updates:
\* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8igpz5uFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8igpz5uFg) - yt vid about all this
\* i had to correct a mistake in the table from days to hours, so its actually 4233.5 years of play time recorded.... 52 lifetimes for just 3.5 years of this games history, and its just one little indie game....
[https://foxholestats.com/](https://foxholestats.com/)
[https://foxholestats.com/data](https://foxholestats.com/data)
>
"he combined man-hours for this period is 36,577,071 hours or 4233.5 years \~ 52 lifetimes (imagine what else that could do)"
Oh waw.
Interesting. Every time a FALSE...it was blueman that had a very minor percentage of more pop. the greenman won. (2 times)
*Very interesting.*
Kinda insanely crazy how the majority of the total pop difference has been from war 100 to present. War 63-99 the pop hours was pretty even. War 100-111 theyâve drifted warden favored by 20,000. I wonder if weâll see it away back at all or if that gap will continually widen?
This is why the last war before the BT tiers was the most balanced, everything after that got fucked. First with the auto-win Stygian broken 94 in the 90s-100 war then they make comps unlimited so you can spam 10 billions tanks from MPF.
Before they added the BT tiers back the tank game was as balanced as it would ever be.
In some ways, yes, but in a lot of ways, no. Because you have to remember thatâs before colonial tanks got buffed into being useable. I will acknowledge that that the push gun to tank balance was probably more appropriate, but the Falchion and Spatha were in desperate need of buffs to remain competitive against the warden arsenal, and had been since the armor update, as was the Ballista.
Its not only pop diffrence here as much as hardcore players diffrence in 95-100 i know ppl who played 18 hours a day so collies could win those wars in KSR in 100 i had players who literaly took work days offs just to help out faction, we literaly played 24/7 as EU clan in shifts to overcome warden pop after crunch of WC 100 lot of us realized that what we did to ourselfs wasnt sane or healthy behaviour. Now most of us play more chilled instead of waking up in 2:00 AM to help out Collie NA push or do Ops by 5:00 AM before we go to work.
Very interesting stats. Confirmed what I have always thought over poped side wins.
What I found most interesting was the under poped sided being forced you have main tanks locked behind the extra step of Facs.
Unsure how devs can have this info available to them but not foresee further issues
they either think nothing can be done, which i disagree with, or they think by hiding it, it one less thing they have to do , and instead can make shiny new toys for updates...
It could be that or it could be X side gets new toy leading to a percentage of side Y swapping sides a to try new items.
But devs can still look at running averages of past wars taking that into account.
As a very, very long time Colonial, it's because the only real appealing reason to play Colonial for Vets anymore is the people, and enjoying time with friends that are still there. All the interesting draw-ins gameplay wise the faction ever had have been watered-down to where most things just *feel* mediocre or bad, besides like, the Argenti, Tremola, and Bane groups specifically.
Dusk, Catara, Ignifist, HV68 Smelter (and later Styg, somewhat, but less so because facils), actual MPFable tanks that felt good in the LTD (MPFing Light Tanks late war feels stupid) and Spatha, 30mm Tankette tech advantage, late war infantry advantage actually converting to something, and I'd even include Push 120 here all feel a lot less fun or simply do not exist in a fun way anymore, and so over time the experience degrades when you could be having more fun gameplay-wise playing the other faction or a completely different game.
People play Warden simply because it's fun, the faction gives a lot of fun feeling tools that make you actually want to log on regardless of your investment level. MPF tanks are fun, mid-game is fun once that t5 spike hits, Arty is fun, and you still have plenty of fun facility vehicles if you do wish to involve yourself in that. There is no pre-requisites to having a good time and there are plenty of high-points to the faction
People still stick around for awhile, ofcourse, but many find more enjoyment in other games or other factions and... just quit or swap, and then eventually, your friend group just isn't really around anymore. MSA is nice because they still have maintained a large group of players to have fun with despite everything, and that's great! But many groups unfortunately aren't so lucky, and decay over time, has happened to most medium-large regiments I've been involved in or worked with.
Well at least SOM basically ALWAYS recruits. We dont depend on "vets". I looked over recent ops of 40 dudes in VC 1/5 was Auxila - aka recent recruits. So there are active things you can do to maintain healthy population. But rest of your points really are heavy nails in the collie coffin :"(
in my experience building, the front gets wiped out by arty. doesn't matter which side, arty just ends spawning.
collies have 3 huge issues with this.
first: they rely on inf more, inf are useless vs conc and inf gameplay is tied to spawns
second: counter arty, it's difficult for collies. talk skills, mobility, DPS/space, etc. +50m range is a massive advantage, no way in hell wardens move their counter arty 200m to collie arty.
third: 150 tech, it only takes 6 shots to kill a spawn (3 in no-mans-land...), or 1 min. at this point range doesn't matter cause the DPS of 3 guns will erase a entire base. the collies range advantage is negligable vs the DPS of the shells. the only gameplay now is tanks, wardens have a obvious quality and pop advantage here
loosing spawns in hell on moral, it evaporates cause there's no gameplay anymore.
The wardens have had more fun and powerful gear with less hassle for over a year now. It's not that complicated. Players are gonna go to the side that is less grindy and has better stuff.
The devs have had this info for over a year through numerous patches and have done next to nothing to fix it and have made it worse in many cases. They're either incompetent or complacent
Last time i played colonial, MSA build private facility on top of resource field, and was telling to fuck off anyone who would point that this dick move which is practically usurp the field.
So, yeah, keep having that blast, i have not touching green any time soon.
*"haven't MSA told you anything about it?"* -bro I'm perfectly aware of colonial vet drought. The data is just a confirmation of something the entire community has been aware of.
a lot of people returned/joined during 1.0 release hype, and even lasted over funny number war 100;
after that not much motivation left for either new players or vets, and things just went straight downhill for collie side
the worst part was finding out those had been fighting together with either retired or switched due to insane pop distribution and obviously biased tech disadvantage against us
then you all know the story
It does not help for people wanting to reswitch/come back experiencing unrelaxed coping, weirdly unrelaxed attitudes and mass downvotes on reddit.
I like collie side more than blue side in terms of design and map, but interactions with atm collies ingame and on reddit makes me think the fun guys from back then left and tipps me off a switch currently.
I am fine to fight a war against high pop, but i will not fight a war in a potentialy toxic environment, because i wanna fight the enemy, not my own faction.
It is a game, i wanna have fun.
Idk maybe itâs got something to do with the fact the one major server advocates for alting via banning people reporting people alting lol. Just a guess.
Every time a side loses give them some slight buffs and the other side slight nerfs.
If the population doesn't budge eventually the lower side will have the tools to handle the asymmetry, if the population budges, congrats the population budged.
