Mayans are way higher than they should be. No way they're ahead of Aztecs or Incas.What do you think of this ranking?
number of played and wins is more reliable.points for winning should be calculated in another way, here I see civ1 picked 21, win 6; civ2 picked 14, win 6. The relation between number of picked and wins should come into calculation
+1what an amazing post, you are doing incredible job, keep going guys.
I thought Berbers had cheap Heavy Camels which kinda makes Paladins useless.
+1what an amazing post, you are doing incredible job, keep going guys.
Speaking of incredible jobs, thanks so much Memb and your supporters for this tournament, it's been brilliant so far.
Higher ELO civ won 63 out of 94 times, which is roughly 2/3 of the games. That's obviously not very accurate. I don't think you can make an objective list even with hundreds of matches between each one. There are some lower rated civs which can counter a strong civ pretty well, the strenght of a civilization is more about dominating as many civs as possible. You can safely say that Aztecs, Incas, Indians etc. are top tier civs on Arabia and Ethiopians, Vietnamese and Malay are not and still have matches where the latter beats the former.+1what an amazing post, you are doing incredible job, keep going guys.
Speaking of incredible jobs, thanks so much Memb and your supporters for this tournament, it's been brilliant so far.
I agree with a couple of previous posters that the Elo ranking system isn't super meaningful at the moment as it could be skewed by skill differences between the players in the tournament's early rounds.
At the moment this is just an issue of sample size. It would be really cool if this ranking system could become a "living document" that gets continually updated across multiple 1v1 tournaments. With time these stats can become really valuable (and can be a more objective indication of where the game might need rebalancing).
I think that there is no model that can rank all civs perfectly. Being higher ranked does not mean that a civ will win every game but it should win most games. I think all the data we collect clearly shows some trends. Because the meta is still evolving, the rankings and everything is volatile anyways. I also analyzed around 800 games from the last 3 months and interestingly the meso civs are ranked a bit lower because mass eagles is more a recent thing.
I also created another model that reflects the strengths of the civs really well I think. It is based on PageRank which search engines use to rank websites in their results. The model shows the probability that a random civ you lost to is X. e.g. the probability that the civ is Indians is 13.3%. The model is able to cope with missing match-ups and does not need too many matches to rank a civ quite good. Here is the full ranking:
INDIANS 13.31%
MAYANS 10.15%
AZTECS 10.08%
BERBERS 10.02%
BURMESE 9.33%
INCAS 6.75%
MALIANS 6.13%
MAGYARS 5.59%
HUNS 5.06%
ETHIOPIANS 3.6%
MALAY 3.45%
MONGOLS 2.93%
BRITONS 2.64%
SPANISH 2.34%
GOTHS 2.32%
KOREANS 1.83%
CELTS 1.56%
VIKINGS 1.31%
ITALIANS 0.8%
VIETNAMESE 0.8%
What do you think of this ranking?
Higher ELO civ won 63 out of 94 times, which is roughly 2/3 of the games. That's obviously not very accurate. I don't think you can make an objective list even with hundreds of matches between each one. There are some lower rated civs which can counter a strong civ pretty well, the strenght of a civilization is more about dominating as many civs as possible. You can safely say that Aztecs, Incas, Indians etc. are top tier civs on Arabia and Ethiopians, Vietnamese and Malay are not and still have matches where the latter beats the former.+1what an amazing post, you are doing incredible job, keep going guys.
Speaking of incredible jobs, thanks so much Memb and your supporters for this tournament, it's been brilliant so far.
I agree with a couple of previous posters that the Elo ranking system isn't super meaningful at the moment as it could be skewed by skill differences between the players in the tournament's early rounds.
At the moment this is just an issue of sample size. It would be really cool if this ranking system could become a "living document" that gets continually updated across multiple 1v1 tournaments. With time these stats can become really valuable (and can be a more objective indication of where the game might need rebalancing).
And of course balance is not just about Arabia. I wonder how easily Burmese dominates Arena with relics visible, cheap monk techs, Arambai and OP infantry while still being competitive in open maps like Arabia. We don't need perfect Arabia balance, where Teutons are just as good as Huns. But balance is obviously wrong if Huns beat Teutons on every single popular map.
Could you explain more extently how does your agorithm work and what data you took into consideration?
Could you explain more extently how does your agorithm work and what data you took into consideration?
The idea is to construct a graph where each civ is a node. The nodes are connected via directed edges. There is one edge between two civs A and B if A lost to B. The number of losses determines the weight of an edge. We normalize the weights such that the sum of weights of all outgoing edges is 1 for each node.
After we initialized the graph, we want to model the probability to reach a node if we randomly walk the graph. We start at a random node and then either visit another random node or visit one of its neighbors. The probability to visit any node randomly is uniformly distributed. The probability to visit one of the neighbors depends on the weight of the edge between them. From that, we can derive the probability to randomly visit a node which is equivalent to the probability that a random civ we lost to is X.
More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
Problem being that civs' strengths are very different depending on the map type and not all tournaments are played solely on Arabia. E.g. having one single rating for the Italians, which considers both land and water maps, would not be meaningful.(...)
I agree with a couple of previous posters that the Elo ranking system isn't super meaningful at the moment as it could be skewed by skill differences between the players in the tournament's early rounds.
At the moment this is just an issue of sample size. It would be really cool if this ranking system could become a "living document" that gets continually updated across multiple 1v1 tournaments. With time these stats can become really valuable (and can be a more objective indication of where the game might need rebalancing).
Could you explain more extently how does your agorithm work and what data you took into consideration?
The idea is to construct a graph where each civ is a node. The nodes are connected via directed edges. There is one edge between two civs A and B if A lost to B. The number of losses determines the weight of an edge. We normalize the weights such that the sum of weights of all outgoing edges is 1 for each node.
After we initialized the graph, we want to model the probability to reach a node if we randomly walk the graph. We start at a random node and then either visit another random node or visit one of its neighbors. The probability to visit any node randomly is uniformly distributed. The probability to visit one of the neighbors depends on the weight of the edge between them. From that, we can derive the probability to randomly visit a node which is equivalent to the probability that a random civ we lost to is X.
More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
Do you have enough data in this tournament to make that graphe?
Higher ELO civ won 63 out of 94 times, which is roughly 2/3 of the games. That's obviously not very accurate. I don't think you can make an objective list even with hundreds of matches between each one. There are some lower rated civs which can counter a strong civ pretty well, the strenght of a civilization is more about dominating as many civs as possible. You can safely say that Aztecs, Incas, Indians etc. are top tier civs on Arabia and Ethiopians, Vietnamese and Malay are not and still have matches where the latter beats the former.
And of course balance is not just about Arabia. I wonder how easily Burmese dominates Arena with relics visible, cheap monk techs, Arambai and OP infantry while still being competitive in open maps like Arabia. We don't need perfect Arabia balance, where Teutons are just as good as Huns. But balance is obviously wrong if Huns beat Teutons on every single popular map.
I agree100% with you, In the previous version of AoC, Mayans was clearly a top3 civ for almost every map (including 4v4) ando probably considered by many as top1. Nevertheless, it was kind of countered by the Goths which was hardly ever picked in any free pick tournament.
...
So I think's it doesn't matter if some civs seem more powerful than others in arabia settings as in other particular settings some civ may be useful- What we cannot tolerate is a bunch of too OP civs and it feels sad if all new civs are sistematicly superior to classical civs (which already happened with AoC respect to AoK, with the korean exception although korea was also strong in BF maps).
So, let's take the numbers and then we valorate
New ELO standings after Quarter Finals:
1. Aztecs 1692
2. Incas 1679
3. Burmese 1652
4. Huns 1648
5. Mayans 1627
6. Britons 1626
7. Indians 1622
8. Goths 1599
9. Celts 1594
10. Mongols 1590
11. Malians 1582
12. Italians 1567
13. Berbers 1564
14. Magyars 1539
15. Vietnamese 1532
16. Ethiopians 1529
17. Malay 1494
Just a few observations:
-Meso civilizations won 5/6 with the only defeat is against another meso civ.
-Burmese still very strong with 1 win and 2 bans.
-Huns are starting to be very popular, picked all 4 times, 2 wins, 1 losses.
-Malians lost over 100 ELO points in their last 5 matches (5 losses).
-Goths and Italians are on the list now with 2 games each
First matches first. In the Quarter Finals it's Slam vs. TheMax -> Lierrey vs. ACCM -> TheViper vs. Vinchester -> DauT vs. HeartttI'm sorry if I missed it but in which order do you compute ELO?