Not completely true. Well, if the games would have been played in a BO3 you would have a solid point. However, given that this is B05, it seems more tricky. I asked Sturmpanther about the how this actually was played out and if I understood correctly the way this worked was that the player that won the first two games had faction selection in the third match.
So, faction selection was not completely random, the better player typically would end up playing the faction that he would consider to be stronger.
Regardless of how the coin flips went, the four finalists got to choose factions roughly half of the time in six matches, versus players that left in the first round getting to choose factions in one match.
If that's the case, then the WCS rule-set was ignored.
It's also important to note that while the players had faction pick, they did not have 'side' pick until game 5; meaning players were always alternating between axis and allies every game (until game 5, where the leading player could chose to no longer alternate).
As EffenNewbie pointed out, "Game 5" only happened five times (1x R32, 2x R16, 2x finals); so that means 27 out of the 32 bracket games must have ended in a win-loss ratio of either 50:50, 66:33, or 33:66 axis:allies, where the player who was playing Axis/Allies was entirely random. In the case of a game 5, regardless of which side a player chose, the win:loss ratio must have been 60:40 for either axis or allies.
As a result of all this, the "worst possible case" (where the better player always played allies more) decreases, since we're now introducing 50:50 and 60:40 games into what was once exclusively a set of 66:33 games - meaning that Sov's win ratio against OST is now even higher than before over that "worst possible case".
For example, if 14 matches were 3:0, 13 matches were 3:1 and 5 matches were 3:2, and all matches went in favor of allies, the "worst possible case" goes down to 58.6:41.4, putting Sov 12.6% over what the maximum possible win:loss ratio is in a balanced game. There is simply no statistical way in which Sov did not over-perform vs ost; even when taking into account impossibly imbalanced matches and exceedingly unlikely coincidences in coin flips.
I'd be able to get a more accurate worst-case by knowing the outcomes (and faction picks) of every single match, but I haven't found that written down anywhere.
No. If Soviets, or any other faction were OP, game 5 would always happen and the winner would always be Soviet. This was so far from that result that I would have a hard time believing it had it not happened. The results look like something you would expect from a Warcraft II tournament, where all of the factions were actually the same but had different skins.
The only other thing that was abnormal was how well the seedings actually matched the players. There were practically no upsets, with the biggest upset being the #5 seed beating the #4 seed. The finals were between the 1, 2, 3 and 5 seeds. Whoever ranked them was either really good or really lucky.
TL;DR, statistically, there's over a 99.99966% chance that Sov is over-performing, leaving just 0.00044% chance that the match-ups were so skewed in favor of one player that the win:loss data is irrelevant. There's also a 90% chance that UKF is UP vs OST (no data vs. OKW). The other match-ups were close enough to be within reasonable margins of error.
Um, no. Selection bias wasn't a term that I cooked up for this. It comes up relatively early in even a entry level statistics class.
Looking at just the round of 32, the winner of the match won 48 out of 52 matches played (92%). If one faction was overperforming like you think, the win rate would have been 48 out of 80, (60%) and the winner of the coin toss would have picked Soviets every time. In the round of 16, the winner of the match won 83% of the games, again not anywhere near 60%. The quarter finals and semi-finals had a 86% win rate by the match victor, again not anywhere near 60%.
If you were analyzing this correctly, you would have came to the conclusion that faction didn't matter at all. The only thing that determined win rates was the choice that people made before starting the match.
It means that this doc must be choose only against elef? Want more simple choice against elef - mark target+ bombing run could kill elef or JT. I could agree with ptab, if it take engine damage, but with so small damage against more numerous armor as p4, stugs and panthers, it's just laugh. Just make test, how much ptab deal damage to p4 or stug? It just waste of muni for such pesky results.
And again - in docs with frag bombs you could have - tiger and still have good ability+heavy, while in pure AT doc, you don't have elite infantry or elite armor. Ability should be reworked or replaced by AT overwatch. Beacuse current state just waste of muni.
Yes, it is the best ability in the game when used against Elefants at a 23.47 degree from the primary axis of the Elefant. Against any other armor or when used at any other angle then you would want a different ability. It is incredible when used in cheat mode against Elefants with a protractor. /sarcasm
It used to do around 960 damage to everything caught in the AOE. It changed at a patch a couple of years ago. It's always been slow but it was somewhat okay because it hit really hard. Now it is just slow.
I've went several rounds with Sky about this. Evidently you decided to play with him also.
Button to deploy it permanently, removing the capability to decrew.
It now gains the same HP as a bunker and removes popcap.
Alternative: USF base could had a little less "stupid" design and more space to put units around.
I like your first idea. I think they looked at the second and had problems with it being buggy. The current base design looks like there should be an elephant in the middle of the circus tents.
No guys he is right remove the ambulance, add a 15 fuel 100 MP 3 medic at base after any captain and give RE medic drops
The size of the USF base combined with the range of medics and different retreat paths would make this almost impossible to implement.
The ambulance's long pack up time and slow speed make it too vulnerable. Even when you see something diving, you often can't save it. Also, most of the time, it isn't a trade for a Puma. The Puma dives in, destroys the ambulance, and leaves in a cloud of smoke.
It doesn't even have to be a Puma. I traded a Panther for a Pershing, Jackson, Katy, Major, and two ambulances in this video. Clearly the Panther is UP and needs buffs.
UKF, commander pick and unit usage. You can vouche for smaller balance changes but not this monstrosities some people are suggesting.
This is the short version of what I was implying. The balance team just delivered a patch where the "better" player won about 90% of the time. It's incredibly efficient at separating players based on skill.
If they wanted to tweak it further, at this point they would have to arrange for players like Lovenest/Noggano and Jove/Von Asten to play many matches on just a couple of maps and see what small changes to make. You'd also have to ask players like them, including Helping Hans, for suggestions for UKF since they are the ones creating the selection bias.
In the round of 32, 15 of the 16 matches were 3-0 or 3-1.
In the round of 16, 6 of the 8 matches were 3-0 or 3-1
In the round of 8, all four matches were 3-0 or 3-1
In the round of 4, both matches were 3-0 or 3-1
Both of the finals were split 3/2.
Only 4 out of 38 matches (10.5%) were closely split. This means that the selection bias is so strong that you can't look at win/loss and conclude anything about the factions. The results are skewed towards whichever faction the better player picks. Even in the cases where the worse player picked faction, it would have rarely helped them win.
The only conclusion that you could make out of this is that elite players don't choose UKF. I haven't noticed any of them commenting on this thread so everyone else is speculating.
Close The Pocket gives vision around capture points of all types; I think it's about 25-30 vision range. That said, It'll only drop arty on units that are visible in the cut-off sector(s), so if you have vision from other sources on units far away from capture points, they'll be hit too.
In some of the 4v4 maps, the sectors are large enough that the vision of the capture points doesn't get to all units. I'm guessing that was what happened in his case. He could always try it on Poltawa, which is a great map for this as the entire map can be cut from one point and the control points are close to each other.
in my last 4v4 custom Annihilation match featuring the All units mod my Encirclement Commander Ability "Close the Pocket" when activated correctly would fire the light artillery at the frontline territories but didn't attack units in the territories that I cutoff which was the entire map. what am I missing here???????
Relic Entertainment
