29 matches - by comparison OSS had the most at 471 with most factions being in the 100-200. Druze top 33% had 79% win rate which is a few percent units better than the average across all factions. Old data, though, not applicable in the current environment. For most factions the top 33% scored noticeably different compared to the rest of us (I've seen the ITS rank me in the top 33% but I don't consider myself at home there). I don't think Ieldin ever showed data on number of players.
I'm not actually sure the top 33% of ITS is any more or less useful than the bottom to be fair, it would enhance the weight given to outliers, because you've removed the outliers in the other direction... If we had data for the middle 60, ignoring the top and bottom 20 it would remove the outliers in both extremes. And it would still be useless, because there are too many other variables that can't be accounted for, eg mission type, table layout, optimised lists vs anything close to 6/300 made from what minis were on hand etc.
That's assuming they're extremes in some way. I'd suggest that the higher scoring players tend to use tools that have a higher skill ceiling while the worse players tend to use tools that have a higher skill floor (using floor as "potency when used with minimal expertise" and not as the threshold to use it) - or they are lower scoring players because they're trying to use high threshold tools just because the high scoring players are using them. Looking at both extremes is valuable and cutting out either is not going to go well. The least skilled players represents roughly speaking the new player's experience and thus directly affects the uptake of new players, while the highest scoring players represents the direction that all players are heading into as they attempt to make use of tools more and more efficiently as they gather experience. I know there's a strong sentiment to cut out the highest scoring players' experience, but if you do that you'll end up with a blind spot for the skill ceiling in exactly the same way as only looking at the highest scoring players will give a completely skewed view on skill floor and skill thresholds. And it's not like the high scoring players are going to go away, they'll keep being high scoring players. (I guess there's a reason to look at the average scoring players when balancing a game... I'll get back to you when I figure out what that reason is. Don't hold your breath)
First of all as I see a warning has been issued and adhering to it would be wise, please no public forum member calling As I said in another thread, local (closed) ecosystems can provide a vastly different experience and perspective that does not necessarily align with a global average, or other local ecosystems, a dissonance in experience is to be expected. I am not surprised at all people find questions in the data, but I think they ask the wrong questions.
Assuming playing Infinity is a skill on a bell curve / follows natural distribution, then average players are the majority of players. Seems prudent not to ignore experiences of the biggest group of your clients.
Depends what the situation is. Something isn't fun? Absolutely they can have an opinion on that. Something isn't balanced? Fuck no, don't listen to the mouth breathers they wouldn't know what the fuck balance is if it slapped them.
Yes, but other than generating the most data, what does the data tell you? I'm not so sure this segment of players has too many, if any, unique answers
My guess would be how easy to play a given faction is, when put into context with high-scoring and low-scoring players. A really big gap between high- and middle-scoring players would indicate an excess of trap options with a few good profiles or unusually high skill requirements to get results. A big gap between the low- and middle-scoring players would indicate either some really bad options that most players know to avoid, or a mechanic integral to effective play that is possibly a bit too hard for many to understand.
Running a few sessions of TTS league matches could give some of that info people are needing. Are we doing this and if so why not? I mean look what TTS lets people do with similar games like MCP. https://xavier-protocols.com/2022/07/04/season-8-rosters-stats/
Optimally you should balance for both. You shouldn't cleave so hard to the top performers that a significant segment of factions are unfun or unnecessarily difficult to play at the average level, and you shouldn't balance for the average player in such a way that some tryhard is unbeatable with the same tools.
I'm not receiving a warning because someone else insulted me. Improper handling of statistics can also give a "dissonance" with respect to reality. What are the right questions then?
There's similar stuff that goes on with the ASOIAF miniatures games done by fans, but the designers *really* don't like it because it opens them up to critique.
