| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1720
   |
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:10:00 -
[61] - Quote
^Do not misrepresent my position to try and further your point.
You are not accounting for enough variables, or the factors that people have told you about.
If you are unsquadded it does not select an unsquadded individual for the other side to 'balance' things out, so your '15/16' for the other side is outright wrong. You are making a metric ton of errors, assumptions and fallacies.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
931
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:16:00 -
[62] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:^Do not misrepresent my position to try and further your point.
You are not accounting for enough variables, or the factors that people have told you about.
If you are unsquadded it does not select an unsquadded individual for the other side to 'balance' things out, so your '15/16' for the other side is outright wrong. You are making a metric ton of errors, assumptions and fallacies.
okay. There is room in the world for you to do math your way, and for me to do math my way. I am satisfied with the results I'm getting, and I find my techniques useful for forecasting and prediction, which is what ultimately helps us to alter our behavior in a beneficial and well adjusted way.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2396
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:17:00 -
[63] - Quote
Clone D wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:Clone D wrote:I couldn't care less what you believe. If you look at my post, it says "@Devs". I want a description of their algorithm from them. I really don't care what your comprehension level is. "waaah only devs can tell me I'm wrong, despite the collective observations of many others and myself!". Revising 'stupid' to 'incredibly ****ing dumb' with demonstrably zero understanding of probability. As I asked earlier, please provide reasons for why you think there's a 50/50 chance for either team to have organized squads or not. Because I don't have the data, I will generate a hypothetical situation. Here's a simple one for you. Assume 66% of all FW players squad up and that this percentage is distributed equally between the four factions. 66% of Amarr FW players squad up 66% of Minmatar FW players squad up 66% of Gallente FW players squad up 66% of Caldari FW players squad up If Team A is Amarr and Team B is Minmatar then they both share the same chance of 15/16 players on their team being squadded up: 66% * 15 Players = 10 Squadded players on Team A 66% * 15 Players = 10 Squadded players on Team B That leaves 1 player left on each team: 1 is me, the other can be a squadded or solo player on the other team. Your argument is that organized teams win. As long as there is an equal distribution of percentage of players who squad up in each faction, then there is an equal chance of either side having organized players. The fact that I play solo is only a minor discrepancy in the exact 50/50 ratio in this hypothetical example.
problem
that 15/16 number is wrong becuasse if one playeer choses to squad up he automatically brings in 1-5 players who also have choseen to squad up.
that s what i meant by exponential gain.
its not 66%*15 players, its a nested loop
becuase if hes squaded then he brings in people with him redusing the amount of available space for unsquaded pepople.
for insance
an unsquaded team has something like this
pass = chosees squad, fail = choses no squad
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
1 fail
compaired to this
1 pass
- 1 autopass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
1 fail
1 fail
1 passs
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
1 fail
1fail
1 pass
- 1 auto pass due to squad -100% chance of chosing squad instead of 66%
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
19837
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:17:00 -
[64] - Quote
Factions do not have equal player resources.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Numerous people have told you this over the pages of your thread and you are still making assumptions like '66% of players squad up, this is true for every faction'. This is not true. If 80% of people on the Gallente side squad up and 20% of people on the Caldari side squad up, there is not going to be a 50% chance of victory for either side.
Quote:
Your argument is that organized teams win. As long as there is an equal distribution of percentage of players who squad up in each faction, then there is an equal chance of either side having organized players.
The arguments of Ghosts and MINA are absolutely correct.
There is not an equal distribution of players who squad up in each faction. Thus, there is not an equal chance of either side having organised players.
The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2396
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
Clone D wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^Do not misrepresent my position to try and further your point.
You are not accounting for enough variables, or the factors that people have told you about.
If you are unsquadded it does not select an unsquadded individual for the other side to 'balance' things out, so your '15/16' for the other side is outright wrong. You are making a metric ton of errors, assumptions and fallacies. okay. There is room in the world for you to do math your way, and for me to do math my way. I am satisfied with the results I'm getting, and I find my techniques useful for forecasting and prediction, which is what ultimately helps us to alter our behavior in a beneficial and well adjusted way.
math can only be done one way, thats why its a universal language, it only has one right answer.
your techniques obviously ARNT usefull for forcasting and prediction becuas eyou cant figure out why your not getting the results your math is telling you that you should get.
by chosing to no squad up you lower the chance of you being on an organiseed team by 3-7% rright off the bat (changes bassed on average people chosinng squad)
becuase you chosing not to squad lowers your teams overall average of people willing to squad up.
so your starting at a 43.75% chance of being on the oraganised team (assuming your 50% number is correct wich it isnt)
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
931
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:20:00 -
[66] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Factions do not have equal player resources. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Numerous people have told you this over the pages of your thread and you are still making assumptions like '66% of players squad up, this is true for every faction'. This is not true. If 80% of people on the Gallente side squad up and 20% of people on the Caldari side squad up, there is not going to be a 50% chance of victory for either side. Quote:
Your argument is that organized teams win. As long as there is an equal distribution of percentage of players who squad up in each faction, then there is an equal chance of either side having organized players.
