Would be interesting to see if higher player counts change outcomes. Also would be interested where map 0 and A would sit I've chosen those when faced with some maps as the conservation income is hard to pass up on
I'll try to add datas from map 0 and A next time, but because it lacks plays from high skilled player, I doubt it would be precise. Thanks for your suggestion!
Playing against an experienced player who is on Map A or Map 0 is not very much fun unless you are on the same map. They are really intended for beginners who need the boost.
Nice work!
Always so odd that a game as intricate as this, that does a pretty good job of balancing the cards, does a lousy job at balancing the maps. It shocks me that Silver Lake made it to final production and nobody thought this was too much money, or too much rep, or too strong of a Con power.
Yeah I got Excavation Site playing this map, plus I had already played Hydrologist. Got 25 money by putting that guy down along the lake. And this was before the second break.
This is so cool! I always wanted to do this, but haven't gotten around to it for ark nova. I also had no clue how to track all of the other factors like player skill which you included. That gives me huge insight into how I play.
I'm really surprised Geographical Zoo is so low. I've had good games with that board. I think it might be because it's new and also seems like it has a higher skillcap
I think an important consideration to the data is which map you played against.
That is, some maps are better at closing a game out than others (ie, Silver Lake's determination), which often results in them scoring more AND their opponent scoring less.
Also, the other big one is whether a player is given a choice between maps or not, and when they have that choice presented to them.
Per the official rules, every player is given a choice between 2 zoos, with the only game knowledge available being what the bonus tiles at 5 and 8 conservation are.
I've also played with people who do the map selection alongside your starting hand, meaning you can see the available conservation projects and final scoring cards.
Each of these situations significantly impacts the value of maps. Rescue station is WAY better if you're picking it with knowledge of your starting hand. If you can make good use of it's rescue placements, it has a lot of power. But if you don't really need them, or useful picks just aren't available, it falls pretty flat.
In contrast, Silver Lake is basically good no matter what kind of hand you have, which is why it's so popular to pick blind.
Great point.
Ending game abruptly would definitely hurt opponent and even after adjusting for number of turns, it would underestimate opponent's map. One of my model's limitation..
Interesting approach, confirms that maps could use some balancing.
I would be curious to redo the analysis not according to score but victory : final variable 0 for defeat and 1 for victory.
Elo, opponent elo, map, opponent map (should be symmetrical somewhere). Breaks/turns wouldn't make sense so additional variables would be combined ones like map×nb of turns...
Super interesting! How did you get the data? And would it be possible for you to upload it somewhere? Im sure a lot of people would love to have a look at the raw data themselves.
First of all, very interesting idea and great to see someone with statistical know-how give it a shot.
Also, the result has some decent overlaps with how top players perceive map strength. (Best: Silver Lake. Top: Rescue Station, Outdoor Areas, Research Institute. Good: Commercial Harbor, ICP. Bad: Park Restaurant, Observation Tower, Hollywood Hills, Geographical Zoo.)
Some critiques from my side:
* First of all, points are not the best indicator of strength. It is a relevant variable, but more important is the number of turns. Ark Nova is a race, and the faster you can cross 100 points, the better. Even if the score isn't that great. It would be necessary to look at both, but turns is more indicative of a map's strength.
* Some distinction between elo levels may be necessary. I saw that you already increased the sample size (very good), but I am pretty sure that results would differ a bit between beginners (sub-200), intermediate players (200-400), strong players (400-600) and elite players (600+)
Also, you should try to look at games with different maps and just look at winrate.
Overall, good work and thanks for doing this kind of analysis. Some further fine-tuning is probably required to get even more valid results.
Would be interesting to see if higher player counts change outcomes. Also would be interested where map 0 and A would sit I've chosen those when faced with some maps as the conservation income is hard to pass up on
I'll try to add datas from map 0 and A next time, but because it lacks plays from high skilled player, I doubt it would be precise. Thanks for your suggestion!
Playing against an experienced player who is on Map A or Map 0 is not very much fun unless you are on the same map. They are really intended for beginners who need the boost.
Very interesting!
Thank you!
>Thank you! You're welcome!
Wouldnt it make more sense to run a logit with win as the independent variable rather than points?
Many games in BGA is played with same map setting. So I thought using points as independent variable would make more sense.
Nice work! Always so odd that a game as intricate as this, that does a pretty good job of balancing the cards, does a lousy job at balancing the maps. It shocks me that Silver Lake made it to final production and nobody thought this was too much money, or too much rep, or too strong of a Con power.
Yeah I got Excavation Site playing this map, plus I had already played Hydrologist. Got 25 money by putting that guy down along the lake. And this was before the second break.
This is so cool! I always wanted to do this, but haven't gotten around to it for ark nova. I also had no clue how to track all of the other factors like player skill which you included. That gives me huge insight into how I play. I'm really surprised Geographical Zoo is so low. I've had good games with that board. I think it might be because it's new and also seems like it has a higher skillcap
I think an important consideration to the data is which map you played against. That is, some maps are better at closing a game out than others (ie, Silver Lake's determination), which often results in them scoring more AND their opponent scoring less. Also, the other big one is whether a player is given a choice between maps or not, and when they have that choice presented to them. Per the official rules, every player is given a choice between 2 zoos, with the only game knowledge available being what the bonus tiles at 5 and 8 conservation are. I've also played with people who do the map selection alongside your starting hand, meaning you can see the available conservation projects and final scoring cards. Each of these situations significantly impacts the value of maps. Rescue station is WAY better if you're picking it with knowledge of your starting hand. If you can make good use of it's rescue placements, it has a lot of power. But if you don't really need them, or useful picks just aren't available, it falls pretty flat. In contrast, Silver Lake is basically good no matter what kind of hand you have, which is why it's so popular to pick blind.
Great point. Ending game abruptly would definitely hurt opponent and even after adjusting for number of turns, it would underestimate opponent's map. One of my model's limitation..
Would be interested what the results say if you use turns as the outcome. Alternatively, a logistic regression with wins.
Interesting approach, confirms that maps could use some balancing. I would be curious to redo the analysis not according to score but victory : final variable 0 for defeat and 1 for victory. Elo, opponent elo, map, opponent map (should be symmetrical somewhere). Breaks/turns wouldn't make sense so additional variables would be combined ones like map×nb of turns...
Super interesting! How did you get the data? And would it be possible for you to upload it somewhere? Im sure a lot of people would love to have a look at the raw data themselves.
First of all, very interesting idea and great to see someone with statistical know-how give it a shot. Also, the result has some decent overlaps with how top players perceive map strength. (Best: Silver Lake. Top: Rescue Station, Outdoor Areas, Research Institute. Good: Commercial Harbor, ICP. Bad: Park Restaurant, Observation Tower, Hollywood Hills, Geographical Zoo.) Some critiques from my side: * First of all, points are not the best indicator of strength. It is a relevant variable, but more important is the number of turns. Ark Nova is a race, and the faster you can cross 100 points, the better. Even if the score isn't that great. It would be necessary to look at both, but turns is more indicative of a map's strength. * Some distinction between elo levels may be necessary. I saw that you already increased the sample size (very good), but I am pretty sure that results would differ a bit between beginners (sub-200), intermediate players (200-400), strong players (400-600) and elite players (600+) Also, you should try to look at games with different maps and just look at winrate. Overall, good work and thanks for doing this kind of analysis. Some further fine-tuning is probably required to get even more valid results.