Boss rush: It would be interesting

To see the data from the boss rush once it ends to see who was actually the most challenging fight overall for the community.

Any thoughts

Comments

Mathking13

I'd love to see those statistics once the boss rush ends...
I just wonder what sort of data you think would help figure out how challenging a boss is though. Do you just base it off kills? Length of fights? I can't think of any data that would accurately tell you who presented the largest challenge for such a large group of people.

belli300

I think deaths is the best indicator.seem to be How people determine good war defenders

megamang

Quake gave me the most problems.

Ordalca

You'd also have to consider that anyone who dies to Sym Supreme by definition must have beaten Quake and Domino. It's the same order each time, so maybe only include the data for people who completed the quest on that run?

belli300

You'd also have to consider that anyone who dies to Sym Supreme by definition must have beaten Quake and Domino. It's the same order each time, so maybe only include the data for people who completed the quest on that run?

Oh yeah that’s a really good point!

DNA3000

To see the data from the boss rush once it ends to see who was actually the most challenging fight overall for the community.

Any thoughts

How would you define "challenging?"

For example, if a player gets to Quake and tries three times and dies then gives up, he never gets to Taskmaster. Quake gets three kills and TM gets none, but we don't know the player wouldn't have gotten past TM in less kills. We would want to give Quake credit for being "difficult" in this case, but we don't know that Quake is more difficult than TM in this specific example.

We could maybe look at ratios and averages. Of all the players that reach Quake, how many deaths did it take to pass her, compared to all the players that reach TM. But then it is almost like we're comparing the performance of all the players who beat it against a lot of players who failed it, which would skew the numbers a bit.

We could try to do a more complex analysis, starting by looking at how far everyone got. Of all the players who enter the map, how many give up after fight one, how many give up after fight two, etc, and how many finish. If every fight was equally hard, we'd expect the percentage of people who get past each fight to be roughly the same. If a thousand people run it we'd expect something like half to get past fight one (500), then half to get past fight two (250), half to get past fight three (125), half to get past fight four (63), half to get past fight five (32), and half to finish (15) and the rests to get stuck on fight 6 (15). Something like that. Any deviation from those ratios would suggest one fight was harder than average.

But you'd also have to factor in how expensive it was to get past each fight. If one fight takes potions and another doesn't, its "harder." But what's the difference between a fight the player gives up on while spending nothing, and a fight the player pushes through and spends a thousand units on. We would have to make some kind of judgment call as to which one was "harder."

The numbers would be interesting, but we'd probably endlessly argue over what they mean, like college football rankings. Some stuff would be obvious and almost impossible to debate, and other stuff would probably be very subjective.

Welcome to game datamining.

We could simply abandon the notion of defining "challenging" and just say how each fight did on a number of different stats. How much was spent on each node, what percentage of all players actually reached each fight, what percentage of players who tackled a node actually defeated it, and how many kills did each node generate. Stuff like that. Rough stats like that might be something Kabam could provide, and leave up to the players to make sense of.

belli300

I like the idea of most challenging for those who
Completed the content