136 replies to this topic

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

PEEFsmash, on 25 September 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Win/loss will only give us an idea if it is high (1.6/1 or higher) or low (.8 or less).

Out of curiosity. In what are these figures based on?

[Trauglodyte]

Personally, I blame all of the fractional mechs that Allistair fought. Its that damned 0.7 mech that is really throwing things off!

[Artgathan]

PEEFsmash, on 25 September 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Win/loss will only give us an idea if it is high (1.6/1 or higher) or low (.8 or less). Plus what we really need is w/l post-Elo implementation.

To build on this, W/L ratios are easily manipulated by playing in 4-mans whilst in PUGs. You could, for example, get three of your worst friends to play with you (assuming you are a 1337-n0-5c0pe-h34dsh0tt3r capable of carrying a team in a low-Elo environment) and crush PUGs for a few hours to drive your W/L up. (Though your actual Elo wouldn't change, as the matchmaker would be expecting you to win).

[AlmightyAeng]

Great numbers! If other players stuck with 1 weight class for 20 matches and recorded the times played, it'd be great to add these to the data pool! Once we start increasing sample size in 20-like-weight parts, it'd make for drawing some interesting conclusions!

[Joseph Mallan]

Almost a 50% win rate mostly PUGging or as a 2 man team is respectable! <o7>

[Alistair Winter]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 September 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Almost a 50% win rate mostly PUGging or as a 2 man team is respectable! <o7>

How is it respectable? Isn't 50% quite average?

[Joseph Mallan]

Well if you read the forums... Few PUG players are admitting to being close to 50% As Joe I have about as many games as you do IIRC an my drops are mostly with the Law my win percentage is at 60%. The Alt I was running with you on the Volcano map has a slightly better than 50% but only a fraction of the drops.

[PEEFsmash]

Alistair Winter, on 25 September 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

How is it respectable? Isn't 50% quite average?

50% is average, but almost everyone is forced to 50% by Elo, so you could be pretty dang good or really bad with a 50% win loss. Only the best and worst players get an average above 60 or below 40%.

And 12-man winrate is probably more valuable than any other winrate because there, it's nothing but premades =]

[Jman5]

Alistair Winter, on 25 September 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

EDIT: Of all my most played mechs, my YLW has the best KDR and second best W/L ratio. What's up with that?

Do you have a lot of games played with it post-Matchmaker/Elo? I've noticed the mechs I play primarily have relatively modest W/L and KDR. On the flip side, my rarely played Dragon 1-N has a 3.8 W/L ratio. Part of the reason was because I didn't bother playing heavies until I was pretty good at the game so my Heavy Elo was probably way below where it should have been for the first couple dozen games.

Edited by Jman5, 25 September 2013 - 08:30 PM.

[Billygoat]

I think it might be fun to get a few different people to do this. I've just collected data for 20 matches. I'll just recreate your spreadsheet verbatim and enter my data. I'll post results here in the thread when I'm done.

[SgtKinCaiD]

Sorry to announce that but the MM parameters were reverted back to pre-patch, so I think it's invalidating your statistics.

[King Picollo]

Good Stats work keep it up.

Artgathan, on 25 September 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

I've noticed (and I am aware that there may be many biases at work here) that when I play in a Light, I tend to get into matches that have more lights.

I've also seen this (or think i have), everyone seems to say there are less mediums about, but when i drop with my Hunchback there appears to be more mediums than any other weight class.

[Joseph Mallan]

PEEFsmash, on 25 September 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

50% is average, but almost everyone is forced to 50% by Elo, so you could be pretty dang good or really bad with a 50% win loss. Only the best and worst players get an average above 60 or below 40%.

And 12-man winrate is probably more valuable than any other winrate because there, it's nothing but premades =]

LOL I would not say "only the best" are over 60%.

[Alistair Winter]

SgtKinCaiD, on 26 September 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

Sorry to announce that but the MM parameters were reverted back to pre-patch, so I think it's invalidating your statistics.

How so? I'm only doing statistics that illustrate the present, not anything past or future.

Jman5, on 25 September 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Do you have a lot of games played with it post-Matchmaker/Elo? I've noticed the mechs I play primarily have relatively modest W/L and KDR. On the flip side, my rarely played Dragon 1-N has a 3.8 W/L ratio. Part of the reason was because I didn't bother playing heavies until I was pretty good at the game so my Heavy Elo was probably way below where it should have been for the first couple dozen games.

