Rock, Paper, Scissors and bias

[ShortFingerIvankaFondler]

Complaints about bias dominate this forum, the WoWs subreddit and CC vids on Youtube. Some of the bias complaints are more valid than others but all seem beside the point. World of Warships is an arcade shooter on the surface but at base, it is a complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. If the point of the game is to win, then as long as everyone has equal access to the various Rocks, Papers and Scissors, it does not matter which is overpowered. If Rock is overpowered, play Rock and avoid Scissors. Choose your weapon based on the current meta and adjust fire as and when the meta shifts.

 

 

[Bilgetwidget]

1 hour ago, Impotus45 said:

Complaints about bias dominate this forum, the WoWs subreddit and CC vids on Youtube. Some of the bias complaints are more valid than others but all seem beside the point. World of Warships is an arcade shooter on the surface but at base, it is a complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. If the point of the game is to win, then as long as everyone has equal access to the various Rocks, Papers and Scissors, it does not matter which is overpowered. If Rock is overpowered, play Rock and avoid Scissors. Choose your weapon based on the current meta and adjust fire as and when the meta shifts.

     Obviously. Why? Because most of the variations of "bias", or "balans"™ we see over time are intentional to leverage WG's frustration model. Suckers always jump on the new shiny in hope of gaining that elusive magic iwin button. Imbalance, and even the perception of it,  makes money. Not just in this game. It's a standard business practice.

[warheart1992]

So every high tier battle should be Smolensk and Kremlin only based on that logic?

[thebigblue]

28 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

So every high tier battle should be Smolensk and Kremlin only based on that logic?

How fun, AND engaging!

[Ace_04]

53 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

So every high tier battle should be Smolensk and Kremlin only based on that logic?

Don't forget about middle brother Stalingrad.

[Cheese_und_Krackers]

58 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

     Obviously. Why? Because most of the variations of "bias", or "balans"™ we see over time are intentional to leverage WG's frustration model. Suckers always jump on the new shiny in hope of gaining that elusive magic iwin button. Imbalance, and even the perception of it,  makes money. Not just in this game. It's a standard business practice.

Are you suggesting that "real" players are not seeking OP ships for an advantage in battles? That's the whole damn idea of naval warfare, LOL!

[loco_max]

2 hours ago, Everhandy said:

Are you suggesting that "real" players are not seeking OP ships for an advantage in battles? That's the whole damn idea of naval warfare, LOL!

thank you Everhandy, one honest post among all the chronic and sorrow hypocrisy...let me add that many in this Forum refuse the best (and unique) metrics that we players have to assess ships impact in battle. Metrics are replaced by personal opinions endorsed by WR of 'the ones that know the true'. 

[mpwardawg]

9 minutes ago, loco_max said:

thank you Everhandy, one honest post among all the chronic and sorrow hypocrisy...let me add that many in this Forum refuse the best (and unique) metrics that we players have to assess ships impact in battle. Metrics are replaced by personal opinions endorsed by WR of 'the ones that knows the true'. 

Ahh so you are claiming French bias with that number 1 ship eh?   

In all seriousness I appreciate actual data being posted.  It is easy to just hear multiple complaints about a particular ship and think there is a huge problem with the game.   

[iRA6E]

These forums wouldn't know balance if it stomped them in the nether regions......   Incredulously , every single unbalanced ship here just happens to be something besides an USN ship. To my knowledge I can't remember reading one single complaint about one of those....  Well perhaps Midway?  But CV complaints enter a whole new realm of fantasy imbalance that has little to do with actual in-game performance?   Clearly there's a ton of Bias on the NA forums....  little of it has to do with any ships that Lesta drops out.   FTR IMO.. True balance would be boring as hell, as well as every Unicum's wet dream and the other 95%'s worst nightmare.   Players in these type games spend time and money seeking out the next thing that gives them an edge...  Rest assured there will always be a next thing that will..  

[Wasaboi]

2 hours ago, Impotus45 said:

Complaints about bias dominate this forum, the WoWs subreddit and CC vids on Youtube. Some of the bias complaints are more valid than others but all seem beside the point. World of Warships is an arcade shooter on the surface but at base, it is a complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. If the point of the game is to win, then as long as everyone has equal access to the various Rocks, Papers and Scissors, it does not matter which is overpowered. If Rock is overpowered, play Rock and avoid Scissors. Choose your weapon based on the current meta and adjust fire as and when the meta shifts.

 

 

That is not how multiplayer gaming works with a YOLO ruleset.

That is why the game has the worst balance seen in gaming. You have 3 archetypes (ship types) which do not adhere to risk vs reward. You have BBs and CVs which are Low Risk : High Reward, and DDs which are High Risk : Low reward. That is okay, *****IF***** the game was built around multiple respawns like your average Call of Duty or Battlefield game etc. Even (W.T.) devs understood that they were not going to strictly balance based on risk vs reward because it would be too complex for their "simulation" style, and yet... because they understood this... there IS a respawn system of sorts.

WoWs does not have a respawn system but it is also ARCADE... so they have no excuse.. You die in a match, that is it for your ability to influence the outcome of the match, and impact it further (obviously there are outliers like torpedoes that were fired before death). Due to this ruleset, the game has to be balanced STRICTLY to risk vs reward. You can't have such a ruleset and have a ship type that is essentially designed to sit UNSPOTTED half-way/all the way across the map that can also reach the other side of the map with their ordinance with little to no risk to their own ship (i.e. CVs and BBs). It is anti-thesis to balance in this format.


Lastly, the game WAS based on rock-paper-scissors back in pre-launch phases and early launch months. Unfortunately, due to the high amount of blunders by WG the game doesn't even have a valid balance model currently.

[loco_max]

1 hour ago, mpwardawg said:

Ahh so you are claiming French bias with that number 1 ship eh?   

In all seriousness I appreciate actual data being posted.  It is easy to just hear multiple complaints about a particular ship and think there is a huge problem with the game.   

Everybody is biased, stats are less. I do not have anything against any high impact ship.  I prefer any metric to any opinion, especially when it comes to OP. 

[Fortytwo_to_4and2]

2 hours ago, Everhandy said:

Are you suggesting that "real" players are not seeking OP ships for an advantage in battles? That's the whole damn idea of naval warfare, LOL!

This is NOT naval warfare. It's a video game that poorly approximates naval warfare. Truthfully, it's world of tanks with multiple main guns and an inability to climb hills. 

Some of us are here because we like the ship models. Truthfully, I don't grind lines because of their relative power. I grind them because I find the ships within them historically interesting. 

[Fortytwo_to_4and2]

2 hours ago, loco_max said:

thank you Everhandy, one honest post among all the chronic and sorrow hypocrisy...let me add that many in this Forum refuse the best (and unique) metrics that we players have to assess ships impact in battle. Metrics are replaced by personal opinions endorsed by WR of 'the ones that knows the true'. 

The problem with the stats are two fold.

1. The number of battles. Ohio looks overpowered, but it's got less than 50k battles in your screen shot. Meanwhile, Conq has almost 1.2 million. The sample size is skewed. Put Ohio out there that much and it might falter.

2. Player skill. Ohio, as I understand it, is only available if you grind through the American BB line, twice. My bet is that only more skilled players have done that. 

[KilljoyCutter]

Put RPS out of your mind as a functional tool for game design or balance.

The only thing that RPS is good for balancing... is actual rock-paper-scissors. 

 

[loco_max]

7 minutes ago, CrownoftheFleet said:

The problem with the stats are two fold.

1. The number of battles. Ohio looks overpowered, but it's got less than 50k battles in your screen shot. Meanwhile, Conq has almost 1.2 million. The sample size is skewed. Put Ohio out there that much and it might falter.

2. Player skill. Ohio, as I understand it, is only available if you grind through the American BB line, twice. My bet is that only more skilled players have done that. 

This ^.

Yet Stats are more objective than opinions...my preferred Stat  is number of battles, that’s tell you a lot.  Of course you got to compare ships that were introduced  +/- one or two patches. The best way to compare same type of ships is to rank then by number of battles and aver damage. There are other combinations...

[Fortytwo_to_4and2]

3 minutes ago, loco_max said:

Yet Stats are more objective than opinions.

I like your use of the word "more" in this context. As Samuel Clemens said there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." If you don't operate under the same set of assumptions and/or normalize your numbers, statistics can say or be used to say whatever you want them to. 

[loco_max]

7 minutes ago, CrownoftheFleet said:

I like your use of the word "more" in this context. As Samuel Clemens said there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." If you don't operate under the same set of assumptions and/or normalize your numbers, statistics can say or be used to say whatever you want them to. 

Fully agree. This is why you need to combine many metrics. Excluding ships with low number of battles or avoidIng comparison between different types of ships. Yet metrics are always less biased than opinions.

[Snargfargle]

4 hours ago, Impotus45 said:

it is a complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I

Most computer games are just variations of Rock, Paper, Scissors.

For instance,

Age of Empires:

• Skirmishers beat Heavy Infantry
• Heavy Infantry beat Cavalry
• Cavalry beat Skirmishers
• Cannon beat Infantry
• Cavalry beat Cannon

 

[Wasaboi]

23 minutes ago, loco_max said:

This ^.

Yet Stats are more objective than opinions...my preferred Stat  is number of battles, that’s tell you a lot.  Of course you got to compare ships that were introduced  +/- one or two patches. The best way to compare same type of ships is to rank then by number of battles and aver damage. There are other combinations...

Number of battles and amount of owners are important to determine the bias in the sample, and reduce it if possible. 

However, you do not have to compare ships that were introduced within the same or similar timeframe. Additionally, comparing ships to other ships of the same type only is also contradictory to proper data analysis as it is not basing a comparison on the scope of interactions. This is the same fallacious comparison WG makes all the time.

Since all ships interact with all ship types in the primary game mode, the performance of all ships must be compared to the performance of all ships from all types limited only by tier to prevent purposefully injecting bias (e.g. Tier 9s can face Tier 7s but Tier 10s cannot, etc). This is substantiated as balance is determined via the balance range, or essentially the mode for central tendency distribution which creates a sub-set. By utilizing this "balance range" balance can be achieved without requiring homogenization of the archetypes (e.g. every ship doing the same exact damage, and having the same exact health pool and armor values).

The variables, or metrics that are observed for performance are just that, performance trends of the ship based on the impact and relationship said performance has with match result. Win Rate and Spotting Damage, for instance, are NOT performance metrics and cannot be used for balance conclusions in the current game format. Average Damage, Kills, and Survival rate are the Tier (1) Performance metrics and any ship which is not designed to perform adequately in at least two of those areas is flat out unviable/underpowered (like most high tier DDs which perform below the bottom end of the "balance range").

 

 

https://medium.com/@a.mstv/game-balancing-data-driven-approach-c3d8a81b487

 

https://deltadna.com/blog/balancing-game-data-player-data/

 

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/22797

 

https://data36.com/statistical-bias-types-explained/

 

https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/statistical-noise/

 

https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/measures-central-tendency-mean-mode-median.php

[Bilgetwidget]

3 hours ago, Everhandy said:

Are you suggesting that "real" players are not seeking OP ships for an advantage in battles? That's the whole damn idea of naval warfare, LOL!

     Not being a Scot, I have no interest in No True Scotsman. However, being a retired naval officer, I think I have a pretty good handle on real-world naval warfare.

     What I am suggesting, if anything, is that there is no truer business maxim than, "There's a sucker born every minute."

[Cheese_und_Krackers]

5 hours ago, loco_max said:

thank you Everhandy, one honest post among all the chronic and sorrow hypocrisy...let me add that many in this Forum refuse the best (and unique) metrics that we players have to assess ships impact in battle. Metrics are replaced by personal opinions endorsed by WR of 'the ones that know the true'. 

Our views are not popular among these parts. Typical of curmudgeon infested forums. The old guard, resisting change.

[Enpra]

The problem here is not RPS mechanics. It's that some rocks are pumice, others are hunks of lead, some obsidian, and so on. Some games would help compensate for this with resource/point values, but WoWs is not one of those games.

Also the game isn't really all that RPS-like. CVs exist. Missouri exists (has a counter for its counter). Friesland exists (counters its own class, and not the class its class supposedly counters). Slow CAs without radar exist (don't actually particularly counter what they supposedly counter; at least not without spotting help).

[Cheese_und_Krackers]

1 hour ago, So_lt_Goes said:

     Not being a Scot, I have no interest in No True Scotsman. However, being a retired naval officer, I think I have a pretty good handle on real-world naval warfare.

     What I am suggesting, if anything, is that there is no truer business maxim than, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Ok, maybe you're right let's see.

Statistically, the annual CBR (crude birth rate) for the USA (let's use the USA as an example) is about 15/1000 population.  The US population is about 327.2 Million. So that's 327,200 births per year or 896 births per day or about 0.62 people born every minute. So for the maxim to be anywhere near true, there would be a sucker born roughly every minute and a half and it also would leave little room for non-suckers. Assuming a sucker to non-sucker (such as yourself I'm sure) ratio of 1:2, there would actually be a sucker born every 3 minutes. Or, you can just say that everyone born every minute and a half in the good ole USA is a sucker, which would include everyone on this forum. Which is it?

Alright, let's just say what I think you mean, there's a lot of suckers out there but how many? Are there enough suckers in the general population to warrant applying that business "maxim" as a model for profitability for a digital war game given the player base is at least educated enough to use a computer and most beyond that level? I think not. I think two other P.T. Barnum quotes should also be taken into consideration. #1: “The noblest art is that of making others happy” and #2: “Comfort is the enemy of progress.” - P.T. Barnum

Clearly, progress is not making some people happy so they have to attack those that are by calling them suckers.

[ShortFingerIvankaFondler]

4 minutes ago, Everhandy said:

Ok, maybe you're right let's see.

Statistically, the annual CBR (crude birth rate) for the USA (let's use the USA as an example) is about 15/1000 population.  The US population is about 327.2 Million. So that's 327,200 births per year or 896 births per day or about 0.62 people born every minute. So for the maxim to be anywhere near true, there would be a sucker born roughly every minute and a half and it also would leave little room for non-suckers. Assuming a sucker to non-sucker (such as yourself I'm sure) ratio of 1:2, there would actually be a sucker born every 3 minutes. Or, you can just say that everyone born every minute and a half in the good ole USA is a sucker, which would include everyone on this forum. Which is it?

Alright, let's just say what I think you mean, there's a lot of suckers out there but how many? Are there enough suckers in the general population to warrant applying that business "maxim" as a model for profitability for a digital war game given the player base is at least educated enough to use a computer and most beyond that level? I think not. I think two other P.T. Barnum quotes should also be taken into consideration. #1: “The noblest art is that of making others happy” and #2: “Comfort is the enemy of progress.” - P.T. Barnum

Clearly, progress is not making some people happy so they have to attack those that are by calling them suckers.

The obvious flaw in your estimate is parochialism. Barnum asserted a fool born every minute but didn't limit the fools to the United States. The US may average .62 births per minute but the worldwide average is something like 243/minute. If you think that only one of the 243 people born per minute is a fool, then you are one of Barnum's fools. Oh, and Barnum was a starry eyed optimist.

[Cheese_und_Krackers]

3 minutes ago, Impotus45 said:

The obvious flaw in your estimate is parochialism. Barnum asserted a fool born every minute but didn't limit the fools to the United States. The US may average .62 births per minute but the worldwide average is something like 243/minute. If you think that only one of the 243 people born per minute is a fool, then you are one of Barnum's fools. Oh, and Barnum was a starry eyed optimist.

I don't think that makes sense. #1, he didn't say "fool" he said "sucker". #2, his market was not the world, his market was local and that which was within walking and/or riding distance (lived before automobile era) of his circus. The world population would have absolutely no bearing on his calculation, none, zip, zero. That's an assumption on your part.

Does being optimistic in business imply selfishness or greed because in order for one to profit (as the maxim goes), the sucker must necessarily be duped out of his cash? So, clearly his optimism didn't extend to the benefit of his customers or did it? "As a general thing, I have not 'duped the world' nor attempted to do so... I have generally given people the worth of their money twice told." - P.T. Barnum. If that is true, why did he say there was a sucker born every minute? Maybe he felt that tricking people out of their money was good for them in the long run, like an education?

Is WG duping suckers or giving the people the worth of their money? In the end, that depends on your perspective I suppose but calling people bailing the lifeboat while you man the rudder "suckers", is in my mind a bit condescending don't you think?