BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Random » Mon 19 May 2014 18:23

Some people in here seem to think that the game is either balanced for the average player or for the people who play it competitivly. Could someone explain to me how they arrived at that conclusion?
Because until now I haven`t heard a single argument that was convincing about this.


On another topic: the overal win-% is not a good measurement for how balanced the game is. While the samplesize is very nice, there are just too many very unpredictable factors which are not balance. The stat of of overall wins can only show there is a huge problem, or not. The small differences in win-% show that there are no huge imbalances.

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gneckes » Mon 19 May 2014 18:49

Random wrote:Some people in here seem to think that the game is either balanced for the average player or for the people who play it competitivly. Could someone explain to me how they arrived at that conclusion?
Because until now I haven`t heard a single argument that was convincing about this.


Basically, because the overall win ratio is pretty even, but almost all of the top players on the leaderboard play exclusively BLUFOR?


On another topic: the overal win-% is not a good measurement for how balanced the game is. While the samplesize is very nice, there are just too many very unpredictable factors which are not balance. The stat of of overall wins can only show there is a huge problem, or not. The small differences in win-% show that there are no huge imbalances.


Agreed.

On another note: viewtopic.php?f=155&t=45275&start=310#p578756
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Mon 19 May 2014 18:58

Ergo, if it gets balanced for ranked play, it will worsen the current situation and then the only way to actually play the game will be through cheese and gamey tactics. This goes for both sides.


Quite the opposite actually. Because the game isn't balanced around ranked play at the moment, the most effective way to win is by playing blufor and using cheesy tactics anyways.

This will effectively ruin it for some people and defeating the point of the game being originally aimed at the more "realistic side of computer wargaming" when it just turns into x beats y beats z unit combos, and you only ever see one or two types of deck.


This is what we already have, and that is what has been discussed in the past 30 pages of this thread. Because the devs are NOT balancing around the highest levels of gameplay, the most effective way to win right now is without a doubt blufor decks, mostly eurocorps and mixed blufor, and using less than 100 units total out of over 1700 available for play.

Pandering to casuals means HUGE imbalances in core gameplay, whilst simultaneously lowering the skill ceiling and watering down the game.

It's quite ironic the very thing you want to get rid of is what is perpetuated by pandering to casuals.

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gneckes » Mon 19 May 2014 19:21

Thanks, Alcorr, for once again putting into words so well how I feel much better than I could have.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Random » Mon 19 May 2014 19:46

Gneckes wrote:
Random wrote:Some people in here seem to think that the game is either balanced for the average player or for the people who play it competitivly. Could someone explain to me how they arrived at that conclusion?
Because until now I haven`t heard a single argument that was convincing about this.


Basically, because the overall win ratio is pretty even, but almost all of the top players on the leaderboard play exclusively BLUFOR?



It is a consensus for ranked players that Nato is (significantly) better(except for the red chieftain-guys and steel balalaika, but they always only play pact, so maybe even they agree :P). To back this up, I am quite high rated atm and all* good players I know or met in ranked agreed on this. I have never lost against a Pact-deck.
*(maybe I should say 95+%, to be safe)

But, to get back to the topic, just because all of the top players on the leaderboard play exclusively BLUFOR( like myself) doesn`t mean that balance in ranked is different then in the "normal" game.

The reason why the vast majority of ranked players almost exclusivly play nato is because they want to win. If Nato offers a only slightly higher chance of that then Pact they will go to Nato. The players who are higher on the leaderboard are most likely better, and therefore more likely to realise that they get advantages while playing Nato. And the edges in ranked are closer, an imbalance which is only small in public (compared to skilldifference) is more of a deciding factor in ranked.

Basically I think of the conditions that exist in ranked as a catalyst for the process of finding imbalances. People looking for every edge will find where there is a small imbalance and then use it, then other people adapt and in the end you get a very competitive strategy (however the amount of really good competitive players is quite low in WRD, so this takes much time)

I hope I`m makeing sense.

Misfit
Captain
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 20:02
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Misfit » Mon 19 May 2014 20:33

[EUG]MadMat wrote:... or the myth of the urban legend of doom prophecies ...

As of now (well, a few minutes ago), a grand total of 296.924 multiplayer games have been played on Red Dragon since release. This includes ranked or friendly games, 10v10, ...
All recorded. But of these, we can only extract the alliance (BLUFOR or REDFOR), not the nations nor coalitions played.
Of course, this means that a few OPFOR (BLUFOR vs BLUFOR & REDFOR vs. REDFOR) games might disrupt a bit the stats, but they should cancel each other for the most part, and eitehr way, not have a real impact on the overall stats.