The arguments of Ghosts and MINA are absolutely correct. There is not an equal distribution of players who squad up in each faction. Thus, there is not an equal chance of either side having organised players. Clone D wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^Do not misrepresent my position to try and further your point.
You are not accounting for enough variables, or the factors that people have told you about.
If you are unsquadded it does not select an unsquadded individual for the other side to 'balance' things out, so your '15/16' for the other side is outright wrong. You are making a metric ton of errors, assumptions and fallacies. okay. There is room in the world for you to do math your way, and for me to do math my way. I am satisfied with the results I'm getting, and I find my techniques useful for forecasting and prediction, which is what ultimately helps us to alter our behavior in a beneficial and well adjusted way. I should hope you're not at all happy with the results you're getting, given that they're wildly inaccurate. Accurate forecasting and prediction is only doable when you aren't starting from wildly inaccurate predictions.
Thanks for contributing. I did prefix my hypothetical example by saying that I don't have the actual data. If there is a strong level of deviation of players who squad up between the factions, then you are correct. That would significantly effect the outcomes of the various permutations of matches.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
931
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:23:00 -
[67] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:I should hope you're not at all happy with the results you're getting, given that they're wildly inaccurate.
Accurate forecasting and prediction is only doable when you aren't starting from wildly inaccurate predictions.
Why would you hope for someone's misfortune and unhappiness. You must be a terribly bitter person and I feel sorry for you.
I hope that you get the data you need to achieve the things you want to in life. I hope you can reciprocate that sentiment toward me some day.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1720
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:26:00 -
[68] - Quote
Arkena and I do not agree often, but holy ****ing Christ are you wrong. The reason we're doing so right now is because of what ghosts chance has said. Math is a universal language because there is one correct way to do it, if you aren't getting the results you think you should be its because something has gone wrong where we're asking you to show your work.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
931
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:31:00 -
[69] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:math can only be done one way, thats why its a universal language, it only has one right answer.
your techniques obviously ARNT usefull for forcasting and prediction becuas eyou cant figure out why your not getting the results your math is telling you that you should get.
by chosing to no squad up you lower the chance of you being on an organiseed team by 3-7% rright off the bat (changes bassed on average people chosinng squad)
becuase you chosing not to squad lowers your teams overall average of people willing to squad up.
so your starting at a 43.75% chance of being on the oraganised team (assuming your 50% number is correct wich it isnt)
The simulations that I have written have demonstrated a high level of accuracy, reflecting positively upon my ability to forecast and predict. I am very confident in my competence level at this stage in my life.
The information I am missing is data that resides in databases on CCPs servers, and algorithms that reside in code in CCPs source control system.
The examples provided in this thread have been hypothetical. The title of the thread which includes the word "Theoretical" suggests this.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Kain Spero
Goonfeet
3918
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:35:00 -
[70] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Statistically, shouldn't I be assigned to the team that will win FW 50% of the time?
While I have finished in the top 3 every FW battle, the teams that I have been assigned to have lost 19 out of 20 battles.
That defies the statistical chance that I should be assigned to the winning team and I suspect something is very fishy about the way we are placed on teams.
@Devs, can you provide some transparency on the exact details of how we are assigned to teams during match making. I need this information in order to alter how I am placed on teams, as your algorithm almost always assigns me to the losing FW team.
@FW teams that I have been assigned to, I hate you. You suck. You suck. Do something useful. Stop waiting out thte match in the redline and go capture an objective. Jeez Louise.
If you are solo you will likely lose more than 50% of the time. FW gives priority to squads in matchmaking and places them together. Solo players are more likely to end up with other solo players. If a cluster of solo players goes against a group of squads they are then much more likely to lose.
The solution is to join one of the many FW channels and find a squad. You will get into FW faster and you will be more likely to win as well.
Owner of Spero Escrow Services
Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
|
|
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1722
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:35:00 -
[71] - Quote
"I am going to persist in making huge errors of logic, even when others have explained to my why they are errors in logic, and my results being demonstrably incorrect even to my own observations".
