Welcome to Steamforged Games Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

MarkM

Vengence 2017 - Stats

113 posts in this topic

Figures are:- Players, No.Games, Wins, Win %

The Union  20 140 66 47.1%

Engineers   18 124 70 56.5%

Fishermen  13  91 52  57.1%

Butchers     12  84 40  47.6%

Alchemists  12  82 53  64.6%

Morticians   12  84 39  46.4%

Brewers      11  77 32  41.6%

Hunters      10  70 23  32.9%

Masons       85  62 8  50.0%

So assuming a 10% margin the only outliers are Alchemists at the top end with 64.6% wins and Hunters (32.9%) and Brewers (41.6%) at the bottom end.

These pretty closely align with the guild power levels IMO, and show that work is needed in a couple of areas to mildly re-balance 2-3 teams. Overall a very good balance for 9 different teams.

Napoleon, Chinos, Biff'd and 4 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Teams scoring 5 wins out of 7 (26 Players)

Alchemists 7

Engineers 7

Fishermen 3

Union 3

Brewers 2

Butchers 1

Hunters 1

Masons 1

Morticians 1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or we can do this the proper way and say that 5% margin is the best in determinating what is bent and how much...

GOD TIER

Alchemists  64.6%

SLIGHTLY OP TIER

Engineers   56.5%

Fishermen  57.1%

SPOT ON BALANCED TIER

Masons       50.0%

Butchers     47.6%

The Union  47.1%

Morticians   46.4%

SLIGHTLY UP TIER

Brewers      41.6%

UTTER SHAJT TIER

Hunters      32.9%

 

When will SF adress this travesty that hunters are and alchs are - if ever.

 

Also why no SF played Hunters to show that we just can't get them right ?

 

HammerTime, Plebian, MarkM and 3 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5% is just as arbitrary as 10% really.  A "proper" test isn't hugely straightforward given the mixed numbers of teams, and the confounding factor of player skill.

 

I'm not saying Alchemists are fine, or Hunters for that matter, but it's not as simple as picking a fixed margin and classifying based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The absolute percentages matter less than the relative rankings. Player perception and agency will always drive the extremes further away from 50%, as good players abandon the 'bad' teams and flock to the 'good' teams. The 'bad' teams, then, are left with less skilled/interested/competitive players and fall further down in the percentiles whereas the 'good' gain a number of more skilled/interested/competitive players and climb further up.

It's not fair to say that Alchemists win twice as much as Hunters do, but it is fair to say that Alchemists are overperforming and Hunters are underperforming. At least that's my takeaway here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MarkM said:

Do you accept that there are 2 outliers in the data?

Yup - Hunter and Alchs - also there are better and worse teams. Generally I'm quite happy and surprised that despite all SF "decisions" this game proved to be so balanced. BUT those outliers need to be taken care off - this is not as hard as anyone thinks it is - you just buff Hunters and cut Alchemist - as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MarkM said:

@MilitaryCooDo you accept that there are 2 outliers in the data?

 

Gut feel yes, but I can't say if they're true outliers because I'm exhausted and a little hungover :)

 

Alchemists is skewed a bit by the 100% win rate of the Vengeance champion, Hunters by the 100% loss of the wooden spoon.

jmrhode1, DrillbossD and Wynter like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to be talking about outliers, margins - regardless of % - isn't a good way to talk about it. I mathed up the proper fences given the data provided using Excel. (I was bored, okay?)

vengeance_stats.JPG

Hunters is the Minimum, Alchemists the Maximum, and Butchers the Median, although everything but Hunters and Brewers are above the Mean. Fish and Alchs are in the Fourth quartile, while Hunters and Brewers are in the First. (Note that location based on quartile doesn't necessarily mean much; it just tells you the "order" of the teams in chunks.)

You can determine outliers using either Standard Deviation (a score that shows how "spread out" the data is) or by Inter-Quartile Range (the distance between the 25% and 75% portions of the data). I did both; see "bored", above.

Going by IQR, there are no outliers in the data set; no team got below 24.8% wins or above 76% wins. Going by Standard Deviation, only Alchemists is an outlier (being above 59.9%), although Hunters are only 1.5% away from being one.

