EPTHearthstone General Discussion - Page 12
| Forum Index > Hearthstone General |
|
unsoundlogic
United States391 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On January 13 2014 06:48 obesechicken13 wrote: I think it would still be a zero sum game. Every win has an equivalent loss to it. 1:1 is 3:3. Yay averageness! I don't think it's 3:3. Some players win many more than 6 games, but the most you lose in a row is 3. So you can go 0:3, but you can also go 12:3. So the average wins is probably much closer to 2 than to 3. This is because every time someone goes above average, say 6 wins, 7 wins, etc - a ton of people get a loss. 3 people go 5-0 5 people go 0-3 the average wins in this scenario is 1.875. it doesn't average out like some of you are saying it does On January 13 2014 06:36 Flakes wrote: So I was talking about the arena format with my dad, theorizing about the "average score" of people who play arenas. My initial assumption was that it was 3-3 because it was a zero-sum game, but he brought up the point that a player who does worse can requeue sooner, and finish three 1-3 rounds in the time it takes one person to go 12-0, thus raising the average score of everyone to somewhere above 3-3. Kinda interesting, though disappointing that I can't say to myself "yes, above average!" at 4 wins now  4 wins is likely far above average | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
On January 13 2014 06:55 canikizu wrote: It's still zero sum though. In the grand scheme, the guy still goes 3-9, and a collection of people he matches against go 9-3. It's the same for a guy who goes 9-3 against a collection of people who goes 3-9 against him. He's saying that it's basically a running ponzi scheme. The mean score will be 3-3 but the median score is higher. | ||
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
Maybe "average performance" would be a better term? p.s. I never learned statistics | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:20 travis wrote: I don't think it's 3:3. Some players win many more than 6 games, but the most you lose in a row is 3. So you can go 0:3, but you can also go 12:3. So the average wins is probably much closer to 2 than to 3. This is because every time someone goes above average, say 6 wins, 7 wins, etc - a ton of people get a loss. 3 people go 5-0 5 people go 0-3 the average wins in this scenario is 1.875. it doesn't average out like some of you are saying it does 4 wins is likely far above average While I don't have a rigorous proof, your example still has a 1 w/l ratio. There are 15 wins in total and 15 losses in total. 15/15=1 which is the average w/l rate. I don't know why you talk about average wins. Maybe we're thinking of different things, because I admit that be 15 wins over 8 people but it would also not have any bearing on a zero sum game? | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:28 Flakes wrote: I was talking about average score for the playerbase being the average of everyone's individual average score, which I think would be slightly higher than 3-3. Maybe "average performance" would be a better term? p.s. I never learned statistics Average wins across the entire population will be slightly less than 3.0 because every person who goes 12-0/1/2 will skew the average wins downwards towards 2.4(average will probably still be in the 2.98+ range though because of how few people go 12/X) Average score for the playerbase though I think would vary immensely. If you took it for the top 5% of arena players, it would probably be in the 7-8 range, for the bottom 5%, I think it would be below 1. | ||
|
Pooshlmer
United States1001 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:29 obesechicken13 wrote: While I don't have a rigorous proof, your example still has a 1 w/l ratio. There are 15 wins in total and 15 losses in total. 15/15=1 which is the average w/l rate. I don't know why you talk about average wins. Maybe we're thinking of different things, because I admit that be 15 wins over 8 people but it would also not have any bearing on a zero sum game? Because that's what your quoted post was talking about? Since people exist who go more than 6 wins, the average win count (wins/run) has to be lower than 3. | ||
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:45 Amui wrote: Average score for the playerbase though I think would vary immensely. If you took it for the top 5% of arena players, it would probably be in the 7-8 range, for the bottom 5%, I think it would be below 1. Yeah you're right, there's no easy way to tell how much people play at different skill levels, so I can't assume that the bottom players were feeding everyone else wins, or that the top players played more games because they lost less (there can't be both equal runs + equal matches played). | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:46 Pooshlmer wrote: Because that's what your quoted post was talking about? Since people exist who go more than 6 wins, the average win count (wins/run) has to be lower than 3. 9-3, 0-3, 1-3, 2-3. Average is still 3 wins. The only time where it doesn't average to 3 is because somebody made it to 12, in which case the average goes down to a minimum of 2.4 with one person at 12-0, and 4 at 0-3. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
