Page 31 of 36

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sat 17 May 2014 20:56
by solaris
Drang wrote:What other variables?


Who are the combatants?
How long have they been playing?
What nations or coalitions are they playing?
What deck types are they playing?
What is the distribution of game types?
What are the distribution of preferred units?
What is the average game time?
What are the conditions games are ending on, eg CV kills, victory points, etc.
Are games run in the multiplayer menu not open to any other players counted?
Are games with AI counted?

If it turns out that France and Eurocorps account for, say, 26% of all wins in "real" games or that USSR has a 5% victory rate.. including all single person lobbies where players wanted to test something (of which I have personally launched and surrendered at least 15 matches from the multiplayer menu), that data is vastly more useful for discussion.

Knowing the overall figure without any qualifiers isn't helpful, though it is fun. There is a world of context we don't have here that would much more firmly help settle the question of balance.

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sat 17 May 2014 21:13
by Uncle_Joe
I didn't read all 30+ pages of this but..

What percentage of 'Draw' results are we looking at?

51% NATO with maybe 10% Draw means only 39% PACT victories...

Again, I'm just speculating numbers, but 51% might not be telling the whole story....at all.

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sat 17 May 2014 23:24
by Custer85
Uncle_Joe wrote:I didn't read all 30+ pages of this but..

What percentage of 'Draw' results are we looking at?

51% NATO with maybe 10% Draw means only 39% PACT victories...

Again, I'm just speculating numbers, but 51% might not be telling the whole story....at all.


The thread got pretty long but MadMat stated that draws were not counted in those numbers.

The numbers do not fir to the experience I made.

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sat 17 May 2014 23:25
by Tonci87
And they really donĀ“t think they fit to soviet decks.

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sun 18 May 2014 05:50
by Mot
SeabeeDaddy wrote:I admit that I did come off condescending and arrogant, and I formally apologize. The way that I put things can be very blunt at times. But in short, I have to defend the statistics that Eugen put out. They threw them out there, told you the shortfalls of them and left it at that. We are talking about a mere 1% difference over hundereds of thousands of games. And immediately it must be explained away by "Well the top tier players prefer Nato in ranked but they play Pact in Pub games for a challenge, which I think is a knee jerk reaction to what the statistic shows. Which is you are wrong.


First of all I would also like to apologize, I could have answered your post without being a d1c.

The reason I don't address your latest post in more detail is because I think we both made our points.

I stand by my point, the statistic alone has the value of being a curiosity, a statistic needs a detailed context to have value, and this one has not. Again, please, read about the misuse of statistics, its important to understand their value and not jump to completely erroneous assumptions.

The top ranked players statistics is more reliable, BUT still, the context used is an educated assumption based on more or less 30 years of gaming experience. What I mean is, competitive gamers overwhelmingly don't care what faction, nation, weapon, whatever, they use to win, their goal is to win, therefore they will choose whatever options the game gives them that will make winning more likely. That's why this statistic as relevance, it shows that the top players clearly think Bluefor is better, otherwise we would most likely see a 60-40 difference, maybe, maybe a 70-30 difference.

Now on your assumption that people don't know how to play with Redfor as much as they do with Bluefor, indeed. I concede that most players most likely get used first to Bluefor, only later to Redfor, but this also works in my point advantage, which is, this players more often than not will just stop playing Redfor, leaving Redfor to the more experienced players who know how to. So in essence this argument cancels itself out.

Anyway, many reasons have been put forward for why the odds of getting a better team with Redfor are higher than with Bluefor, no point in regurgitating them again.

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sun 18 May 2014 16:56
by Harout
Dear friend,

The game's premise is red vs blue.
The great majority host red vs blue, because its the standard option.
The great majority of players play red and blue.
The same players play on both sides, their skill is represented in both red and blue wins.

This statistic only confirms that I, a world class player can beat the great majority of opponents, as both red and blue.

Ranked games require planning and maximum efficiency. They are the only stress test you can draw conclusions from regarding balance.

Kind regards,
Harout
a world class player

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sun 18 May 2014 17:46
by NATO Potato
I wonder how 10v10s are handled in this stat. 10 wins/losses for the respective side? Or does it count it as one game. I hope the later :?

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sun 18 May 2014 18:12
by Gopblin
NATO Potato wrote:I wonder how 10v10s are handled in this stat. 10 wins/losses for the respective side? Or does it count it as one game. I hope the later :?


Probably collects player-wide stats, so yeah would count as 10 wins/losses. Or 10 1v1s. I may be totally wrong, tho, gotta see what MadMat has to say.

Best wishes,
Daniel

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sun 18 May 2014 18:14
by Gopblin
As for the claims that unit that's useful in 1v1 is gonna be just as useful in 10v10, that's blatantly false. Due to higher income, availability constraints play a larger role, and so do micro requirements, whereas cost-effectiveness becomes less important.

Best wishes,
Daniel

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Posted: Sun 18 May 2014 18:18
by tiago
This is just a classical case of bad usage of statistics without the support of a subjective annalysis of the human component.

Where does this game is more played? In countries that are part of red Block or Blue block? Not even a clsoe competition right? How does that matter?

Wich type of player choses the nation/coliation hye plays based on the banner (home country wiiiii) alone? Yes the noob players. By a simple proccess of deduction you can foresee that shoudl be way more people that selects Blue because they can play with their home country units. Much more noobs on BLue side. That is easily noticeable when you start a 10v10 match.. wich is the side that fills faster? Its not even a competition, blue usually fils 4-5 times faster.


If blue can win roughly half the matches with that drawback of a vast ammount of players that select a deck based solely on their banner. That just supports that blue side is OP.