178 replies to this topic

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 03:03 PM, said:

No part of the current PSR+MM proposal document use that as a condition for functionality. This is just an after-the-fact excuse. At the time, the authors promised it would work and that any MS changes would further improve it. Regardless, even if we do go further with MS changes (who know, we might again in Jan), I'll keep myself entertained once again showing it can't possibly work.

Like I said, in the thread you linked Paul said MS was up to be changed, it was also discussed by the group and I'm pretty sure it was discussed at the start so you were there. But it also says it right in the proposal post that you linked

Kurlon, on 08 June 2020 - 04:30 PM, said:

The matchscore formula itself does need quite a bit of adjusting. We plan on posting an update regarding that soon.

Edited by dario03, 17 December 2020 - 05:30 PM.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 05:23 PM, said:

Like I said, in the thread you linked Paul said MS was up to be changed, it was also discussed by the group and I'm pretty sure it was discussed at the start so you were there. But it also says it right in the proposal post that you linked

Nowhere does it say in the proposal or post that it would be non-functional without MS changes, quote it for me please if I am wrong.

Honestly, this excuse wouldn't fly even if you had your MS changes. The proposal still won't work, and I already explained why.

If you guys want to go through another update to learn through failure, go right ahead. As soon as the COVID pandemic ends, life-support will dry up and the game dies. The only chance to build up the pop to a survivable level was the update we had in June/July. If we had a proper fix, the benefit to attrition rate would have increased the pop to about 800 avg on Steam after a full year. Now, even if we start a cycle in Jan, apply a fix in March, the game will be dead in June. Since that will be the case, why not do a MS update in March anyways? At least you can learn a lesson from the data collected before it is over.

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 06:11 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 06:00 PM, said:

Nowhere does it say in the proposal or post that it would be non-functional without MS changes, quote it for me please if I am wrong.

Honestly, this excuse wouldn't fly even if you had your MS changes. The proposal still won't work, and I already explained why.

If you guys want to go through another update to learn through failure, go right ahead. As soon as the COVID pandemic ends, life-support will dry up and the game dies. The only chance to build up the pop to a survivable level was the update we had in June/July. If we had a proper fix, the benefit to attrition rate would have increased the pop to about 800 avg on Steam after a full year. Now, even if we start a cycle in Jan, apply a fix in March, the game will be dead in June. Since that will be the case, why not do a MS update in March anyways? At least you can learn a lesson from the data collected before it is over.

I just quoted it for you. "The matchscore formula itself does need quite a bit of adjusting."

And I already explained to you numerous times that they aren't my MS changes, nor my proposals, nor am I even comparing the proposals. So I don't know why you keep acting like I'm attacking your proposal, and why you are arguing against points that I haven't even made.

My entire point was in response to your attack on the groups proposal and it basically comes down to me saying
To be fair, iirc the other groups plans weren't fully implemented.

Your proposal is irrelevant to that statement. Even if there was never any talk about MS changes, your proposal is irrelevant to that statement.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 06:40 PM, said:

I just quoted it for you. "The matchscore formula itself does need quite a bit of adjusting."

And I already explained to you numerous times that they aren't my MS changes, nor my proposals, nor am I even comparing the proposals. So I don't know why you keep acting like I'm attacking your proposal, and why you are arguing against points that I haven't even made.

My entire point was in response to your attack on the groups proposal and it basically comes down to me saying
To be fair, iirc the other groups plans weren't fully implemented.

Your proposal is irrelevant to that statement. Even if there was never any talk about MS changes, your proposal is irrelevant to that statement.

I don't see how "The matchscore formula itself does need quite a bit of adjusting" excuses the PSR+MM update from not improving the player experience in any way. But let's say it does. It does not change my prediction that no MS adjustment will rescue Jay Z's proposal due to fundamental math problems. You say that you are not comparing proposals, but are you not arguing for a continuation of Jay Z's proposal - i.e. adjust MS and then try again? If I sound antagonistic, it is only because I do not want to see another missed opportunity.

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 06:56 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 06:53 PM, said:

I don't see how "The matchscore formula itself does need quite a bit of adjusting" excuses the PSR+MM update from not improving the player experience in any way. But let's say it does. It does not change my prediction that no MS adjustment will rescue Jay Z's proposal due to fundamental math problems.

And like I said, saying that you predict it will make no difference, especially if you support the prediction is fine.

Quote

You say that you are not comparing proposals, but are you not arguing for a continuation of Jay Z's proposal - i.e. adjust MS and then try again? If I sound antagonistic, it is only because I do not want to see another missed opportunity.

