1 |
[q]35 games and 2 com team lost 3 more battles than won.[/q]
|
1 |
[q]35 games and 2 com team lost 3 more battles than won.[/q]
|
2 |
So 16 vs 19. That's not very good evidence of double com being OP, but it's adequate evidence of the double com mechanism being accurately understood by the balancing system.
|
2 |
So 16 vs 19. That's not very good evidence of double com being OP, but it's adequate evidence of the double com mechanism being accurately understood by the balancing system.
|
|
|
3 |
\n
|
|
|
4 |
[q] And spying on one more person involved in this thread(not me), 75 recent games: 44 wins and 31 losses where 2 coms were involved.[/q]
|
|
|
5 |
This seems the only one of the people-samples that diverges from roughly 50% chance. Interesting, but attributable to that guy being on a roll at that point, and even then the effect size seems fairly small.
|
|
|
6 |
\n
|
|
|
7 |
I guess the real takeout here is that double com team is not more likely to [i]lose[/i], it seems.
|