Dustbowl's statistics

[takabuschik]

Some of you might allready read this since I've wrote this in my map's thread, but I'll right it here too:

The only good example (good?) for another 3 stage A/D map is dustbowl.
Dustbowl's stats (from the feedback section) are as following:

Total Rounds: 587
BLU Wins: 418
RED Wins: 169

Should BLU have a 3/1 win/lose ratio in 3 staged A/D maps? Is it because a BLU player won't feel accomplished if he hadn't comletely won ALL THREE STAGES? Or maybe it should still have a 1/1 win/lose ratio, because every stage counts as one point, and most RED players don't want to always lose?
Please, post your opinion.
Thanks in advance, takabuschik.

 

[UKCS-Alias]

It depends on how stats are measured and what players prefer. Idealy you would have a 50% ratio each round but that isnt realy possible in 3 staged maps.

If each round would have a 50% ratio red would win the map 87% of the times which is very high and for that reason isnt actualy good. At 25% however it would be worse in a way that the first 2 stages dont realy matter most of the time, unless you use the stages before to actualy filter the good teams from the bad and making that 50% again.

What i think are ideal % of win ratios for each stage is somewhere along the line of:
70%, 45%, 25%
(meaning a total win % of ~7% on all rounds if the team is equaly skilled and fighting to win each round)

Stage 2 should be average of what a team is capable of reaching to. However, to me they dont have to win 50% of the times. There still should be a higher chance for red to win since they already lost once (losing alot isnt what most pubs want). By making it 45% it at least statisticly means red has a higher chance.

By making the last 25% it forces blue to actualy do the hardest they can. A 3 stage map is ideal for that after all. Its a low win percentage in total but to note. only 45% reach that stage, and once they completed it it still means that 1/4 of the teams pass. And then also to add that teams reaching that stage already are better the % is very likely going to end higher aswel.

To add the last condition: 'a team must be fighting to win'. What i many times notice in pubs is that teams are often messing arround and not realy trying to defend. Suddenly in stage 3 a few extra players go engy and deadlock the map as suddenly they try. This is what breaks balance testing alot. If the team would use that tactic in round 2 they could already have won.

 

[grazr]

Ideally you would want to look at a statistics pool that covers more than the amount of wins per rounds on a single server. The skill difference and level of cooperation swings wildly from server to server. Not to mention BLU have an advantage in an A/D CP low population game because flanks are less likely to be covered.

Not to mention the map was balanced on release with only a couple modifications post-launch to address initial balance problems. Since then a wide variaty of weapons have been added into the game that throw off balance in older maps. Some to more of a degree than others.

The most important thing is that the final area of the map is where it all happens and happens often. There should be a progression of difficulty. Although strangely i often find with the official maps the finalé is easier to win than other stages, but perhaps that is just because the other stages get played so much more, strategies are honed faster and practiced more.

 

[takabuschik]

UKCS-alias, thanks for the ideas for the %.

Ideally you would want to look at a statistics pool that covers more than the amount of wins per rounds on a single server. The skill difference and level of cooperation swings wildly from server to server. Not to mention BLU have an advantage in an A/D CP low population game because flanks are less likely to be covered.

As far as I know, the feedback section has no information about cooperation and player skills...
The avrage playercount in my stats was 8 players, which is giving BLU, as you said, a big advantage.