p4g3m4s7r, on 14 April 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:
My argument is that the advantage provided by ECM grows exponentially with the extent of the imbalance. Also, you only showed 3 matches with more than an ECM imbalance of 1. So you can't have any confidence in data regarding matches with an ECM deficit greater than 1. Also, I apologize, I should have said that my take on the data is that the 3050 weekend skewed the statistical representation of mechs in games too much to provide highly reliable data regarding the value of ECM. I think my first sentence sounded super douchy because I wasn't careful with my wording.
If by 3 you mean 36 then yes....
There were only 3 games where there was a difference of 3 or more.
Quote
But is the ratio of 3Ls to any other light variant 3:1 during any normal week/weekend? I guess my presumption was that people were probably playing lights less then because it was the 3050 weekend and the light pilots who stuck with their lights probably did so because they were more concerned with wins than cbills (but on second thought this may not be the most reasonable conclusion).
3Ls have always been vastly overplayed. Last month the Raven 3L was at 4.6% played overall with the Jenner F falling behind at 1.9, the D at 1.3, and the 4x at 1.1. That one also had far less mechs accounted for (896) and was also prior to elo based matching (which stopped class v class matching), the srm hotfix (which lessened the value of streaks), and the laser state rewind (which boosted the value of the Jenner F).
Quote
My whole point was that the 3050 weekend meant less frequent lights (except the death knell) which meant less ECM which meant a lower likelihood of substantially stacked amounts of ECM on either side or even very high ECM counts on either side. This means you'll have a less diverse of ECM match types to pull data from.
There was just as little matches in March where there were substantial (not sure what you mean by substantial but they way you say it is "enough to prove my own perceptions") differences in ECM, where 3Ls were more likely to be present than they were this weekend. You just don't get games that often where one team ends up with 4 or more ECM, unless it's a sync drop, in which case the argument is moot because you have 8 people working together to stomp a PUG. I mean, you can even probably prove it statistically, with the numbers I've given, the chance of having 4 ecm mechs, have them all be on the same team, and have 0 on the other. It's just statistically improbable.
IIRC there were the same amount of 3+ games, 3, and none with 4 or more. My data wasn't written the same way as I did these so comparing the two now, especially this late, isn't worth my time, to be honest.
Quote
I think there would be a problem with the Heavy Metal if 8 man heavy metal teams were able to consistently completely dominate any team they came up against, given that they'd be going up against another team of 8 assaults. I mean, this would kinda ruin 8 mans if people started abusing this hypothetical imbalance. And you know video games on the internet... people will abuse things that can be abused.
8v8 doesn't have any weight matching at all. I mean, it's already being done. Have you done 8s? There are plenty of 8 D-DC, 8 3D, 8 3L, 8 cent 9-A teams running amok. Anything in large numbers is dangerous. Especially just due to the confusion it causes by having the same 8 mechs in the same paint schemes running at you. How do you know which to focus fire without cycling through every single one of them.
Quote
My point regarding improbable scenarios is that there is a component in the game where people are able to create whatever scenario seems highly improbable in a PUG match in an 8 man drop, or even sometimes in a sync drop. You could certainly say that other 8 mans should simply counter by doing the same thing, but this would reduce match diversity, which is counter to the intent of the game's design. So, I believe you are wrong, and that this is not just my opinion. I believe the devs think they are attempting to reduce any potential imbalance, no matter how unlikely the match-up is.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but people will abuse whatever is currently the thing to abuse. Look at the fiasco both LRM bugs caused. Look at what happened prior to the SRM hotfix. Everyone was charging in with srms ablazing, splatterpults, etc.
But counters are always found in time. LRMs decrease, snipers rise, brawlers decrease, etc. it's always been an ebb and flow, and I really hope PGI never decides to balance a weapon based on "improbable" events. Flamers are fine because if 8 people run all flamer mechs than it can maybe cause a shutdown and kill people!
Quote
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. This goes back to my point about significant amounts of ECM disparity between two teams. I believe data regarding matches with greater and greater amounts of ECM disparity between two teams would show greater and greater win percentages for teams with more ECM. There was a post a ways back that had a substantial number of ECM match types (4:1, 3:1, 2:1, 1:1, etc...) that argued that, statistically, the data supported an 80% confidence that ECM did in fact influence the outcome of a match and that this influence was in the favor the ECM team. The data and analysis were both very sound.
Anyway, I apologize again if it seemed like I was attacking your data. I really appreciate the work you did and like your presentation of the data. This kind of data is incredibly valuable to the community at large, and it bothers me that the devs make absolutely no effort to present it, as I've probably said many times before. It really leaves us dependent on people like you who put substantially more work than should be necessary to get us a snapshot of what the behavior of the game and community are in general.
The problem is as I stated, the bigger that gap gets, you don't have a random set anymore, you have a sync dropped premade, and their skill and communication is far, far, far more a benefit to their team than the ECM they are carrying. In my previous studies where I specifically tracked premades they had nearly a 90% win rate. The only thing that dictated a winner more than having a premade on your team was having a dc, which resulted in a loss almost every single time.
You just can't statistically form a team where you get 4 ECM on one side and 0 without something being really screwed up and manipulated from the outside. It just doesn't happen.
Edited by hammerreborn, 15 April 2013 - 09:10 AM.
4
