Friday, August 15, 2014

Elite PvP: GSF vs NC. in 2013

You probably know that NC. is one of the most "elite" PvP alliances out there. They utilize the best tactics and recruiting only accomplished veterans with high SP. GSF on the other hand are recruiting newbies from their forum and stumble around in cheap ships exploding hilariously. Or, this is what their propaganda says. Let's use the old 2013 GSF kill and loss data and compare it with the newly downloaded NC. 2013 data. As always, the kills are de-whored so if a 100B titan was killed and only 1% of the damage came from NC., they got 1B kills and not 100B.

Without further ado:
  • GSF: 8403B losses, 12138B kills, 59.1% ISK ratio.
  • NC.: 3782B losses, 5392B kills, 58.8% ISK ratio.
So much about both propagandas. The killboard of GSF was greener in 2013 than of NC. Which is funny on its own and would deserve a post. Note: GoonWaffe had 1908B losses, 1933B kills, which is 50% ISK ratio.

But let's dig a bit more to find some interesting data and maybe the proper definition of "Elite PvP".

The above lists are sorted by activity (kills+losses), listing the top enemies of the two alliances (except NPC corps). It's pretty obvious that the NC. list is much greener. How could then GSF has greener overall result? Because the lists only contain the top enemies, and not the long tail:
As you can see, NC. had more than half of its activity against only 10 enemy alliances and only 12% from the long tail. On the other hand Goons did more than 1/3 damage to the long tail. We can also notice that NC. had very similar ratios against all groups, while GSF had around 50% ratio against notable enemies but very good ratio against the long tail. Funny note: awoxing is so common that both alliances got into the top 10 opponent of themselves.

What is the long tail? Ganking. Random pilots who got caught at the wrong place and the wrong time. They are in the long tail exactly because of their randomness. If a group again and again clashes with Goons or NC., the exchanged kills put this group high on the opponent list. But if you just catch them once and never see them again, their name blends into a nameless long tail list. A telling number: NC. had killboard activity against 3500 different groups (alliances and alliance-less corps), while GSF against over 12000.

I believe the proper measure of the skills of a large alliance is their de-whored killboard ratio against their top enemies. With this, NC. has 57% ratio while GSF has 52%. Still not staggering difference, but there is some.

However, even with this, the problem of "Elite PvP" alliances stay: they aren't much elite. The propaganda and elitist recruitment criteria of NC. and similar alliances is based on inflated self-worth, while they aren't much better than the "Goons who are bad at EVE".

PS: the head of evil now says that the only people entitled to speak about the proper leadership of North Korea are the top Communist party members, since no one else has experience. Clarification: I don't question that someone who lives in null knows more of it. But he is motivated to tell only stuff that helps them against their enemies and preventing outsiders from entering.

PS2: a very good read about EVE not being a PvP game.

PS3: epic moron (see who did top damage, not just the Darwin-fit). And a less then smart Goon.


Kobeathris said...

Gevlon, wouldn't you agree that in a "fair" pvp game, top players going against each other should hover around a 50% win ratio? In that case, isn't 57% vs 52% a larger difference than it initially appears?

Bob said...

Of course eve isn't a pvp game, it's a sandbox and it's what you want to make of it. If you have fun playing a space uncle scrooge then by all means do it.

Back on topic, you misses a very important fact: 50% is a very healthy figure. Maybe not for some people's ego but for the game. It means that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, everyone's happy, everyone can have his share of enjoyment and keeps logging in. Elite or not, that's just words and what matters is that people keep coming playing the game and 50% efficiency is a great balance to achieve that goal.

Anonymous said...

Nonono... Kobeathris, Gevlon told us that WoT or the PvP battles in WoW are based on a matchmaking system that gives you ALWAYS a 50% W/L ratio.
Therefore no amount of skill would let you get better resulst as the better you will become the harder the ennemies that the matchmaking system throws at you will be...

Although I agree with your opinion that with large numbers, the isk ratio always should level out at 50% and any deviance of more then 2% would be an exceptional result.

But Gevlon wats to tell us another story. There is no elite PVP in Eve as all the "elite PVP" entities have "gruesome" statistics.
And any "normal" EVE PVE Player has a bad Isk ratio in PVP as one timer or the other he flew right into a gank.
Of course if you just make a miner gank char and undock only to fly to your scout's warpin to gank a mining barge, then you will always have an extremely high isk rato.
Again, this has nothing to do with elite pvp skills, but with the crappy game mechanics. A super cheap, worthless catalyst can kill ships up to 50x its worth. If that mechanic held true for other ships, then a BS should easily be able to kill a ship woth 20B... Oh wait...

CFC Grunt said...

Gevlon, when it comes to metrics, your idea of "Dewhoring" is bad.

Why? Well, let's look at the case of the titan kill. 100B titan, split between people cost-wise basing on how much damage they dealt.

Sounds good? Not really - It's likely that there were ships on the field that did not do any damage (0.00%) but were vital to the operation. For instance, Heavy Interdictors holding the titan down.

De-whoring will focus only on the DPS, where a lion's share belongs to the squad of HICs that held the ship down to begin with. Without them, there would be no kill at all - it's not like the Titan is honor-bound not to jump out or warp away.

Likewise, in big brawls your scoring ommits logistics. Logistics often makes or breaks the battle. (And, the use of logistics and T2 ships used to be what "Elite PvP tactics" were about.)

Anonymous said...

I didn't understand mittens either: So basically unless you are a soldier you have no room to talk about the military and so forth. Let me use this example: The U.S. Nuclear force has been found to be in horrible shape. Was this determined by the military or was it found by non military watch dog?

Anonymous said...

"the proper measure of the skills of a large alliance is their de-whored killboard ratio against their top enemies."


There's an old adage in performance management that says, "You'll get what you measure." It's very true, and works in reverse. If you want a strong, efficient firm, you measure against its purpose.

The purpose of a sov-holding alliance is to hold sov. Therefore, the proper measure is how much and how long they hold their sov.

What allows a sov-holding alliance to survive is avoiding the failure cascade. If KB efficiency was the best measure of that, then BoB and GNC should still rule 0.0. GHSC should rule highsec. m0o should rule lowsec. None of these do, because they all failed.

Goons have shown a remarkable resilience to failure cascade. They've been beaten, they've been disbanded (you're aware that GSF isn't the original alliance, right?), they've fought in massive wars, they've been embroiled in CCP-related controversy, and they've had long stretches of peace (which, in fact, is one of the riskiest things for an alliance in EVE). BoBzoku had all of these things happen to them, too. They are no longer a sov-holding entity.

Does KB efficiency play into that? Maybe. The average line member isn't going to like getting curbstomped every time they log in. But they still log in, and that's why Goons have survived while so many others have failed.

Gevlon said...

@CFC Grunt: the de-whoring is indeed unfair to an individual pilot who flies mostly logi or tackle and favors the F1-monkey. But when you compare corps or alliances, you can assume that they have both kind of players.

Anonymous said...

1000 t1 vs the equivalent ISK value of t2 or t3.

who'll win? the blob?

so if the blob has a 52% ISK efficiency they are losing the field much more often than 50% of the time.

to put it another way; if one uses t1 and the other uses t3 and they both lose 50% of the time, the ISK ratio will heavily favour the t1 user.

Gevlon said...

What forces the other to not downship to T1 and choose their fights properly like MoA/Pasta/Mortuus?

Anonymous said...

"What forces the other to not downship"

elitepvp and/or N+1

if you cant win by out blobing because you don't have the numbers required you need some other force magnifier. so at some point a lesser force needs to upship.

if you _are_ able to fly higher tier ships and still break even in the ISK war then that will add to your elitepvp reputation. which may help in recruitment (perhaps)

the problem comes when the blob masters the biggest cost effective (t1) option. ie dreads.

Anonymous said...

I don't need to look at any numbers to see that NC. Is not an elite alliance.
I've been on the anti goon side of the game for 8 years, and I've flown with most of those members of NC. In one or another constellation (and I left when my last Corp joint that cesspool of noobs)

Any alliance that contains Ankou, Nexe, lft or hirr can not claim to be an elite pvp alliance. Those corps have in common that they put isk farming before learning the game, and that they have relaxed recruitment which lets in the worst of players.

The sad part is that veterans of the other corps have been giving up left and right, simply being rolled over by massive waves of stupidity. It's why many of my friends and me are not with them - we don't enjoy the levels of incompetence we saw around there.

Anonymous said...

Would be interesing to see the average player count of each entity. Or the average value per ship loss. The average value of each ship killed. The average number of allies in a fight.

Then you probably get a bit closer to what you actually wanted to point out.

Anonymous said...

Would you say 57% vs 52% is insignificant when the other side is constantly fighting 1:2 or 1:3 odds?

Subscribe to the goblinish wisdom