692 replies to this topic

[Voidcrafter]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Many of us are not dismissing the posted result, but are asking for more data to get a more accurate picture.

Cmon man you're reasonable guy - I've seen some of your other opinions and stuff - this guy is completely trolling what anyone else have to say if it doesn't suits him
Also repeating the same latin sheets over and over and over again - as it goes for pasting the same picture of "dev's talk" that I'm probably won't be able to escape even in my nightmares now...

It's so, soooo boring...
It's not worth it either - accept the stupidity, embrace it - as a reasonable adaptive people we'll find a way to prevail and give that kind of people other reasons for "imbalance" to complain about...
And those people are talking about ignorance... jeeeezzz....
Bah I'm off - this time for real - don't waste your breath too matey...

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

...

Same goes for you bud
Not worth it.

Edited by Voidcrafter, 08 August 2014 - 06:09 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

You have a strange way of encouraging getting more numbers when pretty much every time we mentioned wanting more data to see exactly how much effect things had, and you pretty much respond with you don't need it or that the average is all that is needed.

Actually, what I'm responding to is your hypothesis that PGI's numbers are incorrect. Your entire argument is rooted in your belief that PGI's numbers are skewed because Elo wasn't taken into consideration "enough" even though they specifically say it was:

Just because your position has evolved to this point doesn't mean that's where you originally started at. My position hasn't changed. What I've been saying hasn't changed. Yours has. You admitted yours has. If one position stays the same while the other adjusts as the conversation progresses, who was the one with the incorrect hypothesis?

What I've been saying is that all we have are the numbers announced by PGI. You can't disregard what they made public just because the numbers don't add up to how you perceive things to be.

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Further saying we'd just look for and cling to an outlier is not encouraging more data.

It does exactly that. In order to prove your position true you would demand all the information available. That includes outliers. You're the one who said averages aren't reliable. If averages aren't reliable then all that's left are outliers.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 06:16 AM.

[Molossian Dog]

Personally I´d like to pipe in and say thank you PGI for giving us the numbers. Even when it was on a 3rd party medium.

I critizise them often enough. It is only fair to admit when they did something right for once.

And before you lecture me on how skewed the test result are in your opinion, please note I just thanked them for sharing the numbers. I didn´t make a case for or against the validity. Go troll someone else, thank you.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Actually, what I'm responding to is your hypothesis that PGI's numbers are incorrect. Your entire argument is rooted in your belief that PGI's numbers are skewed because Elo wasn't taken into consideration "enough" even though they specifically say it was:


What I've been saying is that all we have are the numbers announced by PGI. You can't disregard what they made public just because the numbers are so extreme.

I see an average, a statement and an assumption in there. I'm not debating that the ELO average, assumption, or statement is wrong. I'm wanting more info because what they say there is basically a general overview, and not useful for actual balance. It essentially just says Clans win alot, there average ELO was close (we actually don't know how big this difference is in comparison to skilled versus non skilled), and that they assumed it should only result in such and such w/l (what lead them to this assumption?). They say that the clans had more experienced players (by what margin) and MM accounting for such is fishy since the match maker can and does throw in bad players against good ones. and many more variables.

Quote

It does exactly that. In order to prove your position true you would demand all the information available. That includes outliers. If you don't believe in averages then it would be safe to conclude that you'll make use of outliers. You're the one who said averages aren't reliable. If averages aren't reliable then all that's left are outliers.

So I take it you've never heard of median, mode, range, standard deviation, and others. A single statistic is not reliable as it shows only a small part of the picture.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 06:23 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

I can speculate. Since we're facing the nerf bat now, based on a result stated to be 90/10, it's safe to conjecture that if the first test was 90/10, we'd have already been hit with it.

I see, more speculation. Doesn't that contradict your comments about how incompetent PGI is? If they're so incompetent then how can you reasonably believe a nerf of any kind would be implemented within a coupe of weeks.

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

Income is based on what you will be receiving, not what you've already received. PGI doesn't operate off of savings, it operates off of income that comes in on a daily basis. Those that spend $Real Moeny$ on Clan Packs have already spent it. They're not likely to spend any more once they're nerfed into oblivion. Economics 101. When you finally get to the 100 level classes, you'll understand that.

