Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Balance report for each matchup should be directly comparable #297

Open
soundasleep opened this issue Feb 15, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Balance report for each matchup should be directly comparable #297

soundasleep opened this issue Feb 15, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

@soundasleep
Copy link

The current grouping on the Balance Report is making it really hard to actually compare matchups. Is there any chance to switch it so that the groups are e.g. PvT/TvZ/ZvP?

In an ideal world (where we have achieved rock-paper-scissors balance), we should expect to see something like PvT > 50%, TvZ > 50%, ZvP > 50%. These are easy to compare and to judge balance.

But with the current Balance report, where we have PvT/PvZ/TvZ, such a balanced world would see something like PvT > 50%, TvZ < 50% (????), ZvP > 50%. Or some other combination.

(Is it as simple as changing aligulac/reports.py#80 to simply switch z & p around? If so, happy to submit a PR.)

@TheBB
Copy link
Owner

TheBB commented Feb 15, 2019

Well, it's mostly that simple. You need to change the variable names later on as well as in the actual HTML template too so that the viewer knows what he's looking at.

However I'm not sure I agree with your notion of ideal. Shouldn't the ideal balance when everything is 50%?

Currently the matchups are consistently PvT, TvZ and PvZ everywhere on the website, essentially the rule being that the races are in alphabetical order. I enjoy the consistency but of course if there's widespread agreement that doing them cyclically would be better then why not.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants