Hence Mark Twain's famous quote about statistics... "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
As these longer DB games are showing, debt is another important long term factor. A player with large debt does not have same buyout purchasing power as another player with the same cash on hand but no debt. In that game, I also owned a lot of other player's stock, which could have been sold off at any time. Thus, my economic purchasing power was actually much higher than it appears. Perhaps your bottom graph showing a solid line "power" for total cash + resource value would tell a more complete story if it included a pro-rated portion of the current debt and current value of stock owned.
Keep up the good work, but please keep in mind that in any statistical endeavor, the interpretation of data cannot be done by an analyst alone, it requires the wisdom of domain experts (like soren, cubit, pbhead, blackmagic, insync) for proper interpretation.
Mark twain was specifically referencing the ability of statistics to lie to the uneducated or uninformed. not that the statistics themselves are wrong.
Although it is fun to quote, the context is very important.
Also what I am hearing is that you you made 2 long term plays (patents and buyout) which never kicked in much at all I mean facts are they didn't matter. It was a choice you made and sure it had pros and cons, but in that game it had mostly cons. had the game lasted another 2 days? I have no doubt your economy would have done well but Cubit successfully played a massive short into tons of economic gain to win.
What I see more and more from this, is people not playing the mode correctly and then complaining when they didn't win. On the same token I see people playing the mode correctly making the First purchase and then being able to win. OR waiting and executing a specific plan to beat out stalled players. MOST of those issue are from lack of knowledge on opponents and potential win conditions. Its not black and white. Its 70-30% DBO stalls you out for sure, but its not 100 or 90% as people are saying.
Dont' get me wrong I 100% agree that DBO right now sets you back too far. But you made choices that did not work well with the mode you were playing. If you know this information to be true right? you know DBO stalls you out? then why on earth would you purchase 2 people? I can't rationalize that from your game as a reason to vote against DBO.
but you were perceived strong in that match, that is not in doubt however perceived strength is not ACTUALLY strength. Nobody saw cubit as a threat very much, until it was too late (BM started to hit him but then stopped) as of course you were only second strong. You didn't make debt mistakes to get bought out first, and you managed to also buy out the second player, But why? why not save up and buy out cubit? Why buy out bottom and third place while knowing the mode you are playing would not reward it? Again it is beyond me to use your game as metric for this conversation.
Are you'r points valid? sure, But not from the game you are saying at all. Nor should ANY 1 game be used to prove anything.
And no I don't think my opinion is above veteran players. But I think using that game specifically as an example is extremely disingenuous, and confirmation bias.
ALL I have been saying is that DBO is not "you buy first you lose", That is obviously NOT true. It does set you too far back i agree, but not for the example you give. Are you frustrated? clearly. You expect the mode to reward your choices when it doesn't . But that doesn't validate a game as a metric nor should it. There are many in game factors that come into play and none of them are black and white. You lost 2 games in that series, One you claim due to DBO setting you back, and yet the very next game Cubit buys first and won. I mean even looking at before you bought someone, you were already behind, So if your game plan was in late game, why intentionally stall yourself out with a buyout?
I'm not trying to start beef, Nor do I think I know better, But using 1 game as a "validation" is a mistake, And specifically that game.
Also yes there are MANY issues with my graphs, 90% of that is due to it being impossible to by hand calculate and gather the proper data, I don't claim my data is flawless nor its visualization, but It was not a 2% close finish match when it came to buy out :/
many flaws in that match, impossible to use as a metric.
DBO is not as binary as you claim, 70-30 for sure but not 100-0 or 90-10,
DBO needs to not stall out so far I 100% agree, but surely not because of 1 game.
the claim was "wino was clearly ahead", this is false, he was potentially ahead better set up for later game. until he made his first purchase at which point he will stall out as DBO will cause.
My data is flawed as it can not be collected by hand properly. but its not to be ignored either.
after talking a bit with a few people I think using the finals as a case study is better. and provide better context for DBO issues specifically.
speaking of which I will put my money where my mouth is if anyone has a reply of the finals I will gladly run them and see if what I have even holds up or if it proves my errors. (I'm all about the facts even if it means being 10000% wrong)
I think after the upcoming tweaks to DBO with stock and claims, DBO will be in a much better place to evaluate.
also pretty much everyone in this forum is a better execution player than I am Wino specially I would lose to you Every game probably. I don't wanna make it seem like I know better. I do not. But I also think I bring something unique to the analysis table