I haven't argued for or against any system in this thread. But until a MS formula change is put in I don't believe Jayz system has been fully implemented so I don't find it accurate to say the system failed. If they put it (and anything else that might have been left out (if any)) and it doesn't work then you can say it failed.
Some what related I would like a match score adjustment though. If its this system, your system (even though it doesn't directly effect yours), or a totally different system I think a MS change would help outside of match maker. Like if people are trying to farm MS for events or leaderboards I think some adjustments to what gets MS would be good.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 07:19 PM, said:

And like I said, saying that you predict it will make no difference, especially if you support the prediction is fine.


I haven't argued for or against any system in this thread. But until a MS formula change is put in I don't believe Jayz system has been fully implemented so I don't find it accurate to say the system failed. If they put it (and anything else that might have been left out (if any)) and it doesn't work then you can say it failed.
Some what related I would like a match score adjustment though. If its this system, your system (even though it doesn't directly effect yours), or a totally different system I think a MS change would help outside of match maker. Like if people are trying to farm MS for events or leaderboards I think some adjustments to what gets MS would be good.

So there has been no misunderstandings after all. I've been saying all along it's a bad idea wasting time and resources and opportunity to "try" a system predicted to fail. You've been saying sink more resources into this dead-end proposal, and maybe it'll work eventually.

Humor me for a moment and answer two questions.

1. Is it better to know the result of a decision before making it or afterwards?

2. Given a choice, would you select the better predicted outcome or worse predicted outcome?

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 08:21 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 08:05 PM, said:

So there has been no misunderstandings after all. I've been saying all along it's a bad idea wasting time and resources and opportunity to "try" a system predicted to fail. You've been saying sink more resources into this dead-end proposal, and maybe it'll work eventually.

I didn't say that.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 08:53 PM, said:

I didn't say that.

You've been spending your entire time in this thread trying to muddy the waters on whether the current PSR+MM is a failure or not. If I'm wrong, answer the two questions.


1. Is it better to know the result of a decision before making it or afterwards?

2. Given a choice, would you select the better predicted outcome or worse predicted outcome?

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 08:59 PM, said:

You've been spending your entire time in this thread trying to muddy the waters on whether the current PSR+MM is a failure or not.

No, I haven't. I have spent the entire time telling you that

I don't think the current system has everything that the other group wanted.
Since it doesn't have everything then it isn't really their system.
Because its not really their system I don't think its a fair statement to say the group's plan failed.

Thats it.
I haven't made any comments on how good this system is, how good the other groups system in its entirety would be, how good your system would be, how good any other system would be.

Edited by dario03, 17 December 2020 - 09:27 PM.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 09:25 PM, said:

No, I haven't. I have spent the entire time telling you that

I don't think the current system has everything that the other group wanted.
Since it doesn't have everything then it isn't really their system.
Because its not really their system I don't think its a fair statement to say the group's plan failed.

Thats it.
I haven't made any comments on how good this system is, how good the other groups system in its entirety would be, how good your system would be, how good any other system would be.

Answer the two questions.

1. Is it better to know the result of a decision before making it or afterwards?

2. Given a choice, would you select the better predicted outcome or worse predicted outcome?

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 09:28 PM, said:

Answer the two questions.

1. Is it better to know the result of a decision before making it or afterwards?

2. Given a choice, would you select the better predicted outcome or worse predicted outcome?

How do those have anything to do with stating a plan failed when the plan wasn't fully implemented?

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 09:48 PM, said:

How do those have anything to do with stating a plan failed when the plan wasn't fully implemented?

The answers would explain why you're posting in thread, as someone genuinely concerned with the health of the game, or as someone aiming to obfuscate matters. By the way, the choices are to answer or not answer, and it seems you're leaning towards the latter.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 09:53 PM, said:

The answers would explain why you're posting in thread, as someone genuinely concerned with the health of the game, or as someone aiming to obfuscate matters. By the way, the choices are to answer or not answer, and it seems you're leaning towards the latter.

I lean toward the latter because as I have stated before you seem to be arguing points that I haven't made (in this instance the comparison of proposals). I would rather discuss the points I have made instead of shifting the conversation.

[Nightbird]

dario03, on 17 December 2020 - 09:59 PM, said:

I lean toward the latter because as I have stated before you seem to be arguing points that I haven't made (in this instance the comparison of proposals). I would rather discuss the points I have made instead of shifting the conversation.

