Interesting stats on number of rounds in a battle (in General)
October 17 2007 6:51 PM EDT
for the last 24h or so, this is how many finished on or before the given round (i.e. 10194 finished in round 1 + 24461 finished in round 2 = 34655 on or before round 2):
n_rounds | count
1 | 10194
2 | 34655
3 | 64877
4 | 94111
5 | 114010
6 | 129613
7 | 141487
8 | 150724
9 | 158021
10 | 163318
11 | 167761
12 | 171676
13 | 174883
14 | 177152
15 | 178954
16 | 180240
17 | 181547
18 | 182461
19 | 183246
20 | 184148
21 | 184813
22 | 185396
23 | 185831
24 | 186048
25 | 187946
out of 191925 total (the rest stalemated).
Anyone care to make a nice graph? :)
October 17 2007 7:14 PM EDT
Very interesting. Nice post Jonathan.
so somewhere between 33 and 50 percent of non-stalemated battles end in ranged? wow!
October 17 2007 7:30 PM EDT
What's interesting to me is that the number of battles that actually go to 25 rounds jumps from the regression line from 24 rounds.
October 17 2007 7:40 PM EDT
Where does HoC factor in?
rounds 1 - 4 I'd guess :)
October 17 2007 7:47 PM EDT
I mean if two teams don't use HoC, then round 4 is melee.
If two teams DO use HoC, then round 4 in still ranged. Or if even one team does.
So, how does that number factor in?
October 17 2007 7:55 PM EDT
hmm, I think that they are combined, as in HOC would be rounds 1-4 and without one, round 4 would be melee.
This could possibly account for the jump at the end? Because the people with HOC would have an extra round and the round 25/26(if HOC) would combine too.
there is no round 26 as far as i know
HoC is round 1, round 2 is round 1 for non HoC, correct?
October 17 2007 10:53 PM EDT
there is no way to separate out hoc rounds from this data. this is just "number of rounds something happened."
October 18 2007 1:13 AM EDT
Oh so HoC doesn't add an extra round in the beginning, it just shifts the switch from range to melee?
so 1-3 ranged (3 rounds) and 4-25 melee (22 rounds) would become 1-4 ranged (4 rounds) and 5-25 melee (21 rounds)?
October 18 2007 1:42 AM EDT
Correct. Stalemates still occur after 25 rounds with HoC [it is not extended to 26 rounds]
October 18 2007 1:59 AM EDT
So if someone with HoC fights someone without HoC, that someone without the HoC only technically has 24 rounds to win?
October 18 2007 2:07 AM EDT
To the best of my knowledge, yes. I don't have any 26 round stalemates :P
October 18 2007 2:33 AM EDT
Did you want something like this?
October 18 2007 2:42 AM EDT
Like Mitt said, round 25 is the interesting one, far more battles seem to end in exactly 25 rounds than expected.
1900 out of nearly 200000?
October 18 2007 2:57 AM EDT
Eh, the lnreg of those points doesn't actually put it that far off, 'cause early on there are some off points as well. Interestingly, four round ends are pretty much exactly how the regression line predicts.
October 18 2007 3:02 AM EDT
Bart suggested I do another graph as it might be of better interest, so this is a graph of the percentage of total versus that particular round:
October 18 2007 3:29 AM EDT
Deviations from the regression in the earlier rounds can be explained but it's quite difficult to explain why there would be more battle finishing in round 25 than any round from 15 - 24. Less battles ending in the early rounds than the regression predicts can be explained because of the difficulties in beating a 4 minion team in less than 4 rounds for example, what would explain the relatively large number of battles finishing in the 25th?
October 18 2007 3:34 AM EDT
i'm happy to say that i finish all my battles (i fight) within 3 rounds... about 2.3 round avg ^.^
October 18 2007 4:05 AM EDT
Wouldn't the number of battles ending in the 25th round be skewed by stalemates thus the difference is to be expected?
Incidentally my average battle on attack is 4.3 rounds and on defense is 7.9
It's an interesting insight considering I run a CoC team and I would assume that I'd prefer longer battles.
Fun numbers though!
October 18 2007 4:17 AM EDT
Stalemates aren't included
October 18 2007 12:08 PM EDT
Something else to keep in mind (though I've not a clue how it factors in) is the "self selecting" mechanism involved in this process. Each player has a different perspective on "acceptable opponent." For me, 10% and up is an acceptable bonus whereas somebody else might fight down to 1% bonus or below. That would change the rate at which fights end to a certain extent. Those I'm getting 1% bonuses on (though I don't fight them very often) I tend to beat quicker than those I'm getting 30% bonuses on.
October 18 2007 12:16 PM EDT
thanks SNK :)
October 18 2007 12:20 PM EDT
So 50-60% of the battles end in ranged, depending on how you look at the numbering of rounds 1-5 with HoC usage. Shocker.
October 18 2007 12:28 PM EDT
What's the function of the initial curve?
October 18 2007 1:11 PM EDT
Any possibility of showing battles where both people are under 500K MPR, and those where at least one person is above 500K MPR? Same thing for 1 million MPR?
Just to see if the trends are the same at various levels of play...
October 18 2007 1:46 PM EDT
Assuming a logarithmic function:
For the Counts vs. Rounds graph: y = 58443Ln(x) + 15329
For the Percentage of Total vs. Rounds graph: y = 30.451Ln(x) + 7.9871
where x = round and y = whatever the y-axis was for that particular graph.
If it matters and it may not, the strategy on Sefton is specifically designed to take advantage of the long combat rounds, and I never finish before round 7, or I should say rarely, I am around 775K MPR something like that
sorry I meant around 725K MPR
October 18 2007 3:14 PM EDT
Hmm... Does this confirm to anyone else that ranged damage is too high?
The whole rationale behind the huge ranged damage was that melee gets more rounds. Well, this graph proves differently. Roughly half the fight taking place are ending before melee. But, eh. Too many variables here to know.
October 18 2007 3:30 PM EDT
Again, Ranged damage is not too high. I believe all my fights should end in 4 rounds or less. Anything to the contrary is uncivilized.
October 18 2007 3:31 PM EDT
*Flexes his melee muscles*
October 18 2007 6:17 PM EDT
What if there was a skill that took away ranged rounds (sneak attack?)....
October 18 2007 6:36 PM EDT
A simple reduction to archer damage [beleg's, high elbs, archery, toA, HoC, EBs altogether is way overdone] should do it if a reduction is to be made. I'm not sure if Jon most battles to all end in 4 or 5 rounds, though. If he does, then no change needs to be made.
Personally, I think the melee component should be more than the ranged component, but what do I know :P
October 19 2007 1:32 PM EDT
I made this most excellent chart and sent it to Jonathan but he seems to have some sort of reluctance to open my Hotmail messages that have attachments. What if this had been important Ombudsman stuff?!?! I realize that SNK already provided some of this but mine has some cool looking mountain shaped data stuff and therefore a much more interesting function for Shade to worry about.
October 19 2007 2:07 PM EDT
Glad you figured that out, NSFY. It really is a nice graph. :)
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002FXm">Interesting stats on number of rounds in a battle</a>