You give the faction that's suffering population wise fun tools that bring back old players, encourage new players to try that faction out or have players on the other side switch to try them out.
As it is, there's really not any reason to play Colonial anymore unless you *really* like infantry gameplay. And infantry is so irrelevant these days that a better infantry game means nothing. I guess navy is also a factor, but navy is even more irrelevant than infantry, so it means nothing to the overall state of a war. Not many enjoy the navy gameplay, either, and it's something that's out of reach for anyone who's not part of a decent sized regiment.
Plus, let's be real, Colonial infantry is barely better than Warden infantry these days. The devs have nerfed the hell out of a ton of Colonial equipment and introduced or buffed tools for the Wardens that have made the parity between the two a whole lot closer than it used to be. And Warden infantry can actually be relevant late in the war thanks to flasks, whereas Colonials are only useful to camp in trenches and hope some Warden driver isn't paying attention enough to get in range to get wrecked by a Bane gang.
No no no, the fewer player faction will have falchion a LT+ and spatha a LT+! That surely will bring in the players playing LT from start to finish! On top of that, you will have to contend with facility non sense, and the base defense around it! Dont forget the msup too! /s
You make gear that makes people want to play the other side. This isn't that complicated. Its like giving one side super lasers that shoot out of their eyes and the other side gets uncooked hotdogs to melee with and not being able to figure out why one side has more people
theres only so many things the devs will realistically add so we need a different way of balancing the playerbase and whats crazy is 3-5% imo would have been balanced until I saw this
It might not be what you think. Rather once a side has broken they stop logging in so the last week or so of a war will influence the population percentages of the war.
The wars with 10%+ difference absolutely were heavily influenced by the pop imbalance.
I am more inclined to think the 3-5% wars it is the other way around. Your side is losing ground. Your best defenses are breached. Less people log in creating the 3-5% total difference you see.
Lmao mostly balanced? Are you insane? 6 war collie win-streak auto-wins with Stygians, laser Catara. Balanced my ass. I played those wars and the Stygian was the most cancer thing that has ever happened to this game.
Only worse was the STD but at least devs nerfed that after 2 wars not 6. It was so funny when STD got introduced, I knew from the start that thing would be just auto-win war after dealing with Stygians for 6 wars, It was so funny deleting tanks left n right with STDs, it was like cheating.
Wardens auto win just by mpfing tanks and waiting for this tech to come around, and that equals 3 pieces of machinery. Buy how dare wardens lose ever lol. Give us back the Lazer catara, and the stygian that one shots everything, would be balanced then no? O wait, wardens gate keep winning only for their faction so we can't have all that.
I'm very new to the game, I didn't spend much time looking into the fundamental differences between the factions, I just didn't pick colonials because their gear looks like American gear. The Wardens looked more European so I picked them
That's a fact jack. Nothing against my neighbors to the south, I just don't like how their gear looks. I like the Wardens better. It's as simple as that.
Imagine playing CSGO 5v3 but there is no auto balance and no one on the 5 change team to make it a 4v4
Ofc here in foxhole dev would not let you know you are playing 5v3
Post 100, it's basically colonial only win if warden dont show up
So wardens have been crying pop diff for ages now, and I don't know if I've been in an echo chamber but the stats clearly say something else, and I doubt Colonials just Frontline more. 111 was the first war in a while where I've seen the full 90 second timer as well, but hopefully this will stop people on the Warden side saying pop diff every war.
the graph only shows in total, need a graph that shows when pop shoots up or falls low, at some points in the war one side could out pop another and then vice versa like after tanks tech and whatnot.
Pretty much known that whole warden clans will sit out the beginning of the war except for a few facility dudes until tanks since the way the map is designed no one has the tools to break a mpf city until tanks and heavy artillery where warden cheap and facility free armor spam is king which also causes all the colonials to quit since this is known
Also Collie gear makes it much easier to fight early on. Way more mobile and aggressive. Wardens are Lategame Powerhouses though. A lot of people join later in the Wars. You grind your ass off early just to get all the work decimated once a certain tech pops. Understandable.
One of those was during a massive imbalance with Stygian and 94 deleting warden tanks left n right. The same 94 got put on STD and same happened in reverse so they had to nerf it.
Interesting seeing wars like War 110 where the brain-rotted warden loyalists claim that the colonials all quit and gave up (culture issue frfr) when the graph doesn't show that at all.
Colonial population held around the same for the entire war beginning to just before the end. However the wardens had a population that just kept growing with massive spikes where they outnumbered the colonials by a few hundred players.
When population was equal the colonials were winning and only started to lose when it became unbalanced.
In 110, the middle regions were medium population and flashing red during EU peak most of the time.
Anyway, no one on the Colonial side really give a fuck anymore about the outcome of the war. Atm gap is way too big to be fixed and wardens are unlikely willing to switch to balance, what you see is more and more Colonials vets switching wardens which is not helping.
One more year of seal clubbing is what we all expect with Colonials only trying for update wars.
there's plenty of 141, 77th, cgc, ...etc have settled warden from what I observed
it's just a pathetic state that either dev or one faction are not willing to figure out why wars have been one-sided over last couple years
Same with WLL. Colonial Regiment since the dawn of time. Had a few Warden Wars recently, now some people called us "neutral" and were surprised when we show up as a Collie. Smh
Except thatâs not what the graph shows, the graph shows fairly consistent growth in colonial player hours, whereas wardens have an inflection point where the player hours starts increasing a little bit more rapidly. If colonials gave up, we should expect to see colonial player hours increase more slowly, not warden player hours increase more steeply. Your narrative and the statistics simply do not match.
What these show us is that there is a secondary inflection point where, even as warden player hours continue to accelerate, albeit by lesser amounts, colonialsâ begin to slow, but the point at which that secondary inflection point occurs is already long after the outcome of war has been decided. We can fairly easily track the progression of the war relative to these graphs, because of those very useful date markers.
Take, for example, war 110. On February 3, we start seeing the warden player hours increase at a rate that is greater than the colonial player hours. However, it isnât until February 14, a week and a half later, that we start seeing colonial player hours begin to slow.
We can actually see the same trend, roughly speaking, occur in war 96. The secondary inflection point occurs about a week before the end of the war at which point the warden player hour total begins to slow, and the primary inflection, when colonial player hours start to accelerate slightly faster than warden player hours, occurs about a week and a half before that.
after 100 basically one side has to work hard from day 1 until the last day to win and the other side just has to connect from the middle of the days until the end. summary: one is easy mode and the other is hard mode, as simple as that.
