<!--quoteo(post=1961909:date=Aug 12 2012, 11:52 PM:name=MisterNubs)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MisterNubs @ Aug 12 2012, 11:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Are you seriously trying to justify the use of bad data in a statistic on whether or not the game is balanced? Just because both sides can do it? Wow.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bad data is just an outlier, and with enough sample points it will become negligible.
Basically what win loss ratios do is show you the probability of one team beating another, and vice versa. Now if you did this for a single game, the results would be heavily influenced by the skill level of the players in each team, among other things. What you really want is a team of players vs their clones. That way, all external factors like skill can be ignored. By using many games, and taking the wins and losses from all of them, you arrive at two teams which are essentially identical, and their win loss probability for a single game needs to be as close to 50/50 as possible. That is balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1961903:date=Aug 12 2012, 11:44 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Aug 12 2012, 11:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Find a definition of balance that define all these broken game state as unbalanced. Now you've got a useful definition of balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what you are getting at is whether or not a game is fun. For example, if NS2 was reduced to a simple race to see who got to a random location first, and they were awarded the win, it would be balanced (assuming equal speed on both teams), but not fun. While I agree such a scenario would not be ideal, it is of no relevance here. Looking at win loss ratios to determine whether a game is fun is like [insert witty analogy here, sorry, I got nothing]. Long story short its pretty pointless as it has nothing to do with it. Fun comes first, balance comes second.
<!--quoteo(post=1961885:date=Aug 12 2012, 01:16 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Aug 12 2012, 01:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961885"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmmm.. thanks rising. It is a known bug, but supposedly is just a visual glitch. Any additional info will help, thanks again<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@Imbalanxd: Excellent assessment based on a solid understanding of statistics. Unfortunately, too many people are letting their own anecdotal experiences, their own beliefs as to what constitutes balance in NS2, and their own desires for where the game should go, get in the way of looking at the game objectively.
The fact is, those 1000 games of NS2 demonstrate a clear trend. After 2000, 5000, 10000 games of NS2 those outlying statistics become more and more negligible. If the 50/50 stat holds as the number of games played this patch continues, then anyone arguing imbalance is simply not being impartial.
Yes, conditions vary between casual and competitive play, but, frankly, the skill curve will always exist and games can be balanced for both. UWE has done and continues to do an incredible job balancing the game for all players.
I think what everyone in this thread seems to sense somehow (but surprisingly nobody has actually said) is that <b>a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is a requirement but not sufficient for balance.</b> On the one hand a game has to have a win-loss-ratio of around 50/50 to be balanced, it cannot be considered balanced if the win-loss-ratio is significantly different from that. On the other hand you could imagine a game where Aliens won almost every game if they manage to end the game within 10 minutes. If they didn't manage to end it within the first 10 minutes, they had pretty much zero chance of winning anymore. This could lead to a 50/50 win-loss-ratio but it could hardly be considered balanced.
So a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is not the end of the way to get the best possible balance, but it's a nice milestone in a struggle whose results are oftentimes not so easy to measure and I think we can give kudos to Charlie and everyone at UWE for achieving this interim goal.
<!--quoteo(post=1961936:date=Aug 13 2012, 01:18 AM:name=Tool8)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tool8 @ Aug 13 2012, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961936"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think what everyone in this thread seems to sense somehow (but surprisingly nobody has actually said) is that <b>a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is a requirement but not sufficient for balance.</b> On the one hand a game has to have a win-loss-ratio of around 50/50 to be balanced, it cannot be considered balanced if the win-loss-ratio is significantly different from that. On the other hand you could imagine a game where Aliens won almost every game if they manage to end the game within 10 minutes. If they didn't manage to end it within the first 10 minutes, they had pretty much zero chance of winning anymore. This could lead to a 50/50 win-loss-ratio but it could hardly be considered balanced.