As @MilitaryCoo noted, the dataset has limits; it completely ignores factoring in player skill. I think you could correct for that using individual player records, but that seems like a lot of work. It also doesn't account for number of coaches per team, but I think that probably doesn't need to be accounted for; Union had the most players, followed by Engineers, and those teams were 6th and 3rd for win%, respectively. I don't have statistical evidence but my gut says there's no correlation there.

My suggestion would be a mild nerf directed at Alchemists (targeted at either or both of Midas and Vitriol, probably, if I had to guess), and boosts to Hunters and maybe to Brewers. From a game design perspective I think it would be better to bring up the bottom teams than to bring down the top teams, but Alchs /is/ the only team that can actually qualify as an outlier (via this data at least).

Fish are only 0.3% above the Third-Quartile cutoff, so I don't think they're sufficiently "too good" to deserve a nerf, or at least if they are there's a similar amount of evidence (again, given the data set) that Engineers also deserve a nerf, and I don't think anyone's arguing that.

EDIT: Minor correction for the image: IQR should be 12.8, but the IQR-based outliers don't change. In the excel sheet I'd just worked the 1.5 outlier factor into the IQR instead of the outlier calculations like I should have; since multiplication is commutative (there's some primary school flashbacks for ya) the outlier calculations come out the same, but the IQR might have been misleading.

EDIT EDIT: SQDIFF (the squared difference between a team's score and the mean) is a decent "comparable" number, though you need to keep in mind that since it's exponential the ~13-point difference between Fish and Engineers is of a similar magnitude to the ~1.5-point difference between Morts and Union. Anyways, this is a good place to argue for a buff to Hunters and Brewers; increasing their win% would bring up the mean, and thereby bring everyone's SQDIFFs closer together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this data set helps to confirm what most folks have been thinking in that the Alchemists are probably a little too good and Hunters could use a bit more help.  The other teams are in the "ball park/pitch" of reasonableness.  The only surprise for me was that Union's win percentage was 47%.  I was thinking that they would be closer to 50%.  I recognize that the skill set of players can easily skew the data and this set should not be view in isolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that with Union there was a prerelease of Grance and Benediction so there was understandable excitement to play them in this event. May skew the Union numbers a bit as they haven't seen a lot of table time yet.

Lord Antoine and Besteven like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys I think we must stop to try to explain the obvious. Alchs are to strong - plain and simple. Hunters are to weak. Why ffs not just temper one and buff another and have much better more balanced game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this is a discussion forum, and people wanna discuss? Because the data we have doesn't account for some very important variables? 'Sides which, I can see an argument for buffing Brewers, and though I personally disagree with them for nudging the Fish down too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I went down the standard deviation route too (but not IQR, I wasn't quite as bored as @Siberys it seems!). Given the variables that can't be incorporated such as player skill, individual model use, counters, and competitive bias, there's no concrete definitive answer in it. Maybe the alchemists could do with a look, and possibly hunters too, I wouldn't say no to it. Course, in a system this complex it's never that easy...

 

I'm going to guess that SFG aren't going to rush to tweak things though, maybe let the new hunters settle a bit, possibly test a tweak here and there on the quiet, and decide what to do when they aren't knee deep in dark souls bits crying in the warehouse at weekends :D 

 

Also, how many people played masons???! Good grief...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Facebook, in a post giving a summary of the Vengeance SFG panel there was a bit that they're currently testing for a possible balance tweak in ~ 3ish months, looking at 6 or so players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good thoughtful replies.

IMO saying we do not have enough empirical evidence 'may' be true, but you can use that argument forever.

Hunters players have struggled for over a year, with only SFG claiming that they are balanced.  The missed opportunity to buff them in S3 was regrettable.  The new releases have helped, but not by much - and these figures highlight that.

When I play Hunters I feel like I have to play extraordinarily well, just to try and get an even game.

So please; pretty please with sprinkles on top, give the Hunters a small boost.

The Old Buzzard likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

MOD EDIT: This is a forum for discussing Guild Ball. This is not the place for making personal attacks on our staff.

Edited by TheLieutenant
VanV, Khift, tehlon and 11 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Siberys said:

On Facebook, in a post giving a summary of the Vengeance SFG panel there was a bit that they're currently testing for a possible balance tweak in ~ 3ish months, looking at 6 or so players. 

If they're aiming for 3 months and 6 models, my guess is 3 hunters, an alchemist, a fish and one wildcard (always leave that wiggle room :D ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 Hunters makes sense, Theron, oHearne and Zarola/Egret are arguably the main ones that need looking at, with the possibility of Egret/Zarola as the wild card. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mako said:

If they're aiming for 3 months and 6 models, my guess is 3 hunters, an alchemist, a fish and one wildcard (always leave that wiggle room :D ) 

If you're right about 1 alchemist I hope it's VetKat.  I don't know if I could handle Vitriol or Midas being nerfed, even if they deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As S/F said during the Q&A, they do not do knee jerk changes. Hunters had only been out 6 months when the big errata was done + there was still the second half of the team to be released. Changes will come I'm sure, but it's right that errata is well considered and play tested and not done every time a vocal section of community demands it.

JS likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i played at vengeance and went 6-1 losing to Bryce on a goal run that was over 90% to win me the game.....and i played alchs!

I decided on alchs last minute of the morning, with no practice based on my guestimate of the field on the day (majority engineers due to a supposed prevalaince of fish). I had 5 teams with me being unable to decide what i fancied playing prior to the event.

I played against the following:

Morts (obulus) - i ran smoke, harry, flask, mercury, calc and vet kat.

Morts (scapel) - i ran same list as above.

Fish (shark) - i ran same list but compound instead of vet kat (lost this one 12-9)

Alchs (smoke) - i ran midas, flask, vitriol, harry, vet kat, compound

Fish (shark) - same smoke list as other fish game

Alchs (smoke) - midas list same as other alchs.

Hunters (skatha) - smoke list same as into obulus.

 

So in 7 games i kicked every game and i only played midas and vitriol twice both into smoke. I witnessed me only once in the whole event. All of this i think against conventional wisdom and popular internet opinion.

 

I would say that data from Veng is too small a sample size to be conclusive and isnt reflective of the player skill at all. You are really talking about perceived power ratings, the teams chosen are done so for a number of factors such as new releases, familiarity, cool factor, supposed meta etc.

Interestingly, Jay clare certainly represented hunters and went 5-2 narrowly losing to world champ Tim on a 50/50 shot who was using engineers and who also finished 5-2. Jay had about 4 games with them prior to vengeance.

Of the 8 England WTC players that attended, 3 went 6-1 (all using different factions to what they normally do, which were alchs, engineers, union), 3 went 5-2 (2 using new factions, morts, hunters and maria who used her regular team alchs but played me round 7 so only one of us could get 6-1), 1 4-3 (new team morts) and 1 3-4 (regular fish).

Greg and Daniel also faced off in the tournament which possibly impacted their individual overall standings.

 

For me this indicates that the players are such a big determining factor in wherw a team sits for its "power level"

Going into game 7 there were most of both the England and German WTC players, and regular top tournament finishers like Bryce, Henry Kay (using a new team - engineers) in the 5-1 bracket, a literal shark tank of a field. All with a spread of nearly all the guilds between them. For me this indicates that the different teams must be of very similar balance levels, and its more personal preference that shows the spread of teams that players picking them for power.

 

I really dont think there is such a margin as the internet/data supposedly proclaims in the balance of teams.

 

 

Sorry for the rant/long post, my point is that player skill is too hard to really quantify and such a big determining factor in how teams perform. My experience is that good players consistently get to the top no matter what team they play....this means they are very closely balanced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats are stats, man. While good players can pull out wins the point is majority (represented by stats) shows a different picture. And with the highest Hunter at 5-2 and top guilds in the 6-1 bracket I think we can see there is an issue. 

Also I would argue the fact you could finish so well with no practice with a team while a testament to your skill, could also indicate the team is 'forgiving'. What I'm saying is that putting everything down to player skill is a false premise - we said the same about Morts in S2 and I think we can all agree now Obulus was busted. 

When there is a large swing either side of the norm - and Hunters & Alchemists are very obviously outside the statistical normal zone - then we should pause and hope SFG look and take note - after all, there is unlikely to be a larger dataset than Vengeance. So yes, I do hope something is done. But I also recognise good players are good players - that's why they dine at the winners tables. 

Napoleon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now