On January 13 2014 09:25 Amui wrote: 9-3, 0-3, 1-3, 2-3. Average is still 3 wins. The only time where it doesn't average to 3 is because somebody made it to 12, in which case the average goes down to a minimum of 2.4 with one person at 12-0, and 4 at 0-3. Hmm. I didn't consider streaks ending at 12. Retires don't happen often. This would say that assuming retires are rare, that the win/loss rate is still close to 1.0. Retires are probably just as rare as 12/Xs | ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:20 travis wrote: I don't think it's 3:3. Some players win many more than 6 games, but the most you lose in a row is 3. So you can go 0:3, but you can also go 12:3. So the average wins is probably much closer to 2 than to 3. This is because every time someone goes above average, say 6 wins, 7 wins, etc - a ton of people get a loss. 3 people go 5-0 5 people go 0-3 the average wins in this scenario is 1.875. it doesn't average out like some of you are saying it does 4 wins is likely far above average you can only go 5-0 if you win 5 in a row and retire. assuming people actually play out the games, the average is much closer to 3. | ||
|
Phelix
1931 Posts
This site lets you track how much dust you'll need to complete your set, and simulates how many packs you would need to buy to finish the entire card collection. Looks like I'll have to spend $500 to complete everything on average. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
so in reality it'd prolly end up being somewhere around 2.95 or something | ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10655 Posts
I just only got into this game a week ago. Ended up spending $110 in packs trying to get a Thalnos and Sylvanas. Ended up DEing a lot of stuff for them in the end. I have a complete Lock control and Shaman anti-aggro deck. But I still have buyers remorse. Did I go into this too deep. Or is this normal for anyone else starting out?  | ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On January 13 2014 12:40 Emnjay808 wrote: Eh... I just only got into this game a week ago. Ended up spending $110 in packs trying to get a Thalnos and Sylvanas. Ended up DEing a lot of stuff for them in the end. I have a complete Lock control and Shaman anti-aggro deck. But I still have buyers remorse. Did I go into this too deep. Or is this normal for anyone else starting out? that's a lot to spend at once, but I wouldn't be surprised if A LOT of people spent that much on this game. | ||
|
Khul Sadukar
Australia1735 Posts
![[image loading]](http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/hearthstone.gamepedia.com/thumb/f/f7/Prophet_Velen%28228%29.png/184px-Prophet_Velen%28228%29.png) http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Prophet_Velen Friggin awesome since I wanna build up my Priest deck  Oh and I haven't spent a cent on the game lol. Just gotta be patient. Also today I played against a hunter who had illidan stormrage, the 1 legendary I thought about crafting just cause, but saw how mediocre he is in play. Overall pretty good day in Hearthstone. | ||
|
trinxified
Canada7774 Posts
On January 13 2014 12:40 Emnjay808 wrote: Eh... I just only got into this game a week ago. Ended up spending $110 in packs trying to get a Thalnos and Sylvanas. Ended up DEing a lot of stuff for them in the end. I have a complete Lock control and Shaman anti-aggro deck. But I still have buyers remorse. Did I go into this too deep. Or is this normal for anyone else starting out? I hope Blizzard implements buying cards or at least dust straight up instead. I think it would encourage a bit real money spending for some people. | ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
Imo, the mage legendary, seriously that thing gets me scared. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On January 13 2014 12:49 caelym wrote: I'm going to do it all for free, however long it takes. that's a lot to spend at once, but I wouldn't be surprised if A LOT of people spent that much on this game. | ||
|
jrkirby
United States1510 Posts
On January 13 2014 14:57 RogerX wrote: Talking about class-specific legendarys. What your guys take on the best one? I know it can be situational, but surely some class specific legendary are better than other class specifics in their class deck. Imo, the mage legendary, seriously that thing gets me scared. Almost definitely Tirion Fordring. A 6/6 with divine shield for 8 is a great play, and then his death-rattle puts him over the top. Oh and he's also got taunt, to keep the opponent from finishing you if you're low. All the others except for al'akir are spectacular, usually, but tirion is a head and shoulders above the rest. That isn't to say al'akir is a terrible card, but, he's not at the same level as other legendaries. Archmage antonidas is good, but most mage decks rarely have lots of minions, so your opponent will often have removal leftover for him, and his high cost means you're not likely to play a spell on the turn you play him. Personally, I'd love to see him in some freeze deck, that's something I haven't seen before. Archmage + frost nova or Ice block turn 10 would be pretty sick. | ||
| ||
