Spring tournament game statistics 5-14-2011

posted on May 17th, 2011, 12:01 am

The player who lost all his games (so far ) was actually Feds and Klingon.

[Anonymous]

posted on May 17th, 2011, 12:03 am

Last edited by Anonymous on May 17th, 2011, 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Here's the current rating for each avatar as of 5/16.

posted on May 17th, 2011, 12:36 am

I wasn't talking about you, Unleash!

posted on May 17th, 2011, 6:02 am

Dont feed Dom with those statistics...he will run around saying Feds are not too powerful because (random number) says they are not...

also a 1 dimensional statistic is quite pointless to me...balance is more than win/loss ratio.

posted on May 17th, 2011, 6:45 am

Hehe, I've won against all odds with TaQ Klingons against Elim with Feds  . But since he left he tourney I assume that has not been taken into account for the data.

posted on May 17th, 2011, 3:26 pm

Dont feed Dom with those statistics...he will run around saying Feds are not too powerful because (random number) says they are not...

also a 1 dimensional statistic is quite pointless to me...balance is more than win/loss ratio.

Drrrrr, if you love me so much, why don't you propose alllllreaaaady 

posted on May 17th, 2011, 4:39 pm

Maybe we should discuss with the defs an appropriate ingame evaluation tool for balancing. Something that tracks some important factors for all games. That is much better than case by case analysis with very specific conditions.

posted on May 17th, 2011, 5:22 pm

Our testing covers a very wide range of tactics, build orders and scenarios . Most online games are very streamlined to particular build orders, which is not representative of what is possible, but more what is 'popular'.

I am currently testing one such change at the moment - if you'd like to help and provide data, feel free to come onto Tunngle 

posted on May 17th, 2011, 8:43 pm

Just remember Dom, if you don't like something, call it one-dimensional in a vain act of dismissal.  It works every time.

Could I trouble you to actually read forum threads before you post in them, drrrrr?

[Elim]

posted on May 18th, 2011, 1:00 am

Last edited by Elim on May 18th, 2011, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hehe, I've won against all odds with TaQ Klingons against Elim with Feds  . But since he left he tourney I assume that has not been taken into account for the data.

Hehe that was an epic game indeed.  Just for the record elim was saber spamming  But I left the tourney because I don't think there is any reason to compete as dominion (I don't think its underpowered but some matchups were pretty much reduced to "rock-paper-scissors" in this patch    ) , and I don't enjoy playing other races that much. 

posted on May 18th, 2011, 5:46 am

Mal you posted some numbers that are the output of the recent tournament. E.g. we dont see how good the people were (wich is essential for balance as well). It is just one of these "facts" that mean almost nothing and give the impression that something "is" as it is.

Some ppl here seem to be good with numbers but they are not good in understanding complex systems as the system applied to FO. There are far more influencing factors that must be considered when talking about balance or strategies...the best case is SC1. There the system is relatively simple eventhough it took almost 6-8 years to balance it. When do you expect FO to be balanced? in 100 years?

[Elim]

posted on May 18th, 2011, 11:24 am

Last edited by Elim on May 18th, 2011, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mal you posted some numbers that are the output of the recent tournament. E.g. we dont see how good the people were (wich is essential for balance as well). It is just one of these "facts" that mean almost nothing and give the impression that something "is" as it is.

Some ppl here seem to be good with numbers but they are not good in understanding complex systems as the system applied to FO. There are far more influencing factors that must be considered when talking about balance or strategies...the best case is SC1. There the system is relatively simple eventhough it took almost 6-8 years to balance it. When do you expect FO to be balanced? in 100 years?

I often do the same mistake, and to try to compare Fo to Brood War or to Starcraft 2, but we just shouldn't... they are so different in mechanics, macro is much more important in Starcraft, but the micro is crucial in Fleet Ops, it's almost like comparing Sim City to an Rpg game... so please don't do that.

No offense Drrrrrr, but I have seen you playing a single game with the new patch, and making the conclusion: Oh, the dominion seems quite balanced now... (of course you won aginst a moderately experienced fed player) 

Trust me, balance making does not work like that in Fo... Dom usually tries the builds vs builds a LOT of times before even trying to create an opinion about it, and uses builds that you (or me) don't even know how to fairs because it just seems hard to execute ot not so poplular, but they can work suprisingly well... (don't really want to cover Dominus in that, I guess he doesn't really needs it...  ) Also a slightest change on the maps can make a huge impact on gameplay, for example "abusing" dode turrets behind blue  nebulas wans't possible before 1-2 patches ago on Duel, but now it pretty-much became a part smart borg players basic weaponry, and it's a real pain in the ass to deal with in my opinion. So take a count on that too.

And yes it's possible to balance this game quite well, maybe not to "e-sport" level like Brood War, but at least to give non-progamer regular ppl a good fun. If you don't see the progress on that you must be blind.

So I suggest to play more before starting to complain about balance issues... I know it's hard and much easier to complain about game balance after loosing a frustrating game then trying some new stuff out or improve your gameplay. I tend to do that myself sometimes...

posted on May 18th, 2011, 2:22 pm

About balancing:

you can roughly devide balancing into three major fields. The actual unit balancing (including race specific parameters like techtree progression), the game mechanics balancing (to priorize certain game elements, like scouting or chance) and the long term game play balancing (how is Fleet Operations suppose to feel, what kind of features do we want to create).

Game mechanics and game play are usually monitored and predicted by measuring certain aspects, and from the Fleet Operations "style guide" (which just exists in the head of the dev team).
The more perceptable unit balancing is aproximated by a rather complex mathematical system and is then handed out to our balancing test team, to suggest adjustments which cant be mapped into a formula system well. The aspect most often blamed and reported is of course the unit balancing, but we continue to improve our balancing mechanics - both the system and the testing infrastructure - to deliver you a game as balanced as possible, without taking away the large differences between faction (we do actually want to increase these differences).

posted on May 18th, 2011, 4:30 pm

No offense Drrrrrr, but I have seen you playing a single game with the new patch, and making the conclusion:

Unless you are online 24/7 you can barely know how many games I made. 1v1 I havent done so many, that is true, but the 2v2+ games I had indicated that Dominion is not underbalanced. Also I dont expect a good use of Dominion by you Elim. You were the one that went B5 in 90% of all matches...that you thing they are underbalanced is not suprising for me...

@Optec
I understand your approach of balancing.

The more perceptable unit balancing is aproximated by a rather complex mathematical system and is then handed out to our balancing test team, to suggest adjustments which cant be mapped into a formula system well.

You dont need to map them into a formula...just evaluate them in another qualitative way...with a scoring model or such...could be interesting to see outcomes.

posted on May 18th, 2011, 4:47 pm

@Optec
I understand your approach of balancing.You dont need to map them into a formula...just evaluate them in another qualitative way...with a scoring model or such...could be interesting to see outcomes.

  Lol ....    So you're suggesting they completely change the way they've been balancing things?

Seems to me that the last patches have only been more and more balanced.  Also, there's been WAY more new content than I expected lately - which I can only imagine causes horrors for anyone trying to balance it with the old stuff