There are people for whom statistics is really hard to understand, there is nothing bad in that and you cannot blame them for that. But only if they atleast trusted us in topics where they do not understand much! Trying to be clever in a topic you do not know much is definitely blameable.
3 Likes
Whith this sentence you just destroyed hundreds of years of math, bernoulli and fisher are revolting in the tomb.
Then you canât left your emotions behind you, itâs impossible, unless you have a psichiatric disease.
1 Like
Anyways, leave this thread for balancing please itâs going a bit far now.
3 Likes
If a civ plays 5000 games anedv wins 50% of the time, yet in another test it plays only 50 games but still wins 50% of the time, is it not a constant winrate, and independent from sample size?
It is called discipline.
No, since winrate is not the same thing as the probability of a civilization winning, but letâs move from this topic. If you do not trust us atleast trust statisticians.
2 Likes
Itâs not, Iâm sorry but this really is base knowledge of statistics.
Again, no.
2 Likes
What some call âwin rateâ I call probability of success, win rate itâs just a name. There are 2 possible outcomes of a game, win or lose, from a statistical point of view, itâs the same thing as tossing a coin, you can have head or cross, 2 possible outcomes, that we expect to have 50-50 possibilities of happens.
Now it does not matter how I get to the output, by tossing a coin or by playing a AoE game, the way Iâll analyze the data itâs the same.
Now if you toss a coin 10 times, and 8 times you get head, youâll probably think that think that it was a random result, but if you toss another coin 10.000 times, and about 8.000 times you got head, youâll probably think that that coin itâs not correctly balanced or itâs tiked.
Now both coins got 0.8 probability of success, but statistically those 2 numbers arenât equal.
3 Likes
Not at all. In AoE2, as well as a civ can be played, greatly influences the winrate, which is completely the reverse of a coinflip.
If AoE2 rates of success were just the same as coinflipping, there would be no point of talking about balance.
Your examples are not appropriate at all.
It is, itâs the same way you analyze politics pools, sportsâ bet and so on, it doesnât matter how you get to te results as long as you have only 2 possible outcomes, and so 2 probability, like in the toss of a coin. The "win rate exactly measure the general balance and playersâ ability, but in the end if it can be summarized in 2 possible outcomes, you analyze in the same way, itâs the Bernoulli law.
If Iâm wrong, bring me some scientific source to state the countrary, otherwise you arguments donât have any valor.
2 Likes
The cataâs performance vs archers is super bad for a cav unit. Only steppe lancers perform worse but those are much cheaper to upgrade and produce. Only reason GC âstruggleâ is because the catas get saved by their hidden armour.
Novelty/surprise effect =/= strong.
Well, in ranked (on which these stats are based on) you canât see the opponentâs civ.
Which includes much more work than just looking at the first numbers that come out, to avoid making mistakes.
Then just wait, if youâre involved enough you should quickly be able to do so.
1 Like
Iâd say theyâre as good as imperial camels but the difference is Catas needs castles and is much more expensive to create and upgrade
1 Like
Yes I know, for a cavalry units they perform bad, but thanks to their speed and HP they can still perform decent if the enemy does not have enough numbers, however, the enemy will stil trade cost-effectively (they have to had a weakness), and thatâs why bizz also have paladins.
Yes yes, GC simply are good (maybe a bit worse) as other archers.
If I have more specific datas, I could give you the right numbers and interpretation, I have a software for that.
1 Like
I post based on what we have, and if you notice, most the time im against changes. The only civs I do want to change are ones who historically have been bad (as in more then just the recent patch). The only civs I whole heartedly agree need love are turks, Koreans, And portuguese.
Thatâs literally it. Youâll also note that I have repeatedly said âwe should wait more then a month between balance patchesâ.
Statistics have been a thing since before computers existedâŠ
Fact is Iâm largely against balance changes because the game is largely in a good spot right now. The 5 focuses for me as it stand should be
Turks
Koreans
Portuguese
Teutons (keep an eye on them)
Melee pathing
Everything else is more or less fine with the exception of some bugs like the Malay uptime bug
1 Like
Why do you think koreans need to be balanced? Just out of curiosity.
Might have something to do with the combination of being perpetually underperforming.
I wish that site let us display further back with stats but you can see the winrate of this and last patch both.
Its pretty common knowledge though that koreans arenât very popular or good.
1 Like
Koreans got buffed with a versatile bonus in DE, boosting their archer strategies which was a nice addition to their top 1 tower rush. Do you think they are still that weak?
2 Likes
Right now i would have to say yes. I would love to see them get more play in general so we can see where they are truly at but frankly I find the-15% wood to be a bit weak. Yeah it helps their archers but letâs compare it to the celts bonus. (15% faster lumberjacks).
The celts bonus is miles better because it affects more then just military. You can use that extra wood on military, buildings, eco upgrades, etc.
1 Like
The problem of those numbers is that we should have the data of the sample itself, even better the ones of the population too.
Now that letâs say that the wins are success, so the koreans ha probability of success of the 38.71 of success, we should see how big the sample was, what were the conditions for the success, how significant it is and what margin of error it has. Finally, how does he rapport to the mean of the success along all civs, and if itâs significant different.
But we need to have more data and controlled sample to do so.
My question was more about what do you think, like or dislike, of the civ, how do you feel about itâs bonus, units and so onâŠ
1 Like
Celts are just a better civ. Celt wood bonus is the best bonus in the game probably. Celts pay this huge advantage with one of the worst tech tree in the game, the only civ that misses both bloodlines and arbalest (Franks have bloodlines in my perspective). So Celts are the only civ not having smooth classical knights/crossbowman play.
However, I guess that the suggestions we are proposing are to make weak civs better but not at the same level of celts. I would say that, if Italians or Portuguese get strong as Celts, or a little less, they get over buffed. I think that everyone is fine if celts remain better than Turks, but more playable.
Still, I agree that Koreans are not very strong. I may say we can extend the wood bonus to siege, but not sure if it is neededâŠ
2 Likes
Well, celts for sure have more wood, but the koreans bonus still let you save wood for more farm(so food) and buildings, or less woodcutter, itâs not a bad bonus also because it impacts some of the units that they use more often.
1 Like