283 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 08:30 PM, said:

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

Feel free to. I claim no ownership of any information shared publicly.

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 08:30 PM, said:

Nightbird has been abrasive and confrontation in how he's gone about presenting his solution

Not nearly to the degree received from the Jay Z's group.

[Stormpaw]

presentation more important than results!!!!11111

[thievingmagpi]

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 08:30 PM, said:

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?

Nope. There's almost 2 weeks of discussion about the scope of the changes available, *including* input from Paul indicating any kind of rolling system was off the table. In fact, that's been known for a month now.


Guess who just *had* to reply to the Devs of the game telling them how their game is designed and how their desired changes *should* look?

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 08:30 PM, said:

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

Nope, because it's irrelevant. If we're looking for wholesale ways to rearrange all the issues with MWO, there are better and more important system than Nightbirds'.

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 08:30 PM, said:

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?

A system that doesn't work isn't better.

Stormpaw, on 02 July 2020 - 08:37 PM, said:

presentation more important than results!!!!11111

results impossible without presentation.

[Nightbird]

Stormpaw, on 02 July 2020 - 08:37 PM, said:

presentation more important than results!!!!11111

Results are not important to Jay Z's group. Has never been important. If it was, there'd be some proof or evidence that his proposal works. THERE. IS. NOT.

[Nightbird]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:39 PM, said:

Nope, because it's irrelevant. If we're looking for wholesale ways to rearrange all the issues with MWO, there are better and more important system than Nightbirds'.

So I get to make fun of how terrible your group's results are again in the future? Great!

[Stormpaw]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 08:40 PM, said:

Results are not important to Jay Z's group. Has never been important. If it was, there'd be some proof or evidence that his proposal works. THERE. IS. NOT.

stats is not an easy subject for most

[Nightbird]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:39 PM, said:

Nope. There's almost 2 weeks of discussion about the scope of the changes available, *including* input from Paul indicating any kind of rolling system was off the table. In fact, that's been known for a month now.

Don't put the blame on Paul, he said polling a rolling WLR isn't possible. My proposal never asked to poll a rolling WLR. I also proved the improvement in matchmaking. Something Jay Z's proposal didn't even try to do.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 08:52 PM, said:

Don't put the blame on Paul, he said polling a rolling WLR isn't possible. My proposal never asked to poll a rolling WLR. I also proved the improvement in matchmaking. Something Jay Z's proposal didn't even try to do.

You didn't "prove" anything, because the person you were "trying" to communicate to didn't agree. So here we are again, you pretending like you didn't fail. If you did in fact "prove" the improvement in matchmaking, we wouldn't be here.




Also, pretty funny how you made several more replies going on about how good and easy rolling averages are.


But hey fake news or something

Edited by thievingmagpi, 02 July 2020 - 09:01 PM.

[Nightbird]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:56 PM, said:

You didn't "prove" anything, because the person you were "trying" to communicate to didn't agree. So here we are again, you pretending like you didn't fail.

I'm not pretending I didn't fail. Jay Z's proposal won. And it won without sound evidence, proof, math, logic. As the group that won without any of these things, you take full responsibility of the failure that is to follow, or will you try to spin your way out of that as well?

That is the point of this thread. Thank you for being a sport, I was worried no one from your group would participate but now everything is saved for posterity.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:02 PM, said:

I'm not pretending I didn't fail. Jay Z's proposal won. And it won without sound evidence, proof, math, logic. As the group that won without any of these things, you take full responsibility of the failure that is to follow, or will you try to spin your way out of that as well?

1) flawed system that works but is an improvement, even if only slighty

2) no change whatsoever

Those were the choices.

You can pretend like there was a third option, but there wasn't, was never on the table. Especially if you were never willing to do any of the work to make that option viable.

[Nightbird]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 09:05 PM, said:

1) flawed system that works but is an improvement, even if only slighty

2) no change whatsoever

Those were the choices.

You can pretend like there was a third option, but there wasn't, was never on the table. Especially if you were never willing to do any of the work to make that option viable.

You can't wish away the links in the OP lol.

Nor can you wish away your posts about my suggestion being out of scope. If I never made a suggestion, you wouldn't have used that as your first response. You should have said "why didn't you submit your suggestion?"

Keep spinning my friend, run like the wind

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:07 PM, said:

You can't wish away the links in the OP lol.

Oh, the link in the OP you submitted to PGI in a clear, easily understood manner that demonstrates the strengths of you model, how it can be implemented, and that it conforms to all of Paul/Russ' goals?

Oh yeah nvm.

Must've been The Cabal bribing Paul to ignore your post.

[Nightbird]

Lastly, Jay Z's system is NOT AN IMPROVEMENT, NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY than the current system.

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 09:10 PM, said:

Oh, the link in the OP you submitted to PGI in a clear, easily understood manner that demonstrates the strengths of you model, how it can be implemented, and that it conforms to all of Paul/Russ' goals?

Oh yeah nvm.

Must've been The Cabal bribing Paul to ignore your post.

What even happened to "because your system is out of scope, requires excessive resources, blah blah blah?"

I love this mini reenactment of the current US political system, I hope the audience is loving it as well.

[Xiphias]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 08:39 PM, said:

Nope. There's almost 2 weeks of discussion about the scope of the changes available, *including* input from Paul indicating any kind of rolling system was off the table. In fact, that's been known for a month now.

Thank you for actually answering my question this time. You didn't actually state any core problems with the system in the last reply.

Can you point me to the specific place where that was stated? I'm not doubting you, but I've not exhaustively kept up with every thread. The best I was able to find is this:

Paul Inouye, on 16 June 2020 - 04:30 PM, said:

There are some suggestions out there that will not work when trying to access data that isn't loaded while players are still connected to the game servers. This type of change is something we cannot address at this time.

Which hints at possibly being what you're saying (i.e. that PSR isn't accessible in game for the calc), but it isn't exactly clear what it is referring to.

I know that they stated that a player's historical data can't be accessed, but in Russ' tweet I'm unsure if he's actually understanding the question. It's quite possible that his is, I'd just like further clarity from PGI on it. From my naive no access to the code point of view it seems like they would have to have access to PSR when they update PSR so something like NB suggested would be able to work. That might be impossible. I'd just like to know.

Tangent

Spoiler

If you assume that all the system can do is add a value to the PSR then what was suggested would be impossible.Though thinking about it, you might be able to get away with some sneaky floating point (or int) nonsense to get around this sort of problem. If you had a secondary step where you recalculated PSR after the match score had been added you could add a constant number from the match that would put the score outside of whatever the normal range would be. Then knowing this you could extract out both the result and the original PSR and then use both to calculate the new PSR. I have a feeling this is either 1) impossible with the current code base 2) more work that PGI wants to put in. Just some musings.

If the system isn't possible I understand, but I'd like to be sure that it's impossible before it is dismissed. Preferably the community would try and get PGI to implement something better, but I've been around too long to be optimistic about that happening. I at least appreciate that they seem to be listening to community input on things this time around.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:13 PM, said:

What even happened to "because your system is out of scope, requires excessive resources, blah blah blah?"

And you failed at demonstrating it met the according requirements.

Again, that's on you. Nobody else. It doesn't matter if you think Paul just didn't like your system for some reason, if you think he's holding it against you because of Cabal Tricks, whether you think he is just incapable of following the math, or any other reason, it doesn't matter. Demonstrating those things were on you and you didn't do it.

[Nightbird]

Xiphias, on 02 July 2020 - 09:13 PM, said:

Thank you for actually answering my question this time. You didn't actually state any core problems with the system in the last reply.

Can you point me to the specific place where that was stated? I'm not doubting you, but I've not exhaustively kept up with every thread. The best I was able to find is this:

Which hints at possibly being what you're saying (i.e. that PSR isn't accessible in game for the calc), but it isn't exactly clear what it is referring to.

I know that they stated that a player's historical data can't be accessed, but in Russ' tweet I'm unsure if he's actually understanding the question. It's quite possible that his is, I'd just like further clarity from PGI on it. From my naive no access to the code point of view it seems like they would have to have access to PSR when they update PSR so something like NB suggested would be able to work. That might be impossible. I'd just like to know.

Tangent

Spoiler

If you assume that all the system can do is add a value to the PSR then what was suggested would be impossible.Though thinking about it, you might be able to get away with some sneaky floating point (or int) nonsense to get around this sort of problem. If you had a secondary step where you recalculated PSR after the match score had been added you could add a constant number from the match that would put the score outside of whatever the normal range would be. Then knowing this you could extract out both the result and the original PSR and then use both to calculate the new PSR. I have a feeling this is either 1) impossible with the current code base 2) more work that PGI wants to put in. Just some musings.

If the system isn't possible I understand, but I'd like to be sure that it's impossible before it is dismissed. Preferably the community would try and get PGI to implement something better, but I've been around too long to be optimistic about that happening. I at least appreciate that they seem to be listening to community input on things this time around.

Yep, the game server can't use a formula that polls data from outside the game server. However the PSR change can be passed out.

The external system adds the PSR change to the current PSR. There is no chance this system is only limited to addition though, that's not how computer systems work. If a step can do addition, then you can also do another math formula as long as you're not introducing additional variables which may require access other databases.

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 09:17 PM, said:

And you failed at demonstrating it met the according requirements.

Again, that's on you. Nobody else. It doesn't matter if you think Paul just didn't like your system for some reason, if you think he's holding it against you because of Cabal Tricks, whether you think he is just incapable of following the math, or any other reason, it doesn't matter. Demonstrating those things were on you and you didn't do it.

My links in the OP won't go away. Jay Z's system won't not be a failure.

Your misinformation are all quoted to prevent deletion.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:19 PM, said:

Yep, the game server can't use a formula that polls data from outside the game server. However the PSR change can be passed out.

The external system adds the PSR change to the current PSR. There is no chance this system is only limited to addition though, that's not how computer systems work. If a step can do addition, then you can also do another math formula as long as you're not introducing additional variables which may require access other databases.

And yet apparently Paul doesn't agree or we wouldn't be here.

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:19 PM, said:

My links in the OP won't go away. Jay Z's system won't not be a failure.

Your misinformation are all quoted to prevent deletion.

Oh, the link in the OP you submitted to PGI in a clear, easily understood manner that demonstrates the strengths of you model, how it can be implemented, and that it conforms to all of Paul/Russ' goals?

Oh yeah nvm

[Nightbird]

thievingmagpi, on 02 July 2020 - 09:21 PM, said:

Oh, the link in the OP you submitted to PGI in a clear, easily understood manner that demonstrates the strengths of you model, how it can be implemented, and that it conforms to all of Paul/Russ' goals?

Oh yeah nvm

True, I could have spent more time on my post. But let's not kid ourselves, Jay Z's proposal did not demonstrate the strengths of his model nor meet any of Paul/Russ's goals on improving match making and reducing stomps. It, after all, has neither strengths nor effectiveness.

Edited by Nightbird, 02 July 2020 - 09:27 PM.

[Xiphias]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:19 PM, said:

The external system adds the PSR change to the current PSR. There is no chance this system is only limited to addition though, that's not how computer systems work. If a step can do addition, then you can also do another math formula as long as you're not introducing additional variables which may require access other databases.

I mean, I've programmed before and I know how computers work. That said, I don't know how PGI's code works. I would assume that it's possible and it could definitely be reprogrammed to do so, but who knows how it's actually implemented. Without actually seeing the code or getting an answer, I don't want to make a claim one way or another.

I just want to hear a clear answer from Paul as to what the problem is.

[thievingmagpi]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2020 - 09:24 PM, said:

True, I could have spent more time on my post. But let's not kid ourselves, Jay Z's proposal did not demonstrate the strengths of his model nor meet any of Paul/Russ's goals on improving match making and reducing stomps. It, after all, has neither strengths nor effectiveness.

According to who exactly? You?

Or the people who the proposal was intended for, who apparently felt contrary to your own views, and are the ones who are going to actually implement the changes?