That’s not how physics work. Sorry, but the whole physics is based on confidence. There are people who make Hypthesis, then we make experiments to check if they are “correctly representing nature in their respective boundaries”. Like we still use “classical mechanics” cause besides we know it’s actually “wrong”, it’s good enough for basically all the applications we have on earth, the margin of error is negatable. Also we knwo all the boundaries of all the standard models we use.
And yes we know these boundaries and we know that the theories we use are only working in these boundaries. Which is actually an indicator that all our theories are still actually “wrong”. They are just good enough in the defined boundaries to have extremely high accuracy, like not imaginably high accuracy. But only inside the boundaries of application.
There is no “proof of causation” in physics. It’s all confidence of accuracy inside defined boundaries.
So please stop spreading bs here. Something like “proof of causation” isn’t possible with anything real. You can only proof causation inside of theoretical constructions. Everything else is always just correlation.
Of course there is the difference of me not having eliminated all other effects, like it is done in physical experiments:
Which isn’t possible here cause we can’t create an experiment that eliminates them. It’s that easy. It’s just not possible here. So please stop demanding something which isn’t possible. If it was possible, btw, we would need to set up a whole “theory of the game” where we would need classify all possible influence factors. Then we would have “understood” the game. Which would make it redundand to play, as then everybody would know “how to win”.
So that’s total nonsense. Not only that it would be absurd amount of work, it would also, even if it was possible, destroy all the fun we have with the game. And yes, I think this whole “how the game needs to be played” bs is actually terrible for the game. The thing that makes games great and fun is the curiosity that you actually don’t know “what is better” in most cases and have to make decisions. At some time you learn preferences which is fine and gives you a nice revard for your resilience in trying to figure it out. But it’s a horrible idea to theorycraft a game cause of personal perception “how it shall be played to succeed” cause it takes away all the curiosity and learning process. At the same time it reduces the diversity of the game just because of some personal preferences. It’s just a horrible idea.
Since when is the score a good indicator who “is ahead”? Especially in the early game? You make things only more convoluted if you try to correct a disturbed influence factor with an even more disturbed one. The only thing you can possibly try to do is also make a confidence test with a score difference at defined timestamps. Then you would get a confidence check of the score difference and you could possibly state that score lead is more or less influential than the castle age timing advantage.
Sorry, but your way of correcting it is satistically wrong. Just wrong. You need to make specific “multi-factorial” tests there which need a lot of data cause you need to figure out the different dependencies of all your different factors and correct them. Like going up also has an influence on your score aswell as having a lead which influences the score can lead to a possibly faster timing. So you have double dependency which is actually even impossible to solve exactly cause of the noise. I mean you can get a result but because of the nature of double dependencies the smallest noise will lead to extreme jumps in the dependency factors. That’s the reality. Not only that it would be insane work, but most likely you will actually get bs results there.
The best thing we currently can do is try do define specific factors and make confidence tests how big their impact is actually.
So please be realistic here, that kind of confidence test is actually the best reasonable approach we have. If you like you can oppose my castle age timing confidence test with your own of having a score lead at a given timestamp or whatever. Then we can compare them to each other.
We can also make a double-factorial dependency test, but as I said: This actually won’t give good results cause of the noise.
What I can do, and maybe should have done, is defining some kind of “factor” of dependency. But I need to think about how to do it cause there are games where only one player reached castle and there is no measurable time difference to built that dependency factor around. (eg winning percentage over timing difference). I agree that this would be the correct way to apply it, but I actually don’t have a good idea how to define that dependency factor in a reasonable way with the given dataset.
But please if you think you have a more accurate dependency with your score lead, go ahead. Don’t demand from me to make your work. I mean I am pretty sure the score lead has currently even more influence on the outcome. But only because the games are so insanely snowbally. And if the castle age timing advantage is actually amplifying that snowball like you imply and I follow that actually, then we have a huge problem:
We only have 3 “difference makers” in lead in the Game:
If the Tech advantage cannot be used anymore to compensate for “falling behind”, the only two remaining factors are eco and miltary. But as we all know the one with the miltary advantage always can add eco behind his agression, which means in this case he can safely snowball the game slowly. He just needst to stay ahead slightly militarywise. And that’s exactly what we have seen in most of the games. A boring slow snowball with the one getting an early lead adding eco behind his military dominance. Ofc that is “good play” and also needs a lot of skill. But it’s boring and repetitive.
