166 replies to this topic

[Thirdstar]

hammerreborn, on 06 February 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

The reasonable people are the ones who KNOW the premades are more likely to win and KNOW they aren't in every game. They don't need a marker telling them what they already know.

Incorrect, they need a marker to confirm what they already suspect. You shouldn't discount hard data out of hand like that. There's a world of difference between speculation and confirmation.

Bguk, on 06 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Just because you disagree with someone does not equate to a troll.

Hammer pretty much just trolls outside his poll threads and the feedback forum, I don't really hold it against him.

Bguk, on 06 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Although you may be right as Garth(?) posted the pre/pug issue is not that bad, and people just didn't believe him. But it's not real numbers so I can see it(and still disagree).

Garth said and I paraphrase a bit "If you PUG for a while you will run back to the TS servers". It was a call to walk a mile in the other side's shoes.

Edited by Thirdstar, 06 February 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Bilbo]

Dagger6T6, on 06 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

I agree, no doubt founders are at least probably more versed in the Battletech universe and more familiar with the game itself. But as far as I know the matchmaker is not creating matches based on skill as of yet... so matchmaking is based on mech tonnage and I suppose whether there are 4man teams available. So maybe this explains why more founders are on one team than another... but it's still curious... I know i have seen a number of drops where there were no founders whatsoever on one side and 5-6 on the other.

The fact that you can turn the founder's tag off, makes any observation on the number of founders in a match erroneous.

[Vlad Ward]

Dagger6T6, on 06 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

pic

I honestly don't even know how to respond to this. Yes. That is how true randomness works.

[Dagger6T6]

hammerreborn, on 06 February 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Theres a lot of teams with founders because theres a TON of founders (somewhere around 25k IIRC?). You're going to see a lot of them just for the simple fact that they are probably still at least 10-15% of the playerbase.

I know there are alot of founders but i'm just trying to see if there is a correlation as to why they would all be on a single team while the other has none.

by the way my statistics class in college was at 8am on a friday and Thursday was the big night out for students, so yeah I should probably not think about any of this anymore.

[Dagger6T6]

Vlad Ward, on 06 February 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I honestly don't even know how to respond to this. Yes. That is how true randomness works.

i'm just trying to visualize the patterns man, there are lots of ins and outs and whathaveyous, man, just trying to make sense of it all

[hammerreborn]

Bguk, on 06 February 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Just because you disagree with someone does not equate to a troll.

I agree with the extremists because if they weren't, that word would have never been created.



I agree with everything you stated. Only reason to have it is to show the whiners, on either side, what the real deal. We have factual data(screenshots) that attest to one side or the other. I just want to there to stop the majority of the debate basically. We have information then to stop the uninformed.

Although you may be right as Garth(?) posted the pre/pug issue is not that bad, and people just didn't believe him. But it's not real numbers so I can see it(and still disagree).

I don't know of Garth's comment off hand, but my own data (linked to earlier) suggests pre vs pug is heavily weighted towards the pre (somewhere around 75% chance to win).

Chance of pre vs pug (21/39 = 54%)
Chance of your team being the pug (11/19 = 58%)

None of this information has stopped the uninformed from complaining, as it also shows over 40 matches that the team with more ECM only won 50% of the matches and I'm not even going to try and count the ECM threads just from today.

[Thirdstar]

hammerreborn, on 06 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

I don't know of Garth's comment off hand, but my own data (linked to earlier) suggests pre vs pug is heavily weighted towards the pre (somewhere around 75% chance to win).

Chance of pre vs pug (21/39 = 54%)
Chance of your team being the pug (11/19 = 58%)

None of this information has stopped the uninformed from complaining, as it also shows over 40 matches that the team with more ECM only won 50% of the matches and I'm not even going to try and count the ECM threads just from today.

Which is exactly the point. Marking teams would be akin to making your poll thread into a sticky on the forums. Easily available. trustworthy information.

[hammerreborn]

Thirdstar, on 06 February 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Which is exactly the point. Marking teams would be akin to making your poll thread into a sticky on the forums. Easily available. trustworthy information.

Please, without my merc group bumping my threads my data posts wouldn't even make it past a single page. Which is basically also my point. The complainers don't care about actual data and facts or there would be a lot more interest in raw data like mine and less 20 page posts about how premades should be considered an exploit.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I don't understand why people are so against factual information being available with regards to this game.

Mark the pre-mades, settle the argument.

What Garth said was ambiguous at best, and he's also an employee for the developer, so they are always going to tilt things in such a way that it makes the game look better.

Don't we all just want to be able to say this argument is done with and move on?

hammerreborn, on 06 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Please, without my merc group bumping my threads my data posts wouldn't even make it past a single page. Which is basically also my point. The complainers don't care about actual data and facts or there would be a lot more interest in raw data like mine and less 20 page posts about how premades should be considered an exploit.

I read every thread, and I'm very interested in data. And I appreciate what you've done. But until it's built into the game and easy for everyone to qualify with their own eyes, it will never be enough.

if you are interested in settling this, I don't understand why you wouldn't want pre-mades marked.

[Thirdstar]

hammerreborn, on 06 February 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Please, without my merc group bumping my threads my data posts wouldn't even make it past a single page. Which is basically also my point. The complainers don't care about actual data and facts or there would be a lot more interest in raw data like mine and less 20 page posts about how premades should be considered an exploit.

Well I agree with that. But I once again stress that the SOURCE of the information is often more important to perception than actual content. Trust me on this, informing the public is my day job.

The Devs have never really released any metrics at all.

[Roland]

I think it'd be most useful to see who dropped together, so that folks would realize that when they get steamrolled, most of the time it's not simply something they can blame on "premades".

They'll likely find that their team had a premade too, or that the other team didn't have any... they just happened to be better.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ironbar Sinister, on 06 February 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

END OF ROUND SCREEN NEEDS TO SHOW WHO DROPPED TOGETHER


Why is that important?

Go read the 5 pages of posts to get an idea.

Roland, on 06 February 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

I think it'd be most useful to see who dropped together, so that folks would realize that when they get steamrolled, most of the time it's not simply something they can blame on "premades".

They'll likely find that their team had a premade too, or that the other team didn't have any... they just happened to be better.

This is my thought. Having been on both sides. But I do feel that the information should be out there.

I also think this will help us identify ways to streamline the new player experience which might be the most important thing PGI could do right now. Even more so than CW.

[hammerreborn]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't understand why people are so against factual information being available with regards to this game.

Mark the pre-mades, settle the argument.

What Garth said was ambiguous at best, and he's also an employee for the developer, so they are always going to tilt things in such a way that it makes the game look better.

Don't we all just want to be able to say this argument is done with and move on?



I read every thread, and I'm very interested in data. And I appreciate what you've done. But until it's built into the game and easy for everyone to qualify with their own eyes, it will never be enough.

if you are interested in settling this, I don't understand why you wouldn't want pre-mades marked.

Because at the end of the day, even my numbers are completely useless. Sure I find that more ECM only equates to 50% win rate, or premades with 75% of the time. But the only number I can say for sure is that 100% of the time and AFK/DC will screw your team and a good rough estimate of mech diversity (which by the way by the end of the week I'll have another one out).

The premades/ECM win rate could be artificially inflated by a 3l running with 2 lrm 20s or something stupid. You never know. I do the data collection for fun and to kinda highlight certain things, but by all means it's not really a end all be all statement.

I just don't see the point in marking premades, the negatives just seem to outweigh any benefit. Making my life easier for data collection is not a benefit I think PGI cares about, and they shouldn't. The negatives can be seen in this thread and all over the forums about how people react to those who play in premades. I mean even in my last data collection there were tons of flame wars started by people self-admitting to being in a premade IN GAME (including friendly fire).

People dont really care about the math, or reality. People want excuses, appeals to emotion, and confirmation bias for their ill perceptions about the game. I see no reason to support those people in their paranoia that every premade is out to ruin their gaming experience and that every game they are against one.

Edited by hammerreborn, 06 February 2013 - 11:43 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

People are reacting that way with or without the info.

Giving it to people like myself who are rational and willing to accept things for what they are could draw more people to your side.

[hammerreborn]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 February 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

People are reacting that way with or without the info.

Giving it to people like myself who are rational and willing to accept things for what they are could draw more people to your side.

What side? The premades win a lot but aren't in every game side? I mean...isn't that just common sense?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

No one acting reasonable is saying pre-mades are in every game. What people are saying is they are in enough games and influence the experience for solo players in a negative manner.

Right now, I lean towards that being true.

But if I start dropping and see that I'm only seeing pre-mades in 1 out of 7 or 8 matches, I will probably stop that line of thought.

On the other hand if I see a pre-made 1 out of 3 matches, we may need to revisit whether the queue's should have solo and pre-mades.

[hammerreborn]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 February 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

No one acting reasonable is saying pre-mades are in every game. What people are saying is they are in enough games and influence the experience for solo players in a negative manner.

Right now, I lean towards that being true.

But if I start dropping and see that I'm only seeing pre-mades in 1 out of 7 or 8 matches, I will probably stop that line of thought.

On the other hand if I see a pre-made 1 out of 3 matches, we may need to revisit whether the queue's should have solo and pre-mades.

Well it's definitely the latter during primetime (roughly 70% of games had at least one premade on the team). If I'm doing my math right with my numbers you have about 22% of a drop being premade vs pug with you as the pug.

[Thirdstar]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 February 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

On the other hand if I see a pre-made 1 out of 3 matches, we may need to revisit whether the queue's should have solo and pre-mades.

Not really a fan of that idea. I'd just like PGI to at least commit that they will work towards getting the matchmaker to drop premades on both sides when possible and then I could use the marked premades to see if they actually HAVE implemented such a thing.

Because I suspect that we have fast launch times due to fact that the matchmaker is simplistic. Other similar games I've played with more complex matchmakers take much longer to get going. All purely conjecture of course.

Edited by Thirdstar, 06 February 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[The Mecha Streisand]

hammerreborn, on 06 February 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

... Okay...I look forward to killing you with 6 flamers because I'm pretty sure you're a joke.

Do it with an all-TAG Hunchback, or you're not a man.

FIGHT! FIGHT!

[hammerreborn]

30plusRAbbi, on 06 February 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Do it with an all-TAG Hunchback, or you're not a man.

FIGHT! FIGHT!

Can I make it a 6 TAG jenner? I hate hunchbacks.