ROLE EXPERIENCE
I catch myself experiencing different feelings about role drop:
- when the renegade role comes in, it feels more frustrating compared to other roles and it can even be like “Oh no! Please not the renegade again!” or “Why me? Can anybody else play renegade?” sometimes;
- when sheriff and vice roles come in, it feels more pleasurable and fine compared to the renegade role;
- when the outlaw role comes in, it primarily feels easier than others which leads to satisfaction as well.
In this topic, I try to find basis for this subjective experience and how to make the Arena mode better.
DATA: ROLE BALANCE
In order to get win rate for every role in Arena, I scanned 4801 games I participated in till 12th March 2025 (completed Arena games only were counted, regardless of my role).
* Season 20 is not completed yet, data for this season is not included to “format average”, fields are marked in yellow.
It looks like...
a) the game is unbalanced in 5-player and 6-player formats, which means roles do not have equal win rate.
b) in 6-player format, roughly to say, “bad guys” win 3 times out of 5 games, “good guys” win 1 time out of 3 games, renegade wins 1 time out of 15 games.
c) the role balance is stable and predictable, which means precise numbers can vary within some range but the general tendency will stay the same.
d) the difference between 5-player and 6-player formats is swapped win rate between “good guys” and “bad guys” teams.
e) the number of players has key value for role balance since changes in settings of 6-player format (random or chosen character, HN expansion or no expansion) have no significant impact.
DATA: POINTS SYSTEM
In order to get how much points players gain for winning in Arena, I scanned 200 games of the current season 20, from season start till 12th of March (completed games only, regardless of who is the winner).
It looks like...
f) there are different ranges for each role (marked in yellow, red and green) so players gain different amount of points depending on their role.
g) players can earn the most per 1 winning game by playing renegade role, whereas playing outlaw role the least, and playing for “good guys” - somewhere in the middle.
h) if we set an average for each range, the gap between yellow (outlaws) and red (sheriff & vice) ranges is almost the same (visually the same) to the gap between average numbers of red (sheriff & vice) and green (renegade) ranges.
THE BASIS
Trying to figure out what happens, I agree with other players on forum who think the problem is not just difficulty but the relations between difficulty and points awarded. This way I've got the “risk and reward” hypothesis, following which I can state the next:
1. A good player experience can be achieved within well-designed risk and reward system.
2. A well-designed risk and reward system means the rewards for roles are set in proportion to the risk factor (which can be different for different roles).
3. If done properly, the system creates a pool of different player experiences where every single role is fun, and there is no tendency among players to choose something more/less (this choice is not given in the Bang, we don't choose the role we will be playing).
4. If done incorrectly, it creates a tendency to choose something more/less and differentiation in satisfaction of a player experience, the game starts to feel “wrong” even when a player cannot express the exact reason what is wrong with the game.
If the risk factor is represented by role balance and the reward factor is represented by points system, both described above, then we can figure out the actual situation we are in:
Formula #1 (for reward):
R = BV * RC
where...
R – Reward;
BV – Base Value;
RC – Risk Coefficient.
Formula #2 (for risk coefficient):
RC = 100% / WR%
where...
RC – Risk Coefficient;
WR – Win Rate.
Step 1. First, we need to calculate risk coefficient for each role, following formula #2:
Outlaws = 100% / 60% = 1.7
Sheriff & Vice = 100% / 33% = 3
Renegade = 100% / 7% = 14,3
Step 2. Once we got RC, we can calculate current base value (BV) for each role, following formula #1:
Outlaws = 11,86 / 1,7 = 7
Sheriff & Vice = 15,85 / 3 = 5,3
Renegade = 19.61 / 14,3 = 1,4
Opinion: the base value (BV) is different for each role: the role of outlaw has 7 BV, sheriff and vice roles have 5,3 BV, and the renegade has only 1,4 BV. Following the risk and reward hypothesis, this differentiation in base value is exactly the reason why the game doesn't feel right (fair and balanced) in Arena mode; in other words this is the basis for subjective role experience described in the beginning.
HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER
Following the hypothesis, the game will be felt better when the base value (BV) is the same or equal regardless of the role. For example, if BV=5, then it is 5 for every role. Having said this, we have to change one of two parameters: role balance (risk) or points system (reward).
What can players do?
I don't see what players can do in order to change the balance. There are topics with different tips on forum but it just doesn't work, as the data shows. This way I can give one more advice, which is more like a joke rather than real advice...
If you got in situation of no chance to win, then:
- playing renegade, help to “good guys” to win;
- playing “good guys”, help to renegade;
- playing “bad guys”, help to renegade.
What can Guru-players do?
Guru-players vote for the format, which will be played next Arena season. There are players on forum who said that 5-players format is more balanced than 6-player format, and the opposite. In my opinion, both of those player groups are wrong since the data shows both formats are unbalanced.
There are two more options to vote for: 4-player and 7-player formats, maybe they will be more balanced. There are players on forum who think these formats are better but I did not find any data supporting those opinions.
What can BGA Administration do?
As far as I understand, the Arena points system can be changed. This way BGA administration can calculate and set rewards following the formulas presented above, based on role balance from previous season(s).
For example, lets say we would like to set the BV=5 for 6-player format, then based on my data the average reward would be calculated as follows:
Outlaws = 5 * 1,7 = 8,5 points for each player;
Sheriff & Vice = 5 * 3 = 15 points for each player;
Renegade = 5 * 14,3 = 71,5 points.
The end.
I catch myself experiencing different feelings about role drop:
- when the renegade role comes in, it feels more frustrating compared to other roles and it can even be like “Oh no! Please not the renegade again!” or “Why me? Can anybody else play renegade?” sometimes;
- when sheriff and vice roles come in, it feels more pleasurable and fine compared to the renegade role;
- when the outlaw role comes in, it primarily feels easier than others which leads to satisfaction as well.
In this topic, I try to find basis for this subjective experience and how to make the Arena mode better.
DATA: ROLE BALANCE
In order to get win rate for every role in Arena, I scanned 4801 games I participated in till 12th March 2025 (completed Arena games only were counted, regardless of my role).
* Season 20 is not completed yet, data for this season is not included to “format average”, fields are marked in yellow.
It looks like...
a) the game is unbalanced in 5-player and 6-player formats, which means roles do not have equal win rate.
b) in 6-player format, roughly to say, “bad guys” win 3 times out of 5 games, “good guys” win 1 time out of 3 games, renegade wins 1 time out of 15 games.
c) the role balance is stable and predictable, which means precise numbers can vary within some range but the general tendency will stay the same.
d) the difference between 5-player and 6-player formats is swapped win rate between “good guys” and “bad guys” teams.
e) the number of players has key value for role balance since changes in settings of 6-player format (random or chosen character, HN expansion or no expansion) have no significant impact.
DATA: POINTS SYSTEM
In order to get how much points players gain for winning in Arena, I scanned 200 games of the current season 20, from season start till 12th of March (completed games only, regardless of who is the winner).
It looks like...
f) there are different ranges for each role (marked in yellow, red and green) so players gain different amount of points depending on their role.
g) players can earn the most per 1 winning game by playing renegade role, whereas playing outlaw role the least, and playing for “good guys” - somewhere in the middle.
h) if we set an average for each range, the gap between yellow (outlaws) and red (sheriff & vice) ranges is almost the same (visually the same) to the gap between average numbers of red (sheriff & vice) and green (renegade) ranges.
THE BASIS
Trying to figure out what happens, I agree with other players on forum who think the problem is not just difficulty but the relations between difficulty and points awarded. This way I've got the “risk and reward” hypothesis, following which I can state the next:
1. A good player experience can be achieved within well-designed risk and reward system.
2. A well-designed risk and reward system means the rewards for roles are set in proportion to the risk factor (which can be different for different roles).
3. If done properly, the system creates a pool of different player experiences where every single role is fun, and there is no tendency among players to choose something more/less (this choice is not given in the Bang, we don't choose the role we will be playing).
4. If done incorrectly, it creates a tendency to choose something more/less and differentiation in satisfaction of a player experience, the game starts to feel “wrong” even when a player cannot express the exact reason what is wrong with the game.
If the risk factor is represented by role balance and the reward factor is represented by points system, both described above, then we can figure out the actual situation we are in:
Formula #1 (for reward):
R = BV * RC
where...
R – Reward;
BV – Base Value;
RC – Risk Coefficient.
Formula #2 (for risk coefficient):
RC = 100% / WR%
where...
RC – Risk Coefficient;
WR – Win Rate.
Step 1. First, we need to calculate risk coefficient for each role, following formula #2:
Outlaws = 100% / 60% = 1.7
Sheriff & Vice = 100% / 33% = 3
Renegade = 100% / 7% = 14,3
Step 2. Once we got RC, we can calculate current base value (BV) for each role, following formula #1:
Outlaws = 11,86 / 1,7 = 7
Sheriff & Vice = 15,85 / 3 = 5,3
Renegade = 19.61 / 14,3 = 1,4
Opinion: the base value (BV) is different for each role: the role of outlaw has 7 BV, sheriff and vice roles have 5,3 BV, and the renegade has only 1,4 BV. Following the risk and reward hypothesis, this differentiation in base value is exactly the reason why the game doesn't feel right (fair and balanced) in Arena mode; in other words this is the basis for subjective role experience described in the beginning.
HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER
Following the hypothesis, the game will be felt better when the base value (BV) is the same or equal regardless of the role. For example, if BV=5, then it is 5 for every role. Having said this, we have to change one of two parameters: role balance (risk) or points system (reward).
What can players do?
I don't see what players can do in order to change the balance. There are topics with different tips on forum but it just doesn't work, as the data shows. This way I can give one more advice, which is more like a joke rather than real advice...
If you got in situation of no chance to win, then:
- playing renegade, help to “good guys” to win;
- playing “good guys”, help to renegade;
- playing “bad guys”, help to renegade.
What can Guru-players do?
Guru-players vote for the format, which will be played next Arena season. There are players on forum who said that 5-players format is more balanced than 6-player format, and the opposite. In my opinion, both of those player groups are wrong since the data shows both formats are unbalanced.
There are two more options to vote for: 4-player and 7-player formats, maybe they will be more balanced. There are players on forum who think these formats are better but I did not find any data supporting those opinions.
What can BGA Administration do?
As far as I understand, the Arena points system can be changed. This way BGA administration can calculate and set rewards following the formulas presented above, based on role balance from previous season(s).
For example, lets say we would like to set the BV=5 for 6-player format, then based on my data the average reward would be calculated as follows:
Outlaws = 5 * 1,7 = 8,5 points for each player;
Sheriff & Vice = 5 * 3 = 15 points for each player;
Renegade = 5 * 14,3 = 71,5 points.
The end.