The tech advantage as one more element of “difference maker” just enables that kind of trinity where the player behind goes “all-in” on one of the three factors. We need to keep this alive otherwise the game becomes full boring grindy repetitive “meta” mode all the time. And annoying cause the player behind is just “dying slowly” and the player ahead must grind him to death. That’s horrible experience for all.
It’s just better to have this comeback potential in the game. It also makes games not dragging out unnecessarily. Cause the “all-ins” are risky and if the player behind fails with them he can instantly resign. But if there aren’t these comeback plays possible, games need to be grinded till the unavoidable end, just waiting for a “major mistake” of the one with the lead (which barely occur anymore cause we know the game so well).
It’s only in the interest of all Players that the tech advantage stays as a potential comeback factor. And currently it looks like we are indeed losing it, besides the powerspike is actually too strong for the investement. And that’s concerning. We need to understand that this kind of trinity is just essential for a varied gameplay and if we lose one of the difference makers cause it is dominated by another one (in this case military advantage) we get repetitive and grindy gameplay.
And I am atm already annoyed by the amount of “total domination” and “full snowball” games I see in kotd. The best game I’ve seen was already Hera vs JorDan, which only was “different” cause both players didn’t wanted to take a possibly deciding engagement till the very end. So ther was a stalemate until there was the one big engagement in the end. But there was no real “back and forth” in the game. Just very little skirmishes and nobody wanted to go the risk of overextending. This was the best game in the tourney so far, In every other kotd we had like at least 3-4 matches that were about the same length but a constant back and forth of the players. This is missing totally.
Maybe we had a few games where the lead changed in midgame at some point, but it’s just not comparable to the games we had in previous kotd tournaments. They were so much more engaging as there was this back and forth all the time. This new kotd may be “clean” but it’s also “sterile”. It’s repetitive meta play and everytime somebody tries something “off meta” he gets punished heavily for it.
The only thing we can witness is the actual meta shift that happens and the people who figure the perfect meta out more and more. Like the Viper with his 4 ranges strat. But do we want to see this being the only “viable” metaplay or do we want to see diversity?
I prefer diversity. I prefer to see different approaches, strats and playstyles crash. And none of them being “clearly superior” to one of the others. That’s what I want to see.
I don’t want to see 123 of which about 70-80 were basically the same game. I don’t want to watch the same game all the time again. That’s not entertaining.
And I also don’t want to play the same game all over again. Yes I am not on pro level. But it won’t take long until people here adapted the pro meta. And then we will have the same repetitive game all over in ranked as we currently see in kotd? Hell no.
If this happens I will look for a different game, some game where I am not forced to play the same game in repetition all the time. I don’t play games for repetition, I play them for their diversity. RL is repetitive enough to me.
And please stop that narrative of “how it is supposed to be”. Thats bs. It’s only your personal preference and you will figure out once you nerfed everything you “don’t like” to the ground you will miss it. Take it as motivation, try to beat the strats you don’t like in the game. Play the game fair.
This whole “arabia ist too wallable” or whatever narrative is just the hypocrit attempt of people to win a fight outside of the arena on a green table. That’s not how a game should be played. Learn to beat your opponents on fair conditions. And you even don’t know what you are doing there cause currently you are destroying the game with it. The fragile strategic balance that kept this game alive for 20 years is already falling apart cause of that dumb narrative and games becoming repetitive.
