| 1 |
[q]The only number to answer the test is whether more people play when the 22 room or 32 room is full. Should look at same days the year before and month before. When the 22 room isn't full, then the test really is not running. Find the times when the 22 room is full and compare to that same time the year or month before. If when the 22 room is full there are more people playing (PvP or PvE) than that same time the year and month before, then the room limit probably helped. The difficulty is isolating for only times when the 22 room is full.[/q]
|
1 |
[q]The only number to answer the test is whether more people play when the 22 room or 32 room is full. Should look at same days the year before and month before. When the 22 room isn't full, then the test really is not running. Find the times when the 22 room is full and compare to that same time the year or month before. If when the 22 room is full there are more people playing (PvP or PvE) than that same time the year and month before, then the room limit probably helped. The difficulty is isolating for only times when the 22 room is full.[/q]
|
| 2 |
@QuietMute this is the right kind of idea, but as you can see above it is a lot more complicated. Player numbers bounce around in a way that isn't consistent year to year. I am also not sure about limiting ourselves to models in which the room limit only matters when there are more players than the limit. Eyeballing the timeline graph above, you'll probably find that there are more player minutes above the 22 player threshold per-experiment than post-experiment. But is that all that matters? The "at least N players" graph says that, so far, more time is spent at or above 22 players post-experiment.
|
2 |
@QuietMute this is the right kind of idea, but as you can see above it is a lot more complicated. Player numbers bounce around in a way that isn't consistent year to year. I am also not sure about limiting ourselves to models in which the room limit only matters when there are more players than the limit. Eyeballing the timeline graph above, you'll probably find that there are more player minutes above the 22 player threshold per-experiment than post-experiment. But is that all that matters? The "at least N players" graph says that, so far, more time is spent at or above 22 players post-experiment.
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
That said, I'm inclined to agree that Monday the 21st isn't that relevant to the experiment. This day failed to have a game larger than 8v8. It probably would have gone like this either way. But I keep in mind that people may or may not have shown up to play because of the changed room limit.
|
4 |
That said, I'm inclined to agree that Monday the 21st isn't that relevant to the experiment. This day failed to have a game larger than 8v8. It probably would have gone like this either way. But I keep in mind that people may or may not have shown up to play because of the changed room limit.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
[q]If there is less than 16 players in a TAW match I exit and go play BAR, so I feel like you are not correct in assuming large matches are "bad for Zero-K".[/q]
|
6 |
[q]If there is less than 16 players in a TAW match I exit and go play BAR, so I feel like you are not correct in assuming large matches are "bad for Zero-K".[/q]
|
| 7 |
@Hellaciouss then perhaps you'll support a 22 player room limit, if the early results hold up. Because there are consistently more games of 16 players or larger.
|
7 |
@Hellaciouss then perhaps you'll support a 22 player room limit, if the early results hold up. Because there are consistently more games of 16 players or larger.
|
|
|
8 |
\n
|
|
|
9 |
[q]Thank you, @GoogleFrog, for creating those updates. When this discussion started you made clear that you expect support in many aspects of changes are done. Yet you are who provides thoughtful and data-based analysis. I don't think I could do this due to not having access to the data, but even if I could, I'm very thankful that you still do that for the good of the community. [/q]
|
|
|
10 |
Thanks @madez. I should point out though that everyone has access to the data. I'm not even doing the sophisticated scraping that allows for the 1v1 stats tool or the team game analyser. I just went to the replays page, held Page Down until I hit the start of the year, and copied the page into a text file.
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K