Comp Mode OT posts

13»

Comments

  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    7v7 was far and away the least popular bracket when TWL was up and running competitions for AAPG. 5v5 was most active, 3v3 less so, 7v7 the least. I very much doubt that an 8v8 mode is going to be popular or do anything at all to increase participation in competitions.
  • SSKnecaboSSKnecabo Posts: 2,721Player
    edited June 2015
    I wonder why 4v4 is a thing however. Only played like 10 scrims/matches of that but I'd prefer 5v5 over that any day. Might be great on maps like Crossfire though.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 630Player
    I prefer 4 due to history of competition in AA.Comms and strats are better imo. Also : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireteam

    4 or less :)
    AAPG is good!
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    I know FN originally went with 4v4 because we were hoping more clans would be able to field 4 than 5. There were also discussions about whether the BDX maps generally played better with 4 or 5.

    Given that DoTA, LoL, R6:Siege, CS... all go with 5v5, that's where I'd like to see the game return. Teams should be able to easily migrate between titles. If I've got a 5-man team and want to try AA, what do I tell the fifth guy?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 630Player
    I would say : cheerlead [TOS Violation] !! :)

    Joke aside,5 is cool too but 4 feels more "normal" to ME .
    AAPG is good!
  • K!Dz.applePIEK!Dz.applePIE Posts: 1,050Player
    BCPull wrote: »
    7v7 was far and away the least popular bracket when TWL was up and running competitions for AAPG. 5v5 was most active, 3v3 less so, 7v7 the least. I very much doubt that an 8v8 mode is going to be popular or do anything at all to increase participation in competitions.

    yes and this outcome is only because of the early beta players are the current comp players.
    I still believe it could motivate other fun clans with 10+ members to actually play comps on larger maps..

    BCPull I really do not know if you have studied statistics at some point, but you pick very selected facts/numbers to prove a point.

    Back in AA2, there was a huge competition scene outside of TWL and ESL. It was done between pub/fun clubs, on a single map sometimes. And there were lots of clans joining those private tournaments.
    Why be against the option in comp mode? So what.. let us have the option 6v6 to 8v8 for flo map in comp mode..

    You dont have to play it yourselves.. does it hurt you in anyway?
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    BCPull wrote: »
    7v7 was far and away the least popular bracket when TWL was up and running competitions for AAPG. 5v5 was most active, 3v3 less so, 7v7 the least. I very much doubt that an 8v8 mode is going to be popular or do anything at all to increase participation in competitions.
    BCPull I really do not know if you have studied statistics at some point, but you pick very selected facts/numbers to prove a point.
    Yes... quite a lot of it, actually. I don't know what that has to do with saying the 7v7 AAPG ladder wasn't popular.

    This isn't AA2. I'm going by what has been popular over the course of AAPG, not what was popular a decade ago, in offering input on the future of AAPG competition support.

    The topic started with an official AA game mode supporting competition and what makes sense to support. That ties into other aspects of the game too. A map doesn't easily support play with widely divergent numbers of players so, yes, trying to support too many options *does* create the potential for harm by splitting limited resources.
  • K!Dz.applePIEK!Dz.applePIE Posts: 1,050Player
    edited June 2015
    well if you did.. as then I wonder why you come up with numbers that dont matter statistically ?

    1- AAPG is beta.. and the number of players who played Comp in early stages of beta surely will not represent the hoped future number of players. So that comparison is useless to prove a point from statistical point of view.
    2- I asked the question, cos in another topic you took the number of all registered players as ceiling to come up with a very low percentage, where in fact you know that this ceiling number shouldn't be used at all statistically if you wanna find the real percentage of haxxors in game. But you didn't bother with it (I am telling this, cos you mentioned you did study statistics) cos this way your percentage came out as an insignificant number...

    This isn't aa2, but hey newsflash, it does wanna reconnect to the popularity of aa2.. so its a good start to mention facts out of a time where player-base was not a problem in game..

    And I know from many clans out there (fun/pub clans) that they would like to do comp in flo maps.. and not bdx..

    But ok.. lets do all so we can have only bdx comp.. and hope the game does grow in numbers..

  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    Activity overall's been relatively flat. It's fluctuated +-100 concurrents from about 700, but numbers really haven't changed very much.

    You suggest that, with more players, the popularity of a 7v7 mode would be different and that the low population size early in beta is to blame. I say that sampling error is relatively low because there were still tens of thousands of active accounts and relative participation in 5v5 versus 7v7 wouldn't change much. There are some other questions that could be asked about the distribution of clan size as a function of game size, but I don't expect game population size to be the determining factor there. Build a game with only 4v4 maps and you'll get clan sizes that reflect that. Build a game with 64v64 battlefields and you'll see larger clans form.


    Regarding the other topic --
    There are only a few decent ways to look at the prevalence of dirty players in the population. One is to take a holistic view, looking at [total, dirty players] / [total, all players]. This is easy and reasonably accurate.

    A second way is to weight accounts based on time played and try to estimate what fraction of total game time is spent with players using, ahem, assistance. This is very hard to do. It's easy to calculate how long players have played overall, but data on how long players play before getting caught isn't available. It's also difficult to look up how long caught players played (since the game doesn't have a stats API and since exhaustive banlists aren't publicly available). This would be the best way to address your concern about short-lived accounts, but it isn't really feasible.

    A third way is to try to look at the active population, but this is inherently flawed because ... if we could detect the dirty players in the active population, they wouldn't still be in it. You were trying to do this by looking at server logins, but it isn't reliable. There are selection bias issues and detection shortcomings.

    Comparing lifetime totals from one game to another is statistically sound.
  • K!Dz.applePIEK!Dz.applePIE Posts: 1,050Player
    now you are talking more sense.. but the holistic view is way inaccurate regarding this game (being free game, where ppl have many smurf accounts + the dead accounts as you mentioned)

    third way is IMO not completely flawed if you correct the active population numbers before the essential calculation, this shouldn't be determined via daily online players of course.

    Of course there could be the assumption that caught cheaters dropped the game and do not touch it again. (which I really do not believe, cos so far any account I checked which was banned had a new linked account. But surely I did not check 1000 accounts- so the number is not revised)

    But if you consider the relative fluctuation of active players on daily basis being around 700 and assume 50 haxxor being online actively(from the combined pool of caught cheaters and uncaught cheaters bypassing pb protection - not including the second+ account haxxors) I think the percentage of it looks quite grimy.

    Sure there is my subjective experience as well. I really felt I had less fishy players on my server between 2002-2006 than I had in AAPG in the last 3 months. I know this is bs number wise.. but it sure feels that way somewhat.
Sign In or Register to comment.