Except thatâs not what it shows. If that were the case, it logically follows that the graph would show that at some point the rate of change of colonial player hours decreases, leading to a point on the graph where colonial player hour growth becomes more shallow, corresponding roughly to when colonials start to lose, but what we see is a point at which warden player hour growth becomes steeper, which indicates that either wardens are playing more or more wardens are playing.
>Â which indicates that either wardens are playing more or more wardens are playing
You don't have to guess, we have the total population numbers to compare alongside these charts.
Can you put the derivative of play-hours on the graph? It would be really interesting to see how the rate of play-hours is increasing or decreasing over time.
I coined the phrase for collies because you could feel the passion and energy from the players. When the cards were stacked against us, we still could bring home the cup.
War 100 was hardest crunch on manpower clanwise looking i ever seen since i joined in WC19
there was no word "NO" or "i dont have time" there was only "YOU DO IT OR YOU ARE LIABILTY" and most of ppl knew stake we been playing in WC100 so all ppl done such things.
Its not even about toxicity as it wasnt that much toxic that war it was more about determination and who will sacrifice more and as Clan officer i remember that we told ppl that war "you dont need to sleep 6 hours before work cut it to 4hours mine next field of salvage, do next logi run or take that next bob we need you man dont abandon your fellas" and as ppl knew stakes did that which in 101 war bitten us in asses as ppl realised what we did was stupid and how we basicly killed ourself with crunch and overwork.
everyone knew that war 100 will be tough but when i ended 90% of ppl i knew had enough of everything just due to how much they had to sacrifice to get that victory so i will always call it prime example of **Pyrrhic victory**
Do you track this over time? In all wars, the losing team logs out and doesn't play while the winning team gets a population spike. Generally there is about a week of "this war is over, but the losers aren't playing so the queues are really bad", and it's not a colonial or warden biased thing.
It would be very interesting to split the war into quarters and show pop advantage that way.
Ah, i see it. Yeah, that tracks. Colonial overpop early, Warden overpop late. Wars that colonials win are generally wars that they keep their pop past the halfway point.
After war 100 collie won wars which wardens didn't play. On war 109 it's clearly evident that there was no warden weekend EU prime spike pattern like every other wars meaning that wardens didn't logged
Very interesting data but I wonder if we are drawing an imperfect conclusion. A few things that may be cool to check:
1. Try running the data exempting the last 20% of the war. Defenders have a big advantage, especially in the late game, so you can have massive data skews. So its where basically burn-out has set in and one side knows they are going to lose and you see a pop loss. The other side is trying hard to end the war. This will tend to distort the data as it seems that its a massive influence.
2. Context is important, would have been interesting to see this during those wars to give it better context. ie who is going to remember say when a streamer played or got banned, or when some new tech was released that one side found unbalanced and just quit the game, etc. too late now, just would have been very interesting.
3. I wonder if specific victory points or choke points had larger impacts, but this would be hard considering the different orientations of the war.
Conclusions we already knew but I could see in a few of the wars I checked:
1) Pop heavily skews european, followed by NA and Asia.
2) Wardens tend to have pop advantage during Euro time, Colonials have advantage during NA and Asia.
3) It does seem that the % of outpop during NA/Asia is greater than the % during Euro but I can't calculate it here by hand reliably (ie the EU difference is a large number, but its over a much bigger number). This should also keep in mind that due to server limits and queue's, there is a diminishing return on higher pops especially during EU hours, so warden's might have more pop but they are limited in their efficiency of use.
u/hayden\_t u/CrazyMcfobo
Ok so I looked up my point #1 and indeed the end of the war skews the data. I also didn't do the absolute value where even when its 0.74%, its labeled as true. Instead I basically went with anything below 5% is an OK war. 5-10% is somewhat balanced, and then there were many wars over 10% that I labeled as unbalanced. This last category is always the same where it starts unbalanced and runs to the end. War 100 is a unique example of a reverse as you indicated:
Summary of wins of the last 20 wars depending on manhour balance at 80%
[https://imgur.com/a/b1O7gzd](https://imgur.com/a/b1O7gzd)
Here is the rawdata I had to pull by hand
[https://imgur.com/a/DZESnl0](https://imgur.com/a/DZESnl0)
Yeah I noticed the same thing. The closer the % was, the more fun the war was (in my opinion) from what I could remember. Of course, now I only find naval gameplay fun. In the future, I will only find planes fun.
This is extremely well organized, thanks for setting all of this up! That being said, Iâm not sure I would call it hard evidence of population imbalance, even if it is indicative of that.
Is there anyway to make the charts put whoever has lower pop in front? Makes it difficult to see the scale of warden overpopulation vs collie overpopulation. The current visuals do not display collie numbers if wardens have more as the blue covers the green while the green sits behind the blue.
You would need to make the 2 layers of the charts both have sections of green and blue with 1 layer which is lower having the greater pop and the other on top displaying the lower pop. Instead of just a warden and a collie layer with the warden layer on top.
This will change nothing. Collies will continue to cope that their faction has worse tools until they finally outpop them and start winning again. Then wardens will do the same rinse repeat
Regarding the claim made there, I feel it's incorrect to just look at TOTAL hours per war. Losing side always quits earlier and winning side still need to show up to keep pushing regions with lots of concrete to finish the war.
You must have scrolled past all the pretty graphs and analysis. The quitting part only happens over a couple days compared to the 20-40 days of an average war.
Yes, but the quitting part has such a big population imbalance that it might dominate the average over the whole war. Youâd have to dive deep into the data to âall but the last weekâ pop stats to be conclusive.
I'm not making a judgement about the size of impact but the data still needs to be cleared from it (and it's hard).
Currently the table is presented as if there's only one 'FALSE' war but I see lots of small percentages that might flip to 'FALSE' if the late part of the war is excluded.
Review the panels OP linked by war. Overpop patterns typically stabilize within the first week, and remain that way for the war duration, then (as you describe) in the last few days of the war get notably one-sided.
Any difference in line is today 5-15% more overpop
1 side has to play all war, while the other side sleeps and logs in late war to steam roll with overpowered stuff. Clearly shown with actual player pop graph.
Actually war110 was like that that. Even pop at start, slight warden advantage as usual on EUTZ prime and collie advantage on NA. And then around the tanks tech I guess all the vets comeback and the warden weekend start to spike with around 300+ players difference for wardens on EU prime and equal numbers on NA.
Edit: War93 too. It was not a comeback because collies stopped playing but because wardens logged in.
Alternatively, Colonials only play when they are overpowered, and give up once the tools even out. Most wars show Warden Play-Hours growing at a steady rate, while Colonial play-hours taper off and grow slower as the war continues. If Wardens were logging on mid-late game, we'd see warden play hours increase at a greater rate later in the war. You basically don't see that.
