Some stats of KOTD

[MatCauthon3]

@casusincorrabil

I do it in my conclusions. You are fixated on the stats.

no. you don’t. even in the interpretation area you aren’t telling us HOW the players got the “advantages” they got to give them the lead.

@casusincorrabil

Interpretation:

Of all 117 matches that reached Castle Age, 80 were won by the player who reached castle age first. This includes all the games where it was very close who reached it first and also all the games where one of the players was definetely way too greedy with his uptime and threw the game completely unnecessary. This makes it 68.4 % chance of winning the game if you hit Castle Age first. This means a statistical correlation of at least 61.3 % with a probabilty test of 95% as the deviation of the 117 analysed matches is 4.3 %.

i.e. That if you hit castle age earlier you have at least a 22.6 % higher winrate than your opponent. The stats so far suggest it’s about 40.4 % in reality, but ofc we need to account for possible statistical errors.

But if this is true, I think 68.4 % : 31.6 % winrate just for hitting castle age first is too much imo. The powerspike seems to be too strong, if this is truely the case.

At the same time the games are way too repetitive. I miss a lot of strategic diversity. It’s way too agressive - that means that both players want to be the agressor which leads to extremely snowbally games, that are horrible to watch repetitively. I don’t like watching games that are decided at about minute 15-18 and then drag out til 40 minutes cause it takes so long to snowball it to a clear victory. I don’t dislike this in general, but it’s too much if it applies to about 2/3 (felt) of all the matches.

I prefer having games with agression vs defence/greed, that have a lot of back and forth. Both for my personal game experience but also to watch at pro level. It’s just way more entertaining and leads to way more strategic diversity, as both players have different win conditions.
Don’t get me wrong we had some very entertaining games this KOTD. But I must say that most of the games were quite boring. It often either it was a very long skirmish with one major engagament that decided the whole match (like we see it often in arena actually) or a snowball of an early achieved lead. Most games felt repetitive and unnecessarily dragged out for only a few “decisive” moments.

I hope we get back to what Arabia was before, this new one is way too strategically restrictive. It’s not arabia anymore imo. It’s something new, but it’s not the map I loved to play for years at is was so entertaining, so diverse in how people approached it.

not a single thing here shows you telling us anything about how people got ahead of their opponent and managed to make it to castle age first. nothing at all. there is zero accounting at all for how a player got the lead.
so do us a favor. either tell us how players got the leads that prompted them to go up to castle age first. because you are looking at the end result. but not how it happened. even “Got a lead” doesn’t mean CRAP if you don’t account for how they got the lead. and that is where the variety comes in.
because i am seeing plenty of variety of play giving way to that lead.

whether it be out defending the opponent with cheaper units.
taking better trades in engagements.
walling up and going up with minimal investment into military.
having more military units and winning fights, forcing out even more units in the long run.
killing opponents villagers.
being greedy and going up first.
market abuse.
or just having the better economy in general.

which means that plenty of play styles have lead to players getting a lead. all of which you don’t account for at all.