Yeah, maybe. One thing to note though is that ladder games are different thing to tournament games. People try and practice new stuff in ladder whereas in tournaments you wouldn't use a strat that you haven't perfected before. So a strat which in total has negative results in ladder might still be OverPowered in tourneys.Sure, that's fair to say -- but if that's the case, and the nerf was made primarily on a split consensus of it being "OP," or "unfun," -- and it turns out it wasn't actually OP, perhaps it shouldn't have been nerfed at all.
Yeah, maybe. One thing to note though is that ladder games are different thing to tournament games. People try and practice new stuff in ladder whereas in tournaments you wouldn't use a strat that you haven't perfected before. So a strat which in total has negative results in ladder might still be OverPowered in tourneys.
Its never too late to go back to school son.
Did your school teach u the break symbol (or whatever its called)?In School, I learnt never to make a graph with Y-axis starting from an arbitrary number.
Yes exactly you get it. All these concepts should be fairly familiar to anyone who has played/followed popular MOBAs like DotA2 and LoL.Inca rush never was OP. It's just such an annoying strat that when it does work it draws lot of attention. Also ladder games are totally different world to pro tourneys. When 17+ tries that cheeky strat he saw in recent major tournament he is likely just going to do it wrong and hurt his chances of winning compared to basic meta play. I believe that's the reason inca win rate actually increased after changes which objectively were nerfs.
You could say 50% is not an arbitrary number in this context.In School, I learnt never to make a graph with Y-axis starting from an arbitrary number.
Seems like you should maybe use a logarithmic scale for vaccine efficacy.Even if its using actual numbers, start-at-zero rule isnt a must.
Telling someone to always start at zero is like telling someone to strictly follow build orders no matter what, as improvisation is not expected from the student.
EDIT: Take vaccine efficacy as an example, it would make more sense to not start at zero (unless there are actually vaccines that ineffective), the difference between 99.9% and 99% is MASSIVE, but the viewers arent going to see the difference if you make it 0 - 100%.
Thats also an option, but id say that brings a slightly higher threshold for understanding.Seems like you should maybe use a logarithmic scale for vaccine efficacy.
Precisely; I remember reading a dev blogpost from a LOL dev, explaining why they didn't value win rate data quite as much for balancing. They looked at other metrics like pick/ban rate for example and they didnt have "all heroes/civs at 50%% win rate" as a balancing strategy. It was a very interesting read, heavy on statistics theory @HongeyKong would enjoy. LOL balance blog collectionOn a serious note: I don't think these stats from aoestats tell much about the strength of a civ, you'd have to look at tournament picks and stats for that. Given that Incas are barely picked, I think they could receive a buff.
I would say you are right for the scale itself but if you are just trying to make an image that shows something I don't think it matters too much. If the visual gap between 99 and 99.9 leaves an honest impression of the differences, I mean, then someone reading it should still get what you want them to even if they don't understand the concept of a logarithmic scale.Thats also an option, but id say that brings a slightly higher threshold for understanding.
Interesting that they don't cover numbers like average monthly skin sales or time since last skin release. I guess they assume these are obvious to the reader?Precisely; I remember reading a dev blogpost from a LOL dev, explaining why they didn't value win rate data quite as much for balancing. They looked at other metrics like pick/ban rate for example and they didnt have "all heroes/civs at 50%% win rate" as a balancing strategy. It was a very interesting read, heavy on statistics theory @HongeyKong would enjoy. LOL balance blog collection
I know its different games, but we/devs/MS could learn a lot from these other competitive games, like DOTA2, LOL, starcraft etc.
Precisely; I remember reading a dev blogpost from a LOL dev, explaining why they didn't value win rate data quite as much for balancing. They looked at other metrics like pick/ban rate for example and they didnt have "all heroes/civs at 50%% win rate" as a balancing strategy. It was a very interesting read, heavy on statistics theory @HongeyKong would enjoy. LOL balance blog collection
I know its different games, but we/devs/MS could learn a lot from these other competitive games, like DOTA2, LOL, starcraft etc.
Who specifically was this?because the person who was in charge of LoL design/balance also was a big part of making the RM mode in aoe2 (the actual aoe2, not the arabia/arena/BF ladder experience)
greg street / deathshrimp / ghostcrawlerWho specifically was this?
Micromanagement has its place in our games, but it should be secondary to strategy.
it was annoying in AOK to play the micromanagement game when fighting Mangonels or Cannon Galleons. A little micromanagement in combat is fine, but you could go from 100% to 0% losses by moving your units around after they were fired upon, and we just don't feel our games offer the kind of information and control to really encourage that kind of tactical movement.
More variability -- We were careful in Age of Kings to make maps very fair to the point where they always used the same resources over an over. This led players to establish set build-orders that could turn the game into more of a mouse-clicking race than a strategic game that played a little differently each time
I see he appears to have been in charge of LoL's design for the past 7+ years so I would say either his best days are behind him or he is having his work quality compromised by the influence of Riot's business departments Hard to count the number of bad changes made to that game over those years, things that show none of the thoughtfulness and understanding illustrated in the statements you shared here. You of course don't need to convince me of the deficiencies in DE's design trends; between that, the ever increasing bloat of civs, and the replacement of original art assets with low quality imitations, I don't even really view DE as AoE2 at this point. It trods all over the original vision of Ensemble in several ways and is at best a feeble repurposing of that source material.greg street / deathshrimp / ghostcrawler
made most of the random maps. did a lot of balance / design stuff.
he discussed quite a bit about the game over the years
such as:
wise words
meanwhile DE has dumbed the game down so much that people just produce 1 unit for the whole game. the result is that arcadey micro nonsense like dodging ballistics and abusing formations is the only stuff that matters when all the strategy is gone
they figured this out in 2002
meanwhile in 2021, DE has gone to extra lengths to do things like get rid of random positions and also remove variety from a lot of maps. and as if that isn't enough, most of their new injections into the ranked pool are basically pre-explored scenarios instead of random maps. it's the complete opposite of how the game should have evolved
commentary from people who actually made the game has always been insightful. it's why i always laugh at the people who pretend like some narrow fringe settings they happen to have liked are somehow representative of the game. aoe2's intended design was brilliant, even if ara + arena + BF are not.
Wow, Incas won a tournament game.