Posts from Some statistics.

Many players of the online version of "Might and Magic III" have probably wondered: which color is better, which castle is stronger, which hero is cooler – although in reality this isn't that important compared to skill, but still... So I decided to take some time and study this topic in more detail. As a basis for my mini-research, I took the statistics of games from the Autumn 2008 season /topic/5173/. Of course, it doesn't pretend to be particularly serious or scientific – after all, I am not a machine, and I performed the data extraction and calculations manually and mentally :) , so there will inevitably be minor inaccuracies – but the overall picture can still be clearly seen! So, having analyzed the results of 545 online battles, I found the following: 1). The win rates by colors are as follows: 296 (55%) / 249 (45%). 2). Statistics on castles: Conflux. Total: 40 games = 24 wins + 16 losses. Inferno. Total: 48 games = 16 wins + 32 losses. Dungeon. Total: 174 games = 88 wins + 86 losses. Fortress (Swamp). Total: 131 games = 75 wins + 56 losses. Stronghold. Total: 109 games = 48 wins + 61 losses. Tower. Total: 77 games = 35 wins + 42 losses. Rampart. Total: 180 games = 93 wins + 87 losses. Necropolis. Total: 59 games = 34 wins + 25 losses. Castle. Total: 267 games = 131 wins + 136 losses. 3). Statistics on the most popular main heroes ("leaders"): Crag Hack: 13 wins + 16 losses = 29 games. Valeska: 94 wins + 96 losses = 190 games. Kerr: 68 wins + 45 losses = 113 games. Gurnisson: 25 wins + 21 losses = 46 games. Shakti: 80 wins + 68 losses = 148 games. Ivor: 13 wins + 23 losses = 38 games. Tazar: 62 wins + 33 losses = 95 games. Galtran: 26 wins + 18 losses = 44 games. Gunnar: 4 wins + 17 losses = 21 games. Nella: 11 wins + 15 losses = 26 games. Of course, any conclusions should be drawn with caution, but you can at least pay attention to the fact that "Tazar: 62 wins + 33 losses = 95 games" – meaning Tazar is strong :cool: or "Gunnar: 4 wins + 17 losses = 21 games" and "Ivor: 13 wins + 23 losses = 38 games" – meaning these heroes should be chosen as leaders with great care ;). If anyone is interested in my findings, write comments or suggestions: what other aspects of the statistics should I cover?

Thanks for the stats. I'd also like to know what the most popular castle pairings are...

Thanks, Kostyan. It would also be great, in my opinion, to display the win percentage relative to the total number of games played for each castle/hero at the end of each line. It would be more visually clear.

Interesting idea, thanks Kostyan!!!
I would also like to discuss the time limit for each turn!!!
6 or 4 minutes per turn, what are the priorities and disadvantages???
Personally, I can't play for more than 4 minutes!!!
Because it's important to maintain the pace of the game and keep the thought-out moves fresh!!!
Before the New Year, I lost to OELMA only because the turn time was 6 minutes!!
I was losing my train of thought, overthinking the moves, and my opponent was using the full 6 minutes, so I was losing the flow and pace of the game!!!
And without the pace of the game, there is no game at all. That's why I refused to continue and gave the victory to my opponent, even though I had a favorable secondary position!!!!

It’s interesting what you’ll say, Sem, after playing for another year or two. Will 4 minutes be enough for you, or not? :) :) :)

Blaming time control for your loss is silly; you should have installed an animation speed booster (as far as I remember, you don't have one). I won, and I don't care about your secondary stats. I can upload the save file.

Glad you liked it :) I'll try to take all the comments into account and refine it today or tomorrow. Just didn't understand the post by SEM_56 about the time taken for a turn... It's not indicated in the reports in 95% of cases, is it?:confused:

Blaming time control for your losses is silly; you should have installed an animation speed booster (as far as I remember, you don't have one). I won, and I don't care about your secondary stats. I can upload a save file.

Sorry for the off-topic, but how do you install an animation speed booster? It disappeared after I reinstalled Windows.

There are a few caveats with this statistic...
First and foremost, I didn't keep track of confirmations. And try to keep up with that across 90+ pages – not every game is confirmed immediately, and some even ignore (or forget out of absentmindedness) to confirm games they honestly lost. So, I see only one solution: consider everyone who submitted a report (confirmed or not) as honest by definition, and non-confirmation as an unfortunate misunderstanding, unless it's proven that the losing player violated the rules.
Also, mostly, definitely more than 90% of the games were played on our standard "maps," but I also included exceptions like Jebus and the like. Do you think this significantly distorts the results?
And a number of matches were played in a "cannibalistic" style: like Necromancer vs. Necromancer, Humans vs. Humans, etc. :D Where do they belong?
And some reports have technical omissions: the colors, main heroes, and completion time are not specified. Should I include them or discard them?