So a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is not the end of the way to get the best possible balance, but it's a nice milestone in a struggle whose results are oftentimes not so easy to measure and I think we can give kudos to Charlie and everyone at UWE for achieving this interim goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, I'm inclined to half disagree. Certain teams are just stronger at different parts of a game. Even in something like Starcraft, which (regardless of what people say) is heavily symmetric, certain teams have a higher probability of winning at certain times in the game. That's just how non identical teams work really, in my opinion anyway. The balance comes in giving every team the ability to survive, and then seeing who makes the mistake of not doing so.
In hindsight, even though I said that it was, I do agree that a 50/50 win loss is not 100% indicative of balance. For example, lets say we were assessing the balance of ns2_mineshaft, and we found that 50% of the time marines won, and 50% of the times aliens won. That would show some strong balance at first glance. However, it could be the case that the marines had a 75% chance of winning when their start location was Drill Repair, and only a 25% chance of winning when starting in Elevator. That would show that in fact, the map was not balanced at all.
The problem is that these variables are impossible to take into account, which isn't really surprising. Anything that is not perfectly symmetric is impossible to balance 100%.
<!--quoteo(post=1961633:date=Aug 12 2012, 01:45 PM:name=Imbalanxd)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Imbalanxd @ Aug 12 2012, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Taking bets on which glitch/bug/external factor caused a marine/alien win/loss ratio of 50 50 to come up. I'm thinking it has something to do with almost all games being registered as alien victories, regardless of the actual victor.
Either way, it must be something, because everyone knows aliens don't win in this patch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've won a lot of games in this build. I moslty paly as aliens. Seems balanced to me
Fact 1: Before this patch everyone on alien went solo and just lol killed any rines they ran into. Aliens now have to work together, and people haven't figured it out yet. Games can either way with teamwork.
Fact 2: On pub servers people often stack a side, going to the opposite team of that derpy guy who keeps rambling about his lovelife. This results in one side being super op and the game ending lopsided.
In my experience over the weekend (about 20 hours of 216 - yes I know alot :smiles: )
Marines win if both sides have non NS1 players 50/50 if both sides have average skilled NS1 players Aliens tend to still win most of the time with high skilled NS1 players A side will always loose with a comm that does not know meta game / fast at medacks and ammo / managing cysts ect / is a retard
Ultimately does not mean anything, just what I noticed over the weekend. Balance means nothing until 95% of people can achieve 60 stable fps. I can guarantee you fades / lerks / skulks will die alot faster when people can actually track you.
<!--quoteo(post=1961812:date=Aug 13 2012, 05:52 AM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Aug 13 2012, 05:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961812"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FFA500--><span style="color:#FFA500"><!--/coloro-->When people are crying in equal amounts "Marines are OP!" "Aliens are OP!" , which seems to be the case with this patch, then it means we are doing something right.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->So true hehe. Despite all the talk of marines being OP, I hear nothing but constant whining in-game about carapace on skulks.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1961938:date=Aug 13 2012, 12:22 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Aug 13 2012, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961938"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sounds like something I said a while back: You can use statistics to prove a game is unbalanced, but not that it is balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeh.
Without filtering the sample group you're not going to have much to say about the imbalance either though. At best you can claim that imbalance exists somewhere, but you still have nothing to point out in what kind of games and why it occurs.
I find that teamwork and commander level tactical coordination is much more rare on the alien team. I suspect that will increase out of necessity with time, as aliens can no longer depend on overpowered evolutions to simply power their way to victory with everyone doing their own uncoordinated thing.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1961858:date=Aug 12 2012, 10:42 PM:name=ChickenOfWar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ChickenOfWar @ Aug 12 2012, 10:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961858"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Spikes are not useful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So not true. Spikes are very useful. Get one bite, and let the poison do it's job, while you finish off the marine with spikes. Spikes are ranged, which means you don't have to get into melee distance to do any damage, like spores and bite. Going into melee range against shotgun(s) is usually a death sentence for a lerk.
