Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Tourney performance so far

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> FC & SFB Online!
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:51 am    Post subject: Tourney performance so far Reply with quote

In a moment of boredom I've been collating all the games played from the online tournys that have been run from this forum. I was interested in how each empire had done after 5 tourneys (4.5 given the first only went 2 rounds).

For interest:

Note the score is simply [won/(won + lost)]. I've ignored draws (there were a couple of genuine draws) and games that were not actually played. This gives the win rate, well given I haven't included a couple of draws its not exact.

0.737 -Orion
0.714 -Hydran
0.700 -Tholian
0.667 -Romulan
0.533 -Lyran
0.500 -Kzinti
0.500 -Wyn
0.500 -Frax
0.471 -Gorn
0.417 -Klingon
0.250 -Seltorian
0.219 -Fed



So Fed are the big losers (They won 7 and lost a staggering 25 games).
Obviously take that with a pinch of salt, the handicapping has meant that the same results wouldn't likely have resulted just playing using the standard pointing. Som empires have only had a few games as well. E.G. Frax and Wyn only being played twice each.

I also recorded player results over the tourney games, mainly because I once discussed a player handicap based on previous results for each player and was interested in how they might look. But I won't post that as it may be seen as a bit personal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncrcalamine
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Posts: 228

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would it be too much problem to add a column of the number of players ( or number of times a race has been played in the tournaments).


A more involved but equally revealing number would be average winning percentage of players who played a race in the tournys. Ie player A played in 3 tournys roms, fed , lyrans and had a .800 winning percentage. Player B played 2 tournys and had 600 winning percentage, playing roms and tholians. Then romulan average would be .7 (.6+.Cool/2. I am just curious if some of the races were pulled up by having truely exceptional player play that race.

If you post ammended data or not thanks for the work.

Nicole
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncrcalamine
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Posts: 228

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry about double post. [Mod: Fixed it.]

Kind of expected the top three races. Kind of surprised by the romulans, gorn, and feds. Romulans and gorns higher than i would have expected, feds much lower. Would have expected feds about .4


Nicole
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ncrcalamine wrote:
Would it be too much problem to add a column of the number of players ( or number of times a race has been played in the tournaments).


I'll add that tonight


Quote:

A more involved but equally revealing number would be average winning percentage of players who played a race in the tournys. Ie player A played in 3 tournys roms, fed , lyrans and had a .800 winning percentage. Player B played 2 tournys and had 600 winning percentage, playing roms and tholians. Then romulan average would be .7 (.6+. 8 ) /2. I am just curious if some of the races were pulled up by having truely exceptional player play that race.


I didn't record who played which empire, or which opponents (which may also be interesting), though they might not be too hard to add that.


Last edited by storeylf on Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ncrcalamine wrote:
Sorry about double post.

Kind of expected the top three races. Kind of surprised by the romulans, gorn, and feds. Romulans and gorns higher than i would have expected, feds much lower. Would have expected feds about .4


Nicole


Remember there was a handicap. E.g. In our Orion vs Rom game I was playing the worst handicapped empire (1.1) to your best handicap (0.92), that was a 20% points advantage to you. Irrespective of how good or bad either empire is (at standard points) that handicapping system is going to make some difference to the overall win rate.

Also remember, as I've argued in the past, there is a wide spread of player ability. It may well be the case that top players think Roms/Gorns suck, but many players do struggle to handle playing against them, so it doesn't necessarily need a top player to do well with them as you may only come up against those top players 1 in 4 games. Equally top players may think Feds are pretty good, but many players do struggle with some of the tourney tactics. Those tactics may not apply to other games they play, Feds play quite differently in different scenarios, whereas quite a few other empires don't so much.

As ever with 'balance' you need to decide what you really mean by that.


Last edited by storeylf on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 201
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee,
Your list is interesting, thanks for posting that.

The top three empires do not surprise me. But the Orion results are very indicative of what I believe to be thr problems with the Orions. Also, for purposes of this post, I am assuming that the top three players are Paul Scott, Patrick Doyle and Nicole Rubins.

I believe it is telling that Orion did so well and I believe they had the higher handicap. Also, It is interesting how well they did because with the exception of neither Paul or Myself ever played the Orions. Nicole is the best player to use the Orions (IMO, no offense intended to anyone, I am simply trying to be direct and communicate clearly), and as her recent performance shows clearly a contender for top placement in future tournaments.

The Romulan does placing third does not surprise for three reasons. It was played by Paul (who won) 2 tournaments ago and Nicole who won this tournament. Obviously both excellent players. They also brought the VUL KE combo which is a deadly force because they use plasma-Rs. Combine great players with a great force and you have those results. Roms may not have done as well with forces equipped with the S-torps. Only the Vulture could have withstood the attacks I made against it in the recent tournament (its a fricking TANK!)

Tholians have been play by me, Paul and Archer (I think). Paul and I never even took damage over the course of the games we played (except some leak dmg) so we won or tied all of them. I think Archer did decently but I don't know what his final record was. Once you learn webcasters they are VERY hard to beat. If you goof, however, you will lose.


I do not think perfect balance is going to be achieved (and as Lee says, what do you mean by that?). I think the realistic goal is to make it competitive. What I mean by competitive is that people feel they have chance, or they can stay in the game with someone who is better at least long enough to learn and have fun, and make the more experienced player sweat a little. Obviously they should have a chance at winning.

The Feds were given a point handicap, and I also think newer, less seasoned players tend to play the Feds. I don't think its indicative of aany weakness with the Feds.

Bottom Line: A handicap system for specific players (perhaps combined with lesser empire driven handicaps) would achieve the goal of competitive balancing. I want new players to join us and not be scared off by the impression that they are swimming with sharks.

To continue tournaments in the long term we have to be bringing in new people and they need to learn the game well enough to be competitive.
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Doyle wrote:
Lee,
Your list is interesting, thanks for posting that.

I am assuming that the top three players are Paul Scott, Patrick Doyle and
Nicole Rubins.


I can't remember off hand, and it depends on how you measure it. I was originally meausring fleets and players by a simple win - loss, so the Feds would have been -18 (7-25). A score of zero would indicate (in my mind) balance, as that would mean they are winning 50% losing 50%. That is how I was looking at handcapping fleets (e.g. Feds would get 18 extra point if played)

Using the same scoring for players the top players were Paul, Me and ??, I don't think it was you though. I'll check tonight. But again that was the player handicap I was gong to apply, so Paul would play with -X points basd on his win - loss score.

For posting purposes I changed the empires to a straight percentage as that is maybe what others are more interested in, but that would mean the players come out in ways you might not expect - there was someone (SavedFromWhat I think) who only played a couple of games and won them, so he would be top player on that system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, I've added the genuine draws (as opposed to byes and no shows), which makes sense for a win rate percentage, if not for what I was originally looking at. The number in brackets is how many games each played (i don't have how many times players choose each, but you can probably extrapolate from the number of games).

0.700 -Orion (20)
0.667 -Tholian (21)
0.667 -Hydran (15)
0.545 -Romulan (11)
0.533 -Lyran (15)
0.500 -Kzinti (12)
0.500 -Wyn (2)
0.500 -Frax (2)
0.444 -Gorn (18 )
0.417 -Klingon (24)
0.250 -Seltorian (8 )
0.219 -Fed (32)


The top 3 players
1.000 SavedFromWhat
0.800 Paul Scott
0.750 storeylf/orgyockbo

Though like I said earlier that is largely down to the top player only playing a couple of games (and winning). If you ditch anyone who has not played at least 4 games (effectively a full tourney) then:

0.800 Paul Scott
0.750 storeylf/orgyockbo
0.710 nrcalamine

In terms of the way I was initially looking at scoring things:

9 -Orion
8 -Tholian
6 -Hydran
3 -Romulan
1 -Lyran
0 -Kzinti
0 -Wyn
0 -Frax
-1 -Gorn
-4 -Klingon
-4 -Seltorian
-18 -Fed

So Orions won 9 games more than they lost, and Feds lost 18 games more than they won.


8 -Paul Scott
7 -storeylf
6 -Pat Doyle

Same principle, Paul won 8 more games than he lost (non actually, but he did have 2 draws) etc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Savedfromwhat
Commander


Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 639

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always get so busy at tournament time Sad sorry for skewing your numbers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> FC & SFB Online! All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group