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15446
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:35:00 -
[72] - Quote
Viktor Hadah Jr wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Viktor Hadah Jr wrote:On a side note, people with rank 10 in there faction should get unlimited consequence free team killing. "*BLAM* Stop Being terrible blueberries!" ...I both like and dislike this idea XD I'll shoot the stupid out of them.
I like the logic.
"Where there something scary at the front......put something even scarier at the back!"
I would say I want to be that scary thing....but I don't I want a tank the size of a house!
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
931
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:45:00 -
[73] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:If you are solo you will likely lose more than 50% of the time. FW gives priority to squads in matchmaking and places them together. Solo players are more likely to end up with other solo players. If a cluster of solo players goes against a group of squads they are then much more likely to lose.
The solution is to join one of the many FW channels and find a squad. You will get into FW faster and you will be more likely to win as well.
This is exactly what I want to see ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. the team building algorithm that causes this clumping behavior.
Additionally, it would be nice to see data describing the percentage of players in each faction that run in squads when taking FW contracts.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2397
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:49:00 -
[74] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:math can only be done one way, thats why its a universal language, it only has one right answer.
your techniques obviously ARNT usefull for forcasting and prediction becuas eyou cant figure out why your not getting the results your math is telling you that you should get.
by chosing to no squad up you lower the chance of you being on an organiseed team by 3-7% rright off the bat (changes bassed on average people chosinng squad)
becuase you chosing not to squad lowers your teams overall average of people willing to squad up.
so your starting at a 43.75% chance of being on the oraganised team (assuming your 50% number is correct wich it isnt) The simulations that I have written have demonstrated a high level of accuracy, reflecting positively upon my ability to forecast and predict. I am very confident in my competence level at this stage in my life. The information I am missing is data that resides in databases on CCPs servers, and algorithms that reside in code in CCPs source control system. The examples provided in this thread have been hypothetical. The title of the thread which includes the word "Theoretical" suggests this.
its not that your numbers are wrong. its that the entire premise is inccorectly established, and when that happens it doesnt matters what numbers your using your going to end up with irrellevant conclusions that dont support findings.
your premise is essentially dust is a game of chance, and can be calculated llike a game of chance, but its not a game of chance, it doesnt follow any of the rules that dominate chanced based events. and your applying chanced bassed logic on something that iisnt chance based.
you cant ever get meaningful data, findings, predictions doing it that way.
its choice based predictions, not chance based predictions that are meaningful in this situation.
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
932
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 07:59:00 -
[75] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:your premise is essentially dust is a game of chance, and can be calculated llike a game of chance, but its not a game of chance, it doesnt follow any of the rules that dominate chanced based events. and your applying chanced bassed logic on something that iisnt chance based.
We differ on this fundamental perspective.
I don't choose who, of all of the people in the world, plays dust. I am subject to choose squad mates from the existing player base.
I don't choose the schedules and frequencies by which my Dust acquaintances play.
I don't choose the network performance, nor my playstation performance, having optimized every system setting and hardware feature that I can.
I don't choose the blueberries on my team.
I don't choose how the game is altered by developers.
I am subject to many variables, variables whose values are probabilistic, and can vary each passing millisecond.
I am well aware of choice and chance, and I am responsible for convincing myself of facts and fallacies, and I most often justify my decisions informationally and by the likelihood of outcomes.
This thread was to beckon Devs for information that I could potentially use to help determine how I can alter my behavior to result in more favorable outcomes. That is all.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15446
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
I doubt over the course of my FW career I've won 50% of my matches and lost the remaining.
*"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
98
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:02:00 -
[77] - Quote
Clone D...your logic makes sense assuming spherical mercs in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that there are too many variables currently unknown to make an assertion of a 50/50 chance...while I agree matchmaking should endeavor to do this in general, it is difficult when you consider the voluntary nature of the different factions.
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2398
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:03:00 -
[78] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:your premise is essentially dust is a game of chance, and can be calculated llike a game of chance, but its not a game of chance, it doesnt follow any of the rules that dominate chanced based events. and your applying chanced bassed logic on something that iisnt chance based. We differ on this fundamental perspective. I don't choose who, of all of the people in the world, plays dust. I am subject to choose squad mates from the existing player base. I don't choose the schedules and frequencies by which my Dust acquaintances play. I don't choose the network performance, nor my playstation performance, having optimized every system setting and hardware feature that I can. I don't choose the blueberries on my team. I don't choose how the game is altered by developers. I am subject to many variables, variables whose values are probabilistic, and can vary each passing millisecond. I am well aware of choice and chance, and I am responsible for convincing myself of facts and fallacies, and I most often justify my decisions informationally and by the likelihood of outcomes. This thread was to beckon Devs for information that I could potentially use to help determine how I can alter my behavior to result in more favorable outcomes. That is all.
