| 1 |
[quote]@TinySpider Can you walk me through this thought process? Start with how you got team games data without 1v1 data.[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]@TinySpider Can you walk me through this thought process? Start with how you got team games data without 1v1 data.[/quote]
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
IRL
you
don't
always
have
randomized
controlled
trials,
so
you
try
to
make
statements
about
the
data
that
you
have
like:
if
1v1
data
causes
bias
in
multiplayer
balance,
then
the
ability
to
predict
the
outcome
of
a
battle
ought
to
be
better
if
you
exclude
that
data.
|
3 |
IRL
you
don't
always
have
randomized
controlled
trials,
so
you
try
to
make
statements
about
the
data
that
you
have
like:
if
1v1
data
is
a
poor
predictor
of
multiplayer
skill,
then
the
ability
to
predict
the
outcome
of
a
battle
ought
to
be
better
if
you
exclude
that
data.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
How would you prove that it's better not to include 1v1 data? Everything I've seen suggests that's not the case. You could employ 1000 people to play teams / 1v1 Zero-K for a week, using random teams, and perform a similar analysis. This would be a very valuable dataset for analysis.
|
5 |
How would you prove that it's better not to include 1v1 data? Everything I've seen suggests that's not the case. You could employ 1000 people to play teams / 1v1 Zero-K for a week, using random teams, and perform a similar analysis. This would be a very valuable dataset for analysis.
|
Do 1v1 games improve multiplayer balance