1v1 Matchup data for 9th to 17th of May

amphib is legit, look at some recent randy games hes been trying to make it a thing and it works

archer perma stun locks kodachis and does decently enough vs blitz also then u have grizz/buoy which destroys cyclops big time

he beat me on gecko isle quite decisively with amphib, which is a map where I beat him quite decisively beforehand with same lab (tanks)

definitely no issue with amphib fac

the only good use for buoy is vs reapers anyway,if they attack lol

I really don't think we can draw any conclusions from games that are not 2500+(below this is E-stall-K) and <100 elo difference. Things get sooo lopsided around ~200 elo difference that balance doesn't matter for shit when the higher elo player just wins due to being so much better.

This data would have much more validity if it adjusted for player WHR and if that caused deviation from expected winrates.

Plus, with such a small sample size for each matchup, you can't honestly claim anything. Yes the winratio might be .64, but it is wrong to say that statistically and rather say its .64 +- .333 or whatever, giving a probability that the true value is in between .33 and .98 or whatever, making these numbers effectively useless.

Anarchid
Not sure if my brain is farting, but I don't see how removing mirror matches from the data can reduce win-rate (tank-k data set).

The population being removed is by definition 50% winrate no? So removing it from the 55% winrate data should increase overall winrate, not reduce it?

Each Tank v Tank game counted as 1 Tank game, therefore ensuring a 100% win rate and distorting figures. Not sure why they left such a bad figure in but w/e

As others have pointed out, Anarchid has processed the data incorrectly. We can use what they have written to correct the error.

There are 134 games in which tanks were picked and 75 of those games were won by a tank picker. In games where only one side picked tanks there were 50 wins.

• Therefore thare 25 games in which both sides picked tanks.
• Therefore tanks were picked 159 times overall.
• Therefore the correct winrate for tanks is 75/159 = 0.472.

I'll make some tables from the new raw data shortly.

Tank is dominating at lower levels, if you call 53.87% dominating, but it is also quite popular. Surprisingly, Tank and Amph are unfavoured at higher levels. A deeper look is required to see if there are systematic biases in the data. Perhaps people 'tryhard' when facing better players and so pick tanks.

I think it is safe to say that Tank is strong against Cloaky. As the two most common picks they see a lot of play and the matchup table says that Tank wins around 60% of the time. A fairly simple change would be to make Blitz 2-shot Glaive and, given the data, I think it is worth doing fairly soon.

I think nerfing blitz range would be healthier than a 50% nerf against glaive because range reduces the number of blitzes capable of firing simultaneously, slightly lowering its balling power. Also it lets riots do a bit more damage.

Alternatively, longer reload time would mean less glaives die per second also without requiring huge jumps like 2x shots needed.

OTOH, Kodachi reks glaives anyway.

I was actually just searching posts to see how often you guys post game matchup data. So excited to see that you just added so much more. I've spent a lot of time since I first saw this - trying to analyze the statistical implications to try to figure out if it's relevant to balance or not. Its actually an really interesting question, and just the kind of thing I like mulling over.

The problem comes down largely to selection bias. If there was extra "mystery factory" button ingame to place your first factory as random (in the name of science of course) that would be a different story. (Now that I think about it, even then there would be plenty of selection bias because which map you felt like going random on, and how wasted you are when you choose random, and maybe tanks are easier to play wasted).

But even then, if the choice of "choosing random" was forced and randomized, even then you'd still have plenty of factors like gameplay-meta and preconceptions-of-the-day affecting gameplay, although I suppose that just needs to be accepted as unavoidable.

Before I go any further, I have to say that it's extremely impressive how close to 50% these are. 53% considered dominating? I think you can call that a success and give yourself a pat on the back, at least for that specific number. Sure the wind may be blowing at 1.2 kph right now and you're worried you're not optimized, but in 30 seconds the wind's gonna change to 2.0 anyway. E.G. tiny optimizations will be nothing compared to the flow of meta. Someone could post a lobster meme thread tomorrow, boost amph usage across the board 30%, even on maps amph clearly shouldn't be used on (although I'm curious about that Amph-stealth-OP hypothesis :D ), and consequently see amph win ratio decrease 7% for a month.

But, the juiciest part: biases that could affect the data that we have here. For instance, let's say people like going gunships for fun, you'll see them played even on maps that they might be only a suboptimal 40% on. If you buff gunships to compensate for these win reductions, then there might be even worse maps that people are now willing to have fun with gunships on, and create a self-reinforcing balance nightmare. And the opposite goes for facs people don't prefer.

Was gonna add more, will maybe do so later.

Shield 60% win-rate at 2000+?