• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New job posting.   02/23/2019

      The Community Management team is looking for war correspondents to provide news stories or after action reports to be published on our website and our Steam forums.  Player correspondents imbedded with a squad is fine along with reporters overall who might want to produce stories about the campaign, a piece of equipment, a battle or a skirmish - all stories are encouraged and welcome.  If intertested in a volunteer war correspondent position apply at Tman@corneredrats.com
choad

Charting campaign 159 - wiretap captures stats

51 posts in this topic

I threw this together really quick for anyone who is interested in some quick stats on captures. Presently limited to the past 10 days of campaign time. Given a little time I will update this to be able to track the entire campaign.

The first graph shows in real-time, town captures by hour.

The second one shows all caps and recaps by hour.

** Represented in GMT time.

 

 

http://www.campaigncharts.com

 

 

Edited by choad
Updated URL
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Choad - will be interesting to watch this as Campaign continues! 

LaFleur 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated it to no longer be limited to 10 days of data. It will now track however long the campaign runs. I forgot to remove the chart subnote though ... so just ignore that.

Next week i will update things to track server population as well (not based on side, just overall population ... for now .... side population as a % hopefully soon to follow)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

It shows zero for me?

I had someone else tell me that but they said it worked after refresh. I will look into why that happens on occassion and get a fix out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just see a dotted line moving with time, no other data other than the moving time indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only just looking at this now.  Wonderful stuff @choad.  

 

Just to make sure I'm clear on these graphs, is each data point a cumulative total of the respective events for each hour of the day?  There are no averages or anything, right?

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Capco yes it is a total of each hour so far this campaign. Not an average. I will throw one out there later this evening that uses the same data but displays it by day totals just to give a different look at things.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The data for the ultra lowpop time is very interesting.  

 

There are roughly 3 spikes in capturing throughout the day, one for each TZ basically.  The spike that occurs at 4am Server Time (TZ3) shows 9 towns captured and 75 CPs captured by the Axis, or 8.33 caps/town.  

 

If you look at the other spikes, there are 12.50 caps/town (TZ1) and 15.33 caps/town (TZ2).  Again, we're just looking at the Axis data.  

 

The reason why you see more caps per town during the other two spikes is because the Allies are recapping some of those CPs, which means the Axis need to cap them again if they are going to take the town... or in other words, the action is more hotly contested, there's more back and forth stuff going on. 

 

In TZ3, it's a lot more one-sided than it is during the other two TZs.  

 

I mean, it's something we've known all along from playing the game for so many years, but it's interesting to see data that verifies it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Capco said:

The data for the ultra lowpop time is very interesting.  

 

There are roughly 3 spikes in capturing throughout the day, one for each TZ basically.  The spike that occurs at 4am Server Time (TZ3) shows 9 towns captured and 75 CPs captured by the Axis, or 8.33 caps/town.  

 

If you look at the other spikes, there are 12.50 caps/town (TZ1) and 15.33 caps/town (TZ2).  Again, we're just looking at the Axis data.  

 

The reason why you see more caps per town during the other two spikes is because the Allies are recapping some of those CPs, which means the Axis need to cap them again if they are going to take the town... or in other words, the action is more hotly contested, there's more back and forth stuff going on. 

 

In TZ3, it's a lot more one-sided than it is during the other two TZs.  

 

I mean, it's something we've known all along from playing the game for so many years, but it's interesting to see data that verifies it.  

Any way to tell if extra AOs have any bearing? I cannot see the data.

How many towns fall in the other TZs? (you only mentioned TZ3)

 

Thanks

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ian77 said:

Any way to tell if extra AOs have any bearing? I cannot see the data.

How many towns fall in the other TZs? (you only mentioned TZ3)

 

Thanks

 

S! Ian

Sorry about that.  

 

TZ1 = 125 caps / 10 towns = 12.50 caps/town

TZ2 = 138 caps / 9 towns = 15.33 caps/town

TZ3 = 75 caps / 9 towns = 8.33 caps/town

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Capco said:

Sorry about that.  

 

TZ1 = 125 caps / 10 towns = 12.50 caps/town

TZ2 = 138 caps / 9 towns = 15.33 caps/town

TZ3 = 75 caps / 9 towns = 8.33 caps/town

 

S!

Thanks for the intel.

So essentially each TZ is contributing equally to the campaign? The total number of Caps vary but player numbers and AOs vary as well, but in each TZ the overall outcome is roughly the same in terms of towns captured?

Each player in any TZ can feel his TZ contributes to the campaign game, and contributes to the same end degree as any other player in any other TZ. No single TZ unduly rolls the map according to this data, which is a good thing, isn't it?

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Thanks for the intel.

So essentially each TZ is contributing equally to the campaign? The total number of Caps vary but player numbers and AOs vary as well, but in each TZ the overall outcome is roughly the same in terms of towns captured?

Each player in any TZ can feel his TZ contributes to the campaign game, and contributes to the same end degree as any other player in any other TZ. No single TZ unduly rolls the map according to this data, which is a good thing, isn't it?

 

S! Ian

Couple of things.  These data points strictly refer to the Axis, and only refer to the peaks (each 8 hours apart). 

 

If you could see the graph, you'd see that the biggest amount of towns are taken throughout much of TZ1, a chunk in TZ2 (the peak basically) followed by a long period of stalemate (relatively speaking to the rest of the graph), then a huge jump (the TZ3 peak) followed by lower but consistent Axis gains until the next peak during TZ1.  

 

By comparison, the Allies took 1 (TZ1), 2 (TZ2), and 0 (TZ3) towns at the same hours as the Axis peaks.  

 

Also, we don't have a graphic of player numbers per day or per side (yet), but if we did you could further analyze those numbers, and I'm pretty sure the number of players per town capped would be lower for TZ3 than for TZ1 or TZ2.  That's where the disproportionate impact of TZ3 lies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again sorry about some not being able to see the charts. I have an idea what is going on and will look at it later this evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Capco said:

Couple of things.  These data points strictly refer to the Axis, and only refer to the peaks (each 8 hours apart). 

 

If you could see the graph, you'd see that the biggest amount of towns are taken throughout much of TZ1, a chunk in TZ2 (the peak basically) followed by a long period of stalemate (relatively speaking to the rest of the graph), then a huge jump (the TZ3 peak) followed by lower but consistent Axis gains until the next peak during TZ1.  

 

By comparison, the Allies took 1 (TZ1), 2 (TZ2), and 0 (TZ3) towns at the same hours as the Axis peaks.  

 

Also, we don't have a graphic of player numbers per day or per side (yet), but if we did you could further analyze those numbers, and I'm pretty sure the number of players per town capped would be lower for TZ3 than for TZ1 or TZ2.  That's where the disproportionate impact of TZ3 lies.  

So if only 25 guys play in a particular TZ they should only be able to capture 25% of things that 100 guys manage in another TZ?

Surely each TZ being almost identical in towns capped points to a balance of sorts? Making player numbers even lower in already low pop TZs by increasing cap timers even more and reducing AOs cant be the answer can it? Do you want a persistant 24 hour world, or only have the servers turned on when the americans want to play? We already have a RAT announcement for "Squad Events" that repeats every week and only ever in US evening time (hopefully lots of american players are turning up for it?), do you want the whole game to just be for the US playerbase?  The lower number of players in TZ3 are doing no more "damage" then the higher numbers in TZ2 and TZ1 according to this data.

 

S! ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ian77 said:

So if only 25 guys play in a particular TZ they should only be able to capture 25% of things that 100 guys manage in another TZ?

Surely each TZ being almost identical in towns capped points to a balance of sorts? Making player numbers even lower in already low pop TZs by increasing cap timers even more and reducing AOs cant be the answer can it? Do you want a persistant 24 hour world, or only have the servers turned on when the americans want to play? We already have a RAT announcement for "Squad Events" that repeats every week and only ever in US evening time (hopefully lots of american players are turning up for it?), do you want the whole game to just be for the US playerbase?  The lower number of players in TZ3 are doing no more "damage" then the higher numbers in TZ2 and TZ1 according to this data.

 

S! ian

Remember how we were talking about population and what it means for the health of the game in another thread?  How things don't work as well when pop gets low?  Well TZ3 is the epitome of that.  

 

Towns are harder to take in TZ1 and TZ2 because there are more players playing, because more of the basic jobs are being done.  I feel like that's pretty evident in the respective caps/town numbers.  

 

TZ3 combines low player numbers and imbalanced population to create situations and map moving ability that are simply alien to the other two TZs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Capco said:

Remember how we were talking about population and what it means for the health of the game in another thread?  How things don't work as well when pop gets low?  Well TZ3 is the epitome of that.  

 

Towns are harder to take in TZ1 and TZ2 because there are more players playing, because more of the basic jobs are being done.  I feel like that's pretty evident in the respective caps/town numbers.  

 

TZ3 combines low player numbers and imbalanced population to create situations and map moving ability that are simply alien to the other two TZs.  

But the numbers of towns captured are identical from the figure you provided?

Axis are rolling the map, and that rate of roll seems constant throughout the "day".

Axis having more players is not the "fault" of TZ3. If TZ3 had 9 towns capped and the others only had 4 or 5 then yes there would be an issue with TZ3, but they are pretty much equal.

You seem to be arguing that the TZs should not be equal? That what one TZ is able to contribute should be more important than what another can contribute?

At the moment the low pop TZ seems to fare no better or worse than the other TZs, is that not good?

If AOs are only going to function as and when both sides have a minimum of 50 players logged in, I fear you may never see another AO, as players log in, see nothing is happening and then log off again.

The figures you quoted show that no single TZ is allowing the map to roll any faster than any other TZ - the fact the map is rolling is not the "fault" of TZ3, or any other TZ.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Towns are harder to take in TZ1 and TZ2 because there are more players playing, because more of the basic jobs are being done.   

 

The number of towns falling in each TZ is almost identical so they must be just as "difficult" to take relative to the total number of players spawned in.

What you seem to want is for a TZ with more player numbers to count more towards the overall map? It seems you think US prime time is more important than any other TZ and should have more impact on the map, rather than having exactly the same impact as the other TZs presently have according to the figures you quoted.

Player numbers are not balanced, average players per TZ are not balanced, but the numbers of towns won and lost appears constant or balanced.

 

S! ian

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ian77 said:

But the numbers of towns captured are identical from the figure you provided?

Axis are rolling the map, and that rate of roll seems constant throughout the "day".

Axis having more players is not the "fault" of TZ3. If TZ3 had 9 towns capped and the others only had 4 or 5 then yes there would be an issue with TZ3, but they are pretty much equal.

You seem to be arguing that the TZs should not be equal? That what one TZ is able to contribute should be more important than what another can contribute?

At the moment the low pop TZ seems to fare no better or worse than the other TZs, is that not good?

If AOs are only going to function as and when both sides have a minimum of 50 players logged in, I fear you may never see another AO, as players log in, see nothing is happening and then log off again.

The figures you quoted show that no single TZ is allowing the map to roll any faster than any other TZ - the fact the map is rolling is not the "fault" of TZ3, or any other TZ.

 

S! Ian

Those aren't all the towns capped for each TZ.  Those are the towns capped at the peak hour of the day for each TZ.  

 

The total number of towns captured by the Axis in the graph are:

TZ1 = 56 (14:00-21:59 GMT) 

TZ2 = 42 (22:00-05:59 GMT) 

TZ3 = 41 (06:00-13:59 GMT)

 

To answer your question, I don't think it's right for a smaller group of people to have the same impact on moving the map as a larger group of people in this specific context, especially when the capturing of those towns in TZ3 is easier compared to other TZs.  Attrition is almost never a factor in TZ3, but sometimes the other TZs have to bleed an enemy brigade dry before they can capture the town.  That takes a lot more effort than what generally happens when towns fall in TZ3. 

 

I'm not the first person in this game to say or think that, and I certainly won't be the last.  

 

More effort should equal more rewards imo.  Do you disagree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@choadAny chance you could make a third graph that is basically a plot of the 2nd set of data divided by the first set for each side?  i.e.  CP Caps per Captured Town per Hour

Edited by Capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is your effort more than anyone else's?

Looking at your amended total captured town stats the only TZ that stands out as "unbalanced" is TZ1.

Players in TZ2 and TZ3 seem to be able to move the map equally.

And of course attrition is a factor in TZ3, if 1 and 2 have burned through all the supply before they even log in. You want to see hard core play, then spawn in TZ3 and fight in depleted flags without any HC to move in a new flag with fresh supply.

The basic issue seems to be whether the capture of towns should be constant across TZs or whether the map should move "more" when more total players are logged in.

Personally, TZs having equal worth seems good, but then I think being able to spawn a panzer in most towns is "good" and I know the RATs do not.

 

 

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.