that held maybe a few hundreds of matches of the best players of wargame with a total with maybe 20 games featuring reds. Someone else made the analysis of the leaderboard and saw that there's a huge gap of games played as blue and games played as red. It's a statistic that means to me a lot more than a odd blank statement that a few hundred thousand games have been played therefor everything is fine. To me it's comparable to saying that gender equality is perfect in nigeria because half the population is women.

One thing I'm with you 100% though is your mention of asymmetric balance. I would love nothing more than to fill the game with all kinds of different decks and unit choices, but anyone with math skills can understand that with the current system it's just not going to work if we're talking about competitive choices as there are 152 prototypes in the blue side and 838 non-prototypes. It makes sense to assume that getting a few prototype units with better performance than non-protos is going to have a rough time performing better than the hundred non-protos to make up for it.
Image

User avatar
RangerPL
Major
Posts: 1909
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013 08:26
Location: ostrichland
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby RangerPL » Fri 16 May 2014 22:38

It's funny how all the people talking about asymmetric balance never seem to be able to say what the asymmetric balance is.
Image

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gopblin » Fri 16 May 2014 23:12

Personally, I'm against balancing the game on the very highest level of play.

That's because to me, game's primary purpose is provide entertainment for thousands of players, not a competitive sport for a couple dozen.

Heck, even in real competitive sports, the rules are made so that non-superhumans are able to play and train.

-----------

None of this means I don't think Redfor is UP. It pretty clearly is, in most unit categories anyway, even posters like LoneRifle admitted as much.

It's just that I think the conversation should be focused on the "pub play" issues, like the huge arty disparity, the inferiority of top tanks, and underwhelming/less cost-effective infantry, rather than "ranked" issues such as "unit X costs 5 pts more than Y, which leads to an insurmountable disadvantage of 50 points when using the ten times optimized start on Z map".

Best wishes,
Daniel
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

User avatar
LoneRifle
Major-General
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:11
Location: Cackalacky
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby LoneRifle » Fri 16 May 2014 23:26

Gopblin wrote: even posters like LoneRifle admitted as much.


do you want me to stop asking for Igla and Soviet IFV and Tank buffs ;) ? I also take offense to the usage of "admitted".
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 30 guests