692 replies to this topic

[Thorn Hallis]

Isn't it highly amusing that the brown knights believe in a statistic made by someone they constantly call a liar?

[Faith McCarron]

Hillslam, on 08 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

You have little to no idea how the data was collected. The numbers involved. Etc. All you have is your opinion and 3rd hand anecdotal stories and group think yes-manning.


But yeah, clearly we should leave the whole design up to the opinions of the neckbeard clan customers. They obviously have it all sorted...




...Forum lawyering *rollseyes*

The burden of showing evidence and methodology is on those making the claim. The claim is that clan weapons are OP. The evidence presented does not rise to anything close to proof. Put your logical fallacies back in your Power Rangers book bag.

[Hillslam]

They have no burden whatsoever to show you jack.

Their burden is to deliver a good product that as many people as possible enjoy in order to stay in business.

Your assumption is fundamentally flawed.

Decision makers decide. Market reacts.

Edited by Hillslam, 08 August 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Sorbic]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

Can I try again with competent teammates? Still managed 2 victories, and 5 losses.

Out of 84 IS pilots, 52 failed to deal 200 damage. Only 7 (C) mechs from all 7 matches.

Out of 84 Clan pilots, only 26 failed to deal 200 damage. This is from my 7 matches alone. You mind getting those details from all of them?


More testing is coming on the 15th, with gimped cERLLs.

An objective observer would expect less IS pilots to break 200 damage considering they were on the loosing end.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Faith McCarron, on 08 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Not just "because". Because it was gathered from a willy-nilly sampling that did not properly control for hardly ANY variable at all and draws conclusions that are unwarranted by the methodology used.

You don't know how they collected the data, what data was collected, how the data was processed. You don't even know which Queue to gather results in in order to gain relevant information that represent the game "generally". All you have are biased speculation.

Providing "all" the numbers won't change the fact that Clan teams won 90% of their matches. What you can do is apply your own interpretation of the data collected, mold it so it matches your perception and start up with more claims using cherry-picked numbers to fit what you're trying to say.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 09:03 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Faith McCarron, on 08 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Not just "because". Because it was gathered from a willy-nilly sampling that did not properly control for hardly ANY variable at all and draws conclusions that are unwarranted by the methodology used.

Dude, if THAT pisses you off...I can't wait to hear what you say when they integrate 4 concurrent nerfs and then change the environment to a 10v12 as a "fix" to gather more data.

If test A gives you X conclusions, it totally makes sense to switch out all the parameters and controls for test B to compare and gain further data to inform conclusion X.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 08 August 2014 - 09:04 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

I agree to a point. When you're trying to determine something general like how effective Clan Mechs are against IS Mechs then the main thing to look at would be Win/Loss. In this sense the randomness in PUG matches will give a better idea since you're including every player in the Elo Spectrum and also including Trial Mechs. You're getting the entire picture. If you were to do that in a controlled environment then you're leaving out low Elo players and Trial Mechs. You're also adding in communication that doesn't normally exist in PUG matches.

Those three variables aren't something you can just disregard through your controlled environment tests because you're not going to get an accurate representation of the game when you have sampling bias. If you don't test in a way that reflects the majority of how matches are being played out then it's not a significant test.

If you were to talk about specific things like weapon effectiveness then you would have to do that test in a controlled environment where the majority of the variables are locked down.

Um trial mech are one of the reasons the test is flawed; they are only available to disadvantage one side; which leads to flawed data.

If you can't comprehend that Noth was right you didn't do so hot at mathematics

[Mcgral18]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

So just completely disregard the averages presented by PGI "because"?

I see.

Results are in PGI's database. The conclusion is that Clan teams won 90% of the matches. The decision is that changes need to be made. You know, everything said in the tweet...


I really don't understand how you can deny what PGI says without anything to support your denial. I understand the desire to view the data collected that lead to the averages presented, but without any proof of your own to use to refute their claims simply because you don't want to believe Clan Tech provides an advantage isn't logical.

They've given us 2 half pieces of information. 90% win rate, without anything else associated. How stompy were most? How many players from each side failed to get 100, 200 damage? Were there close matches?

They say total average Elo is within 40 to 90. Individual player Elo from each side?


We're missing quite a bit of information, but you don't seem to want more. You're just throwing the same 2 bits of information and calling it settled.

Hillslam, on 08 August 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

You have little to no idea how the data was collected. The numbers involved. Etc. All you have is your opinion and 3rd hand anecdotal stories and group think yes-manning.


But yeah, clearly we should leave the whole design up to the opinions of the neckbeard clan customers. They obviously have it all sorted...




...Forum lawyering *rollseyes*

Actually, I have 7 matches worth of data. I've given my information. Has anyone else yet?

All you have is PGIs 90% and 40-90 Elo....

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

All you people QQing knowing darn well Russ said they will be doing tests from now tell the fall need to go eat a nilla cookie and take a nap.

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 08 August 2014 - 09:08 AM.

[Suko]

The only reason I'm even following this thread anymore is to hear the ridiculous theories given by the pro-clan guys. It's amazing how they can so completely convince themselves that clans are actually balanced with IS mechs, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Edited by ShadowVFX, 08 August 2014 - 09:09 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

ShadowVFX, on 08 August 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

The only reason I'm even following this thread anymore is to hear the ridiculous theories given by the pro-clan guys. It's amazing how they can so completely convince themselves that clans are actually balanced with IS mechs, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

And people like yourself and funkydelic who can't read.

The clans are OP in some aspects see XL engines; but not by an order of 90/10

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 August 2014 - 09:15 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

And people like yourself and funkydelic who can't read.

The clans are OP in some aspects see XL engines; but not by an order of 90/10

They're not 90% OP...they're just winning 90% of the time when stacked against an all IS team. That makes more sense, ok.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Ghost Badger, on 08 August 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

They're not 90% OP...they're just winning 90% of the time when stacked against an all IS team. That makes more sense, ok.

Winning 90% of a stacked deck in their favour due to no variable control is hardly of evidential value.

Release the data so we can see the whole actual picture; repeat the test controlling the variables; start with removing trial and champion mechs from the equation so as to not hamper the IS team more than neccesary

Controlling player behaviour is harder and would require group tests where PGI pick participants and make sure nobody is playing dirty.

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 August 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 09:14 AM, said:

And people like yourself and funkydelic who can't read.

The clans are OP in some aspects see XL engines; but not by an order of 90/10

huh..... 90%-10% is EXACTLY how the last test went. BWHAHAAHAAHAH!
So yes from the #s we have now. Clans have won 90% of the matches when put against IS mechs. You can QQ, throw poop at the walls and scream all you want. The facts as they stand now are... clans won 90% of the matches in the test. We have more tests to go. Lets try them out shal we? LOL

You people QQing right now remind me of this guy

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 08 August 2014 - 09:27 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

Winning 90% of a stacked deck in their favour due to no variable control is hardly of evidential value.

It's like you expect better.

Quote

Release the data so we can see the whole actual picture;

That kind of transparency doesn't happen here...what do you think this is...Star Citizen?

Quote

repeat the test controlling the variables;

Why? They have their conclusions already...why re-test them?

Quote

start with removing trial and champion mechs from the equation so as to not hamper the IS team more than necessary

Just how hampered do they need to be?

Quote

Controlling player behaviour is harder and would require group tests where PGI pick participants and make sure nobody is playing dirty.

Kinda like the private tests that are coming up? Whoops...this statement doesn't belong in this post...it's reasonable.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

DV McKenna, on 08 August 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Um trial mech are one of the reasons the test is flawed; they are only available to disadvantage one side; which leads to flawed data.

If you can't comprehend that Noth was right you didn't do so hot at mathematics

MW:O has 2 live environments. Solo Queue and Group Queue. The way matches are played are polar opposites of each other.
You don't seem to understand that you can't call any result "flawed" until you know which Queue has the majority of the matches being played. Since it's an issue of game-balance you have to determine which Queue represent the game. If the majority of the matches are being played in the Solo Queue then you have to allow for Trial Mechs and Cadet Bonus players. If you don't then you're results are going to be "skewed" due to sampling bias.

If the majority of matches, the game generally, are being played in the Group Queue then you can say Trial Mechs and Cadet Bonus players are "skewing" the results.

Can you tell me with 100% certainty which Queue represents the game?

[AlmightyAeng]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Can you tell me with 100% certainty which Queue represents the game?

Ooh! Ooh! Somebody bring up the "Only 16% of players drop in groups!" Pie Chart!

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

huh..... 90%-10% is EXACTLY how the last test went. BWHAHAAHAAHAH!
So yes from the #s we have now. Clans have won 90% of the matches when put against IS mechs. You can QQ, throw poop at the walls and scream all you want. The facts as they stand now are... clans won 90% of the matches in the test. We have more tests to go. Lets try them out shal we? LOL

You remind me of this guy

I think we are all aware they won 90% of matches in a random uncontrolled environment stacked in their favour.

Precisely why the results are in question.

[NonCedo]

You are a giant sir, thank you.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

MW:O has 2 live environments. Solo Queue and Group Queue. The way matches are played are polar opposites of each other.
You don't seem to understand that you can't call any result "flawed" until you know which Queue has the majority of the matches being played. Since it's an issue of game-balance you have to determine which Queue represent the game. If the majority of the matches are being played in the Solo Queue then you have to allow for Trial Mechs and Cadet Bonus players. If you don't then you're results are going to be "skewed" due to sampling bias.

If the majority of matches, the game generally, are being played in the Group Queue then you can say Trial Mechs and Cadet Bonus players are "skewing" the results.

Can you tell me with 100% certainty which Queue represents the game?

And you fail to understand that trying to balance as you call it random and new players is fruitless; because you'll just add avenues for the better players to exploit.

In what you've just said your not happy to skew the results one way; but are perfectly happy to skew the results in another?

Clans don't have trials and champions giving them a mech number advantage on the field in this test; number advantage as well as tech advantage obviously would lead to a superior result for the clans....