If needed, I can also provide information on the duration of the games: this is also quite interesting in light of recent disputes – when are Grand Overlords most often defeated:rolleyes: ...

Glad you liked it :) I'll try to take all the comments into account and refine it today or tomorrow.

I just didn't understand the post by SEM_56 about the turn time... It's rarely indicated in the reports in 95% of cases:confused:.

Yes, you're right, unfortunately, the turn time is not indicated, which is very annoying!!!

I would like to say a few words about this! As Oelm noted, yes, I don't have animation acceleration and I'm not going to put it in. I'm changing my habits based on the game tactics, not on the combat tactics!!!
Many people I've played with will confirm that in FFA, I win due to a well-thought-out strategy that I've developed over many years!!!
I would also like to make a correction to the words of Leader. I play on 4 minutes, and that's enough for me, because before I played on 2 minutes (playing in clubs) and could play 4 full games in a day. Therefore, I will switch to 6 minutes only when I can skillfully master the chain (which I'm not very good at, fortunately, not with both legs anymore).

I just wanted to see the game statistics, that is, their ratio (wins, losses), playing on 4 and 6 minutes. But after reviewing the reports for Autumn, I confirm KostyaN's words, in 95% of the games, the time is not indicated!!!

It would be interesting to see – although I can already imagine the percentage of wins when one of the opponents has something nearby to trigger an explosion, while the other has nothing to counter it. I think it would be around 90%. There's a heated discussion here about what would happen if mages were allowed, like they would just show up at level 121-124 and obliterate everyone with meteor showers. In principle, the same thing happens when someone gets an explosion; it's just as unfair and easy to wipe out troops, only a bit later: confused: :smile04:

2Wlk777: Here's a link to an animation speed booster. I quickly glanced through it but didn't find any ready-made links; I copied it myself. Sorry if I duplicated anything.

/topic/3165/

Actually, what bothers me more isn't the explosion, but things like various spheres of prohibition and cloaks of renunciation. In one game, I revealed the red sphere early on and then just focused on leveling up combat skills, not even bothering with magic, while smugly watching my opponent's magical stats grow :) Thanks to the sphere, I won quite a few games. Another alternative to the explosion is this: position your units tactically, use mass haste, and charge forward.

I highly doubt the 90% figure.

And I lost more than one game because of the Sphere.

Another alternative to using explosives: position your units tactically, use mass haste, and charge forward.

This requires many conditions. Mass haste (which isn't always available, or there might be a lack of haste or expert air units). The first turn and the absence of high-speed units from the opponent that would allow them to perform a mass slow after the attack of 1-2 units. Also, for example, it's good if you get the tactic skill while your opponent doesn't, but what if it's the other way around?

Right after the author of this topic created it, I wrote almost an entire article regarding the issue. And then I deleted it, without even publishing it. It turned out to be too complicated.
I'll try again.

In general, the point is this:
a) when a Strong Player plays, no matter which Castle they choose, they increase the Castle's Strength with their reputation.
b) when a Weak Player plays, no matter which Castle they choose, they decrease (discredit) the Castle's Strength with their reputation.

Isn't that true? A Strong Player can defeat a Weak Player, even if the Strong Player is using a "weak" Castle and the Weak Player is using a "strong" Castle.

Taking the above into account, I propose:
a) based on the ranking table of online games subjected to statistical research for the season,
b) assign a coefficient (I think it can be called a "discretization" [or "accreditation"] coefficient), the essence of which is that we don't just sum up all the Castles, but we sum them up, "reducing" the Castle's strength if a Strong Player played with it, and vice versa.

For example, assign the following coefficients:
1st place in the ranking - 0.80
2nd place in the ranking - 0.82
3rd place in the ranking - 0.84
...
21st place in the ranking - 1.20

And now, let's say that players 1, 3, and 21 played with the Swamp Castle.
Players 1 and 3 won, and player 21 lost.
And then, in the overall statistics of won/lost games for the Swamp Castle, it will not be 2:1, but (1*0.80 + 1*0.84) : (1.2) = 1.64 : 1.2

Do you understand that the provided statistics do not take into account the strength of the players who play with a particular Castle, and who, accordingly, unintentionally introduce a bias into the statistics.

I wonder if anyone has the strength and patience to do such painstaking work and show what the statistics really are?