As BE refuses to show us their data what is and what is not balanced and how closely it is balanced, we could simply do that ourselves. Here's the how: We count how many events of a certain category A happen. This could be kills, deaths, matches won, matches lost... The problem is that we measure only a sample of a larger statistical ensemble. That means that our result is not the true result. The true result is somewhere near our measured result. How near? For that we would need to calculate confidence-intervals and significance-levels and stuff like that. We skip that. Let's simply say: If we have counted n events, our result has an absolute error-bar of sqrt(n). That means, our relative error is 1/sqrt(n). -> The more we measure, the more we count, the more accurate our result is, because the error-bars approach zero. (For a more detailed explanation, read up on Poisson-statistics.) number of events in a category is: n +/- sqrt(n) So, for example, if we want to know whether Eldar are OP, we could simply count how many matches Eldar have won. Let's say, Eldar win 4 out of X matches. They win a percentage of 4/X, but the error-bar is 2/X. Let's say, Eldar win 16 out of Y matches. They win a percentage of 16/Y, but the error-bar is 4/Y. Let's say, Eldar win 100 out of Z matches. They win a percentage of 100/Z, but the error-bar is 10/Z. (Now all you need is to play more than 100 matches that involve Eldar.) If we want, for example, to know whether Bolter are OP, we could simply look at the kill-death-ratio of characters who use Bolter and compare them to the kill-death-ratios of other characters. Let's say, we count k kills and d deaths. To calculate the error of our measured kill-death-ratio, we just need a little bit of gaussian error-propagation. kill-death-ratio and its error is: k/d +/- sqrt(k/d² + k²/d³) I proposed this two years ago. I wonder how toxic this thread will get this time.

You are still making these? In theory, it's a good idea to collect data to be able to make more educated claims about the game, except: 1) Noone fucking cares. 2) You keep simplifying everything to a degree where it just becomes really hard to take you seriously. And it hasn't gotten better in all this time. At all.

balance in EC shouldnt be changing anymore, it drove in past only to one thing - NERF FUCKING ALL FACTIONS TO ACTUAL DUST and UNIQUE weapons and buff LSM to the skies so they could do steeel rain outta stratosphere

Honestly, I don't get most of the numbers and variables there (been too longs since doing ANYTHING with maths that did not only consist of reconstructing a doric temple out of a few parts ). From what I gathered it sounds interesting enough, but only in theory, since it sounds impracitcal for most people (either because they don't want to play or for other reasons, including the decline of the game rendering it somewhat moot in the first place).

15 players who have +1500 game hours experience vs 15 players who have 1-200 game hours experience eldar Op add it here But the mental development player LSM base does not allow them to use their potential.

In the name of all gods! Why you trying to triggered me? Statistic is more than idiotic thing in balancing stuff. Most of players play awful and don't know what they must to do with own weapon... And you wanna balancing aroud this?