Well, that explains part of it, but I have plenty of other mechs post-matchmaker/ELO that have far worse stats.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 26 September 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[Torarild]

Would be interesting if more people did these tests, but without a reasonable way of knowing our own ELO it will be hard to establish deeper patterns. For all we know we would be sampling only a small fraction of what is acctualy going on on the servers.
Using K\D ratio etc is fairly useless at least, I know Alistair must be higher ELO than me based on our encounters, but my K\D is 3.1 (drop with friends 95% of the time, so thats why). Could be interesting to see what kind of matches and results a fresh account sees compared to an established one, but then again, that might be mostly trial mechs showing up?

[SgtKinCaiD]

Alistair Winter, on 26 September 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

How so? I'm only doing statistics that illustrate the present, not anything past or future.

Yes but the MM have a great impact on the tonnage repartition and the outcome of the match. Thus mixing your first statistics with newer ones will gimp the results.

[Mehlan]

SgtKinCaiD, on 26 September 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Yes but the MM have a great impact on the tonnage repartition and the outcome of the match. Thus mixing your first statistics with newer ones will gimp the results.

It wouldn't 'gimp' anything... it might shift the percentages a tad but that's more dependent on how many samples he takes and time period of which they're taken, and how the data is documented/displayed.

[Alistair Winter]

SgtKinCaiD, on 26 September 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Yes but the MM have a great impact on the tonnage repartition and the outcome of the match. Thus mixing your first statistics with newer ones will gimp the results.

That depends on the purpose of the statistics. If the purpose is to find out about my specific ELO level, then I wouldn't want to mix different ELO levels. If the purpose is to find out about the game in general, then I'd want a random selection of ELO levels. As random as possible.

[The Boz]

Alistair Winter, on 25 September 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

I played 20 matches in Assault mode to test my double gauss Cataphracts. Since I was already gathering statistics for myself, I gathered some general statistics about those 20 random matches.

Needless to say, 20 matches isn't a very big number compared to the thousands and thousands of matches played every day. But PGI isn't sharing a lot of statistics with us lately, and it's a lot of work for fans to gather statistics, so just take it for what it is.

• In these 20 matches, the distribution between weight classes was 22% assault mechs, 44% heavy mechs, 18% medium mechs and 16% light mechs.
  
• On average, the winning team made 11,6 kills and the losing team made 4,7 kills.
  
• The winning players (not counting disconnects) did 279,5 damage each on average while the losing players did 196,9 damage each on average.
  
• In 45% of matches, the winning team had more heavy / assault mechs. In 30% of matches, the winning team had fewer heavy / assault mechs. In 25% of matches, the number of heavy / assault mechs was even.
  
• On average, the winning team had 8,2 heavy / assault mechs, the losing team had 7,6 heavy / assault mechs.
  
• Only 0,3 players disconnected per match. There was no correlation between disconnects and the chance of losing.
  
• 15% of these matches ended by cap.

It should be factored in that I played a heavy mech in all 20 matches, for whatever that's worth.

Spoiler

So yeah. Only 20 matches. Not very meaningful. Interesting to me all the same, so I thought I'd share. Maybe I'll update after 40 matches

May you have all the vajayjay you crave.

[Alistair Winter]

Update after 40 matches. You can read about the 20 last matches specifically in the first post.

• In these 40 matches, the distribution between weight classes was 25% assault mechs, 40% heavy mechs, 18% medium mechs and 17% light mechs.
  
• On average, the winning team made 11,6 kills and the losing team made 4,92 kills.
  
• The winning players (not counting disconnects) did 284,7 damage each on average while the losing players did 209,2 damage each on average.
  
• In 42,5% of matches, the winning team had more heavy / assault mechs. In 30% of matches, the winning team had fewer heavy / assault mechs. In 27,5% of matches, the number of heavy / assault mechs was even.
  
• On average, the winning team had 8,05 heavy / assault mechs, the losing team had 7,53 heavy / assault mechs.
  
• Only 0,175 players disconnected per match. There was no correlation between disconnects and the chance of losing.
  
• 10% of these matches ended by cap.

Spoiler

Conclusion so far:
No real difference between playing as heavy mech or light mech in terms of team composition (assault, heavy, medium light), chance of cap victory, or anything else I can think of.

EDIT:

Note, I played the last 20 matches as a Raven. Also, I've failed to consider the disconnects when looking at the correlation between heavy / assault mechs and the chances of victory.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 26 September 2013 - 06:11 AM.