the answer is join a squad.... doesnt require devs sir
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
932
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:07:00 -
[79] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:Clone D wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:your premise is essentially dust is a game of chance, and can be calculated llike a game of chance, but its not a game of chance, it doesnt follow any of the rules that dominate chanced based events. and your applying chanced bassed logic on something that iisnt chance based. We differ on this fundamental perspective. I don't choose who, of all of the people in the world, plays dust. I am subject to choose squad mates from the existing player base. I don't choose the schedules and frequencies by which my Dust acquaintances play. I don't choose the network performance, nor my playstation performance, having optimized every system setting and hardware feature that I can. I don't choose the blueberries on my team. I don't choose how the game is altered by developers. I am subject to many variables, variables whose values are probabilistic, and can vary each passing millisecond. I am well aware of choice and chance, and I am responsible for convincing myself of facts and fallacies, and I most often justify my decisions informationally and by the likelihood of outcomes. This thread was to beckon Devs for information that I could potentially use to help determine how I can alter my behavior to result in more favorable outcomes. That is all. the answer is join a squad.... doesnt require devs sir
Great people find answers where others have not dared to look.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
932
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:10:00 -
[80] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Clone D...your logic makes sense assuming spherical mercs in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that there are too many variables currently unknown to make an assertion of a 50/50 chance...while I agree matchmaking should endeavor to do this in general, it is difficult when you consider the voluntary nature of the different factions.
Agreed. All examples in this thread are hypothetical because I don't have CCPs data.
What I do have is my data showing a 5% win ratio of the faction that I played for 20 matches.
If that is a normal rate of winning, then I'd like to examine why that faction does so terribly.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
|
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2398
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:16:00 -
[81] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Clone D...your logic makes sense assuming spherical mercs in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that there are too many variables currently unknown to make an assertion of a 50/50 chance...while I agree matchmaking should endeavor to do this in general, it is difficult when you consider the voluntary nature of the different factions. Agreed. All examples in this thread are hypothetical because I don't have CCPs data. What I do have is my data showing a 5% win ratio of the faction that I played for 20 matches. If that is a normal rate of winning, then I'd like to examine why that faction does so terribly.
you need psychology and sociology rather than statistics for that sir
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1723
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:17:00 -
[82] - Quote
^statistics can represent it, provided you're not using a flawed premise and flawed numbers from the start
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
933
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:19:00 -
[83] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:Clone D wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Clone D...your logic makes sense assuming spherical mercs in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that there are too many variables currently unknown to make an assertion of a 50/50 chance...while I agree matchmaking should endeavor to do this in general, it is difficult when you consider the voluntary nature of the different factions. Agreed. All examples in this thread are hypothetical because I don't have CCPs data. What I do have is my data showing a 5% win ratio of the faction that I played for 20 matches. If that is a normal rate of winning, then I'd like to examine why that faction does so terribly. you need psychology and sociology rather than statistics for that sir
All measurable things can be boiled down to data and statistics, including your memory and how many times I must repeat something in order for you to believe it.
You don't need to contradict me for the sake of contradiction.
You don't need to contradict me for the sake of contradiction.
You don't need to contradict me for the sake of contradiction.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2399
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:22:00 -
[84] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:^statistics can represent it, provided you're not using a flawed premise and flawed numbers from the start
pretty much.
its much better to start with observable statistics such as "i only seem to win 5% oof my games" and ask why is that? then it is to start with "i shoul dbe winning 50% of my games why arnt i?"
doesnt sound like much of a difference but it is.
then you make calculated assumptions like
"better players seem to play on the other team"
and add observations
"the other team hass more squads"
and comme to rational conclusions like
"better and more organised players play on that side"
then notice other factors like
"people would ratherr win than lose so they switch to the percieved winning side of the war"
and theres your massive win loss advantage.
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2399
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:28:00 -
[85] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:Clone D wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Clone D...your logic makes sense assuming spherical mercs in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that there are too many variables currently unknown to make an assertion of a 50/50 chance...while I agree matchmaking should endeavor to do this in general, it is difficult when you consider the voluntary nature of the different factions. Agreed. All examples in this thread are hypothetical because I don't have CCPs data. What I do have is my data showing a 5% win ratio of the faction that I played for 20 matches. If that is a normal rate of winning, then I'd like to examine why that faction does so terribly. you need psychology and sociology rather than statistics for that sir All measurable things can be boiled down to data and statistics, including your memory and how many times I must repeat something in order for you to believe it. You don't need to contradict me for the sake of contradiction. You don't need to contradict me for the sake of contradiction. You don't need to contradict me for the sake of contradiction.
memory cant actually be boiled down to data and statistics, we dont even know how it works.