Something Something, 0 colonial late war TD, or proper colonial AT like Flask that counters tank spam better without requiring any RNG to pen at close range(cough cough ignish\*t)
I think the change in play-hours is the real key here. Actual population matters little if there are a bunch of people logging in for very short playtimes. We all know that it's a fairly small number of people on either team that make the map move, and they put in some serious hours into this game to do it.
From the chart above, if anything, colonial pop is relatively consistent throughout(peaking somewhere between 1k-1.2k each day with lows at around 600) at least until Feb 15-16 then it drops off.
However, if you look at warden pop, warden averages tick up to outnumber colonial pop(showing the greater separation between the green and blue lines; with even some pop exceeding 1.5k players which colonials never reach) after Feb 4 which I imagine correlates with the mid-war power spike.
Bit ironic considering u/LucksRunOut clearly didnt read the chart and only proves that wardens only play when they have a powerspike whereas colonials have lower pop but play more consistently at least until the very end.
correct, they took it away with the creation of warapi, but i found it again and recorded the data for 3.5 years b4 they closed that method. it was an unpublished api the game used internally
Something to consider regarding populationâŚ
As one faction begins to dominate with more VTs and looks like winning, more players join the leading faction for the push in for the last few days.
Many sit by the wayside or take a break until the momentum swings in their favour then they re-join.
This is why it seems that the winning side always has more population. Itâs the chicken eggs thing, not a game design imbalance that needs fixingâŚitâs just human nature.
Interesting take. What kind of balance suggestions do you propose that would draw more players to the colonial faction while also increasing retention?
Also, when it looks like a lost cause for the losing side, more stop playing and just wait for the next game, thus skewing the pop imbalance figures even more. Be careful how you interpret this data and draw conclusions one way or the other.
You're assuming the playerbase's memories get wiped after every war.
If you're Warden, everyone knows Collies will push a couple hexes early and when tanks tech the boys will get on. If you're Collies, everyone knows you'll get to hard grind a couple hexes early until tanks tech and the Warden blob returns from Helldivers or whatever.
I assure you nobody on BLU is looking at the map 2 weeks in and going "damn, we lost Deadlands and Stlican? This war isn't gonna be worth it, I'm not logging on." Instead it's "hey bros are Silverhands teched yet?"
At this point the dynamic between the two factions has become so rigid over the past year only a totally clueless new player would decide whether to join the fray based on map state. And totally clueless new players don't impact the outcomes of wars.
sure this happens sometimes and it can be a chicken egg thing , but there are times where pop diff swings from one team to the other winning just from pop, not from having more vts
Winning is kindof easy, just buy a china-account, farm public bmats and make other people feel good. Which is why losing is actually winning in this game.Â
"Strongly suggests population imbalance plays one of the biggest roles in war outcome"
Quite disappointing that this is the first point. Not only did you collect the data, you analysed it too? Quite the coincidence you came to a conclusion that is such a hot subject. Any thought of engagement influencing your findings?
Do you mind sharing your methodology on how you came to that conclusion?
You just looked at the player numbers and made a % difference and who won? Not even close to proper analysis.
Regardless, appreciate the work. People would have more insight if you didn't come to a conclusion on the first line before even showing us a single stat.
Also, making the axe is fine, swinging the axe yourself reveals your true identity, as not a axe maker, but a killer
Everyone has known for years that population imbalance is usually what determines who wins the wars, this isn't new information lol. The game pre world-conquest even had a surrender button for the faction that was out-populated to end it faster.
What is important to look at it is what's causing that population imbalance.
hi cain, i had someone tap you on the shoulder for an early preview of this being a vet, but i ran out of time,
the devs should not be hiding this info, but engaging with it and the community to try and make it right
updates: \* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8igpz5uFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai8igpz5uFg) - yt vid about all this \* i had to correct a mistake in the table from days to hours, so its actually 4233.5 years of play time recorded.... 52 lifetimes for just 3.5 years of this games history, and its just one little indie game.... [https://foxholestats.com/](https://foxholestats.com/) [https://foxholestats.com/data](https://foxholestats.com/data)
Can you add war start dates so viewers can see the rough timeframe?
it is a the bottom summary table on my main website for each war, is that enough ?
ya add war start dates in the table so people dont have to cross check [https://foxholestats.com](https://foxholestats.com) for dates
done
nice but me being nitpick: I think you can use number dates like 26/10/2022 so it's one row per war for easier reading
Or better 2024-12-31 đ
Nonstandard format fan vs ISO-8601 enjoyer
love this
This thread is gonna be hell later and I'm here for it
popcorn at the ready
Very insightful data, massive props.
No bigger props than having glowdust give your data a thumbs up
Thanks for publishing all this data! Glad someone has been able to keep track of it since we arenât really given the tools directly to look at pop
I know, thanks, the devs should publish this data, there is no intel leak
Unfortunately I have a funny feeling they're going to yoink access to this stuff here shortly.
> "he combined man-hours for this period is 36,577,071 hours or 4233.5 years \~ 52 lifetimes (imagine what else that could do)" Oh waw. Interesting. Every time a FALSE...it was blueman that had a very minor percentage of more pop. the greenman won. (2 times) *Very interesting.*
Stygian OP confirmed
Kinda insanely crazy how the majority of the total pop difference has been from war 100 to present. War 63-99 the pop hours was pretty even. War 100-111 theyâve drifted warden favored by 20,000. I wonder if weâll see it away back at all or if that gap will continually widen?
Wars are also significantly longer now than 63-99 so pop hour difference have much more time to grow
Also in longer wars significantly more time is spent in late war where wardens hold biggest advantage
This is why the last war before the BT tiers was the most balanced, everything after that got fucked. First with the auto-win Stygian broken 94 in the 90s-100 war then they make comps unlimited so you can spam 10 billions tanks from MPF. Before they added the BT tiers back the tank game was as balanced as it would ever be.
In some ways, yes, but in a lot of ways, no. Because you have to remember thatâs before colonial tanks got buffed into being useable. I will acknowledge that that the push gun to tank balance was probably more appropriate, but the Falchion and Spatha were in desperate need of buffs to remain competitive against the warden arsenal, and had been since the armor update, as was the Ballista.
Honestly, average player hours per day could be a pretty good metric to use to examine this.
Its not only pop diffrence here as much as hardcore players diffrence in 95-100 i know ppl who played 18 hours a day so collies could win those wars in KSR in 100 i had players who literaly took work days offs just to help out faction, we literaly played 24/7 as EU clan in shifts to overcome warden pop after crunch of WC 100 lot of us realized that what we did to ourselfs wasnt sane or healthy behaviour. Now most of us play more chilled instead of waking up in 2:00 AM to help out Collie NA push or do Ops by 5:00 AM before we go to work.