Wouldn't nerfing Clan Mechs do the opposite then? Wouldn't nerfing Clan Mechs make $Real Money$ spenders less likely to open their wallets again for future Packs "knowing" they'll get nerfed? Again, you contradict yourself.

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

So I take it you've never heard of median, mode, range, standard deviation, and others.

If that were part of your original argument maybe it would be valid. Instead you were palling around with McG over his 6 IS v 12 Clan victory example. That experience is an outlier. You connect your argument to an outlier and false hypothesis that's what happens.

Your position changed as the conversation went on. Mine hasn't. I wonder why that is.

[Willard Phule]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Actually, what I'm responding to is your hypothesis that PGI's numbers are incorrect. Your entire argument is rooted in your belief that PGI's numbers are skewed because Elo wasn't taken into consideration "enough" even though they specifically say it was:

Just because your position has evolved to this point doesn't mean that's where you originally started at. My position hasn't changed. What I've been saying hasn't changed. Yours has. You admitted yours has. If one position stays the same while the other adjusts as the conversation progresses, who was the one with the incorrect hypothesis?

Faulty information gathered is still faulty. Using Elo for ANYTHING is just ridiculous.

Players are given an artificially inflated Elo score to put them in the mid-range as soon as they finish their first 25 matches. They did not earn that Elo score by working their way up, it was handed to them. Using Elo for anything at all is, in itself, skewed.

Sure, the average Elo score between IS and Clan was comparable.....but, so is the Elo score between someone that just finished their first 25 rounds and someone that's got 2000 matches under his belt and still happens to be in the mid-range. They are NOT equal in skill. The guy with 2000 matches actually earned that Elo score and has an accurate representation. The "Elite Veteran" of 25 matches....not so much.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

What I've been saying is that all we have are the numbers announced by PGI. You can't disregard what they made public just because the numbers don't add up to how you perceive things to be.

We have ONE SET OF NUMBERS provided by PGI. We don't have the first test's results. Which brings me back to the scientific method.

IF YOU CANNOT REPLICATE THE RESULTS OF A TEST, THEN THE THEORY IS FLAWED. I don't know of any other way to explain that. No, we do not know the results of the first test. We do, however, know the ultimate result of the second one....Paul's nerf bat. So, using simple deduction, we can safely speculate that the first test did NOT end up as 90/10. If it had, we'd have already felt the nerf bat. Again, I can't make that any simpler.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

I see, more speculation. Doesn't that contradict your comments about how incompetent PGI is? If they're so incompetent then how can you reasonably believe a nerf of any kind would be implemented within a coupe of weeks.



Wouldn't nerfing Clan Mechs do the opposite then? Wouldn't nerfing Clan Mechs make $Real Money$ spenders less likely to open their wallets again for future Packs "knowing" they'll get nerfed? Again, you contradict yourself.



If that were part of your original argument maybe it would be valid. Instead you were palling around with McG over his 6 IS v 12 Clan victory example. That experience is an outlier. You connect your argument to an outlier and false hypothesis that's what happens.

Your position changed as the conversation went on. Mine hasn't. I wonder why that is.

What I mentioned is that the team with the most people doing the low damage lost and that fact happens no matter if it was clan vs clan, mixed, or IS vs IS. Because it happens everywhere, it can't be tied to strictly because of clans were on the other side.

Also asking for more data, is asking for more than the average, you know those things I listed along with the raw data.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

SOOOO...

russ/pgi puts out numbers that go something like "1+1=2" and Some armchair forum devs who cant code b00bless on a calculator somehow call lies and try to convince PGI and the rational players "1+1=42 because real math is the devils work", or something like that. HAHAH! CLASSIC!

No it's more like ?+?=42

We are lacking some data know what those question marks are. They could be 1 and 41 or 10 and 32, or 21 and 21, and anything inbetween adding up to 42.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 06:35 AM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

No it's more like ?+?=42

What are those two question marks? We were given only part of the data and want more.

Im not a home schooled fundamentalist. You cant trick me with double talk when it comes to numbers. Nice try though.

[Willard Phule]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Wouldn't nerfing Clan Mechs do the opposite then? Wouldn't nerfing Clan Mechs make $Real Money$ spenders less likely to open their wallets again for future Packs "knowing" they'll get nerfed? Again, you contradict yourself.

For Christ's sake.

I fail to see how this is contradicting myself. I'm saying that indiscriminate use of the nerf bat deters people from spending money in the future. What people spent on clan packs has already been collected, and most likely spent, by PGI. FUTURE EARNINGS...like, for example, a paycheck from McDonalds. You make your budget based on what you will be receiving with your next paycheck, not with what you have left in your pocket.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

If that were part of your original argument maybe it would be valid. Instead you were palling around with McG over his 6 IS v 12 Clan victory example. That experience is an outlier. You connect your argument to an outlier and false hypothesis that's what happens.

And you're talking about false hypothesis? Really. What you call an "outlier," most people call a "factor." If you do not have the same factors in two separate tests, you will come up with different results. And that's OBVIOUSLY what we have here. The first test DID NOT have Clan vs Clan. The second one did. That means they are, by definition, two completely different tests since they have different factors. Neither test has a result that has been duplicated. If the result cannot be duplicated, then it is only theory. Science. Learn it.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Your position changed as the conversation went on. Mine hasn't. I wonder why that is.

Dafuq?

My position has been "PGI is nerfing things based on a theory. Their testing does not pass the scientific method. The results of the most recent test, 90/10, has not been duplicated and is therefore still a theory. Paul is nerfing things based on a theory only and not on hard, replicatable, data."

I'm not sure how that has changed.

But, you know, I'm done here. There's no sense in using logic and science to argue a point with someone that believes that as soon as they say something, it becomes fact...without evidence to back it up. You should run for office as a Democrat...they believe the same thing.

Edited by Willard Phule, 08 August 2014 - 06:39 AM.

[John Branon]

Kyle Wright, on 08 August 2014 - 12:58 AM, said:

Please tell me then aside from paint, como schemes that only work for 1 chassis, and lame cockpit items. What is there left for PGI to make money off other then Premium time? If clans and hero mechs are released for cbills instant you take away a major cash cow. Compare that to a algae bloom in which case it kills majority of small marine life do to sacking out the oxygen or poisoning, followed by bigger marine life eating the toxic dead marine life and becomes dead. You think PGI would currently make as much money as they did with clans on premium time if they did a cbill release instantly? It's a pay wall yes. But these items are temporary for real life money so those who need it now can pay extra (similar to paying extra money to board Southwest Airlines flights first for better seating) or you wait till your number is called.

You might find this Video interesting:

[Noth]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Im not a home schooled fundamentalist. You cant trick me with double talk when it comes to numbers. Nice try though.

Double talk nothing. We were given pieces of data giving only a partial picture, and are asking for more to fill out the picture. We were not given the 1+1, only the =2, thus are missing part of the equation.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 06:41 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Faulty information gathered is still faulty. Using Elo for ANYTHING is just ridiculous.

I'm sure you have a readily implementable system to use to replace Elo?

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Players are given an artificially inflated Elo score to put them in the mid-range as soon as they finish their first 25 matches. They did not earn that Elo score by working their way up, it was handed to them. Using Elo for anything at all is, in itself, skewed.

I'm pretty sure you argued the exact opposite in a previous thread... Which do you believe?

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

Sure, the average Elo score between IS and Clan was comparable.....but, so is the Elo score between someone that just finished their first 25 rounds and someone that's got 2000 matches under his belt and still happens to be in the mid-range. They are NOT equal in skill. The guy with 2000 matches actually earned that Elo score and has an accurate representation. The "Elite Veteran" of 25 matches....not so much.

Which is why they probably did more than 1 Clan v. IS test, yes?

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

IF YOU CANNOT REPLICATE THE RESULTS OF A TEST, THEN THE THEORY IS FLAWED. I don't know of any other way to explain that. No, we do not know the results of the first test. We do, however, know the ultimate result of the second one....Paul's nerf bat. So, using simple deduction, we can safely speculate that the first test did NOT end up as 90/10. If it had, we'd have already felt the nerf bat. Again, I can't make that any simpler.

Actually, it just means you haven't done enough experiments yet. 2 experiments can't lead you to say, "This is false". The fact that the nerf bat is coming out after the second test would seem to indicate that the second test mirrored the results of the first test. Apparently 2 experiments were enough to convince PGI that serious changes need to be made between Clan and IS Tech.

You claim the result of the second test included Clan v. Clan which altered the win/loss percentages even though the express purpose of the test was to see how each Tech type did against each other. If PGI was so efficient that they would hand out the nerf bat after the first experiment, why would they be inefficient as to not separating IS v. Clan results and Clan v. Clan results? You can't have it both ways to suit two differing views.

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

Dafuq?

Learn to differentiate between quote bubbles.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 06:47 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Im not a home schooled fundamentalist. You cant trick me with double talk when it comes to numbers. Nice try though.

Yes... you have blind faith in the system, like a good public schooled fella.

"because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

Edited by Technoviking, 08 August 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

Double talk nothing. We were given pieces of data giving only a partial picture, and are asking for more to fill out the picture. We were not given the 1+1, only the =2, thus are missing part of the equation.

and thats why russ said weekend tests are upcoming between now and this fall... So you are not only double talking, your standing on the street corner with an "the end of the world is NOW" sign.

[Noth]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

and thats why russ said weekend tests are upcoming between now and this fall... So you are not only double talking, your standing on the street corner with an "the end of the world is NOW" sign.

If you find my talk jibberish, I feel sorry for you. I'm asking for more information, not clamoring that the information is wrong.

[Thorqemada]

Imho 10 vs 12 fits the lore as Clans have their "Stars" contain 5 Mechs each while IS has the "Lances" with 4 Mechs each - 2 Stars vs 3 Lances (aka 10 vs 12) fits well into that structures.

You can not keep Clan Mechs stronger when you have equal numbers per side - but you may decide to become another ordinary Arena-Shooter and screw that.

Edited by Thorqemada, 08 August 2014 - 06:56 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Thorqemada, on 08 August 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

Imho 10 vs 12 fits the lore as Clans have their "Stars" contain 5 Mechs each while IS has the "Lances" with 4 Mechs each - 2 Stars vs 3 Lances (aka 10 vs 12) fits well into that structures.

You can not keep Clan Mechs stronger when you have equal numbers per side - but you may decide to become another ordinary Arena-Shooter and screw that.

The thing is..the whole point of nerfing the Clan weapons initially was to put them on par with IS.

So if we are back tracking to do the 10 vs 12 thing. They need to rebalance all of the weapons.

And instead...we are pre-emptively nerfing the CERLL before we even do proper tests.

It's amazing.

[Ultimax]

Jeb, on 07 August 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

What I was trying to point out though is that clan teams are at an advantage over random IS teams due to clan mechs being designed well, and their popular heavy and assaults mechs being on the high end of the weight scales.

Actually, almost all available clan mechs are at, or near (within 5 tons) the upper end of the tonnage for their weight bracket - with the single exception of the Warhawk.


I agree with the general sentiment that 90% win rate for clans is a bad direction for eventual CW, but we still have several glaring factors that have spoiled these tests.

Such as every clan team almost always having ECM coverage - which is very often a huge deciding factor in PUG matches, the noted potential tonnage differences (with clan mechs being painted as "+5 tons" by PGI and being at the top of their weight categories, less "bad" variants to spoil the pool, etc).

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

If you find my talk jibberish, I feel sorry for you. I'm asking for more information, not clamoring that the information is wrong.

and you will get it, as future tests happen between now and this fall
In the mean time, stop QQing the sky is falling and demanding information that we need to test first. If you can make a better game over night, please do so, otherwise sit down and shut up and take part in the upcoming tests be4 you start QQing.

[-Natural Selection-]

. 90% of the matches were a derpfest by the IS players. just not so good players in old mechs with terrible builds