692 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

Oh snap, Ad Hominem already?

Just pointing out the trollingly obvious.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:20 AM, said:

And some people just don't have the IQ to understand the evidence presented does not provide the answers they are jumping too.

We could do this argument all day.

The difference is you're basing your claims on the basis that what is presented is false without any evidence in support. You purposefully take this position because you don't agree that Clan Tech is better than IS Tech.
*cough*


You can't exactly defend a position based on a hypothetical so you resort to Argumentum ad ignorantiam and Ad Hominem attacks.

Browse the forums about the results of the 2 Clan v. IS test periods. Which side is the one consistently winning by large margins? The feedback and screenshots support the conclusions PGI announced. What do you have that supports your claim? I'm still waiting.

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

Just pointing out the trollingly obvious.

Obfuscation. Good try though.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 03:31 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:

The difference is you're basing your claims on the basis that what is presented is false without any evidence in support. You can't exactly defend a position based on a hypothetical so you resort to Argumentum ad ignorantiam and Ad Hominem attacks.

No, the difference is we are saying we don't have the full picture data, to make an accurate conclusion because that data is withheld from us.

And no i don't disbelieve clan tech is better than IS tech, i actually think some clan tech is better, and some IS tech is better, but im not fool enough to accept half figures without the workings behind said figures.

And the post i quoted about your memes, attacks your position not your character, which is not ad hominem (i would have to attack your character with some irrelevant/random fact about you, but as usual the internet gives people the freedom to use big words without understanding them)

The burden of proof is on PGI to display how they came to their conclusions.

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 August 2014 - 03:32 AM.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:

The difference is you're basing your claims on the basis that what is presented is false without any evidence in support. You can't exactly defend a position based on a hypothetical so you resort to Argumentum ad ignorantiam and Ad Hominem attacks.

Well there is a bit. Looking at all the screen shots posted, nearly all of them had the losing team having more players that did poor amounts of damage. Such is also found within the mixed matches and IS versus IS. That shows some sort of correlation between the performance of the team and how many bad members (whether it is just a bad day, they are new, or they are just simply bad). So basically with the screenshots we were given some data, that could raise the question and possibly pass doubt on the averages telling the whole story.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 03:30 AM.

[Rehooja]

Let the clanners whine and try somehow undo the fact that has been slammed into their face.

They paid for their mechs in a F2P game. Ofc they want them to be OP against players who play without money involved. Why else would they pay for it if it won't guarantee a victory for them.

90 to 10. No excuse will cover that up.

OP post is right, you clan defenders need to apologize.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Vin Reho, on 08 August 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

Let the clanners whine and try somehow undo the fact that has been slammed into their face.

They paid for their mechs in a F2P game. Ofc they want them to be OP against players who play without money involved. Why else would they pay for it if it won't guarantee a victory for them.

90 to 10. No excuse will cover that up.

OP post is right, you clan defenders need to apologize.

Or they paid for them because they didn't want to wait for them?

[Thunder Child]

Utilyan, on 08 August 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

They are paying, TIME. The free Awesome with choice of advert.......Not a bad idea, I don't think they are that desperate . If I only got a nickel for each whats that $100k? And if they like the game? They pull folks who do pay. Your free players are content, it means you got a packed playground. It means this is where its at, this is where its happening. Your already my advertisement when you play this game.


Its like the CW merc unit is pay only to create(from what I read like months ago im prob way off), I think what they should have done is make it open and free limited-wise including the creation and get that free player to the point there is an incentive to commit to paying for it. You want to encourage that whole "brotherhood" and friendships in game. They might even consider it paying for itself even if it was free, because now you got this incentive to see what your gaming partners are up to. If I could hook you with that invested interest even if you can't pull your wallet now, your making me money by keeping the game interesting and then later if this is "your" game you will pull out your wallet because you want to rather then because you had to.





BTW, Im not a business man......just a sneaky mf'r

Okay, I get where you're coming from. The idea being to hook FtP'ers into the game enough that they feel like donating, instead of feeling compelled to pay, just so they can compete. And with sufficient numbers, hopefully they bring their friends who may have more buck to blow on cosmetics and stuff. Fair enough.

[Hardac]

Docta Pain, on 08 August 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

Clans are SUPPOSED to be FAR FAR FAR superior technologically. 90% is a little on the low side from The Invasion's perspective. That's why a Binary takes on a Company and can still win more than half of the time. 12 v 12 and the invasion would have been over before it began.

Good points have been made about clans better (non-humanoid) shape and weapon placement (not on hips) and about how that now they have been mastered we see how much more powerful they are... which is what you'd expect from an invasion force that is FAR FAR FAR superior technologically.

Lore has absolutely zero place in game balance. Stop dragging it out as if it proves anything other than that you're an idiot.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:28 AM, said:

No, the difference is we are saying we don't have the full picture data, to make an accurate conclusion because that data is withheld from us.

You admit you don't have the "full picture", yet you're claiming the results can't be right? How can you make any claim when you don't have all the relevant facts.

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

Well there is a bit. Looking at all the screen shots posted, nearly all of them had the losing team having more players that did poor amounts of damage. Such is also found within the mixed matches and IS versus IS. That shows some sort of correlation between the performance of the team and how many bad members (whether it is just a bad day, they are new, or they are just simply bad). So basically with the screenshots we were given some data, that could raise the question and possibly pass doubt on the averages telling the whole story.

Oh here, we go.

"There was low damage in IS v IS matches. There is low damage in Clan v. IS matches. Since both IS v. IS and Clan v. IS had low damage numbers then there's no difference in Clan Tech to IS Tech."

False Equivalence and Informal fallacies all night up in here~

2-3 years of the same Elo system and suddenly it's "broken" because PGI came out and said Clan Tech is P2W. Not at all related, right?



Keep ignoring what's in front of you because you know it's wrong. Your SPARKLES are gonna get hit with the nerf hammer. Cry me a river.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 03:44 AM.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

You admit you don't have the "full picture", yet you're claiming the results can't be right? How can you make any claim when you don't have all the relevant facts.


Oh here, we go. "There was low damage in IS v IS matches. There is low damage in Clan v. IS matches. Since both IS v. IS and Clan v. IS had low damage numbers then there's no difference in Clan Tech to IS Tech. Informal fallacies all night up in here.



Keep ignoring what's in front of you because you know it's wrong. Your SPARKLES are gonna get hit with the nerf hammer. Cry me a river.

There is a difference in Clan tech compared to IS tech. However knowing the factors (and statistics pertaining to those factors) that played into the the result give a cleaner picture of just how much better. Them saying "not even close" is not telling us anything but what the two pieces of data tell us. It doesn't tell us anything about any other factors.

And again, I could care less if I'm wrong at this point, I just want to see the whole data.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 03:45 AM.

[Revorn]

If they say clan wins 90% i dont need more Numbers, Nerf Clans back to Hell.

Edited by Revorn, 08 August 2014 - 03:47 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

You admit you don't have the "full picture", yet you're claiming the results can't be right? How can you make any claim when you don't have all the relevant facts.


Oh here, we go.

"There was low damage in IS v IS matches. There is low damage in Clan v. IS matches. Since both IS v. IS and Clan v. IS had low damage numbers then there's no difference in Clan Tech to IS Tech."

False Equivalence and Informal fallacies all night up in here~

2-3 years of the same Elo system and suddenly it's "wrong" because PGI came out and said Clan Tech is P2W. Not at all related, right?

Keep ignoring what's in front of you because you know it's wrong. Your SPARKLES are gonna get hit with the nerf hammer. Cry me a river.

Your becoming rather yawnsome.

It could be right, it could be wrong, without the data who knows. We don't have the facts to say they are right or wrong, but averages are shaky ground.

I think you'll find there have be scores of complaints about MM and the elo system since it's inception, people don't believe it's anywhere near correct ( but again we don't have the metrics to see)

If you think this is caring about sparkles, you really have no idea. They could reduce the clans to being perfectly equal to the IS tech so essentially just different skins and personally i wouldn't care. (infacat that would be their best option)

If your so intent their averages are correct, why are you arguing against having all the data?

[Noth]

Revorn, on 08 August 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

If they say clan wins 90% i dont need more Numbers, Nerf Clans back to Hell.

And when everyone gets clan mechs and suddenly the clan mechs suck and percentages swing the other way, would you want IS nerfed back to hell?

[Revorn]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

And when everyone gets clan mechs and suddenly the clan mechs suck and percentages swing the other way, would you want IS nerfed back to hell?

Sure.

But i would prefare a balanced Game, so this woudl not need to happen.

Edited by Revorn, 08 August 2014 - 03:55 AM.

[Noth]

Revorn, on 08 August 2014 - 03:54 AM, said:

Sure.

But i would prefare a balanced Game, so this woudl not need to happen.

Your last line is why you should want more data. As those factors and their data are what truly paint the picture of what is wrong with the clan mechs.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

Your becoming rather yawnsome.

Oh snap, again! Trying to imply me being "yawnsome" is another nice Ad Hominem. Don't have anything else I guess...

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

It could be right, it could be wrong, without the data who knows. We don't have the facts to say they are right or wrong, but averages are shaky ground.

90% win-rate is anything but "shaky". What is shaky is defending a position without any data. Not only do you not have any data to support your claims, you refuse to believe what is presented and you refuse to believe the forum chatter of how Clan Mechs were steamrolling their IS counterparts in practically every match. That 90% seems to match player observation/reports of matches.

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

I think you'll find there have be scores of complaints about MM and the elo system since it's inception, people don't believe it's anywhere near correct ( but again we don't have the metrics to see)

And yet only now are the complaints focused on how it's the Elo system causing the Clan teams to win 90% of the time instead of the Clan Tech. That's not a coincidence at all.

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

If your so intent their averages are correct, why are you arguing against having all the data?

When did I say I'm against having all the data? Having all the data will allow you to cling to outliers and try to make it the "norm". I want all the data released just so I can see that happen. You would have to fudge numbers pretty hard in order for one side to have a 90% success rate.

I've already predicted one thing:

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 07 August 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

Here it is, people. We have now witnessed the shift of focus heading towards "Elo is no longer valid" now that we have a clear indication that Clan Tech gives you a 90% chance to win.

It's not the Tech, it's the people!

I'd love to be proven correct a second time.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 04:11 AM.

[Revorn]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

Your last line is why you should want more data. As those factors and their data are what truly paint the picture of what is wrong with the clan mechs.

Uhmm, no thanks. I am realy not interested in the Datas, iam not an employe of PGI and dont want to do the Balancework for PGI. There are ppl who getting Money to do this. Not my Job.

[Noth]

Revorn, on 08 August 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

Uhmm, no thanks. I am realy not interested in the Datas, iam not an employe of PGI and dont want to do the Balancework for PGI. There are ppl who getting Money to do this. Not my Job.

Do you really trust PGI's balance work? There balance work has killed weapons and simply cycled the meta through the same few weapons, instead of actually balancing them.

[Revorn]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 04:03 AM, said:

Do you really trust PGI's balance work? There balance work has killed weapons and simply cycled the meta through the same few weapons, instead of actually balancing them.

No iam actualy dont think PGI get the Job done. But if they want earn Money they should make it get done. Its up to them how. Well unfortunaly, we see they choose some strange ways, in there try, to reach the Goal.

[Gus VAPOR Rice]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 03:07 AM, said:

And thus the problem with their set of data. Too many variables in an uncontrolled environment, with some varying sometimes wildly skill differentials, mechs like trials and champions which are a handicap to the IS side.

Well they do have more data I hope... but I feel PR is a big deal here... dealing with the community which is a handful