BTW what also need to be told that after one general strategic approach is nerfed (if there are still players just prerferring to play like this), it will lead to only a few wins for the other approach. Cause aftert the defensively minded players lost a few games they are then paired with “weaker” opponents. In the aftermath a player that only plays defensive will ALWAYS win 50 % of his games and a player who only plays agressive aswell. That means regardless how often you nerf defensive play you will ALWAYS win only 50% of your matches against the defensively minded players. Not because they are “one the same level” but because you are matched with players that would actually stomp you if they would play agressive. Players that are actually better than you. So the whole story of “defense is too strong” in arabia is actually also just a biase. At any given time defensively minded players will lose or win 50% of their matches against offensively minded players. And if the offensively minded players can’t bear losing 50% of their matches against defensively minded players they will just repeatedly complain. But the reason they lose isn’t that the strat would be too strong, the reason they lose 50% of their matches is because they are matched with players that are actually better than them. That’s already the case. Except for the very, very best players in the world, agressive play is actually the way easier path to begin and climb the ladder. Playing defensively on arabia is the way harder path to take. And if you don’t believe me, ask Viper. He will confirm that, as he already did several times.
Again the reasoning you only win 50 % of your matches against defensively minded players is just the matchmaking, not the “balance” between the two general approaches. And this 50% will stay as long as there are still defensively minded players playing that map. Every time you nerf walls or make arabia more open you will have short term success cause then the defensively minded players will lose some elo till they are on their new “spot”. But once they reached that they will again win or lose 50 % of their matches. And then you will complain again: “Walls are OP!”??? Like already so many times?
Learn to accept that you will always win or lose 50% matches against defensively minded players - no matter how much you nerf walls. It’s how the matchmaking works.
The people who have bear the burden in the end are these who like to play both styles. Cause they then will win like 3/4 of their matches if they play agressive and 1/4 if they play defensive or what so on. That’s the worst thing about that whole story, that they have to bear it. They are then basically forced to chose one “side” to not longer have that discrepancy and get an “equal” match. And for absolutely no reason cause the offensively minded players don’t get a higher winrate against defensively minded players with these changes. And that’s the players the devs should try to keep as they enjoy the game for it’s diversity, for the whole thing. If the devs lose them cause they feel forced to chose a side they don’t wanna chose, it’s the worst possible outcome. And this includes most content creators like sotl, t90, viper… When they go cause they don’t have the same diverse experience anymore, the game will die. And again, for absolutely no reason cause the intended highering of winrate against defensive players won’t happen. It will aways stay 50:50 cause of the matchmaking.
If this continues, the game will be dead soon cause first we will divide the community into two factions “offensively minded” and “defensively minded” players. Then we won’t have any maps they can both agree on so they never clash. Then they will get bored because of the repetitiveness of the game. Then they leave. If we don’t stop with that dumb narrative of “how this should be” and also revert the last arabia changes we will enter that path of no return and slow decline of the game.
We still can turn back, but that need to be done now before the division of the community has gone too far. We can already see that division happening - this should be a wakeup call for all of us.
IN all conclusion I just again state: Please revert arabia!
It is fine if devs decide they wanna add a more “agressive” map type to the pool. I totally subscribe that. But Arabia is the bread and butter of the game and the changes don’t even change a thing in the Players experience if they have a clear preference “how to play” the game.
Offensively minded players will always have 50% winrate on arabia, the same is for defensively minded players.
The only thing that changes with this kind of changes to the “agressiveness” of arabia is that defensively minded players will lose some elo and agressively minded gain some. It doesn’t change anything in the game experience of either type.
The players who suffer are those who like to try different general approaches cause they then are always matched with “unequal” opponents and either have it way too easy or way too hard to win. These diverse players are then forced to “chose a side” to get equal opponents and have a nice experience.
So in all conclusion this whole “change arabia to be more agressive” is just a stupid idea. It only divides the community, but changes nothing in the experience even of the players who always demand these changes.
And we already seen that multiple times. Devs can make arabia more and more agressive - as long as we still have defensively minded players playing the map game experience for the agressively minded players will return to the same state as they again will lose 50% of their matches against defensively minded players. We are moving in a circle there and the only players it affects are those who actually enjoy playing either way - and in a negative way: They have unequal matches.
We need to break out of that loop.