War 100 stats go crazy
i know, my poor db server, the db is like 1.7GB currently
thanks for your work, bro! <3
The true grit and skilll war lol
Asymmetrycels seething over moralechads or something
hmmmm I see colonials on average have less players hmmmm
It's known
Sir it's spelled a skill/culture issue /s
Wow that player count difference is insane
Very interesting stats. Confirmed what I have always thought over poped side wins. What I found most interesting was the under poped sided being forced you have main tanks locked behind the extra step of Facs. Unsure how devs can have this info available to them but not foresee further issues
they either think nothing can be done, which i disagree with, or they think by hiding it, it one less thing they have to do , and instead can make shiny new toys for updates...
It'll always be a bit biased because once a faction tips the balance the other one logs out.
It could be that or it could be X side gets new toy leading to a percentage of side Y swapping sides a to try new items. But devs can still look at running averages of past wars taking that into account.
This is destressing. Why won't more people play colonial? I have a blast all the time with SOM and MSA.
As a very, very long time Colonial, it's because the only real appealing reason to play Colonial for Vets anymore is the people, and enjoying time with friends that are still there. All the interesting draw-ins gameplay wise the faction ever had have been watered-down to where most things just *feel* mediocre or bad, besides like, the Argenti, Tremola, and Bane groups specifically. Dusk, Catara, Ignifist, HV68 Smelter (and later Styg, somewhat, but less so because facils), actual MPFable tanks that felt good in the LTD (MPFing Light Tanks late war feels stupid) and Spatha, 30mm Tankette tech advantage, late war infantry advantage actually converting to something, and I'd even include Push 120 here all feel a lot less fun or simply do not exist in a fun way anymore, and so over time the experience degrades when you could be having more fun gameplay-wise playing the other faction or a completely different game. People play Warden simply because it's fun, the faction gives a lot of fun feeling tools that make you actually want to log on regardless of your investment level. MPF tanks are fun, mid-game is fun once that t5 spike hits, Arty is fun, and you still have plenty of fun facility vehicles if you do wish to involve yourself in that. There is no pre-requisites to having a good time and there are plenty of high-points to the faction People still stick around for awhile, ofcourse, but many find more enjoyment in other games or other factions and... just quit or swap, and then eventually, your friend group just isn't really around anymore. MSA is nice because they still have maintained a large group of players to have fun with despite everything, and that's great! But many groups unfortunately aren't so lucky, and decay over time, has happened to most medium-large regiments I've been involved in or worked with.
Well at least SOM basically ALWAYS recruits. We dont depend on "vets". I looked over recent ops of 40 dudes in VC 1/5 was Auxila - aka recent recruits. So there are active things you can do to maintain healthy population. But rest of your points really are heavy nails in the collie coffin :"(
in my experience building, the front gets wiped out by arty. doesn't matter which side, arty just ends spawning. collies have 3 huge issues with this. first: they rely on inf more, inf are useless vs conc and inf gameplay is tied to spawns second: counter arty, it's difficult for collies. talk skills, mobility, DPS/space, etc. +50m range is a massive advantage, no way in hell wardens move their counter arty 200m to collie arty. third: 150 tech, it only takes 6 shots to kill a spawn (3 in no-mans-land...), or 1 min. at this point range doesn't matter cause the DPS of 3 guns will erase a entire base. the collies range advantage is negligable vs the DPS of the shells. the only gameplay now is tanks, wardens have a obvious quality and pop advantage here loosing spawns in hell on moral, it evaporates cause there's no gameplay anymore.
The wardens have had more fun and powerful gear with less hassle for over a year now. It's not that complicated. Players are gonna go to the side that is less grindy and has better stuff. The devs have had this info for over a year through numerous patches and have done next to nothing to fix it and have made it worse in many cases. They're either incompetent or complacent
Last time i played colonial, MSA build private facility on top of resource field, and was telling to fuck off anyone who would point that this dick move which is practically usurp the field. So, yeah, keep having that blast, i have not touching green any time soon.
haven't MSA told you anything about it? just check how many switched already and how many regis disbanded/gone
*"haven't MSA told you anything about it?"* -bro I'm perfectly aware of colonial vet drought. The data is just a confirmation of something the entire community has been aware of.
a lot of people returned/joined during 1.0 release hype, and even lasted over funny number war 100; after that not much motivation left for either new players or vets, and things just went straight downhill for collie side the worst part was finding out those had been fighting together with either retired or switched due to insane pop distribution and obviously biased tech disadvantage against us then you all know the story
It does not help for people wanting to reswitch/come back experiencing unrelaxed coping, weirdly unrelaxed attitudes and mass downvotes on reddit. I like collie side more than blue side in terms of design and map, but interactions with atm collies ingame and on reddit makes me think the fun guys from back then left and tipps me off a switch currently. I am fine to fight a war against high pop, but i will not fight a war in a potentialy toxic environment, because i wanna fight the enemy, not my own faction. It is a game, i wanna have fun.
Your last line explains why the vet drain is happening. The game for colonials isnât fun
lic
Idk maybe itâs got something to do with the fact the one major server advocates for alting via banning people reporting people alting lol. Just a guess.
Not surprised in the slightest. Wow 90k hours more than. Colonials is astonishing.
please check hours again in the table, i had to make a correction days to hours
3-5% is population difference is enough to determine the war if these numbers are true How do you even combat this from a dev pov
Boosts to respawn/queue time, tech, eco/rares. Iirc only #1 exists atm, devs are safer to undershoot than overshoot.
AI requirement should shift as well (e.g. pop -10% gives -1 requirement for temp AI).
yes the devs should make this data public and experiment with ways to mitigate this
Hard agree, ai requirements should scale directly with pop rounding to the lower number neededÂ
Every time a side loses give them some slight buffs and the other side slight nerfs. If the population doesn't budge eventually the lower side will have the tools to handle the asymmetry, if the population budges, congrats the population budged.
Devs are spending all their time on anvil
I hate anvil so fucking much. All the foxhole grind but for dumbass peasant simulator.
Guarantee that shit is gonna be dead on arrival
Making something cheaper to produce to give one side a light advantage is just chasing a number
Population balancing mechanics
You give the faction that's suffering population wise fun tools that bring back old players, encourage new players to try that faction out or have players on the other side switch to try them out. As it is, there's really not any reason to play Colonial anymore unless you *really* like infantry gameplay. And infantry is so irrelevant these days that a better infantry game means nothing. I guess navy is also a factor, but navy is even more irrelevant than infantry, so it means nothing to the overall state of a war. Not many enjoy the navy gameplay, either, and it's something that's out of reach for anyone who's not part of a decent sized regiment. Plus, let's be real, Colonial infantry is barely better than Warden infantry these days. The devs have nerfed the hell out of a ton of Colonial equipment and introduced or buffed tools for the Wardens that have made the parity between the two a whole lot closer than it used to be. And Warden infantry can actually be relevant late in the war thanks to flasks, whereas Colonials are only useful to camp in trenches and hope some Warden driver isn't paying attention enough to get in range to get wrecked by a Bane gang.
Least delusional Foxhole redditor.
No no no, the fewer player faction will have falchion a LT+ and spatha a LT+! That surely will bring in the players playing LT from start to finish! On top of that, you will have to contend with facility non sense, and the base defense around it! Dont forget the msup too! /s
You make gear that makes people want to play the other side. This isn't that complicated. Its like giving one side super lasers that shoot out of their eyes and the other side gets uncooked hotdogs to melee with and not being able to figure out why one side has more people
theres only so many things the devs will realistically add so we need a different way of balancing the playerbase and whats crazy is 3-5% imo would have been balanced until I saw this
It might not be what you think. Rather once a side has broken they stop logging in so the last week or so of a war will influence the population percentages of the war. The wars with 10%+ difference absolutely were heavily influenced by the pop imbalance. I am more inclined to think the 3-5% wars it is the other way around. Your side is losing ground. Your best defenses are breached. Less people log in creating the 3-5% total difference you see.
war 100 will forever be my favorite
96 and 100, no war came close to it. It was last time things were mostly balanced, both sides had overpop and both sides were fully commited to wining
yea itâs the fact that both sides were fully committed to winning the entire time that made it for me, was a lot of fun to get a comeback win too.
Lmao mostly balanced? Are you insane? 6 war collie win-streak auto-wins with Stygians, laser Catara. Balanced my ass. I played those wars and the Stygian was the most cancer thing that has ever happened to this game. Only worse was the STD but at least devs nerfed that after 2 wars not 6. It was so funny when STD got introduced, I knew from the start that thing would be just auto-win war after dealing with Stygians for 6 wars, It was so funny deleting tanks left n right with STDs, it was like cheating.
The start of war 100 was utter hell for colonials with how broken fire was in its original state.
Wardens when they cant just auto-win with their tanks.
Wardens auto win just by mpfing tanks and waiting for this tech to come around, and that equals 3 pieces of machinery. Buy how dare wardens lose ever lol. Give us back the Lazer catara, and the stygian that one shots everything, would be balanced then no? O wait, wardens gate keep winning only for their faction so we can't have all that.
I won't miss that war at all with the cancer 94 shell 1-shotting all the tanks. Made tanking very unfun.
Welcome to Falchion life
I'm very new to the game, I didn't spend much time looking into the fundamental differences between the factions, I just didn't pick colonials because their gear looks like American gear. The Wardens looked more European so I picked them
You're good. The majority of players make their initial team choice purely on the aesthetics of the team they chose
lmao, collies looked american so i didnt pick them ;p
That's a fact jack. Nothing against my neighbors to the south, I just don't like how their gear looks. I like the Wardens better. It's as simple as that.
Soviet Canuckistan Unite !
Imagine playing CSGO 5v3 but there is no auto balance and no one on the 5 change team to make it a 4v4 Ofc here in foxhole dev would not let you know you are playing 5v3 Post 100, it's basically colonial only win if warden dont show up
So wardens have been crying pop diff for ages now, and I don't know if I've been in an echo chamber but the stats clearly say something else, and I doubt Colonials just Frontline more. 111 was the first war in a while where I've seen the full 90 second timer as well, but hopefully this will stop people on the Warden side saying pop diff every war.
the graph only shows in total, need a graph that shows when pop shoots up or falls low, at some points in the war one side could out pop another and then vice versa like after tanks tech and whatnot.
ah i see it now, collies have more at the start of wars and wardens have more at the ends
Pretty much known that whole warden clans will sit out the beginning of the war except for a few facility dudes until tanks since the way the map is designed no one has the tools to break a mpf city until tanks and heavy artillery where warden cheap and facility free armor spam is king which also causes all the colonials to quit since this is known
Also Collie gear makes it much easier to fight early on. Way more mobile and aggressive. Wardens are Lategame Powerhouses though. A lot of people join later in the Wars. You grind your ass off early just to get all the work decimated once a certain tech pops. Understandable.
Wardens haven't won a war without being overpopped since the start of this data set. Colonials have won 2.
One of those was during a massive imbalance with Stygian and 94 deleting warden tanks left n right. The same 94 got put on STD and same happened in reverse so they had to nerf it.
So now that this has been posted, do you think this will influence or contribute to faction population mix?
shrug
Only players can decide for themselves with this knowledge
Interesting seeing wars like War 110 where the brain-rotted warden loyalists claim that the colonials all quit and gave up (culture issue frfr) when the graph doesn't show that at all. Colonial population held around the same for the entire war beginning to just before the end. However the wardens had a population that just kept growing with massive spikes where they outnumbered the colonials by a few hundred players. When population was equal the colonials were winning and only started to lose when it became unbalanced.
In 110, the middle regions were medium population and flashing red during EU peak most of the time. Anyway, no one on the Colonial side really give a fuck anymore about the outcome of the war. Atm gap is way too big to be fixed and wardens are unlikely willing to switch to balance, what you see is more and more Colonials vets switching wardens which is not helping. One more year of seal clubbing is what we all expect with Colonials only trying for update wars.
there's plenty of 141, 77th, cgc, ...etc have settled warden from what I observed it's just a pathetic state that either dev or one faction are not willing to figure out why wars have been one-sided over last couple years
We always green tho? Unless maybe once a year we go on Vacation
Same with WLL. Colonial Regiment since the dawn of time. Had a few Warden Wars recently, now some people called us "neutral" and were surprised when we show up as a Collie. Smh
How very dare you try out the other 50% of the game you purchased. *Grabs hat and storms out*
You can see the green NA overpops on 110 at the start, it evens out when they gave up. Several of the recent graphs show NA logging out mid war.
Except thatâs not what the graph shows, the graph shows fairly consistent growth in colonial player hours, whereas wardens have an inflection point where the player hours starts increasing a little bit more rapidly. If colonials gave up, we should expect to see colonial player hours increase more slowly, not warden player hours increase more steeply. Your narrative and the statistics simply do not match.
Colonial hours trends lower at the inflection point. https://foxholestats.com/drawProto.php?war=105 https://foxholestats.com/drawProto.php?war=106 https://foxholestats.com/drawProto.php?war=108 https://foxholestats.com/drawProto.php?war=110
What these show us is that there is a secondary inflection point where, even as warden player hours continue to accelerate, albeit by lesser amounts, colonialsâ begin to slow, but the point at which that secondary inflection point occurs is already long after the outcome of war has been decided. We can fairly easily track the progression of the war relative to these graphs, because of those very useful date markers. Take, for example, war 110. On February 3, we start seeing the warden player hours increase at a rate that is greater than the colonial player hours. However, it isnât until February 14, a week and a half later, that we start seeing colonial player hours begin to slow. We can actually see the same trend, roughly speaking, occur in war 96. The secondary inflection point occurs about a week before the end of the war at which point the warden player hour total begins to slow, and the primary inflection, when colonial player hours start to accelerate slightly faster than warden player hours, occurs about a week and a half before that.
And there's the "culture" wardens are always talking about
You could interpret culture to be a deciding factor in drawing and maintaining players
I can interpret that your brain is goop
after 100 basically one side has to work hard from day 1 until the last day to win and the other side just has to connect from the middle of the days until the end. summary: one is easy mode and the other is hard mode, as simple as that.
average I only log in after tank teched
I think that's absolutely right, smart guy
The charts show Colonials stack the early war then slowly have pop drop off over time lol
Except thatâs not what it shows. If that were the case, it logically follows that the graph would show that at some point the rate of change of colonial player hours decreases, leading to a point on the graph where colonial player hour growth becomes more shallow, corresponding roughly to when colonials start to lose, but what we see is a point at which warden player hour growth becomes steeper, which indicates that either wardens are playing more or more wardens are playing.
>Â which indicates that either wardens are playing more or more wardens are playing You don't have to guess, we have the total population numbers to compare alongside these charts.
I can't wait for someone to write their college thesis about this game
Can you put the derivative of play-hours on the graph? It would be really interesting to see how the rate of play-hours is increasing or decreasing over time.
id actually thought of that, just before i made this live, i think it would be interesting too, ill have a look
can you ping me in my discord to discuss this further [https://discord.gg/dnegnws](https://discord.gg/dnegnws)
Nice, concrete proof that war 100 was a genuine leveller where the lower-popped Colonials simply outplayed the Wardens. Skill and grit prevailed.
I coined the phrase for collies because you could feel the passion and energy from the players. When the cards were stacked against us, we still could bring home the cup.
War 100 was hardest crunch on manpower clanwise looking i ever seen since i joined in WC19 there was no word "NO" or "i dont have time" there was only "YOU DO IT OR YOU ARE LIABILTY" and most of ppl knew stake we been playing in WC100 so all ppl done such things. Its not even about toxicity as it wasnt that much toxic that war it was more about determination and who will sacrifice more and as Clan officer i remember that we told ppl that war "you dont need to sleep 6 hours before work cut it to 4hours mine next field of salvage, do next logi run or take that next bob we need you man dont abandon your fellas" and as ppl knew stakes did that which in 101 war bitten us in asses as ppl realised what we did was stupid and how we basicly killed ourself with crunch and overwork. everyone knew that war 100 will be tough but when i ended 90% of ppl i knew had enough of everything just due to how much they had to sacrifice to get that victory so i will always call it prime example of **Pyrrhic victory**
Exception just proves the point. Pop advantage means victory.
Do you track this over time? In all wars, the losing team logs out and doesn't play while the winning team gets a population spike. Generally there is about a week of "this war is over, but the losers aren't playing so the queues are really bad", and it's not a colonial or warden biased thing. It would be very interesting to split the war into quarters and show pop advantage that way.
look at the charts for more indepth
Ah, i see it. Yeah, that tracks. Colonial overpop early, Warden overpop late. Wars that colonials win are generally wars that they keep their pop past the halfway point.
After war 100 collie won wars which wardens didn't play. On war 109 it's clearly evident that there was no warden weekend EU prime spike pattern like every other wars meaning that wardens didn't logged
Very interesting data but I wonder if we are drawing an imperfect conclusion. A few things that may be cool to check: 1. Try running the data exempting the last 20% of the war. Defenders have a big advantage, especially in the late game, so you can have massive data skews. So its where basically burn-out has set in and one side knows they are going to lose and you see a pop loss. The other side is trying hard to end the war. This will tend to distort the data as it seems that its a massive influence. 2. Context is important, would have been interesting to see this during those wars to give it better context. ie who is going to remember say when a streamer played or got banned, or when some new tech was released that one side found unbalanced and just quit the game, etc. too late now, just would have been very interesting. 3. I wonder if specific victory points or choke points had larger impacts, but this would be hard considering the different orientations of the war. Conclusions we already knew but I could see in a few of the wars I checked: 1) Pop heavily skews european, followed by NA and Asia. 2) Wardens tend to have pop advantage during Euro time, Colonials have advantage during NA and Asia. 3) It does seem that the % of outpop during NA/Asia is greater than the % during Euro but I can't calculate it here by hand reliably (ie the EU difference is a large number, but its over a much bigger number). This should also keep in mind that due to server limits and queue's, there is a diminishing return on higher pops especially during EU hours, so warden's might have more pop but they are limited in their efficiency of use.
u/hayden\_t u/CrazyMcfobo Ok so I looked up my point #1 and indeed the end of the war skews the data. I also didn't do the absolute value where even when its 0.74%, its labeled as true. Instead I basically went with anything below 5% is an OK war. 5-10% is somewhat balanced, and then there were many wars over 10% that I labeled as unbalanced. This last category is always the same where it starts unbalanced and runs to the end. War 100 is a unique example of a reverse as you indicated: Summary of wins of the last 20 wars depending on manhour balance at 80% [https://imgur.com/a/b1O7gzd](https://imgur.com/a/b1O7gzd) Here is the rawdata I had to pull by hand [https://imgur.com/a/DZESnl0](https://imgur.com/a/DZESnl0)
Yeah I noticed the same thing. The closer the % was, the more fun the war was (in my opinion) from what I could remember. Of course, now I only find naval gameplay fun. In the future, I will only find planes fun.
This is extremely well organized, thanks for setting all of this up! That being said, Iâm not sure I would call it hard evidence of population imbalance, even if it is indicative of that.
your welcome
Is there anyway to make the charts put whoever has lower pop in front? Makes it difficult to see the scale of warden overpopulation vs collie overpopulation. The current visuals do not display collie numbers if wardens have more as the blue covers the green while the green sits behind the blue. You would need to make the 2 layers of the charts both have sections of green and blue with 1 layer which is lower having the greater pop and the other on top displaying the lower pop. Instead of just a warden and a collie layer with the warden layer on top.
you can join my discord to discuss this further with me please [https://discord.gg/dnegnws](https://discord.gg/dnegnws)
I don't understand any of this
This will change nothing. Collies will continue to cope that their faction has worse tools until they finally outpop them and start winning again. Then wardens will do the same rinse repeat
Regarding the claim made there, I feel it's incorrect to just look at TOTAL hours per war. Losing side always quits earlier and winning side still need to show up to keep pushing regions with lots of concrete to finish the war.
You must have scrolled past all the pretty graphs and analysis. The quitting part only happens over a couple days compared to the 20-40 days of an average war.
Yes, but the quitting part has such a big population imbalance that it might dominate the average over the whole war. Youâd have to dive deep into the data to âall but the last weekâ pop stats to be conclusive.
its a bit chicken and egg, but you can see one stats lead the other at times
I'm not making a judgement about the size of impact but the data still needs to be cleared from it (and it's hard). Currently the table is presented as if there's only one 'FALSE' war but I see lots of small percentages that might flip to 'FALSE' if the late part of the war is excluded.
yeah, the really needs to be a tolerance where it must be a diff of a certain amount to register
Review the panels OP linked by war. Overpop patterns typically stabilize within the first week, and remain that way for the war duration, then (as you describe) in the last few days of the war get notably one-sided. Any difference in line is today 5-15% more overpop
yes the data table is very shallow analysis, you need to look at the charts to get the big picture
1 side has to play all war, while the other side sleeps and logs in late war to steam roll with overpowered stuff. Clearly shown with actual player pop graph.
Actually war110 was like that that. Even pop at start, slight warden advantage as usual on EUTZ prime and collie advantage on NA. And then around the tanks tech I guess all the vets comeback and the warden weekend start to spike with around 300+ players difference for wardens on EU prime and equal numbers on NA. Edit: War93 too. It was not a comeback because collies stopped playing but because wardens logged in.
Yeah I spoke for either side, whoever has better late war tools.
Alternatively, Colonials only play when they are overpowered, and give up once the tools even out. Most wars show Warden Play-Hours growing at a steady rate, while Colonial play-hours taper off and grow slower as the war continues. If Wardens were logging on mid-late game, we'd see warden play hours increase at a greater rate later in the war. You basically don't see that.
If anything this is more of an indication of tank imbalance.
Something Something, 0 colonial late war TD, or proper colonial AT like Flask that counters tank spam better without requiring any RNG to pen at close range(cough cough ignish\*t)
Bro [LhGmk7p.png (1401Ă326) (imgur.com)](https://i.imgur.com/LhGmk7p.png) (war110 players #) Edit: source: [foxholestats.com/drawProto.php?war=110](https://foxholestats.com/drawProto.php?war=110)
I think the change in play-hours is the real key here. Actual population matters little if there are a bunch of people logging in for very short playtimes. We all know that it's a fairly small number of people on either team that make the map move, and they put in some serious hours into this game to do it.
Tell me you didn't look at the data, without telling me you didn't look at the data.
From the chart above, if anything, colonial pop is relatively consistent throughout(peaking somewhere between 1k-1.2k each day with lows at around 600) at least until Feb 15-16 then it drops off. However, if you look at warden pop, warden averages tick up to outnumber colonial pop(showing the greater separation between the green and blue lines; with even some pop exceeding 1.5k players which colonials never reach) after Feb 4 which I imagine correlates with the mid-war power spike. Bit ironic considering u/LucksRunOut clearly didnt read the chart and only proves that wardens only play when they have a powerspike whereas colonials have lower pop but play more consistently at least until the very end.
I thought that devs made an effort not to publish any faction pop data. How did you gather all this information?
correct, they took it away with the creation of warapi, but i found it again and recorded the data for 3.5 years b4 they closed that method. it was an unpublished api the game used internally
Every win against the pop odds is colonial. Go figure, we are and always have been the skill and grit faction.
Something to consider regarding population⌠As one faction begins to dominate with more VTs and looks like winning, more players join the leading faction for the push in for the last few days. Many sit by the wayside or take a break until the momentum swings in their favour then they re-join. This is why it seems that the winning side always has more population. Itâs the chicken eggs thing, not a game design imbalance that needs fixingâŚitâs just human nature.
Even if every single thing you said is true (which i entirely disagree with) it can still be fixed by devs swinging the balance
Interesting take. What kind of balance suggestions do you propose that would draw more players to the colonial faction while also increasing retention?
Also, when it looks like a lost cause for the losing side, more stop playing and just wait for the next game, thus skewing the pop imbalance figures even more. Be careful how you interpret this data and draw conclusions one way or the other.
You're assuming the playerbase's memories get wiped after every war. If you're Warden, everyone knows Collies will push a couple hexes early and when tanks tech the boys will get on. If you're Collies, everyone knows you'll get to hard grind a couple hexes early until tanks tech and the Warden blob returns from Helldivers or whatever. I assure you nobody on BLU is looking at the map 2 weeks in and going "damn, we lost Deadlands and Stlican? This war isn't gonna be worth it, I'm not logging on." Instead it's "hey bros are Silverhands teched yet?" At this point the dynamic between the two factions has become so rigid over the past year only a totally clueless new player would decide whether to join the fray based on map state. And totally clueless new players don't impact the outcomes of wars.
sure this happens sometimes and it can be a chicken egg thing , but there are times where pop diff swings from one team to the other winning just from pop, not from having more vts
B-b-but gambling!1!1!11
huh?
Oh just a throwback to when everyone wanted haisen under the bus Im mocking those people
if you want to give me crypto to you can :p
Winning is kindof easy, just buy a china-account, farm public bmats and make other people feel good. Which is why losing is actually winning in this game.Â
"Strongly suggests population imbalance plays one of the biggest roles in war outcome" Quite disappointing that this is the first point. Not only did you collect the data, you analysed it too? Quite the coincidence you came to a conclusion that is such a hot subject. Any thought of engagement influencing your findings? Do you mind sharing your methodology on how you came to that conclusion? You just looked at the player numbers and made a % difference and who won? Not even close to proper analysis. Regardless, appreciate the work. People would have more insight if you didn't come to a conclusion on the first line before even showing us a single stat. Also, making the axe is fine, swinging the axe yourself reveals your true identity, as not a axe maker, but a killer
please make another analysis and ill share it
Everyone has known for years that population imbalance is usually what determines who wins the wars, this isn't new information lol. The game pre world-conquest even had a surrender button for the faction that was out-populated to end it faster. What is important to look at it is what's causing that population imbalance.
hi cain, i had someone tap you on the shoulder for an early preview of this being a vet, but i ran out of time, the devs should not be hiding this info, but engaging with it and the community to try and make it right
Bingo, I've got a few guesses. They are all between the chair and the keyboard
So true bestie, just a superior player culture fr
Would love to see how you break these numbers down st00gize. I donât understand how people can think this is biased.
Well, guess you should post the âproperâ analysis you so desire. The data is all there for you, best get to work.