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
933
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:35:00 -
[86] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^statistics can represent it, provided you're not using a flawed premise and flawed numbers from the start pretty much. its much better to start with observable statistics such as "i only seem to win 5% oof my games" and ask why is that? then it is to start with "i shoul dbe winning 50% of my games why arnt i?" doesnt sound like much of a difference but it is. then you make calculated assumptions like "better players seem to play on the other team" and add observations "the other team hass more squads" and comme to rational conclusions like "better and more organised players play on that side" then notice other factors like "people would ratherr win than lose so they switch to the percieved winning side of the war" and theres your massive win loss advantage.
Asking yourself why something sucks so bad always begins with an internal impression of a difference between what happened and what you imagined could or would probably happen.
If I were to see the data, then I could easily determine whether or not a particular faction were devoid of high mu players.
Starting from an unbiased template, I began this theoretical discussion using a generic percentage. In a hypothetical well-balanced FW system, the 50% mark seemed like a good pivot from which to work.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Ghosts Chance
Inf4m0us
2399
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:39:00 -
[87] - Quote
Clone D wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^statistics can represent it, provided you're not using a flawed premise and flawed numbers from the start pretty much. its much better to start with observable statistics such as "i only seem to win 5% oof my games" and ask why is that? then it is to start with "i shoul dbe winning 50% of my games why arnt i?" doesnt sound like much of a difference but it is. then you make calculated assumptions like "better players seem to play on the other team" and add observations "the other team hass more squads" and comme to rational conclusions like "better and more organised players play on that side" then notice other factors like "people would ratherr win than lose so they switch to the percieved winning side of the war" and theres your massive win loss advantage. Asking yourself why something sucks so bad always begins with an internal impression of a difference between what happened and what you imagined could or would probably happen. If I were to see the data, then I could easily determine whether or not a particular faction were devoid of high mu players. Starting from an unbiased template, I began this theoretical discussion using a generic percentage. In a hypothetical well-balanced FW system, the 50% mark seemed like a good pivot from which to work.
except you keep ignoring that Mu isnt used in faction warfare and there is no matchmaking there....
Minmatar is Winmatar
Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind"
I am Chances Ghost
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
933
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:41:00 -
[88] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:memory cant actually be boiled down to data and statistics, we dont even know how it works.
data and statistics arnt the answer, they are the question.
data and statistics are how we translate what we know iinto a mathmatical equasion, its a tool and as a tool the power isnt in the numbers its how you use them that makes them useful.
its our interpretation of that data that makes them useful, and inturpretation is subject to human error.
Because interpretation can be dangerously biased or nescient, pursue an objective description of what is exactly happening.
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
Clone D
Grundstein Automation
933
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:44:00 -
[89] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:Clone D wrote:Ghosts Chance wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:^statistics can represent it, provided you're not using a flawed premise and flawed numbers from the start pretty much. its much better to start with observable statistics such as "i only seem to win 5% oof my games" and ask why is that? then it is to start with "i shoul dbe winning 50% of my games why arnt i?" doesnt sound like much of a difference but it is. then you make calculated assumptions like "better players seem to play on the other team" and add observations "the other team hass more squads" and comme to rational conclusions like "better and more organised players play on that side" then notice other factors like "people would ratherr win than lose so they switch to the percieved winning side of the war" and theres your massive win loss advantage. Asking yourself why something sucks so bad always begins with an internal impression of a difference between what happened and what you imagined could or would probably happen. If I were to see the data, then I could easily determine whether or not a particular faction were devoid of high mu players. Starting from an unbiased template, I began this theoretical discussion using a generic percentage. In a hypothetical well-balanced FW system, the 50% mark seemed like a good pivot from which to work. except you keep ignoring that Mu isnt used in faction warfare and there is no matchmaking there....
That doesn't mean that high mu players wouldn't magnetize toward or away from a particular faction. You said it yourself "better and more organised players play on that side".
ISK Trader
channel: blitz
|
MINA Longstrike
Kirjuun Heiian
1723
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 08:56:00 -
[90] - Quote
The idea that 50% of matches should be won or lost is starting from a biased perspective. Because it didn't assume the clause of [EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL].
You have lost 19 matches out of the twenty you played. Something must not be equal, we have demonstrated what isn't equal and that is the fact that there is no matchmaking, and [stated by a dev] there is a preference for squads to get chosen over individuals.
Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.
I have a few alts.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |