Mathematically, the balance on this CG has been a miss

Danieros

D
Tier structure for the empire side had no benefits other than payout, and neither does it look like they affect the marlinists unless tier 5 was reached for a premature end. Seems like it followed a default curve.

Tier structure for the marlinists have custom requirements because they have a purpose besides payout. Low T1 and T2 aimed at preparation for escape. T3, T4, T5 follow a linear pattern as they're the ship count, T3 being proportionally bigger since it's for 4 ships.

Competitively this has got to be the closest CG we ever ever had, those seem to be at a hopeless progress ratio within the first day and frontier doesn't add rewards to entice catching up. Right until the end of the weekend the difference both were most of the time at literally the same rounded % of completion. Even now at 30% vs 27% it's a rough 10% difference, last week by now it would be like 400-500%.
 

Florenus

Florenus
Magister Mundi said:
You could certainly make an argument that it's fine that it's imbalanced, but that's a whole different discussion, and not one I'm addressing here.
Click to expand...
What's the point of this discussion then?
I mean, you want everything balanced, so everyone is happy with rewards and you can basically choose the side at random, because it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter what the story is, then why bothering with it at all? You want back the old trading/ boutyhunting CG's? Just some boring event to earn credits?
 

Magister Mundi

Magister Mundi
[MEOW] babelfisch said:
I believe your numbers are wrong. Currently contributors are 3,689/2,853 but IIRC it was more like 3000/1000 for the first few days. Could be wrong because I didn't write it down...
Is it possible to pledge for both CGs simultaneously?
Click to expand...

It is, yes, though it's also pretty much impossible to account for that, so we just have to look at averages per contributor listed (though given that the contributions are tracked separately, that's not actually a problem). And yeah, contributor numbers have fluctuated throughout the event, but that doesn't affect individual contribution averages, which is why those numbers are the best way to compare across the factions.

As far as the numbers go, it's pretty simple arithmetic, so I don't think I've made an error, though I'm open to being corrected if someone can show I made a mistake.
 

babelfisch

babelfisch
Magister Mundi said:
It is, yes, though it's also pretty much impossible to account for that, so we just have to look at averages per contributor listed (though given that the contributions are tracked separately, that's not actually a problem). And yeah, contributor numbers have fluctuated throughout the event, but that doesn't affect individual contribution averages, which is why those numbers are the best way to compare across the factions.

As far as the numbers go, it's pretty simple arithmetic, so I don't think I've made an error, though I'm open to being corrected if someone can show I made a mistake.
Click to expand...
Think about it again, you know enough about maths to spot the mistake.
 

VR jefranklin18

VR jefranklin18
JosiahD said:
Why was the previous CG a disaster? One side offered 'mercenaries' (for want of a better description) an 'appealing' reward (well to some it might have been) plus it was a case of defending an Engineer from the accusations and an attack by a superpower. The result was pefectly reasonable under those circumstances. Had the Empire offered something equally or more attractive for 'mercenaries' the result might have been different. Anything but a disaster of a CG if the result fits the narrative FDev wanted to push. It was, of course, OUR choice of who to support and we as a playerbase could have swung it the other way if we'd wanted to as a group.
Click to expand...
IMO it was not a particularly successful CG because people went "ooh new exclusive toy, which I won't get if I don't contribute" so it distorted the participation rate; there were Empire supporters actively siding with Liz Ryder in order to get it (merits or not of the new toy notwithstanding). As previously mentioned, I doubt Frontier will do that again.

Although the maths can be used to prove that this CG is also imbalanced, I think Frontier specifically want it so: they seem to have had a handle on what the participation and success rates of the two sides would be, and have skewed the targets to match that. The "fairness" of that is debatable but a) it makes for an interesting outcome on Thursday and b) it is only a game; no lives (except pixel ones) will be lost.
 

Magister Mundi

Magister Mundi
Florenus said:
What's the point of this discussion then?
I mean, you want everything balanced, so everyone is happy with rewards and you can basically choose the side at random, because it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter what the story is, then why bothering with it at all? You want back the old trading/ boutyhunting CG's? Just some boring event to earn credits?
Click to expand...

The point is that it appears FDev was trying to make for a more balanced event this time around, and it appears as though they've missed the mark based on the numbers. Again, if you like imbalanced CGs, that's great, but I don't think FDev's intention was to "rig" this event one way or the other.
 

Magister Mundi

Magister Mundi
jefranklin18 said:
Although the maths can be used to prove that this CG is also imbalanced, I think Frontier specifically want it so: they seem to have had a handle on what the participation and success rates of the two sides would be, and have skewed the targets to match that. The "fairness" of that is debatable but a) it makes for an interesting outcome on Thursday and b) it is only a game; no lives (except pixel ones) will be lost.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I'd be inclined to give them that benefit of the doubt, except the last two CGs were clearly not well-gauged ahead of time, and in the luxury goods one had a MASSIVE mathematical error (either that or they forgot how luxury goods work - either way). So... I'm not so sure. That's why I asked if maybe they're testing something with deliberately lopsided CGs. If so, fair enough, they probably do know this. If not? Well, figured it was worth sharing some numbers instead of just opinions.
 

Magister Mundi

Magister Mundi
[MEOW] babelfisch said:
Please apply some logic.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the fact that contributor numbers have changed over the course of the event, that's accounted for in the statistical averages I listed. We don't have the information needed to figure out median or modal numbers, so a statistical mean it is. And that's perfectly valid - some people will have signed up for the event at the start and contributed nothing, while others will have signed up recently and done nothing but clear combat zones for eight hours straight. A statistical mean includes both scenarios. We have a definitive amount of combat bonds produced for each faction, along with a definitive number of contributors who provided those combat bonds for each faction. That's sufficient information to figure out a statistical mean.

If you're referring to something else, then you really do need to explicitly state what you're referring to. What you think is a gap in logic may not be something I think of as a gap in logic. Or I might be able to clarify what I mean. Either way, I can't read minds.
 

babelfisch

babelfisch
Magister Mundi said:
If you're referring to the fact that contributor numbers have changed over the course of the event, that's accounted for in the statistical averages I listed. We don't have the information needed to figure out median or modal numbers, so a statistical mean it is. And that's perfectly valid - some people will have signed up for the event at the start and contributed nothing, while others will have signed up recently and done nothing but clear combat zones for eight hours straight. A statistical mean includes both scenarios. We have a definitive amount of combat bonds produced for each faction, along with a definitive number of contributors who provided those combat bonds for each faction. That's sufficient information to figure out a statistical mean.

If you're referring to something else, then you really do need to explicitly state what you're referring to. What you think is a gap in logic may not be something I think of as a gap in logic. Or I might be able to clarify what I mean. Either way, I can't read minds.
Click to expand...
If the ratio of contributors drastically changed over the course of the CG your calculations can't be correct.

You are trying to calculate average daylight hours for the year by looking at winter solstice. Again, it's possible that I don't remember correctly.
 

Magister Mundi

Magister Mundi
Merlin_Rum said:
Why on earth would a battle between a superpower and a minor faction be 'balanced'? I thought that was the whole point of the CG and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
Click to expand...

That's fair, but there are better ways to represent that imbalance of power than out-of-game mechanical progress meters. For example, differing degrees of victory - for the Marlinists, total victory (Tier 5) would be simple survival, while for Team Patreus total victory is a complete system lockdown with no escape, along with absolute authority to interrogate the local populace with impunity. Very different levels of success there, but player contributions would count toward those different tiers equally.

(Also, they're both Imperial factions, so it's not really the Empire vs. one small group. It's more one very angry Senator vs. one small group, which is definitely a major power imbalance, but not quite THAT big of one.)
 

Magister Mundi

Magister Mundi
[MEOW] babelfisch said:
If the ratio of contributors drastically changed over the course of the CG your calculations can't be correct.

You are trying to calculate average daylight hours for the year by looking at winter solstice. Again, it's possible that I don't remember correctly.
Click to expand...

...what? No. To use your example, I'm calculating average daylight hours based on the sum of of daylight hours in the year to date. The numbers we have are cumulative. The data I used is not just as things stand today in isolation (the "Winter Solstice"), but rather what we've seen so far.

Also, the two goals don't affect one another outside of a comparison. One team succeeding doesn't mean the other fails or vice versa, especially since you can sign up to help both. So there's no real "ratio" to be looked at there.

On balance so far, which is what I'm measuring here, one side has put in considerably more effort on a (mean-based) average and yet is a good 30% behind where they should be if the two progression tracks were mathematically equivalent.
 

babelfisch

babelfisch
Magister Mundi said:
...what? No. To use your example, I'm calculating average daylight hours based on the sum of of daylight hours in the year to date. The numbers we have are cumulative. The data I used is not just as things stand today in isolation (the "Winter Solstice"), but rather what we've seen so far.

Also, the two goals don't affect one another outside of a comparison. One team succeeding doesn't mean the other fails or vice versa, especially since you can sign up to help both. So there's no real "ratio" to be looked at there.

On balance so far, which is what I'm measuring here, one side has put in considerably more effort on a (mean-based) average and yet is a good 30% behind where they should be if the two progression tracks were mathematically equivalent.
Click to expand...
You only know the ratio if contributors for each CG of today, therefore your data is useless unless the ratio remained the same over the course of the CG (IIRC it didn't). It's not rocket science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom