 |
https://i.redd.it/9q3fs00nb3w11.png Following on from this post, I had the idea for a different, more intuitive way of looking at civ strength - Elo! Normally we think of Elo as being a proxy for a player's strength, and the civ they are using is a conduit for that. But we can equally think of civs as having strength, and the player is a conduit for the strength of the civ. In other words, we can calculate Elo for each civ. Just as with the Elo system when applied to players, this has the advantage that it takes into account a civ's performance against stronger or weaker civs, so gives a more accurate overall impression of civ strength. It also gives us an intuitive benchmark for the relative strength of different civs. How was the Elo calculated? I used the standard Elo calculation with a K factor of 16, and initial ratings of 1600. The calculations then stepped through, match by match, in exactly the same way as Elo is calculated on Voobly (note: HD uses a different system at the moment, which is technically known as the "Wat u say? idk!!! maeb 0??" system). Rather than considering civs independently, though, I treated them and their player as a team, to try to balance out any noisiness introduced by imbalanced player match-ups. One advantage of an Elo approach is that we can chart it over time, which is fun. Unfortunately a chart with all of the civs on is a little tricky to parse, so I've split the civs into four groups alphabetically - the one above is Franks through Khmer. You can see all the charts here. The numbers in the legend are the average Elo for the civ over the last two months. And if we plug, say, Franks vs Khmer into an Elo calculator we get ~0.76 - which is a little less than the estimated range in my last post (which makes sense, given that Franks seem to be slightly stronger vs Khmer specifically than their overall strength). How does it compare to player Elos? My first thought when looking at these charts was that there seems to be a lot of noise in the Elo. I wanted to see how this compares to the Elo system when applied to players as calculated by Voobly. As a reference point, I used the player everyone agrees is the most consistent over time: Our Lord and Savior, Constant as the Northern Star in His Majesty, King Daut. I also included some other scrubs (including the most active player on the ladder, Dracont). https://i.redd.it/32d7q7m5c3w11.png Our Lord and Savior is, as everyone already knows, 100% consistent. But the scrubs consistently vary by 100-200 Elo, even T90 when in full try-hard mode shooting for 2k. That is around the same as the noise in the civ Elo chart, which is encouraging! Also note on the player Elo chart you can see very clearly when TheViper tried (and definitively failed) to reach the eternal 2k8 level of Our Lord and Savior. Can we see anything useful? One really nice thing about the Elo charts is that it gives us an easy way of looking at civ performance over time. In this chart you see quite nicely that Koreans rise up to ~1650, and then right around when the nerf went live, start dropping to around 1580. https://i.redd.it/lruprivbc3w11.png The last question I have relating to this data at the moment is whether the effect of civ is actually comparable to player Elo more generally. In other words, can a weaker Elo player really make up a 200 point Elo deficit in a Franks vs Khmer matchup? But that will be another post... All charts 1700-2000: All; Aztecs-Ethiopian; Franks-Khmer; Koreans-Portuguese; Saracens-Vikings 2000+: All; Aztecs-Ethiopian; Franks-Khmer; Koreans-Portuguese; Saracens-Vikings [link] [comments] |
from newest submissions : aoe2 https://ift.tt/2qp2vj0
No comments :
Post a Comment