283 replies to this topic

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 07:00 PM, said:

The question you brought up is that systems had to communicate suitability. Where is the link to the proof for Jay Z's system? If you say it is selected, it'll be obvious no such proof was presented.

I already showed this.

It was selected.

It was effectively communicated.

Your wasn't.

Hence, it wasn't selected.

[Nightbird]

lol just kidding, I know you have no evidence to link

[Firefox54]

Assuming Nightbird's simulations are correct (and I didn't go back to review his model because of my time), I'd be a bit concerned about Jay Z's approach creating that trimodal distribution of players (that is ...big group in the middle, and people "stuck" at the top and bottom), which is not surprising to me since the current system has no running average (or something similar that weighs more recent data more) and the game does not have the player base to help keep top players from continuing up (and we won't get into the boundary at zero PSR). If this does occur, the result will go against PGI's hope of a more normal distribution.

I don't know what will happen to the matchmaker if most of the player base is in Tiers 1, 3 and 5. However, at that time, hopefully they'll adopt a different system ... Nightbird's ... or Cluster Fox did a nice analysis (I did get a chance to read this one) ... or something that gives the results they hope.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 07:10 PM, said:

lol just kidding, I know you have no evidence to link

You're right, Paul just made something up out of nowhere and wanted to pump the Veteran Try Hard Cabal so he picked the well known Veteran Try Hard Cabal member Jay Z's name to use as a stooge.

Yep.


Watching you struggle to admit you failed to present a coherent and suitable proposal using the tools and timeframe given is pretty entertaining. At least we don't have to hear your cheese grater voice when doing it though.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 07:14 PM.

[Firefox54]

To be fair ... Jay Z's model does not have any inherent stability to it ... there's no reason a player couldn't go to +infinity or -infinity PSR ... which is why you see the results in Nightbird's simulations

Edited by Firefox54, 02 July 2020 - 07:19 PM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 07:13 PM, said:

At least we don't have to hear your cheese grater voice when doing it though.

Ah, so it comes down to being a personal beef, as is usual.

I was wondering why you were in here arguing like someone had insulted your stepfather's mistress, makes more sense now.

[thievingmagpi]

OneTeamPlayer, on 02 July 2020 - 07:17 PM, said:

Ah, so it comes down to being a personal beef, as is usual.

I was wondering why you were in here arguing like someone had insulted your stepfather's mistress, makes more sense now.

Lmao, more like enjoy watching butthurt people cry.

We have a system that works, to some extent, and was given under the appropriate circumstance and timeframe. A "better" system that fails to satisfy those properties is not a better system.

It was actually a great example of PGI doing good and taking on a lot of community driven advice, instead of simply weathering twitter shouting.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 07:21 PM.

[OneTeamPlayer]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

Lmao, more like enjoy watching butthurt people cry.

We have a system that works, to some extent, and was given under the appropriate circumstance and timeframe. A "better" system that fails to satisfy those properties is not a better system.

So again, no real personal standing, just a need to tongue-shine boots.

Fair enough, fair enough.

[thievingmagpi]

OneTeamPlayer, on 02 July 2020 - 07:22 PM, said:

So again, no real personal standing, just a need to tongue-shine boots.

Fair enough, fair enough.

Yes, a company listening to its customers and demonstrating actual interest in co-operating, regardless of how late stage it may be should be lauded.

The opportunity to work with devs to develop a *better* system to hopefully ensure the final days of a platform they're extremely passionate about are stable and memorable was jumped on by lots and lots of people. Many of whom were all more than happy to work together and find an agreeable system.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 07:30 PM.

[Nightbird]

Great job winning with a failure of a system, now let's all enjoy watching the train wreck over the next 2 months that your group is responsible for.

[OneTeamPlayer]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 07:25 PM, said:

Many of whom were all more than happy to work together and find an agreeable system.

Well, as long as it's agreeable that's the important thing here, really.

You got me duder, you definitely make the most cogent points. Agreeable math is what the world needs.

Next week we'll vote on 2 + 2 and i have some high hopes cause the status quo right now is a bit pointy of an answer, if you catch my drift. I'm thinking something pleasant like 3 or 6, you know nice and round.

[Xiphias]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 07:13 PM, said:

Watching you struggle to admit you failed to present a coherent and suitable proposal using the tools and timeframe given is pretty entertaining. At least we don't have to hear your cheese grater voice when doing it though.

Both of you are acting pretty childishly in this thread. I really don't care about all that though. All I want is the best possible system for the matchmaker.

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

A "better" system that fails to satisfy those properties is not a better system.

You've mentioned several times in this thread that Nightbird's proposal doesn't fit within the guidelines that PGI established. However, I fail to see how the method proposed (in the spoiler for reference) is outside the scope. All it requires is:

1) Current PSR
2) W/L Result from the match.

Both of these seem like they should be easily accessible and well within the parameters that PGI set. Can you please explain to me how this proposal is outside of the scope? Is there something about this implementation that I'm missing?

Method

Spoiler

Nightbird, on 28 June 2020 - 03:17 PM, said:

Thank you for saying my system is mathematically robust and achieves a very good result. I will only disagree with the point my proposal requires PGI to redesign anything. As I stated here, you can do a rolling WLR calculation by setting PSR=WLR, after every game returning RESULT (1 or 0) from the game server for win or loss, and

new_PSR = {99 * [old_PSR/(old_PSR+ 1)] + RESULT} / {99* [1 - old_PSR/(old_PSR+ 1)] - RESULT + 1}

The number 99 creates a rolling average of 100 games.

There is no need to poll long term stats, everything is done with the systems in place today.

If a WLR around 1 with lots of decimals doesn't suit people (calculators don't really care), then re-scale it by multipling by 2500.

WLR=1.1 >> PSR=2750.

Tier 5 = [0-1500] Tier 4 = [1500-2000] Tier 3 = [2000-2500] Tier 2 = [2500-3250] Tier 1 = [>3250 no cap]

Edited by Xiphias, 02 July 2020 - 07:57 PM.

[Nightbird]

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 07:54 PM, said:

However, I fail to see how the method proposed (in the spoiler for reference) is outside the scope. All it requires is:

1) Current PSR
2) W/L Result from the match.

Both of these seem like they should be easily accessible and well within the parameters that PGI set. Can you please explain to me how this proposal is outside of the scope? Is there something about this implementation that I'm missing?

He'll never admit that Jay Z's group has been malicious spreading misinformation for 3 weeks to help him win lol

[thievingmagpi]

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 07:54 PM, said:

Both of you are acting pretty childishly in this thread. I really don't care about all that though. All I want is the best possible system for the matchmaker.



You've mentioned several times in this thread that Nightbird's proposal doesn't fit within the guidelines that PGI established. However, I fail to see how the method proposed (in the spoiler for reference) is outside the scope. All it requires is:

1) Current PSR
2) W/L Result from the match.

Both of these seem like they should be easily accessible and well within the parameters that PGI set. Can you please explain to me how this proposal is outside of the scope? Is there something about this implementation that I'm missing?

Method

Spoiler

It's actually really quite simple, he was told a number of times to put whatever his proposal was into an appropriately deliverable package.

It wasn't done. And that's with many people being in Nightbird and/or the WLR camp.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 08:19 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 08:15 PM, said:

He'll never admit that Jay Z's group has been malicious spreading misinformation for 3 weeks to help him win lol

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS

Lol, that's some serious damage control you're attempting there.

[Nightbird]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 08:15 PM, said:

He'll never admit that Jay Z's group has been malicious spreading misinformation for 3 weeks to help him win lol

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:17 PM, said:

It's actually really quite simple, he was told a number of times to put whatever his proposal was into an appropriately deliverable package.

It wasn't done.

Did you forget your first post in this thread?

thievingmagpi, on 28 June 2020 - 12:06 PM, said:

a system that doesn't fit the scope of the proposed changes isn't a good system. Nor is a convoluted system which requires excess resource and specialized personnel to understand.

you failed to present a system that was appropriate with the tools, systems and personnel available. you don't have to keep acting butthurt. No one anywhere claimed that the other systems were flawless, but they fit within the scope of the proposal and can be easily and quickly adopted.

"scope", "excess resource", "specialized personnel", "tools", "scope", "quickly adopted", what happened to all those words?

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:21 PM, said:

FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS

Lol, that's some serious damage control you're attempting there.

He'll never admit that Jay Z's group has been malicious spreading misinformation for 3 weeks to help him win lol

And I'm pretty sure "appropriately deliverable package" is your attempt at damage control lol

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 08:24 PM, said:

"scope", "excess resource", "specialized personnel", "tools", "scope", "quickly adopted", what happened to all those words?

Exactly what wasn't considered when you failed to provide an appropriate proposal, despite having what... 2 weeks to do it?

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 08:26 PM.

[Nightbird]

He'll never admit that Jay Z's group has been malicious spreading misinformation for 3 weeks to help him win lol

[thievingmagpi]

Ah yes, clearly the fact that The Cabal was lying about you and your system is the reason it didn't get selected by Paul, and not that you failed to submit an appropriate proposal.

Lol.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 08:29 PM.

[Xiphias]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:17 PM, said:

It's actually really quite simple, he was told a number of times to put whatever his proposal was into an appropriately deliverable package.

It wasn't done. And that's with many people being in Nightbird and/or the WLR camp.

So you agree that the proposal is in scope and produces better results (as shown by simulations) and your only object is that it wasn't presented in a nice package? I feel like the simulations have been the most robust support out of any system that has been proposed.

If I take all his work and put it in a pretty document would you support it over Jay Z's system?

It just really seems like you are letting personal feelings get in the way of what is actually best for the game. Yes, Nightbird has been abrasive and confrontation in how he's gone about presenting his solution and I wasn't involved in whatever behind the scenes discussion went on, but if his system is better then shouldn't we all get behind it rather than pushing something that's inferior just because you have a bone to pick with him?