So, out of those 296.924 games, BLUFOR lead the way with 151.241 victories, which represents ... 50,93% of the games.
Which isn't that bad in our opinion, especially in the face of all the REDFOR is UP / Commonwealth is OP threads ...
;)


How to own the whiners.
Perlen vor die Säue.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Mon 19 May 2014 20:35

Random wrote:
Gneckes wrote:
Random wrote:Some people in here seem to think that the game is either balanced for the average player or for the people who play it competitivly. Could someone explain to me how they arrived at that conclusion?
Because until now I haven`t heard a single argument that was convincing about this.


Basically, because the overall win ratio is pretty even, but almost all of the top players on the leaderboard play exclusively BLUFOR?



It is a consensus for ranked players that Nato is (significantly) better(except for the red chieftain-guys and steel balalaika, but they always only play pact, so maybe even they agree :P). To back this up, I am quite high rated atm and all* good players I know or met in ranked agreed on this. I have never lost against a Pact-deck.
*(maybe I should say 95+%, to be safe)

But, to get back to the topic, just because all of the top players on the leaderboard play exclusively BLUFOR( like myself) doesn`t mean that balance in ranked is different then in the "normal" game.

The reason why the vast majority of ranked players almost exclusivly play nato is because they want to win. If Nato offers a only slightly higher chance of that then Pact they will go to Nato. The players who are higher on the leaderboard are most likely better, and therefore more likely to realise that they get advantages while playing Nato. And the edges in ranked are closer, an imbalance which is only small in public (compared to skilldifference) is more of a deciding factor in ranked.

Basically I think of the conditions that exist in ranked as a catalyst for the process of finding imbalances. People looking for every edge will find where there is a small imbalance and then use it, then other people adapt and in the end you get a very competitive strategy (however the amount of really good competitive players is quite low in WRD, so this takes much time)

I hope I`m makeing sense.


Precisely. You're making perfect sense.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Mon 19 May 2014 20:39

Misfit wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:... or the myth of the urban legend of doom prophecies ...

As of now (well, a few minutes ago), a grand total of 296.924 multiplayer games have been played on Red Dragon since release. This includes ranked or friendly games, 10v10, ...
All recorded. But of these, we can only extract the alliance (BLUFOR or REDFOR), not the nations nor coalitions played.
Of course, this means that a few OPFOR (BLUFOR vs BLUFOR & REDFOR vs. REDFOR) games might disrupt a bit the stats, but they should cancel each other for the most part, and eitehr way, not have a real impact on the overall stats.

So, out of those 296.924 games, BLUFOR lead the way with 151.241 victories, which represents ... 50,93% of the games.
Which isn't that bad in our opinion, especially in the face of all the REDFOR is UP / Commonwealth is OP threads ...
;)


How to own the whiners.


You clearly haven't read any of the rest of the thread.

User avatar
KittyKitsune
Captain
Posts: 1716
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2012 22:43
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby KittyKitsune » Mon 19 May 2014 20:51

You are making a lot of sense Random.
Image
SUFNEP - Superior Unit For No Extra Points
WUWME - Worse Unit While More Expensive

Misfit
Captain
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 20:02
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Misfit » Mon 19 May 2014 21:02

Alcorr wrote:
Misfit wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:... or the myth of the urban legend of doom prophecies ...

As of now (well, a few minutes ago), a grand total of 296.924 multiplayer games have been played on Red Dragon since release. This includes ranked or friendly games, 10v10, ...
All recorded. But of these, we can only extract the alliance (BLUFOR or REDFOR), not the nations nor coalitions played.
Of course, this means that a few OPFOR (BLUFOR vs BLUFOR & REDFOR vs. REDFOR) games might disrupt a bit the stats, but they should cancel each other for the most part, and eitehr way, not have a real impact on the overall stats.

So, out of those 296.924 games, BLUFOR lead the way with 151.241 victories, which represents ... 50,93% of the games.
Which isn't that bad in our opinion, especially in the face of all the REDFOR is UP / Commonwealth is OP threads ...
;)


How to own the whiners.


You clearly haven't read any of the rest of the thread.


I figured life is too short for that.
Perlen vor die Säue.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests