175 replies to this topic

[Sniper09121986]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 22 April 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

Your analogy of your grandpa is flawed. Its more like your grandpa didnt fight in ww2, so he didnt die in battle, his whole country didnt fight in ww2, so his whole country never got stomped

My point exactly, except in fact my grandpa did go to war, did not die there, and my country fought and was stomped for real. Just an example of how people can twist facts and statements.

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

Did you even read the thread? You are literally showing WHY things like your anecdotal opinion can't be trusted.

He said "the data doesn't count because the pugs were not there". I said "if the pugs were not there they didn't get stomped".

If soloists were getting stomped by units it would be reflected in the telemetry. It's not, so he said it's because the pugs didn't show up. If they didn't show how did they get stomped? If it only happened rarely then you can't say it was all units stomping pugs can you?

You know, you must be missing something, because all of a sudden we are making progress. He said:

TexAce, on 22 April 2016 - 02:57 AM, said:

Your argumentation is purely wrong solely because you are neglecting what I already told you:

You can't measure what is not there. It means a rat's *** what the telemetry says when the pugs refused to play CW because of the pug-vs-unit problem. They don't show up in the stats because they were not there to begin with. However they said they would come back, IF the concept changes. Which it did.

To dissect this, the pugs did show up in the stats, although only for a brief moment of time. The chain of events was like this:

1 CW starts, so does the telemetry.
2 Pugs go to CW, meet the business end of 12-mans. Repeatedly.
3 Pugs get bored and leave CW be.
4 Units play CW with each other.
5 CW 3 starts right now.

The time interval between 2 and 3 can be very short indeed, like, a few weeks, and 4 basically lasted for a whole year or so until now. It would make sense that the pug 2-3 presence in the game is statistically negligible compared to the general CW time-line. This is what TexAce was telling you and this is what you label non-existent. Now,

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

if you had any sense of personal accountability

you would probably want to present that magic data.

[MischiefSC]

So you don't math?

This is really simple. If CW was all about units stomping pugs the data would reflect it. If pugs showed up for a couple of matches, got stomped an left, then who were units playing?

Beyond which you have absolutely no data to support the idea. Just an assumption to back up your other assumptions, none of which matches any actual data but your anecdotal and thus utterly irrelevant perceptions.

Let me help you - units were playing against units. Sometimes it was 12man vs mixed, sometimes mixed vs mixed, but 75%+ of the population of matches was tagged. So you might have a 12man on one side and a 3man plus 6 skittles and 3 tagless solos on the other - which means 21 of 24 players in that match were unit members.

Also I like your complete mischaracterization of what Vx wrote - you ignored the entirety of the analogy to misrepresent it as him somehow trying to speak to an actual event. You're ignoring what doesn't agree with your position or misrepresenting it in a way that does, then attacking a strawman of his position.

Normally I would have stepped out of this conversation by now cuz you can't fix broken on the Internet but you are doing a great job of showing exactly why anecdotal opinions have no value and why you need to make decisions on the actual data.

The data is that soloists were and are a tiny CW population sliver. Pretty much always were and still ate. That was the reason, per Russ, for the split. It was never about stomps - stomps were always unit on skittles units with a scattering of solos on either side.

It was trying to make a place for soloists to play casual and bad but still enjoy the content. Now it's looking like that wasn't enough.

[ShinobiHunter]

TexAce, on 20 April 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

The salt after not even 24h of patchtime is astonishing. A new low for this forum, especially with such a great content patch.

I bet 80% of the whole population have not even booted up the game yet but everyone is already sure he knows what is wrong and what doesnt work and will never work.

just L.O.L.

How long have you been on these forums?

Remember the Info Warfare PTS outrage? Most people didn't even have it downloaded, much less try it out. These forums are a salt mine.

[Vajhra]

Not to mention 1 man units are in effect pug's but not counted in stats as pugs.

[MischiefSC]

Vajhra, on 22 April 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

Not to mention 1 man units are in effect pug's but not counted in stats as pugs.

Same with unit members dropping pug.

Huge difference though in that you're dropping against organized teams - you're carrying the same load against the same caliber of opponents.

Nothing but respect for solo units in unit queue. Happy to help and wrap them in however they need. Can help them find small groups to sync up with for drops, what the populations are and when. They want in to discussions on strategy, access to the Davion private faction boards, whatever let us know.

We want to help small / 1 man units sync up with other players and coordinate better. Just tougher to identify and reach out to them. We've got tons of times and situations where we're 2-4 people short to fill an invasion drop and halt the ghosting of a world. Believe me when I say we want to wrap those guys in. We can get them on TS, that helps but isn't required. They don't need a mic, don't need to even type. Just drop with us, try to follow the calls.

So we want those 1 player units. We want to include them and help them find drops. We want to help them find drops and win matches.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Same with unit members dropping pug.

Huge difference though in that you're dropping against organized teams - you're carrying the same load against the same caliber of opponents.

Nothing but respect for solo units in unit queue. Happy to help and wrap them in however they need. Can help them find small groups to sync up with for drops, what the populations are and when. They want in to discussions on strategy, access to the Davion private faction boards, whatever let us know.

We want to help small / 1 man units sync up with other players and coordinate better. Just tougher to identify and reach out to them. We've got tons of times and situations where we're 2-4 people short to fill an invasion drop and halt the ghosting of a world. Believe me when I say we want to wrap those guys in. We can get them on TS, that helps but isn't required. They don't need a mic, don't need to even type. Just drop with us, try to follow the calls.

So we want those 1 player units. We want to include them and help them find drops. We want to help them find drops and win matches.

Parallel to our other discussion: we still can, via LFG.

But when not in a group, they should be dropped in Solo Queue.

As should any unit member.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 22 April 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Parallel to our other discussion: we still can, via LFG.

But when not in a group, they should be dropped in Solo Queue.

As should any unit member.

I have no interest in ever, for any reason, dropping in solo queue. If I did I'd be tagless.

If I want to derp I have QP. I want to work with other team oriented people against coordinated teams. You don't get good at the game by playing bads - even if you lose, playing against good players helps you get better. Derping on CW just teaches you to derp.

If someone wants to hide from coordinated opponents they can do so. We're not trying to fill unit matches with those guys, don't try to fill derp on derp matches with unit/teamwork players.

If there was the unit population in cw to flesh the queues out more we'd be singing about the split. We're not wanting it undone. We just want CW to be good enough to attract more units.

Edited by MischiefSC, 22 April 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[Sniper09121986]

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

The data is that soloists were and are a tiny CW population sliver. Pretty much always were and still ate.

Dude, just show the data. Point us to it. And I say "point" because at this point I will not accept editable documents or screen-shots from you, but only links to where said data is posted by PGI on-line. For three days now you questioned my judgement and that of other people and mentioned this data as a counterargument so often that now your personal trustworthiness depends upon it. You set the stakes yourself, game or fold?

[Deathlike]

I do think solos contribute to a fair portion of FW... but ONLY when the most units don't give a damn about FW, like for the majority of Phase 2.

The thing of it is that "rainbow pugs" aka "skittles" were mainly a thing because of how it is much easier to pool 4 (Clans) or 6 (Houses) different factions for a Clan vs IS defense (whichever side is on defense) and most attacks are initiated by groups. Very rarely where a match is actually initiated by 12 solo PUGs (it's not that it doesn't happen, but it takes a lot more time to get 12 solo players from the same faction to put together a group). It's easier to have a 6+ man group with actual solo pugs to construct an attack.

These are the more likely common scenarios that happened in FW.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 April 2016 - 10:53 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Sniper09121986, on 23 April 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

Dude, just show the data. Point us to it. And I say "point" because at this point I will not accept editable documents or screen-shots from you, but only links to where said data is posted by PGI on-line. For three days now you questioned my judgement and that of other people and mentioned this data as a counterargument so often that now your personal trustworthiness depends upon it. You set the stakes yourself, game or fold?

Try Google btw. Found Tarogatos post on FRR telemetry, found the Gimme Yer Data post but it was mixed with pug queue data, but havent found the 18 month old post from the guy who's name is don't remember with the 1k+ matches collected. If you read back 6 month in Russ' twitter you'll see him saying most matches were comprised of tagged unit members. he and I argued over the queue split for that reason - the point was never stopping solo stomping, it was trying to get more solos to play in a solo only area. There were never enough solos for them to be getting stomped all the time. It was units vs pugging unit members.

Also if you look at Announcements, page 2, you'll see two posts worth of stats for Tukkayid 2. You'll need to do the math to subtract unit populations from solo population vs total players but I'd agree Tukkayid event stats are dubious as it didn't reflect regular CW population.

Still at work, will likely be Sunday before I hunt it down. It'll have it's own value to compare population shifts Cromwell CW 1 to 2 to current on leaderboard.

Not doing it for you - that would be pointless. If you think anecdotal evidence or personal perception has any value, at all, then I'm not going to make you smarter on a forum. I've already directed you what to look at to understand why your memory and anecdotal evidence is utterly untrustworthy to determine really anything, you ignore it and doubled down like you have on everything. However parsing population shift in unit populations and performance is a good thing.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 23 April 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

I do think solos contribute to a fair portion of FW... but ONLY when the most units don't give a damn about FW, like for the majority of Phase 2.

The thing of it is that "rainbow pugs" aka "skittles" were mainly a thing because of how it is much easier to pool 4 (Clans) or 6 (Houses) different factions for a Clan vs IS defense (whichever side is on defense) and most attacks are initiated by groups. Very rarely where a match is actually initiated by 12 solo PUGs (it's not that it doesn't happen, but it takes a lot more time to get 12 solo players from the same faction to put together a group). It's easier to have a 6+ man group with actual solo pugs to construct an attack.

These are the more likely common scenarios that happened in FW.

Go look at your end of round screenshots. Tagless are less than 25%. Less if one side is a full 12man but it catches back up on pug v pug matches.

How often did you see one side with a full 6 tagless on one team vs how often were there at most 2 tagless in the match?

Honestly the ideal solution would be to get that telemetry from PGI. I'll tweet Russ.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 23 April 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

Go look at your end of round screenshots. Tagless are less than 25%. Less if one side is a full 12man but it catches back up on pug v pug matches.

How often did you see one side with a full 6 tagless on one team vs how often were there at most 2 tagless in the match?

Honestly the ideal solution would be to get that telemetry from PGI. I'll tweet Russ.

I'd hazard to say that my recollection was something along the lines of "more rainbow PUGs" matches than actual drops vs units. It was like more or less than 50-50 in terms of facing rainbow PUGs (or groups smaller than 4). It's not that there weren't units, but when some factions are devoid of opponents (or even players to drop with), then it was a wasted effort (like Ghost Bear at times). I'm mostly talking about Phase 2 for the most part.

What is kinda bothersome is that when I did face a "group" that as a culmination of multiple units yesterday (mostly Smoke Jags) and was panicing over facing a 12-man... and told them to join Strana Mechty (that is where SJ gathers last I checked), I was greeted with insults.

Oh well, I can't fix disorganized.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 April 2016 - 12:40 PM.

[Sniper09121986]

MischiefSC, on 23 April 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

Try Google btw. Found Tarogatos post on FRR telemetry, found the Gimme Yer Data post but it was mixed with pug queue data, but havent found the 18 month old post from the guy who's name is don't remember with the 1k+ matches collected. If you read back 6 month in Russ' twitter you'll see him saying most matches were comprised of tagged unit members. he and I argued over the queue split for that reason - the point was never stopping solo stomping, it was trying to get more solos to play in a solo only area. There were never enough solos for them to be getting stomped all the time. It was units vs pugging unit members.

Also if you look at Announcements, page 2, you'll see two posts worth of stats for Tukkayid 2. You'll need to do the math to subtract unit populations from solo population vs total players but I'd agree Tukkayid event stats are dubious as it didn't reflect regular CW population.

Well, the last tweet I was able to scroll to was this retweet: https://twitter.com/...273352541704192 Otherwise space program retweets, promotion announcements and other bollocks, cannot find many discussions whatsoever.

The Tuk 2 stats are as follows. I calculated total number of unit players for each faction:

Kurita 661
FRR 957
Davion 627
Liao 333
Marik 352
Steiner 645
CSJ 375
CJF 698
CGB 651
CW 1112

We sum this up, we have 6411 total unit players to take part in Tuk 2. We subtract it from grand total of 14322 players to take part at all and we get 7911 pugs. That is, like, over a half total participants. Granted, many of these are not regular and showed up specifically for the occasion (like right now, by the way), but not a minority by any measure. It is safe to assume that the same kind of player demographics was present at the very start of CW, also for the occasion. And like I said, it does not take a lot of time for players to come to dislike a particularly poor aspect of the game (like mass griefing) and withdraw. My point stands.

[Vxheous]

Sniper09121986, on 23 April 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

Well, the last tweet I was able to scroll to was this retweet: https://twitter.com/...273352541704192 Otherwise space program retweets, promotion announcements and other bollocks, cannot find many discussions whatsoever.

The Tuk 2 stats are as follows. I calculated total number of unit players for each faction:

Kurita 661
FRR 957
Davion 627
Liao 333
Marik 352
Steiner 645
CSJ 375
CJF 698
CGB 651
CW 1112

We sum this up, we have 6411 total unit players to take part in Tuk 2. We subtract it from grand total of 14322 players to take part at all and we get 7911 pugs. That is, like, over a half total participants. Granted, many of these are not regular and showed up specifically for the occasion (like right now, by the way), but not a minority by any measure. It is safe to assume that the same kind of player demographics was present at the very start of CW, also for the occasion. And like I said, it does not take a lot of time for players to come to dislike a particularly poor aspect of the game (like mass griefing) and withdraw. My point stands.

Your stats are flawed though because only the top 25 units per factions stats were released (while 1921 units participated) so your unit player numbers are severely under-reported.
http://mwomercs.com/...id-stats-part-2

[Sniper09121986]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 23 April 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Your stats are flawed though because only the top 25 units per factions stats were released (while 1921 units participated) so your unit player numbers are severely under-reported.
http://mwomercs.com/...id-stats-part-2

Hey, these are not exactly my stats I could argue that if several of these top units had less than 10 people in them playing, other non-top units would hardly field a lot of players to be all that different from pugs (Ha Ha Ha). So there hardly is that overwhelming majority of units that is being proclaimed to me. My basic gripe is the 12-man pug stomps, and these tend to come from units with dozens of members. If I will be thrown back on their platter, the whole game mode will once again be unplayable to me, and I will not be the only one who would feel that way. That, and I see no incentive whatsoever to help some other people earn MC for my effort.

[MischiefSC]

There was a link in the Tuk stats to the total breakdown for all the units. Also, again, Tuk is a poor sample as it drove oversized participation in units and solos. I wouldn't view it as accurate overall to population.

Hang tight. I'm trying to get the telemetry from Russ. If not I'll link in the studies that got done on population a year ago plus Tarogatos detailed redux on FRR population, plus the Gimme Yer Data collection of over 1k matches end of round screenshot, which is a huge sample size.

However the PGI telemetry would be ideal and I want to see if we can get that before I spend a couple hours finding one post from 16 months ago and counting tags on 1k screenshots.

PGI could potentially give us a snapshot of population before and after of actual averages instead of having to determine by unit populations vs population totals.

As a side note, for simple edification, is solos were anything but a huge minority the would not be getting stomped as most matches would have been pug on pug.

The stomps happened (and still happen) because most players are pugging unit members. Premade vs pug. Solos were never a big population segment of else statistically most matches would have been solo on solo. 6 solos per match average is 25% it was, on last count, less than that.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I hate to point this out, but the data is next to meaningless unless it includes how many people are in 1-man units.

Tag just shows that a player is in a unit and makes no distinction about whether that person is actually playing solo.

So screenshot, tagged/untagged data; all meaningless. That's why I made that poll.

Lots of people made 1-man units just to be cool, I'm sure. Many made them just recently to take part in the Unit Queue because the Solo Queue was so empty.

All of those people are effectively (and actually) solo.

Remember Mark Twain's "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". The question and the kind of info is just as important as the numbers or you might be drawing the wrong conclusions.

That means that data from 16 months ago is meaningless. It means that data from PGI is highly dependent and might be meaningless, too.

[meteorol]

If we take a step back and look after phase 3 after the first shiny wore off...

It didn't really fix any of CWs core issues. Give it 2 or 3 months, and it will be the same ghost town it was before phase 3 release. (And that is coming from someone who never stopped playing CW, ever)

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 23 April 2016 - 09:16 PM, said:

I hate to point this out, but the data is next to meaningless unless it includes how many people are in 1-man units.

Tag just shows that a player is in a unit and makes no distinction about whether that person is actually playing solo.

So screenshot, tagged/untagged data; all meaningless. That's why I made that poll.

Lots of people made 1-man units just to be cool, I'm sure. Many made them just recently to take part in the Unit Queue because the Solo Queue was so empty.

All of those people are effectively (and actually) solo.

Remember Mark Twain's "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". The question and the kind of info is just as important as the numbers or you might be drawing the wrong conclusions.

That means that data from 16 months ago is meaningless. It means that data from PGI is highly dependent and might be meaningless, too.

Talking about data from before the split, when single units were largely pointless. They did nothing, at all. After the split we already have telemetry - we have populations available, if you want to click through. Technically you can pretty quickly average pages by population and count it up but it's still going to be a bit.

Telemetry wanted is before split, tagged with >1 members vs untagged/1 person in unit.

After split is same but untagged and 1 person units separately. That would let us identify how many 1 player units were shifts in population for CW 3 and how many were new adds who just wanted to play in unit queue.

I could build the database for them if I just had access to the telemetry.

Also self-selecting polls are not that viable. You need a viable (~1k, anything over 700 is great) random sample or telemetry in total to get a really accurate result.

However we don't need 95% accuracy, anything moderately accurate is good. Just somewhere to start. However, again, you can get a pretty good example from screenshots prior to the split. There was no reason for 1 player units. There were only a handful around.

Edited by MischiefSC, 23 April 2016 - 11:50 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

MischiefSC, on 23 April 2016 - 11:47 PM, said:

Talking about data from before the split, when single units were largely pointless. They did nothing, at all. After the split we already have telemetry - we have populations available, if you want to click through. Technically you can pretty quickly average pages by population and count it up but it's still going to be a bit.

Telemetry wanted is before split, tagged with >1 members vs untagged/1 person in unit.

After split is same but untagged and 1 person units separately. That would let us identify how many 1 player units were shifts in population for CW 3 and how many were new adds who just wanted to play in unit queue.

I could build the database for them if I just had access to the telemetry.

Also self-selecting polls are not that viable. You need a viable (~1k, anything over 700 is great) random sample or telemetry in total to get a really accurate result.

However we don't need 95% accuracy, anything moderately accurate is good. Just somewhere to start. However, again, you can get a pretty good example from screenshots prior to the split. There was no reason for 1 player units. There were only a handful around.

Ok, clarification appreciated.

Yeah, I think we understand each other here.

I just believe that PGI is not looking at the data in the right way and that's why we are having discussions like this one!