Fireworks
Platinum
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 540
As some of you might recall, back in September, I did a study on just how common teaming, trashtalk, and hackers were in Survival Games. (You can view the old thread here.) However, that data is getting quite dated, and with the recent Leaderboard Update, is relatively inaccurate. So, about a week ago, I collected 50 games to observe and collect data from. The data I collected is the same as the previous study, but I'll repeat them again:
(I know this data is very hard to read from this image, so I recommend viewing it from the Google Sheet instead from this link here.)
So, now we're looking at a bunch of numbers, what sense can we make from it? I will try my best to explain what we see.
Just what can we conclude from all this data? Well, personally I have seen quite a few complaints floating around about each of these 3 points of interest, mainly the amount of teams. From what I recall, there has been complaints that teams of astounding sizes becoming more and more frequent. We're talking that teams of three are the norm. Out of curiosity, I wanted to see just how accurate their claims were, and I was planning on doing an updated study anyways. From what I found, I cannot see their claims being accurate. Throughout all 50 of my games, I did not see a single team exceed three players, and a team of that size was uncommon to begin with. In all, it appears that most likely you'll encounter teams of two, but any more than that seems very unlikely.
I will admit, my data may not be 100% accurate for the entirety of MCGamer. This data is limited to only US servers, so other regions may have different proportions, but that can be done a later, larger study. Even limited to just US servers, the data may still not be accurate, just for the sheer amount of factors that are in each game. (One team member died before the team got together. Different maps effecting the amount of teams in-game. Human error in myself.) Despite this, I tried to make this data as accurate as I could. Taking different games from different days of the week and at different times of the day. I tried my best in getting the most accurate data possible, and I hope it's enough to be referenced to.
That about sums up everything I have to show. Hopefully this study gives us a more detailed look in the exact proportions of different aspects of our Survival Games, and can be used as a tool to shed light into the complaints that have been cropping up lately.
Cheers,
Fireworks
(If there are any mistakes or edits that need to be addressed in this post, please let me know.)
Fun Fact: Collecting this data alone took about 10 hours, and was used as my case study for my final project in my AP Statistic class.
- Which day and time the game was recorded.
- The amount of players in-game when the game starts.
- The amount of 2 teams that get formed during the game.
- The amount of 3 teams that get formed during the game.
- The amount of 4 or more teams that get formed during the game.
- The amount of hackers found during the game.
- The amount of people that did some trashtalking.
- If there was a team in deathmatch.
- If a team won the game.
(I know this data is very hard to read from this image, so I recommend viewing it from the Google Sheet instead from this link here.)
So, now we're looking at a bunch of numbers, what sense can we make from it? I will try my best to explain what we see.
- Right off the bat, we'll start with which games have a team, and those that don't. The red games are games that had at least 1 team within them, while green games had no teams. This came out to be 41 red games and 9 green games. This shows that 82% of the games observed had at least one team within them.
- Next, we can look at the sizes of each team. From the totals at the bottom of the data, we had 69 teams of two, 6 teams of three, and no teams above 4. From this data alone, it appears that teams of two seem to be the most common size of teams, with teams of three being fairly uncommon, and teams of four or more of being near impossible to encounter.
- Next, we can look at the amount of a certain size team you can encounter on average. For teams of two, they had an average of 1.36 teams of two per game. Now, this may seem like there is always going to be at least one team of two in any said game, but that average applies to this sample alone. Take a look at the SD value. It reads ~1.06. This value, the standard deviation of the sample, means that the population average of the amount of teams of two is within a range of plus/minus 1.06 teams. In English, this means that the true average for all the games is between [0.3-2.42]. So, it's not guaranteed that you're going to encounter at least 1 team of two, but there's a good chance that you will.
- Jumping over a column, we can look at the amount of teams in deathmatch, and if said team won the game. Just going to spit some numbers out here: 29 games had no team in deathmatch, 3 games had a team in deathmatch, but the team did not win, and 18 games had a team in deathmatch, and won the game. This shows that more than 50% of the games sampled had no team in deathmatch.
- Onto trashtalking. This data, was relatively hard to collect, for what determines trashtalking varies from person to person. How my data was collected, was that I watched the chat for anyone that said anything about a fight being unfair, or talking down to other players as trashtalking, and counted a player as 1. So if any player had multiple instances of trashtalk, it only counted as one. Out of all of the collected games, there were 35 players that had at least one negative comment about the current game. From this, we can conclude that there is a 70% chance of at least one instance of trashtalk in a game, which is less than the 76% found in my previous study.
- Our final point of data, the amount of hackers found in a game. Now, this is a new data point that I added in this study, so I cannot compare it to my previous study. Out of the 50 observed games, there were only 8 obvious hackers found, all found in separate games. As I have no data to compare this to, I can only say that from this data, there is a 16% chance of encountering at least one hacker.
- Next, we can look at the sizes of each team. From the totals at the bottom of the data, we had 69 teams of two, 6 teams of three, and no teams above 4. From this data alone, it appears that teams of two seem to be the most common size of teams, with teams of three being fairly uncommon, and teams of four or more of being near impossible to encounter.
- Next, we can look at the amount of a certain size team you can encounter on average. For teams of two, they had an average of 1.36 teams of two per game. Now, this may seem like there is always going to be at least one team of two in any said game, but that average applies to this sample alone. Take a look at the SD value. It reads ~1.06. This value, the standard deviation of the sample, means that the population average of the amount of teams of two is within a range of plus/minus 1.06 teams. In English, this means that the true average for all the games is between [0.3-2.42]. So, it's not guaranteed that you're going to encounter at least 1 team of two, but there's a good chance that you will.
- Jumping over a column, we can look at the amount of teams in deathmatch, and if said team won the game. Just going to spit some numbers out here: 29 games had no team in deathmatch, 3 games had a team in deathmatch, but the team did not win, and 18 games had a team in deathmatch, and won the game. This shows that more than 50% of the games sampled had no team in deathmatch.
- Onto trashtalking. This data, was relatively hard to collect, for what determines trashtalking varies from person to person. How my data was collected, was that I watched the chat for anyone that said anything about a fight being unfair, or talking down to other players as trashtalking, and counted a player as 1. So if any player had multiple instances of trashtalk, it only counted as one. Out of all of the collected games, there were 35 players that had at least one negative comment about the current game. From this, we can conclude that there is a 70% chance of at least one instance of trashtalk in a game, which is less than the 76% found in my previous study.
- Our final point of data, the amount of hackers found in a game. Now, this is a new data point that I added in this study, so I cannot compare it to my previous study. Out of the 50 observed games, there were only 8 obvious hackers found, all found in separate games. As I have no data to compare this to, I can only say that from this data, there is a 16% chance of encountering at least one hacker.
I will admit, my data may not be 100% accurate for the entirety of MCGamer. This data is limited to only US servers, so other regions may have different proportions, but that can be done a later, larger study. Even limited to just US servers, the data may still not be accurate, just for the sheer amount of factors that are in each game. (One team member died before the team got together. Different maps effecting the amount of teams in-game. Human error in myself.) Despite this, I tried to make this data as accurate as I could. Taking different games from different days of the week and at different times of the day. I tried my best in getting the most accurate data possible, and I hope it's enough to be referenced to.
That about sums up everything I have to show. Hopefully this study gives us a more detailed look in the exact proportions of different aspects of our Survival Games, and can be used as a tool to shed light into the complaints that have been cropping up lately.
Cheers,
Fireworks
(If there are any mistakes or edits that need to be addressed in this post, please let me know.)
Fun Fact: Collecting this data alone took about 10 hours, and was used as my case study for my final project in my AP Statistic class.
) I really did enjoy this though, good job. It may be interesting to get other regions as well as US.