I'm a fan of the patch. It's a lot closer to balance now, especially after 215. With that said, I'll also say I've seen "aliens win" a few times via a bug. I don't know how that's affecting the statistics.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1961936:date=Aug 13 2012, 01:18 AM:name=Tool8)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tool8 @ Aug 13 2012, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961936"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think what everyone in this thread seems to sense somehow (but surprisingly nobody has actually said) is that <b>a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is a requirement but not sufficient for balance.</b> On the one hand a game has to have a win-loss-ratio of around 50/50 to be balanced, it cannot be considered balanced if the win-loss-ratio is significantly different from that. On the other hand you could imagine a game where Aliens won almost every game if they manage to end the game within 10 minutes. If they didn't manage to end it within the first 10 minutes, they had pretty much zero chance of winning anymore. This could lead to a 50/50 win-loss-ratio but it could hardly be considered balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, what you would like to see is win/loss ratios plotted against gametime and number of players - 3D diagram.
In essence, you would like half the GAMETIME being spent in winning games for both sides, even as the number of players changes.
Win stats in combination with player feedback and personal experience is probably the best way to gauge balance in NS2. Essentially, I'd make a list of things I felt or we're reported as imbalanced in NS2 (e.g. mineshaft favors aliens) and then check the data to see if it confirms/refutes the observations (e.g. alien win % on mineshaft is 60%).
Win stats in combination with player feedback and personal experience is probably the best way to gauge balance in NS2. Essentially, I'd make a list of things I felt or we're reported as imbalanced in NS2 (e.g. mineshaft favors aliens) and then check the data to see if it confirms/refutes the observations (e.g. alien win % on mineshaft is 60%).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FYI to readers that may misread ScardyBob's post as 'Aliens win 60% of Mineshaft' - The alien / marine win loss on Mineshaft in B216 is 51.6 / 48.4. Also, in your post you state that win/loss, time to win, and map are the only stats that we are working with. This is untrue. We can see starting locations, distance between locations, weapons used, weapon/alien duels, and more. Regardless, great post from July and that kind of in-depth thinking is most welcome, and very heartening.
It would be cool to share some statistics (if you have the time and it's not super secret of course), how are the map balanced, how are the different starting locations balanced, what is the win-ratio given that alien go cara first, what is the win-ratio given aliens go shade first, how is the win ratio in function of game length, what kind of life-forms are used, etc... it would improve a lot the level of the discussion at least.
<!--quoteo(post=1962088:date=Aug 13 2012, 05:54 PM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Aug 13 2012, 05:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FYI to readers that may misread ScardyBob's post as 'Aliens win 60% of Mineshaft' - The alien / marine win loss on Mineshaft in B216 is 51.6 / 48.4. Also, in your post you state that win/loss, time to win, and map are the only stats that we are working with. This is untrue. We can see starting locations, distance between locations, weapons used, weapon/alien duels, and more. Regardless, great post from July and that kind of in-depth thinking is most welcome, and very heartening.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only issue with raw data is that it contains anomalies (outliers), in NS2 data often these are result of no comm or heavy stacking leading to sub 5 min wins. When the figures of 50/50 or 51/49 etc are bantered about really its meaningless unless we know whether the data is taken on more than just simple face value or it it includes recycle victories for aliens (seen a few of those at around 5 min..marines recycle if they dont feel they are winning).
supsuJoin Date: 2012-04-24Member: 151023Members, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1962114:date=Aug 13 2012, 11:25 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Aug 13 2012, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962114"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It would be cool to share some statistics (if you have the time and it's not super secret of course), how are the map balanced, how are the different starting locations balanced, what is the win-ratio given that alien go cara first, what is the win-ratio given aliens go shade first, how is the win ratio in function of game length, what kind of life-forms are used, etc... it would improve a lot the level of the discussion at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about uwe, but all those stats will be available in <a href="http://ns2stats.org/" target="_blank">ns2stats.org</a> and all of them are already being recorded so you can expect them to be there at some point :> Plus we have a lot more in mind what comes to maps but we have to get the more basic stuff out first.
My input would be that if you're going to make balance changes, just change ONE THING and let people test it. It's really annoying when devs sometimes make 32 adjustments to a side at once and the balance is completely flipped. In SC2 they make a change of 1 range to the queen and suddenly zerg early game is viable. It wasn't just the range change. It was the range coupled with a new emergent playstyle that takes advantage of the change. Something that took time to evolve.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1962088:date=Aug 12 2012, 11:54 PM:name=Strayan (NS2HD))--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Strayan (NS2HD) @ Aug 12 2012, 11:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1962088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->FYI to readers that may misread ScardyBob's post as 'Aliens win 60% of Mineshaft' - The alien / marine win loss on Mineshaft in B216 is 51.6 / 48.4. Also, in your post you state that win/loss, time to win, and map are the only stats that we are working with. This is untrue. We can see starting locations, distance between locations, weapons used, weapon/alien duels, and more. Regardless, great post from July and that kind of in-depth thinking is most welcome, and very heartening.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My thread is dated, so its more illustrative rather than relevant to the current discussion, as Hugh has stated. Also, sorry about the confusion, but I was referring to the stats that were publicly available back in B180 days, rather than all the stats that are being collected and analyzed. UWE is certainly using a lot more info than provided in that post for balance discussion/analysis.
<!--quoteo(post=1961993:date=Aug 13 2012, 03:24 AM:name=mf-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mf- @ Aug 13 2012, 03:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In my experience over the weekend (about 20 hours of 216 - yes I know alot :smiles: )
Marines win if both sides have non NS1 players 50/50 if both sides have average skilled NS1 players Aliens tend to still win most of the time with high skilled NS1 players A side will always loose with a comm that does not know meta game / fast at medacks and ammo / managing cysts ect / is a retard
Ultimately does not mean anything, just what I noticed over the weekend. Balance means nothing until 95% of people can achieve 60 stable fps. I can guarantee you fades / lerks / skulks will die alot faster when people can actually track you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You cant just say that. I played NS1 a lot but my brother never played NS1 before. He got NS2 the same time I did, Yet he is better then a lot ofold NS1 players. Just because you played NS1 doesnt automaticly make you good. I was about 14 when i started playing NS1 and to be perfectly honest I was terrible at it but it was fun so I played and played and played for hours on end. It was years after I stopped playing NS1, when I got NS2 and when I started playing it I wasnt very good because I forgotten most things about the game and it was a lot diffrent. But playing it for two years i am good at it yet my brother is better despite playing it less then me and never playing NS1. So i don't know where you are getting your information from?
Comments
Bad data is just an outlier, and with enough sample points it will become negligible.
Basically what win loss ratios do is show you the probability of one team beating another, and vice versa. Now if you did this for a single game, the results would be heavily influenced by the skill level of the players in each team, among other things. What you really want is a team of players vs their clones. That way, all external factors like skill can be ignored. By using many games, and taking the wins and losses from all of them, you arrive at two teams which are essentially identical, and their win loss probability for a single game needs to be as close to 50/50 as possible. That is balance.
<!--quoteo(post=1961903:date=Aug 12 2012, 11:44 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Aug 12 2012, 11:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1961903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Find a definition of balance that define all these broken game state as unbalanced.
Now you've got a useful definition of balance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what you are getting at is whether or not a game is fun. For example, if NS2 was reduced to a simple race to see who got to a random location first, and they were awarded the win, it would be balanced (assuming equal speed on both teams), but not fun. While I agree such a scenario would not be ideal, it is of no relevance here. Looking at win loss ratios to determine whether a game is fun is like [insert witty analogy here, sorry, I got nothing]. Long story short its pretty pointless as it has nothing to do with it. Fun comes first, balance comes second.
Any additional info will help, thanks again<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The music was correct(lost-theme).
The fact is, those 1000 games of NS2 demonstrate a clear trend. After 2000, 5000, 10000 games of NS2 those outlying statistics become more and more negligible. If the 50/50 stat holds as the number of games played this patch continues, then anyone arguing imbalance is simply not being impartial.
Yes, conditions vary between casual and competitive play, but, frankly, the skill curve will always exist and games can be balanced for both. UWE has done and continues to do an incredible job balancing the game for all players.
On the one hand a game has to have a win-loss-ratio of around 50/50 to be balanced, it cannot be considered balanced if the win-loss-ratio is significantly different from that. On the other hand you could imagine a game where Aliens won almost every game if they manage to end the game within 10 minutes. If they didn't manage to end it within the first 10 minutes, they had pretty much zero chance of winning anymore. This could lead to a 50/50 win-loss-ratio but it could hardly be considered balanced.
So a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is not the end of the way to get the best possible balance, but it's a nice milestone in a struggle whose results are oftentimes not so easy to measure and I think we can give kudos to Charlie and everyone at UWE for achieving this interim goal.
On the one hand a game has to have a win-loss-ratio of around 50/50 to be balanced, it cannot be considered balanced if the win-loss-ratio is significantly different from that. On the other hand you could imagine a game where Aliens won almost every game if they manage to end the game within 10 minutes. If they didn't manage to end it within the first 10 minutes, they had pretty much zero chance of winning anymore. This could lead to a 50/50 win-loss-ratio but it could hardly be considered balanced.
So a 50/50 win-loss-ratio is not the end of the way to get the best possible balance, but it's a nice milestone in a struggle whose results are oftentimes not so easy to measure and I think we can give kudos to Charlie and everyone at UWE for achieving this interim goal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh, I'm inclined to half disagree. Certain teams are just stronger at different parts of a game. Even in something like Starcraft, which (regardless of what people say) is heavily symmetric, certain teams have a higher probability of winning at certain times in the game. That's just how non identical teams work really, in my opinion anyway. The balance comes in giving every team the ability to survive, and then seeing who makes the mistake of not doing so.
In hindsight, even though I said that it was, I do agree that a 50/50 win loss is not 100% indicative of balance. For example, lets say we were assessing the balance of ns2_mineshaft, and we found that 50% of the time marines won, and 50% of the times aliens won. That would show some strong balance at first glance. However, it could be the case that the marines had a 75% chance of winning when their start location was Drill Repair, and only a 25% chance of winning when starting in Elevator. That would show that in fact, the map was not balanced at all.
The problem is that these variables are impossible to take into account, which isn't really surprising. Anything that is not perfectly symmetric is impossible to balance 100%.
Either way, it must be something, because everyone knows aliens don't win in this patch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've won a lot of games in this build. I moslty paly as aliens. Seems balanced to me
Fact 2: On pub servers people often stack a side, going to the opposite team of that derpy guy who keeps rambling about his lovelife. This results in one side being super op and the game ending lopsided.
Fact 3: Beta is Beta
Marines win if both sides have non NS1 players
50/50 if both sides have average skilled NS1 players
Aliens tend to still win most of the time with high skilled NS1 players
A side will always loose with a comm that does not know meta game / fast at medacks and ammo / managing cysts ect / is a retard
Ultimately does not mean anything, just what I noticed over the weekend. Balance means nothing until 95% of people can achieve 60 stable fps. I can guarantee you fades / lerks / skulks will die alot faster when people can actually track you.
<!--coloro:#FFC0CB--><span style="color:#FFC0CB"><!--/coloro-->So true hehe. Despite all the talk of marines being OP, I hear nothing but constant whining in-game about carapace on skulks.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Yeh.
Without filtering the sample group you're not going to have much to say about the imbalance either though. At best you can claim that imbalance exists somewhere, but you still have nothing to point out in what kind of games and why it occurs.
So not true.
Spikes are very useful. Get one bite, and let the poison do it's job, while you finish off the marine with spikes.
Spikes are ranged, which means you don't have to get into melee distance to do any damage, like spores and bite.
Going into melee range against shotgun(s) is usually a death sentence for a lerk.
On the one hand a game has to have a win-loss-ratio of around 50/50 to be balanced, it cannot be considered balanced if the win-loss-ratio is significantly different from that. On the other hand you could imagine a game where Aliens won almost every game if they manage to end the game within 10 minutes. If they didn't manage to end it within the first 10 minutes, they had pretty much zero chance of winning anymore. This could lead to a 50/50 win-loss-ratio but it could hardly be considered balanced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, what you would like to see is win/loss ratios plotted against gametime and number of players - 3D diagram.
In essence, you would like half the GAMETIME being spent in winning games for both sides, even as the number of players changes.
Win stats in combination with player feedback and personal experience is probably the best way to gauge balance in NS2. Essentially, I'd make a list of things I felt or we're reported as imbalanced in NS2 (e.g. mineshaft favors aliens) and then check the data to see if it confirms/refutes the observations (e.g. alien win % on mineshaft is 60%).
Win stats in combination with player feedback and personal experience is probably the best way to gauge balance in NS2. Essentially, I'd make a list of things I felt or we're reported as imbalanced in NS2 (e.g. mineshaft favors aliens) and then check the data to see if it confirms/refutes the observations (e.g. alien win % on mineshaft is 60%).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FYI to readers that may misread ScardyBob's post as 'Aliens win 60% of Mineshaft' - The alien / marine win loss on Mineshaft in B216 is 51.6 / 48.4. Also, in your post you state that win/loss, time to win, and map are the only stats that we are working with. This is untrue. We can see starting locations, distance between locations, weapons used, weapon/alien duels, and more. Regardless, great post from July and that kind of in-depth thinking is most welcome, and very heartening.
Only issue with raw data is that it contains anomalies (outliers), in NS2 data often these are result of no comm or heavy stacking leading to sub 5 min wins.
When the figures of 50/50 or 51/49 etc are bantered about really its meaningless unless we know whether the data is taken on more than just simple face value or it it includes recycle victories for aliens (seen a few of those at around 5 min..marines recycle if they dont feel they are winning).
I don't know about uwe, but all those stats will be available in <a href="http://ns2stats.org/" target="_blank">ns2stats.org</a> and all of them are already being recorded so you can expect them to be there at some point :> Plus we have a lot more in mind what comes to maps but we have to get the more basic stuff out first.
It's simply not possible to make only one change at a time, otherwise the game comes out in about 15 years.
My thread is dated, so its more illustrative rather than relevant to the current discussion, as Hugh has stated. Also, sorry about the confusion, but I was referring to the stats that were publicly available back in B180 days, rather than all the stats that are being collected and analyzed. UWE is certainly using a lot more info than provided in that post for balance discussion/analysis.
Marines win if both sides have non NS1 players
50/50 if both sides have average skilled NS1 players
Aliens tend to still win most of the time with high skilled NS1 players
A side will always loose with a comm that does not know meta game / fast at medacks and ammo / managing cysts ect / is a retard
Ultimately does not mean anything, just what I noticed over the weekend. Balance means nothing until 95% of people can achieve 60 stable fps. I can guarantee you fades / lerks / skulks will die alot faster when people can actually track you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You cant just say that. I played NS1 a lot but my brother never played NS1 before. He got NS2 the same time I did, Yet he is better then a lot ofold NS1 players. Just because you played NS1 doesnt automaticly make you good. I was about 14 when i started playing NS1 and to be perfectly honest I was terrible at it but it was fun so I played and played and played for hours on end. It was years after I stopped playing NS1, when I got NS2 and when I started playing it I wasnt very good because I forgotten most things about the game and it was a lot diffrent. But playing it for two years i am good at it yet my brother is better despite playing it less then me and never playing NS1. So i don't know where you are getting your information from?