In other words you act against the interest of the MWO community by making your points. Gotcha. Otherwise you would have no trouble answering.

When I call the current PSR+MM a failure, I'm able to do so with justification from evidence that the proposal has been harmful given a 135% better alternative being available. You defend it from being called it a failure, argue to prolong the duration of non-performance of the status quo, and to deny the community from accessing a better MM. Whatever your intent may be, your actions are not that of someone who cares for the community.

Edited by Nightbird, 17 December 2020 - 10:11 PM.

[dario03]

Nightbird, on 17 December 2020 - 10:02 PM, said:

In other words you act against the interest of the MWO community by making your points. Gotcha. Otherwise you would have no trouble answering.

No, I just clearly state what I think and don't want to keep letting you shift the conversation around with your "so what you're saying is" tactics. I will argue the points that I am making, not the ones you are imagining or projecting onto me.

[ccrider]

We can all sit here and argue for and against anything in the game, proposed for the game or rejected for the game but in the end, there is only one guaranteed outcome;

PGI is going to **** this game so hard in the ******* that it will get worse.

Edited by ccrider, 17 December 2020 - 10:27 PM.

[Nightbird]

ccrider, on 17 December 2020 - 10:26 PM, said:

We can all sit here and argue for and against anything in the game, proposed for the game or rejected for the game but in the end, there is only one guaranteed outcome;

PGI didn't propose the failed PSR+MM update, credit to where credit is due.

[PocketYoda]

I enjoy playing solo, but then i'm not competitive so i don't care if i lose.. I'm here for Battletech stompy robots and a fun evening dodging LRMs..

[Acheron Blade]

So as a returning player and somewhat of an outsider now after being gone for a few years, having read through most of the threads linked and posted by Nightbird, this should be a case study for “How to kill a better idea with poor interpersonal interactions.” I found some of his other threads to be more reasonable but after wading through the mess in this thread, if I was PGI, even I wouldn’t want to touch him as he’s so radioactive to so many now.

His ideas and findings are solid from what I can tell. While I can certainly understand the passion he has and the frustration of having a better idea not listened to / accepted, the way he attacks everyone is a huge turn off. He definitely comes across as bitter, condescending, inflexible and bullying.

Like many who are grounded in hard sciences that live and breathe that life (I have been there myself as an engineer in another life), there appears to also be an over reliance on the math being the only tool used and a complete lack of awareness / skill in diplomacy, coalition building, and dealing with the idea that people’s decisions are sometimes irrationally tied to emotion even if the math says otherwise.

Knowing how to effectively navigate those waters is crucial in successfully convincing others less knowledgeable or skilled than you might be in a given field without coming across as an a-hole and turning them against you. I suspect this concept will be attacked by some as “only idiots don’t make decisions based on math/science and pick the best outcome”, but that is the reality of the flawed human beings we all are and the challenge is how do you effectively navigate that? The most basic thing is you don’t attack or bully everyone that doesn’t understand or agree with you.

It’s really a shame for everyone involved that it has devolved to this state on both sides. I hope some reason and calm can settle on all sides, as I think most everyone here generally wants the game to do better and survive longer. Without this baseline of trust among different community factions and PGI, I am doubtful that any resolution can be reached.

[Kroete]

Acheron Blade, on 17 December 2020 - 11:30 PM, said:

Knowing how to effectively navigate those waters is crucial in successfully convincing others less knowledgeable or skilled than you might be in a given field without coming across as an a-hole and turning them against you. I suspect this concept will be attacked by some as “only idiots don’t make decisions based on math/science and pick the best outcome”, but that is the reality of the flawed human beings we all are and the challenge is how do you effectively navigate that? The most basic thing is you don’t attack or bully everyone that doesn’t understand or agree with you.

The humans are on the way to another dark age,
we lose slowly the archievements of the enliightment,
we are back to a time where torture is sometimes ok again,
we are back to a time where you can keep people imprisoned for ever without any court involved,
where states can kill people without any consequences,
a time where a clown wins elections with lies and emotions and a balloting becomes a circus,
people vote for parties based on emotions and supposably culprits and do not read the party manifestos.
We want the strong man again, nearly all over the world!

Most people today dont want to think, they want attention, emotions and fast satisfaction and you cant discuss with people that mostly have an attentionspan (8seconds) under that of a goldfish (9 seconds) and dont want to read a text with more then 200 words.

We are living in interesting times.

Edited by Kroete, 18 December 2020 - 03:06 AM.