DUST Search - Theoretically Win FW 50% Of Time

All Channels

General Discussions

Theoretically Win FW 50% Of Time

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:41:00 - [1] - Quote 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. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Eruditus 920 Nemo Malus Felix 942	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:47:00 - [2] - 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. +1 for "Jeez Louise". Speaking from experience, it can go in cycles. I have been in a stretch like you are in at the moment. Then for a while it will seem like you can't lose. But it is perplexing and can be frustrating. "Stay gold, Ponyboy..."
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14107	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:51:00 - [3] - Quote You should be assigned to the team you decide to deploy with. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 651	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:51:00 - [4] - 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. I thought the algorithm was that there isn't an algorithm. We don't have enough players for any algorithm to actually work... I thought they trashed all that back in 1.6 when pub matches were taking 5 minutes to start and would often start with only 1-4 players on each team...
Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:54:00 - [5] - Quote Atiim wrote: You should be assigned to the team you decide to deploy with. It would be cool if we had CAPTAINS that would choose from the available searching players, like CAPTAINS choosing dodgeball teams in gym class. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:56:00 - [6] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: I thought the algorithm was that there isn't an algorithm. We don't have enough players for any algorithm to actually work... I thought they trashed all that back in 1.6 when pub matches were taking 5 minutes to start and would often start with only 1-4 players on each team... I just can't explain my FW team losses probabilistically. It is confounding me. There has to be some finicky CCP algorithm driving this sadistic match making process. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14107	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:01:00 - [7] - Quote Clone D wrote: Atiim wrote: You should be assigned to the team you decide to deploy with. It would be cool if we had CAPTAINS that would choose from the available searching players, like CAPTAINS choosing dodgeball teams in gym class. If you join an FW Channel, you'll notice that there are Field Commanders (FCs) who do exactly what you're referring to. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 652	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:09:00 - [8] - Quote Clone D wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: I thought the algorithm was that there isn't an algorithm. We don't have enough players for any algorithm to actually work... I thought they trashed all that back in 1.6 when pub matches were taking 5 minutes to start and would often start with only 1-4 players on each team... I just can't explain my FW team losses probabilistically. It is confounding me. There has to be some finicky CCP algorithm driving this sadistic match making process. I feel you and I think we all get that. There's the age old gem that a good squad increases your odds but that's easier said then done as players have varying time schedules and what players rarely ever say is that any squad is not a good squad. If you hitch up with guys that go .2 K/DR consistently then they will probably cost every single match due to getting cloned out. When you solo play, it definitely feels like it comes in weird waves. I'll go 5 games on terribad teams that just aren't even worth trying and another 5 games will be complete stomps where I feel bored. Very rarely are the matches close and enjoyable. For the most part I've stopped caring and just made up my own fun ways to pass the time when I'm in bad matches. Typically that involves flying drop ships at high speeds around the map seeing how quickly I can bank and avoid damage if I never stop lol. Or I'll murder taxi or Snipe/Forge spam from my red line if the enemy team pushes hard enough. I don't think it can really be fixed though aside from finding a couple good players that play when you do. I guess though the most important part of the game is just that it's supposed to be fun. I think people forget about that, it's why I made my corp, to hopefully remind people and myself at times that this is just a video game and if it's too frustrating to play you should probably either tone down how try hardy you are playing or cool off and do something else. It's just not worth fretting over the game. And I say all this knowing full well I get caught up and go tilt into the competitive nature of the game myself. I have an especially sore spot for people sending gloating mails when my team was getting hopelessly destroyed and I'm the only one with a positive K/DR. As to faction warfare specifically, I'd probably go with what Attim is saying... personally I just don't see the point. I don't like the teamkilling nature of it or the all or nothing attitude where my personal contribution doesn't matter if tweedle dee and tweedle dum don't get their **** together. FW is just designed to frustrate in my opinion. Which is also probably why there are such long wait times for them, because the general consensus is that they are just too frustrating by design. Personally I'd of rather them been more organic mission based game modes with personal and over all goals. But then again, when they said this was a space mercenary game, I thought all game modes would involve varying levels of contractual obligations and bonuses etc. We aren't so much mercenaries as we are Temp workers.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2384	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:24:00 - [9] - Quote first yyour odds are only 50% if its a damn coin flip, but its not its a game where you have to doo something to win so nope no 50% odds for you. there is NO matchmaking in faction warfare, NONE, its bring a whole team with you or lose. speaking of wich your losing becuase your not bringing at the very least a full squad, theres usually on in squad finder to join for any givin faction. Minmatar is Winmatar Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind" I am Chances Ghost
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 2188	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:27:00 - [10] - Quote I think that all the Matchmaking works off Mu. It's basically a W/L counter, ala chess. I'm certain that Pubs run that, but I'm not so certain about FW. It could just be a first come first serve basis in FW. I Live for Tears

Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:30:00 - [11] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: first yyour odds are only 50% if its a damn coin flip, but its not its a game where you have to doo something to win so nope no 50% odds for you. there is NO matchmaking in faction warfare, NONE, its bring a whole team with you or lose. speaking of wich your losing becuase your not bringing at the very least a full squad, theres usually on in squad finder to join for any givin faction. your losing because the other team is que sinqing and your running around solo with an inability to do math or realise the enamy team always seems to have 12 of the same people on it every game. If the enemy team is queue synching, then shouldn't matchmaking put squads of equal sizes on opposite teams? If squads are divvied out equally per team, then it essentially becomes a coin flip with a 50% chance of being assigned to the team with the advantage. If queue synched squads end up on the same team and the opposing team doesn't have any squads, isn't that a huge flaw with match making? I want the algorithm on how match making is handled so that I can do everything in my power to change my odds of ending up on the losing team. Thanks. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2384	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:31:00 - [12] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: first yyour odds are only 50% if its a damn coin flip, but its not its a game where you have to doo something to win so nope no 50% odds for you. there is NO matchmaking in faction warfare, NONE, its bring a whole team with you or lose. speaking of wich your losing becuase your not bringing at the very least a full squad, theres usually on in squad finder to join for any givin faction. your losing because the other team is que sinqing and your running around solo with an inability to do math or realise the enamy team always seems to have 12 of the same people on it every game. If the enemy team is queue synching, then shouldn't matchmaking put squads of equal sizes on opposite teams? If squads are divvied out equally per team, then it essentially becomes a coin flip with a 50% chance of being assigned to the team with the advantage. If queue synched squads end up on the same team and the opposing team doesn't have any squads, isn't that a huge flaw with match making? I want the algorithm on how match making is handled so that I can do everything in my power to change my odds of ending up on the losing team. Thanks. FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read Minmatar is Winmatar Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind" I am Chances Ghost
Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:34:00 - [13] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: I think that all the Matchmaking works off Mu. It's basically a W/L counter, ala chess. I'm certain that Pubs run that, but I'm not so certain about FW. It could just be a first come first serve basis in FW. I understand mu, but go into detail when you say that you "think it works off mu.". Are you saying that my mu is so terribly high that it offsets the rest of my team so that I end up with a pile of worthless losers who don't know how to keep the pressure on? And that somehow balances the lower average mu on the other team? ISK Trader channel: blitz
Atiim Titans of Phoenix 14112	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:34:00 - [14] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: I think that all the Matchmaking works off Mu. It's basically a W/L counter, ala chess. I'm certain that Pubs run that, but I'm not so certain about FW. It could just be a first come first serve basis in FW. In terms of actual matchmaking, both FW and PUBs are on a first come, first serve basis. Mu is used to re arrange the position of players from Team 1 or Team 2 based on their Mu Score. And no, it's not a W/L counter as variables such as WP/D and K/D also affect your Mu score. But you are correct, FW is (and should be) unaffected by the Mu. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:38:00 - [15] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read You are wrong because two teams end up playing each other comprised of assorted individuals and squads. That implies some match making process being used to build the teams. Whether or not the algorithm places agents based on some calculated weight is another question. If there is no rhym or reason to the agent placement within a team, then why is my FW experience many standard deviations away from the statistical norm, which would suggest about a 50% success rate? I want to know how the teams are constructed, weighted or not. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2384	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:44:00 - [16] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read You are wrong because two teams end up playing each other comprised of assorted individuals and squads. That implies some match making process being used to build the teams. Whether or not the algorithm places agents based on some calculated weight is another question. If there is no rhym or reason to the agent placement within a team, then why is my FW experience many standard deviations away from the statistical norm, which would suggest about a 50% success rate? I want to know how the teams are constructed, weighted or not. a 50% sucess rate only applys to a RANDOM outcome. as if win and lose were binary. winning isnt random and therefore you wont win 50% of the time. statistical norms only function in that manner when the outcome is randomly decided. setup one build amaar team from first 16 people in line... squad 3 people solo solo solo squad 6 people squad 5 people (error too many people on team A ) -removes squad 5 people solo solo solo solo there thats how it builds a frigging team. the ONLY thing it conciiders is weather or not the team has exactly 16 people iin it. if it has less than 16 then it add the next person (or squad) in line if it has more than 16 people then it removes the last thing it added if it has exactly 16 peopel then it starts the match FW is for organised teams. your loosing more than 50% of the time becuas your not bringing your own organised team. Minmatar is Winmatar Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind" I am Chances Ghost
Clone D Grundstein Automation 922	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:48:00 - [17] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read You are wrong because two teams end up playing each other comprised of assorted individuals and squads. That implies some match making process being used to build the teams. Whether or not the algorithm places agents based on some calculated weight is another question. If there is no rhym or reason to the agent placement within a team, then why is my FW experience many standard deviations away from the statistical norm, which would suggest about a 50% success rate? I want to know how the teams are constructed, weighted or not. a 50% sucess rate only applys to a RANDOM outcome. as if win and lose were binary. winning isnt random and therefore you wont win 50% of the time. statistical norms only function in that manner when the outcome is randomly decided. setup one build amaar team from first 16 people in line... squad 3 people solo solo solo squad 6 people squad 5 people (error too many people on team A ) -removes squad 5 people solo solo solo solo there thats how it builds a frigging team. the ONLY thing it conciiders is weather or not the team has exactly 16 people iin it. if it has less than 16 then it add the next person (or squad) in line if it has more than 16 people then it removes the last thing it added if it has exactly 16 peopel then it starts the match FW is for organised teams. your loosing more than 50% of the time becuas your not bringing your own organised team. You seem a little bit emotional in your response. It is a 50% probability. 50% my team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. 50% the opposing team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2385	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:51:00 - [18] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read You are wrong because two teams end up playing each other comprised of assorted individuals and squads. That implies some match making process being used to build the teams. Whether or not the algorithm places agents based on some calculated weight is another question. If there is no rhym or reason to the agent placement within a team, then why is my FW experience many standard deviations away from the statistical norm, which would suggest about a 50% success rate? I want to know how the teams are constructed, weighted or not. a 50% sucess rate only applys to a RANDOM outcome. as if win and lose were binary. winning isnt random and therefore you wont win 50% of the time. statistical norms only function in that manner when the outcome is randomly decided. setup one build amaar team from first 16 people in line... squad 3 people solo solo solo squad 6 people squad 5 people (error too many people on team A ) -removes squad 5 people solo solo solo solo there thats how it builds a frigging team. the ONLY thing it conciiders is weather or not the team has exactly 16 people iin it. if it has less than 16 then it add the next person (or squad) in line if it has more than 16 people then it removes the last thing it added if it has exactly 16 peopel then it starts the match FW is for organised teams. your loosing more than 50% of the time becuas your not bringing your own organised team. You seem a little bit emotional in your response. It is a 50% probability. 50% my team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. 50% the opposing team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. nope where are you getting 50% from? becuase from my perspective 5% chance of you buildinng your team in a way that gives you an advantage 95% chance of me building MY team in a way that gives me an advantage i noow have a 95% chance to win in faction war YOU BUILD YOUR OWN TEAM, sure you can rely on random to do it, but the enamy team doesnt as they can get 16 people into the same game at will and all be communicating with each other. its not random in the slightest, i can pick and choose all 16 members of my team if i wish, meaning im building that dvantage into my team on purpose whereas your waiting for that advantagee to be randomly handed to you, lowing your odds of winning below 50% IT IS NOT RANDOM! you lose becuasse im hand picking my entire team and you are choseing to take the first 15 other people that want to play Minmatar is Winmatar Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind" I am Chances Ghost
CUSE WarLord KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 129	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:52:00 - [19] - 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. there is no match makeing in FAC WAR. you are responsible for bringing the proper team with you.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 923	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:58:00 - [20] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read You are wrong because two teams end up playing each other comprised of assorted individuals and squads. That implies some match making process being used to build the teams. Whether or not the algorithm places agents based on some calculated weight is another question. If there is no rhym or reason to the agent placement within a team, then why is my FW experience many standard deviations away from the statistical norm, which would suggest about a 50% success rate? I want to know how the teams are constructed, weighted or not. a 50% sucess rate only applys to a RANDOM outcome. as if win and lose were binary. winning isnt random and therefore you wont win 50% of the time. statistical norms only function in that manner when the outcome is randomly decided. setup one build amaar team from first 16 people in line... squad 3 people solo solo solo squad 6 people squad 5 people (error too many people on team A ) -removes squad 5 people solo solo solo solo there thats how it builds a frigging team. the ONLY thing it conciiders is weather or not the team has exactly 16 people iin it. if it has less than 16 then it add the next person (or squad) in line if it has more than 16 people then it removes the last thing it added if it has exactly 16 peopel then it starts the match FW is for organised teams. your loosing more than 50% of the time becuas your not bringing your own organised team. You seem a little bit emotional in your response. It is a 50% probability. 50% my team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. 50% the opposing team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. nope where are you getting 50% from? becuase from my perspective 5% chance of you buildinng your team in a way that gives you an advantage 95% chance of me building MY team in a way that gives me an advantage i noow have a 95% chance to win in faction war YOU BUILD YOUR OWN TEAM, sure you can rely on random to do it, but the enamy team doesnt as they can get 16 people into the same game at will and all be communicating with each other. its not random in the slightest, i can pick and choose all 16 members of my team if i wish, meaning im building that dvantage into my team on purpose whereas your waiting for that advantagee to be randomly handed to you, lowing your odds of winning below 50% IT IS NOT RANDOM! you lose becuasse im hand picking my entire team and you are choseing to take the first 15 other people that want to play There is an equal chance that the team that I will be assigned to has organized squads, as the opposing team having organized squads. It is random and by chance I should at least end up on a team with the advantage 50% of the time. That is not happening. ISK Trader channel: blitz

Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 4875	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:24:00 - [21] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: first yyour odds are only 50% if its a damn coin flip, but its not its a game where you have to doo something to win so nope no 50% odds for you. there is NO matchmaking in faction warfare, NONE, its bring a whole team with you or lose. speaking of wich your losing becuase your not bringing at the very least a full squad, theres usually on in squad finder to join for any givin faction. your losing because the other team is que sinqing and your running around solo with an inability to do math or realise the enamy team always seems to have 12 of the same people on it every game. Actually, a 50/50 chance of landing either side on a US coin is a myth. Probably Canadian as well. Not sure about other countries. You have a better chance of landing a tails with a US Penny, than the OP has of being placed on a winning team. Trust me, the odds are stacked against me as well.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1710	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:27:00 - [22] - 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. There isn't any matchmaking for faction warfare, it literally grabs the first 16 people (preferring big squads to unsquadded) and throws them into a match. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1711	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:38:00 - [23] - Quote Clone D wrote: It is a 50% probability. 50% my team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. 50% the opposing team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. No, it isn't a 50% probability. 'Matchmaking' in faction warfare is not set up to generate matches where people have roughly a 50% chance of winning or losing as there is no 'true matchmaking' for faction warfare. Also, all the logical fallacies, especially ones like gamblers fallacy and prettymuch any fallacy you can think of regarding math and probability. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 926	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:43:00 - [24] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: It is a 50% probability. 50% my team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. 50% the opposing team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. No, it isn't a 50% probability. 'Matchmaking' in faction warfare is not set up to generate matches where people have roughly a 50% chance of winning or losing as there is no 'true matchmaking' for faction warfare. Also, all the logical fallacies, especially ones like gamblers fallacy. I am one of 16 on a team. There are 15 slots left on the team. There is an equal chance that my team will have organized squads in the remaining 15/16 as the opposing team has a chance of having organized squads in those 15/16 slots. The remaining 1 slot on the opposing team can consist of a squadded member or a solo player. It matters not. The chance of my team being built with an advantage is equal to the chance of the opposing team being built with an advantage. ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1711	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:57:00 - [25] - Quote ^You only perceive it to be this way because you do not understand the way that faction warfare works. There is no equal chance that your team will have organized squads. In fact if you are running solo it is LESS likely that your team will have organized squads and MORE likely that you'll get randoms. Lets use what we know to be true. 1) You have already picked your side for faction warfare 2) There is no 'true' matchmaking, it is first come first serve aside from where it ineracts with 3) Faction warfare prefers to grab squads as opposed to individuals. So building a theoretical pool of players for Cal vs Gal, and starting out at 'zero' time. 1) First check Gal queue: 8 unsquadded players Cal queue: 3 unsquadded. Result : Not enough to generate match 2)Second check 1 second later Gal queue: 6man squad enters queue, 8 unsquadded players Cal queue: 1x 5man enters queue, 3 more unsquadded. Result: Still not enough to generate match. 3)Third check 1 second later Gal queue: +1 6man and +1 4man squads enter queue, bringing us to 16 squadded (6, 6, 4) and 8 unsquadded Cal Queue: 5man squad + 3 unsquadded. Result: Still not enough to generate match. 4)Fourth check 1 second later Gal : More squads enter queue bringing it to 6 6 6 6 4 & 8 unsquadded Cal: 6 man + 5man enter queue alongside the existing 5 man, 3 unsquadded still in queue. Result: Takes the full caldari and gallente squads and matches them up based on order of entry. 6 6 & 8 unsquadded still in gallente, 3 unsquadded still in caldari. more people still sitting in queue. Etc etc etc etc. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 929	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:59:00 - [26] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^You only perceive it to be this way because you do not understand the way that faction warfare works. There is no equal chance that your team will have organized squads. In fact if you are running solo it is LESS likely that your team will have organized squads and MORE likely that you'll get randoms. Lets use what we know to be true. 1) You have already picked your side for faction warfare 2) There is no 'true' matchmaking, it is first come first serve aside from where it ineracts with 3) Faction warfare prefers to grab squads as opposed to individuals. So building a theoretical pool of players for Cal vs Gal, and starting out at 'zero' time. 1) First check Gal queue: 8 unsquadded players Cal queue: 3 unsquadded. Result : Not enough to generate match 2)Second check 1 second later Gal queue: 6man squad enters queue, 8 unsquadded players Cal queue: 1x 5man enters queue, 3 more unsquadded. Result: Still not enough to generate match. 3)Third check 1 second later Gal queue: +1 6man and +1 4man squads enter queue, bringing us to 16 squadded (6, 6, 4) and 8 unsquadded Cal Queue: 5man squad + 3 unsquadded. Result: Still not enough to generate match. 4)Fourth check 1 second later Gal : More squads enter queue bringing it to 6 6 6 6 4 & 8 unsquadded Cal: 6 man + 5man enter queue alongside the existing 5 man, 3 unsquadded still in queue. Result: Takes the full caldari and gallente squads and matches them up based on order of entry. 6 6 & 8 unsquadded still in gallente, 3 unsquadded still in caldari. more people still sitting in queue. Etc etc etc etc. You didn't enumerate all of the scenarios. This explains nothing. ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:02:00 - [27] - Quote ^Extrapolate from what other people have told you. Faction warfare prefers squads. There is no checks for 'balance' in its 'matchmaking'. Mu cannot be used to balance as you have already determined which team you want to play for. You do not have a 50:50 chance of winning a faction warfare chance ever - EVEN IF IT WAS 16 unsquadded vs 16 unsquadded as mu cannot be used to 'balance' each team, if you have 16 badasses who decide to solo for gallente and 16 fresh off the boat Mexican **ing cactuses queue up for gallente it won't 'balance' the teams because they have already decided which sides they play for. Currently the best way to win is to grab up 15 friends, organize them into squads, get them on voice comms and exploit the currently broken by design system. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 929	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:04:00 - [28] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^Extrapolate from what other people have told you. Faction warfare prefers squads. There is no checks for 'balance' in its 'matchmaking'. Mu cannot be used to balance as you have already determined which team you want to play for. You do not have a 50:50 chance of winning a faction warfare chance ever. Currently the best way to win is to grab up 15 friends, organize them into squads, get them on voice comms and exploit the currently broken by design system. There is an equal chance that someone on either side is doing this ^^^^^^^^ ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:08:00 - [29] - Quote Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^Extrapolate from what other people have told you. Faction warfare prefers squads. There is no checks for 'balance' in its 'matchmaking'. Mu cannot be used to balance as you have already determined which team you want to play for. You do not have a 50:50 chance of winning a faction warfare chance ever. Currently the best way to win is to grab up 15 friends, organize them into squads, get them on voice comms and exploit the currently broken by design system. There is an equal chance that someone on either side is doing this ^^^^^^^^ No, there isn't. That is a logical fallacy. Even if there was it grabs the first people who were in the queue, so you could have 10 million unsquadded badasses queue up for the caldari behind the 16 cacti and it would still be the unsquadded cacti playing the unsquadded gallente badasses. Essentially by your logic you are attributing that there is a 50/50 chance that ANYTHING will or wont happen, when that is not the case at all. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 930	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:12:00 - [30] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^Extrapolate from what other people have told you. Faction warfare prefers squads. There is no checks for 'balance' in its 'matchmaking'. Mu cannot be used to balance as you have already determined which team you want to play for. You do not have a 50:50 chance of winning a faction warfare chance ever. Currently the best way to win is to grab up 15 friends, organize them into squads, get them on voice comms and exploit the currently broken by design system. There is an equal chance that someone on either side is doing this ^^^^^^^^ No, there isn't. That is a logical fallacy. Even if there was it grabs the first people who were in the queue, so you could have 10 million unsquadded badasses queue up for the caldari behind the 16 cacti and it would still be the unsquadded cacti playing the unsquadded gallente badasses. Essentially by your logic you are attributing that there is a 50/50 chance that ANYTHING will or wont happen, when that is not the case at all. Life must be a magical place for idiots, it's a never ending sequence of things that seemingly happen by complete magic. Your arguments are not convincing or even mathematical. I showed you the 15/16 = 15/16 chance for each side. Because there are only 2 teams and 1 will win, there is a 50% chance that I will be assigned to the team that will win. ISK Trader channel: blitz

Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2386	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:13:00 - [31] - Quote Clone D wrote: There is an equal chance that the team that I will be assigned to has organized squads, as the opposing team having organized squads. It is random and by chance I should at least end up on a team with the advantage 50% of the time. That is not happening. THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL CHANCE by not bringing your own team and going tolo into FW you lower the chance of your team being organised making it no longer equal. you CHOSE weather or not your bringing organised squad, it isnt random its literally your choice by your account of how probability works nobody in the game should have a win/loss ratio over 1/1 but thats not true we have people with winn lose ratios of over 1 and well under 1 now if you average EVERY player on BOTH teams then the average is 1, but if you only average one team (say amaar fac war only) then the math no longer works. bionary desisions like that dont work. look at this this way, tommorow one of two things could happen to you, you could either live through the day, or die before the day is done. that DOES NOT mean you have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow. MATH DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT Minmatar is Winmatar Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind" I am Chances Ghost
Clone D Grundstein Automation 930	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:17:00 - [32] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: There is an equal chance that the team that I will be assigned to has organized squads, as the opposing team having organized squads. It is random and by chance I should at least end up on a team with the advantage 50% of the time. That is not happening. THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL CHANCE by not bringing your own team and going tolo into FW you lower the chance of your team being organised making it no longer equal. you CHOSE weather or not your bringing organised squad, it isnt random its literally your choice by your account of how probability works nobody in the game should have a win/loss ratio over 1/1 but thats not true we have people with winn lose ratios of over 1 and well under 1 now if you average EVERY player on BOTH teams then the average is 1, but if you only average one team (say amaar fac war only) then the math no longer works. bionary desisions like that dont work. look at this this way, tommorow one of two things could happen to you, you could either live through the day, or die before the day is done. that DOES NOT mean you have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow. MATH DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT It is guaranteed that 1 team WILL win and 1 team WILL lose. I will be on ONE of the TWO teams and therefore have a 50% chance of being assigned to the WINNING team. It is not guaranteed that I WILL live tomorrow or I WILL die tomorrow. ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:19:00 - [33] - Quote You're stupid aren't you? Or you didn't get through math or probability in grade 7. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 930	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:21:00 - [34] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: You're stupid aren't you? Or you didn't get through math or probability in grade 7. I have displayed the probability above. You have displayed nothing of quantitative significance. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Viktor Hadah Jr Negative-Impact 6279	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:24:00 - [35] - Quote Amarr are such bads, i get in first place when i play while dual boxing EVE defending the district(even getting kills) while defending one objective on dust by myself because everyone in Amarr has Adhd and has to run to the next shiny red letter and leave the one they just captured completely unguarded. I run solo most of the time because i like to listen to music. It's a little bit my fault but the thing i don't like is people right out of the academy in FW. It's bad for me and bad for them. My Chat: NEG1 Pub 21 Day EVE Trial ISK, Corp & PC Services
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:31:00 - [36] - Quote Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: You're stupid aren't you? Or you didn't get through math or probability in grade 7. I have displayed the probability above. You have displayed nothing of quantitative significance. No, you have actually brought nothing quantative to the table. Nothing you've said is substantiated. I could go back to the discussions about mu matchmaking and reference that stuff. Your numbers are pulled out of nowhere. If you won't accept what the majority of people who do understand this are telling you there's no point in continuing this conversation. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 931	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:35:00 - [37] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: You're stupid aren't you? Or you didn't get through math or probability in grade 7. I have displayed the probability above. You have displayed nothing of quantitative significance. No, you have actually brought nothing quantative to the table. Nothing you've said is substantiated. I could go back to the discussions about mu matchmaking and reference that stuff. Your numbers are pulled out of nowhere. If you won't accept what the majority of people who do understand this are telling you there's no point in continuing this conversation. There is information conformity and normative conformity. You have not convinced me of anything by the "information" that you have shared. I will not accept what the majority of people think, because the majority of people are usually not thinking clearly. I don't have the actual data on CCPs servers, so I can't tell you what percentage of the time each faction wins, and therefore I can't investigate the behaviors that contribute to the statistical evidence, so we have to work with theory here. The theory has been stated above, and we can drill into it further if you need to. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2386	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:35:00 - [38] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: There is an equal chance that the team that I will be assigned to has organized squads, as the opposing team having organized squads. It is random and by chance I should at least end up on a team with the advantage 50% of the time. That is not happening. THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL CHANCE by not bringing your own team and going tolo into FW you lower the chance of your team being organised making it no longer equal. you CHOSE weather or not your bringing organised squad, it isnt random its literally your choice by your account of how probability works nobody in the game should have a win/loss ratio over 1/1 but thats not true we have people with winn lose ratios of over 1 and well under 1 now if you average EVERY player on BOTH teams then the average is 1, but if you only average one team (say amaar fac war only) then the math no longer works. bionary desisions like that dont work. look at this this way, tommorow one of two things could happen to you, you could either live through the day, or die before the day is done. that DOES NOT mean you have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow. MATH DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT It is guaranteed that 1 team WILL win and 1 team WILL lose. I will be on ONE of the TWO teams and therefore have a 50% chance of being assigned to the WINNING team. It is not guaranteed that I WILL live tomorrow or I WILL die tomorrow. you do NOT have a 50% chance of being assigned to the winning team that 50% number assumes ALL things are equal, and they arnt. for instance, your not organising a squad and almost everyone elsee is, so technically your going to have a higher chance of being on the unorganised team simply by being unorganised. thats not how statistics, probability and math work. bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal in rac war you have a guarenteed chance ofbeing on the same side of battle every game (amaar for instance) you CANNOT be placed on the minmatar side... therefore your dont have a 50% chance of being on the winning team, you have a 100% chance of being on the amaar team. 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 06:38:00 - [39] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: There is an equal chance that the team that I will be assigned to has organized squads, as the opposing team having organized squads. It is random and by chance I should at least end up on a team with the advantage 50% of the time. That is not happening. THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL CHANCE by not bringing your own team and going tolo into FW you lower the chance of your team being organised making it no longer equal. you CHOSE weather or not your bringing organised squad, it isnt random its literally your choice by your account of how probability works nobody in the game should have a win/loss ratio over 1/1 but thats not true we have people with winn lose ratios of over 1 and well under 1 now if you average EVERY player on BOTH teams then the average is 1, but if you only average one team (say amaar fac war only) then the math no longer works. bionary desisions like that dont work. look at this this way, tommorow one of two things could happen to you, you could either live through the day, or die before the day is done. that DOES NOT mean you have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow. MATH DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT It is guaranteed that 1 team WILL win and 1 team WILL lose. I will be on ONE of the TWO teams and therefore have a 50% chance of being assigned to the WINNING team. It is not guaranteed that I WILL live tomorrow or I WILL die tomorrow. you do NOT have a 50% chance of being assigned to the winning team that 50% number assumes ALL things are equal, and they arnt. for instance, your not organising a squad and almost everyone elsee is, so technically your going to have a higher chance of being on the unorganised team simply by being unorganised. thats not how statistics, probability and math work. bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If "almost everyone else is" organizing a squad, then the other 15 members on my team would basically be organized into squads, or at least have the same chance as 15 members on the opposing team being organized into squads. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2386	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:41:00 - [40] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: There is an equal chance that the team that I will be assigned to has organized squads, as the opposing team having organized squads. It is random and by chance I should at least end up on a team with the advantage 50% of the time. That is not happening. THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL CHANCE by not bringing your own team and going tolo into FW you lower the chance of your team being organised making it no longer equal. you CHOSE weather or not your bringing organised squad, it isnt random its literally your choice by your account of how probability works nobody in the game should have a win/loss ratio over 1/1 but thats not true we have people with winn lose ratios of over 1 and well under 1 now if you average EVERY player on BOTH teams then the average is 1, but if you only average one team (say amaar fac war only) then the math no longer works. bionary desisions like that dont work. look at this this way, tommorow one of two things could happen to you, you could either live through the day, or die before the day is done. that DOES NOT mean you have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow. MATH DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT It is guaranteed that 1 team WILL win and 1 team WILL lose. I will be on ONE of the TWO teams and therefore have a 50% chance of being assigned to the WINNING team. It is not guaranteed that I WILL live tomorrow or I WILL die tomorrow. you do NOT have a 50% chance of being assigned to the winning team that 50% number assumes ALL things are equal, and they arnt. for instance, your not organising a squad and almost everyone elsee is, so technically your going to have a higher chance of being on the unorganised team simply by being unorganised. thats not how statistics, probability and math work. bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If "almost everyone else is" organizing a squad, then the other 15 members on my team would basically be organized into squads, or at least have the same chance as 15 members on the opposing team being organized into squads. they do not have the same chance because YOU BEING THERE lowers the chancee of your team being organised becuas eyour chosing to be disorganised lowering your teams odds of sucess. this game isnt bassed on luck its bassed in skill. your actions directly contribute to winning or losing and therefore yoru actions determin weather you win or lose... your losing becuase your assuming other people will carry you, but by having to carry you your team has a higher chance of losing. its not 50% it would onlly be 50% if EVERY action in the game was determined by a coin flip, and even then deviation would occur becuase there is no such thing as random. 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 06:42:00 - [41] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal functions may draw close to an asymptote, and we use the normal line as a description of the value that the function is approaching. No, it's not exactly 50/50, but I don't have the data to be more precise. It is good enough to say that it is theoretically close to 50/50. ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:44:00 - [42] - Quote Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: You're stupid aren't you? Or you didn't get through math or probability in grade 7. I have displayed the probability above. You have displayed nothing of quantitative significance. No, you have actually brought nothing quantative to the table. Nothing you've said is substantiated. I could go back to the discussions about mu matchmaking and reference that stuff. Your numbers are pulled out of nowhere. If you won't accept what the majority of people who do understand this are telling you there's no point in continuing this conversation. There is information conformity and normative conformity. You have not convinced me of anything by the "information" that you have shared. I will not accept what the majority of people think, because the majority of people are usually not thinking clearly. I don't have the actual data on CCPs servers, so I can't tell you what percentage of the time each faction wins, and therefore I can't investigate the behaviors that contribute to the statistical evidence, so we have to work with theory here. The theory has been stated above, and we can drill into it further if you need to. Feel free to persist in being wrong if you want to. Normally people who come up with a hypothesis on how something works and see it demonstrated to be wrong re-evaluate their hypothesis. Facts are your 'belief' on how it should work isn't matching the data you've witnessed. Your belief is empirically wrong. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2386	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:45:00 - [43] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal functions may draw close to an asymptote, and we use the normal line as a description of the value that the function is approaching. No, it's not exactly 50/50, but I don't have the data to be more precise. It is good enough to say that it is theoretically close to 50/50. no you do not have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow just because the only two options are live and die, therefore you dont have a 50% chance of winning your next match based on the same math. you really arnt understanding the core reason why your math is broken... 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 06:47:00 - [44] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: they do not have the same chance because YOU BEING THERE lowers the chancee of your team being organised becuas eyour chosing to be disorganised lowering your teams odds of sucess. this game isnt bassed on luck its bassed in skill. your actions directly contribute to winning or losing and therefore yoru actions determin weather you win or lose... your losing becuase your assuming other people will carry you, but by having to carry you your team has a higher chance of losing. its not 50% it would onlly be 50% if EVERY action in the game was determined by a coin flip, and even then deviation would occur becuase there is no such thing as random. You're not using the information provided. I already said that I'm finishing top 3. I am a key contributor to the team. I said 15/16 because that removes me from the equation. Take me away and take away one player from the other team, and you have an equal chance of either team having organized squads. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Clone D Grundstein Automation 931	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:48:00 - [45] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal functions may draw close to an asymptote, and we use the normal line as a description of the value that the function is approaching. No, it's not exactly 50/50, but I don't have the data to be more precise. It is good enough to say that it is theoretically close to 50/50. no you do not have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow just because the only two options are live and die, therefore you dont have a 50% chance of winning your next match based on the same math. you really arnt understanding the core reason why your math is broken... Show me by means of syllogism or mathematical proof where my logic is broken. Until then, I will assume that it is fine. ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:49:00 - [46] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: they do not have the same chance because YOU BEING THERE lowers the chancee of your team being organised becuas eyour chosing to be disorganised lowering your teams odds of sucess. this game isnt bassed on luck its bassed in skill. your actions directly contribute to winning or losing and therefore yoru actions determin weather you win or lose... your losing becuase your assuming other people will carry you, but by having to carry you your team has a higher chance of losing. its not 50% it would onlly be 50% if EVERY action in the game was determined by a coin flip, and even then deviation would occur becuase there is no such thing as random. You're not using the information provided. I already said that I'm finishing top 3. I am a key contributor to the team. I said 15/16 because that removes me from the equation. Take me away and take away one player from the other team, and you have an equal chance of either team having organized squads. No, you don't. But lets follow this trail of stupidity to its end. What makes you believe that you have an equal chance of either team having organized squads? Remember to show the reasons for why you believe this. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 931	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:51:00 - [47] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: You're stupid aren't you? Or you didn't get through math or probability in grade 7. I have displayed the probability above. You have displayed nothing of quantitative significance. No, you have actually brought nothing quantative to the table. Nothing you've said is substantiated. I could go back to the discussions about mu matchmaking and reference that stuff. Your numbers are pulled out of nowhere. If you won't accept what the majority of people who do understand this are telling you there's no point in continuing this conversation. There is information conformity and normative conformity. You have not convinced me of anything by the "information" that you have shared. I will not accept what the majority of people think, because the majority of people are usually not thinking clearly. I don't have the actual data on CCPs servers, so I can't tell you what percentage of the time each faction wins, and therefore I can't investigate the behaviors that contribute to the statistical evidence, so we have to work with theory here. The theory has been stated above, and we can drill into it further if you need to. Feel free to persist in being wrong if you want to. Normally people who come up with a hypothesis on how something works and see it demonstrated to be wrong re-evaluate their hypothesis. Facts are your 'belief' on how it should work isn't matching the data you've witnessed. Your belief is empirically wrong. That's why I would like complete transparency on how the FW team building algorithm works from the DEVS. If I had that, then I could better model the situation and develop more informed decisions. As far as I know, your responses are mere speculation. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Viktor Hadah Jr Negative-Impact 6279	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:51:00 - [48] - Quote On a side note, people with rank 10 in there faction should get unlimited consequence free team killing. NEG1 21 Day EVE Trial PC, ISK, EVE, Corp & Other Services
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:52:00 - [49] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal functions may draw close to an asymptote, and we use the normal line as a description of the value that the function is approaching. No, it's not exactly 50/50, but I don't have the data to be more precise. It is good enough to say that it is theoretically close to 50/50. no you do not have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow just because the only two options are live and die, therefore you dont have a 50% chance of winning your next match based on the same math. you really arnt understanding the core reason why your math is broken... Show me by means of syllogism or mathematical proof where my logic is broken. Until then, I will assume that it is fine. Oh, we have a misunderstanding of the burden of proof here. It's up to you to provide reasonable grounds for belief that your information is correct before we have to attempt to disprove it. No one gets to say "THERE'S A TEACUP ORBITING THE SUN RIGHT NOW, PROVE ME WRONG **ERS! OH WAIT YOU CANT" because they need to provide reasonable grounds to others for them to believe that there might actually be a teacup orbiting the sun. You're not debating in good faith and are instead descending to even lower and lower depths of insane troll 'logic'. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2386	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:52:00 - [50] - Quote Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: they do not have the same chance because YOU BEING THERE lowers the chancee of your team being organised becuas eyour chosing to be disorganised lowering your teams odds of sucess. this game isnt bassed on luck its bassed in skill. your actions directly contribute to winning or losing and therefore yoru actions determin weather you win or lose... your losing becuase your assuming other people will carry you, but by having to carry you your team has a higher chance of losing. its not 50% it would onlly be 50% if EVERY action in the game was determined by a coin flip, and even then deviation would occur becuase there is no such thing as random. You're not using the information provided. I already said that I'm finishing top 3. I am a key contributor to the team. I said 15/16 because that removes me from the equation. Take me away and take away one player from the other team, and you have an equal chance of either team having organized squads. you dont have an equal chance of having organised squads though... because you specifically lwoer that chance by not brining them. ITS NOT RANDOM and therefore its not a 50/50 coin flip. YOU specifically chosee how you want to modify that percentage, you chosee yto be unorganiseed and therefore you have a lower percentage of people on your team with the ppotential to be organised, couple that with the fact that once a person does chosee to be organised they automatically bring in 1-5 other organised people. meaning its an exponential increase in odds of success for every 1 person that choses to be organised, so by having 1 person make that choice their odds of sucess increase exponentially, and by YOU choseing NOT to be organised your odds of sucess decrease exponentially. you making that choice reemoves that randomness fromt he equation as it starts you off aat a negative value before all other factors are in place. a rough math out of it in my head based on a linier equation reduses your chance of winning by aproximatly 5% just by you exsisting on a team 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 06:54:00 - [51] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: bionary options are NEVER 50/50 not even a coin flip due to the entropy principal functions may draw close to an asymptote, and we use the normal line as a description of the value that the function is approaching. No, it's not exactly 50/50, but I don't have the data to be more precise. It is good enough to say that it is theoretically close to 50/50. no you do not have a 50% chance of dieing tommorow just because the only two options are live and die, therefore you dont have a 50% chance of winning your next match based on the same math. you really arnt understanding the core reason why your math is broken... Show me by means of syllogism or mathematical proof where my logic is broken. Until then, I will assume that it is fine. Oh, we have a misunderstanding of the burden of proof here. It's up to you to provide reasonable grounds for belief that your information is correct before we have to attempt to disprove it. No one gets to say "THERE'S A TEACUP ORBITING THE SUN RIGHT NOW, PROVE ME WRONG ****ERS! OH WAIT YOU CANT" because they need to provide reasonable grounds to others for them to believe that there might actually be a teacup orbiting the sun. You're not debating in good faith and are instead descending to even lower and lower depths of insane troll 'logic'. 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. ISK Trader channel: blitz
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:54:00 - [52] - Quote Clone D wrote: That's why I would like complete transparency on how the FW team building algorithm works from the DEVS. If I had that, then I could better model the situation and develop more informed decisions. As far as I know, your responses are mere speculation. You have been referenced as to where you can find more information: The old discussions about MU matchmaking. There were pages of it in which many people lobbied to keep matchmaking out of faction warfare, and responses from devs about how faction warfare would be set up to prefer squads instead of individuals when given the choice. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 97	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:54:00 - [53] - Quote 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 Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:57:00 - [54] - Quote 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. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
Viktor Hadah Jr Negative-Impact 6279	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:57:00 - [55] - Quote 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. NEG1 21 Day EVE Trial PC, ISK, EVE, Corp & Other Services
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1712	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:58:00 - [56] - 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. Standing 10 would quickly be changed to 'license to troll', which is a terrible thing to hand to people. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 97	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:59:00 - [57] - 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. Understood Commissar Viktor You must raise morale to keep the blueberries from running away (by being more dangerous to them if they run than the enemy) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 2390	Posted - 2014.12.04 07:00:00 - [58] - Quote PROOF by your math there are two options win and lose. so you have a 50% chance of winning because winning is 50% of the available outicomes calculating on number of outcomes 100% devided by 2 (total options devided by number of options) so y using that formula 100% (chance of something happening) devided by (number of potential things that can happen) = (the odds of that happening) so lets usee that equation of yours for something else and see how it works out lottery, you with win or you lose 100%/ (win+lose=2) = 50% chance of winning the lottery every time you play living, you either you live through the next (insert amount of tiime here) or you die in the next (insert amount of time here) only two possable outcomes so 100/2=50% chance of dieing in (insert amount of time here) THATS the equation your using, and CLEARLY it doesnt apply to anything else in a logical manner if you apply this equation YOUR usiing to ANY other situation it doesnt work out to whats REALLY going to happen. thats your proof its broken, it doesnt function based on its own rules. inaddition by your equation EVERY PLAYER in the game should have a win loss ratio of 1 because everyone hass 2 options win or lose at 50%, and therefore everyone should have a win loss ratio of 1 based on YOUR equation. but they dont. Minmatar is Winmatar Creed of the Minja - "I'm a leaf on the wind" I am Chances Ghost
Viktor Hadah Jr Negative-Impact 6279	Posted - 2014.12.04 07:00:00 - [59] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: 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. Standing 10 would quickly be changed to 'license to troll', which is a terrible thing to hand to people. Amarr can't get any worse, the only problem would for minmatar. so im fine with that. NEG1 21 Day EVE Trial PC, ISK, EVE, Corp & Other Services
Clone D Grundstein Automation 931	Posted - 2014.12.04 07:07:00 - [60] - Quote 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. ISK Trader channel: blitz

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.

Avinash Decker Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 157	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:43:00 - [91] - Quote Clone D wrote: 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. I would be like that if I was talking to a brick wall with ears , no brain, but with a mouth. Anyway you guys are wasting time obviously you guys aren't going come to a conclusion because well unstoppable force meets immovable object comes to mind . Just accept the fact that something is wrong with fw so a conclusion that anyone should get 50% win rate is wrong , because quite frankly that hardly ever, ever, ever happens with fw and obviously not the case with the OP. Lastly, matchmaking hardly ever guarantees a 50% win rate to begin with like with any game.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15452	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:55:00 - [92] - Quote Avinash Decker wrote: Clone D wrote: 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. I would be like that if I was talking to a brick wall with ears , no brain, but with a mouth. Anyway you guys are wasting time obviously you guys aren't going come to a conclusion because well unstoppable force meets immovable object comes to mind . Just accept the fact that something is wrong with fw so a conclusion that anyone should get 50% win rate is wrong , because quite frankly that hardly ever, ever, ever happens with fw and obviously not the case with the OP. Lastly, matchmaking hardly ever guarantees a 50% win rate to begin with like with any game. Personally I don't see it some much as wrong as not fully fleshed out. Dedicated players with personal interests in FW should have the opportunity to maximise their effectiveness in the field by squadding up.....but this does not mean we should force X unsquaded and uninvested players into direct confrontation with them. So how do you let players who just want to farm **** co-exist with players who care? That depends. If you let specific players who cared chose their battle ground you'd undoubtedly find that other organised players would also step up to oppose them while the remaining population could continue to remain randomly distributed around the FW space or to specific low traffic regions of FW space. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
dzizur 6 dayz 127	Posted - 2014.12.04 10:05:00 - [93] - Quote hahaha 8/10 for troll topic and a shiny badge do all those that had the patience to answer all the time :) @ OP - There's a chart at the end of match screen that shows the percentage of won/lost fights for that fraction - There's also a hidden statistic when matchmaking, its called TrollMU. It traces your posts on forum, for every troll post you get 5% more chance of getting someone fresh off the academy in your team. - If chances of dying are 50-50 everyday, having 7 bilion people it would take one month for everyone to die. - Play for gallente and minmatar, from my experience they win the most - There's an event that gives you 50% more LP, so winning teams will probably win even more, and a lot of dudes will just afk in losing teams.
Francois Sanchez Prima Gallicus 175	Posted - 2014.12.04 11:01:00 - [94] - Quote Clone D, I've won 43 out of 46 FW matches since 1.9 came out, not because I'm an awesome player, but because I squad up. I can also go solo but in that case I try to synchronize with squads. The chances of winning of a faction should be 50%, it is not 50% because players aren't distributed the same way between factions, but let's assume it is Anyway here is why YOU win only 5% of your matches. Let's say there is the same number of squads for each faction (2 squads of 6, one squad of 4), add 16 random players. As the matchmaking gives priority to squads, you're gonna end up with the 15 randoms whereas the 3 squads will be put together. Let's assume you have a 50% chance to win with your crappy team against the other crappy team and that you have no chance of winning against the full squaded one. If the chances are equal to meet both teams, you end up with 25% chance of winning, whereas the other team of your faction has 75% chance of winning. Now, this thing is well-known, so good players try to squad up because they hate losing and have an objective (getting 100k LP as fast as possible for example). So now, we consider there are 3 teams fully squaded on each side, and one team full of randoms (yours as you're not squading up). You have 75% chance of fighting squaded guys and so losing. The 25% remaining chances are divided in two because you have 50% chances of beating the other random team. 12.5% chances of winning. Do you understand now why you do not have 50% chance of winning? And btw, let's keep the wrong idea factions have 50% chances of winning andlet's say we're fighting for the same faction. If I win 43 out of 46 matches, there should be someone in this faction losing 43 out of 46 matches to balance things, you as long you don't squad up.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2429	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:42:00 - [95] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read it puts the first 16 people that sign up for amaar against the first 16 people who signed up for minmatar. thats it... you increase your odds by brining 11-15 of your friend innt he game with you by searching for battle at the same time. if your solo you lose, the only way to increase your oddds of winning is by bringin better people into the game with you ^^^ truth
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 2649	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:00:00 - [96] - Quote Who cares if you win or lose really. I mean of course a win is paying out what like 3-4k LP right now with boosters, real nice. However I would happily lose game after game and get into game after game than wait 10 - 20 mins + for a single win. "Also I think knives are a good idea, big f**k-off shiny ones" "Guns for show, Knives for a pro" MY LIFE FOR AIUR!
CUSE WarLord KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 132	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:10:00 - [97] - Quote Clone D wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Currently the best way to win is to grab up 15 friends, organize them into squads, get them on voice comms and exploit the currently broken by design system. There is an equal chance that someone on either side is doing this ^^^^^^^^ yeah but people on the gallente side and people on the caldari side are not the same kind of warriors.
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution 8681	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:13:00 - [98] - Quote People should stop trying to dumb down Faction Warfare to their level. Stick to Pub-matches if you don't want to organise and squad up. CCP holds the Caldari's hand so this doesn't happen again.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP 1207	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:16:00 - [99] - 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. It is very clear how FW works. THERE IS NO MATCH MAKING. You hit search and get put up against who hit search on the other side. Squads get first priority for filling up a contract. Stop running FW solo and wasting everyones time as well as giving away districts. Get a squad or move back to scrub contracts.
Jathniel G I A N T 1312	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:20:00 - [100] - Quote 5 pages of intimidating pretentiousness. What a tiring read. @OP: FW doesn't work with an algorithm other than which individuals/squads are queued first. Period. Your best bet at influencing a FW battle to your advantage is to organize a squad of good players that want to play for your particular faction. All other factors (opponents, opponent's motives, opponent's skill level, blueberry competence, etc.), are complete unknowns. Set your goals high, and shoot for the moon; even if you miss you'll land amongst the stars.

TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 656	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:06:00 - [101] - Quote Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: Clone D wrote: Ghosts Chance wrote: FACTION WARFARE DOES NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING read You are wrong because two teams end up playing each other comprised of assorted individuals and squads. That implies some match making process being used to build the teams. Whether or not the algorithm places agents based on some calculated weight is another question. If there is no rhym or reason to the agent placement within a team, then why is my FW experience many standard deviations away from the statistical norm, which would suggest about a 50% success rate? I want to know how the teams are constructed, weighted or not. a 50% sucess rate only applys to a RANDOM outcome. as if win and lose were binary. winning isnt random and therefore you wont win 50% of the time. statistical norms only function in that manner when the outcome is randomly decided. setup one build amaar team from first 16 people in line... squad 3 people solo solo solo squad 6 people squad 5 people (error too many people on team A ) -removes squad 5 people solo solo solo solo there thats how it builds a frigging team. the ONLY thing it conciiders is weather or not the team has exactly 16 people iin it. if it has less than 16 then it add the next person (or squad) in line if it has more than 16 people then it removes the last thing it added if it has exactly 16 peopel then it starts the match FW is for organised teams. your loosing more than 50% of the time becuas your not bringing your own organised team. You seem a little bit emotional in your response. It is a 50% probability. 50% my team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. 50% the opposing team will be built in such a way that they have an advantage. nope where are you getting 50% from? becuase from my perspective 5% chance of you buildinng your team in a way that gives you an advantage 95% chance of me building MY team in a way that gives me an advantage i noow have a 95% chance to win in faction war YOU BUILD YOUR OWN TEAM, sure you can rely on random to do it, but the enamy team doesnt as they can get 16 people into the same game at will and all be communicating with each other. its not random in the slightest, i can pick and choose all 16 members of my team if i wish, meaning im building that dvantage into my team on purpose whereas your waiting for that advantagee to be randomly handed to you, lowing your odds of winning below 50% IT IS NOT RANDOM! you lose becuasse im hand picking my entire team and you are choseing to take the first 15 other people that want to play He is talking about possible outcomes IE. probability. Pulling random statistics out of your ass is pointless. Here i'll explain the logic. He is talking about how matchmaking tends to place 2 squads in one side versus 16 randoms instead of 1 squad on each side. This means there are two possible outcomes: A. it places 1 squad in each team. B. It places 2 squads on one team. That means there is a 50% chance that either will happen. Now I don't bother much with factional warfare but in pubs if this were true half the time when averaging the a thousand or so games I've played there would be a pretty close 50/50 chance of me being in a game with 1 squad on each side or 2 squads on each side. I can tell though from experience that there seems to be a higher probability of matchmaking squads together which would make sense as the game obviously uses an algorithm when dealing with Solo players vs. squads. Because with a 2-6 squad size potential and a 16 player count squads would take a much longer time to get thrown into games as the game will likely end up filling the queue with solo players faster then obtusely shaped squad numbers Edit: (6 + 6 + 6 = 18 that was a typo I missed the 1 on 18) so obviously there has to be some sort of intelligent system seperating the squad counts or squads would likely have 10 minute wait periods. With all that said, my guess is that this said intelligent system has a penchant for taking 2 6 mans from the queue and filling the rest up with solo and smaller squads. I'm sure this could be fixed but only CCP would know as they have never revealed to the public how said matchmaking works which prevents the community from proposing any helpful suggestions. Such is life. I guarantee you FW does not grab the first players it sees from the queue and throw them into matches. If so then as a solo player I'd have a wait time of roughly a few seconds and squads would have to wait several minutes. Right now everyone has to wait several minutes so they are not "Completely Random" as you put it. TL;DR: Solo players would generally lock squads out of play with the overwhelming number of players that play solo if there was no matchmaking algorithm. Edit: As to any sort of Mu I believe that was removed back when they first tried it in 1.6 because it was causing crazily imbalanced games of 4 v 10 etc. With squads and SP the way it is I don't think a Mu system could be implemented as statistical ability can vary greatly from game to game based on how invested isk/aur wise a player wishes to become. Better gear generally = better results which would constantly make a Mu system too highly variable. Think of Chess, this is definitely not Chess, there is far too much variability to be on an equal playing field.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP 1207	Posted - 2014.12.04 20:23:00 - [102] - Quote Why is it so difficult to understand that there is no matchmaking. The only thing that happens other than slapping everyone into a battle is squads get priority. 6 man squad searches 6 man squad searches 3 man squad searches 7 randoms search The squads and the first random that hit search go in while the rest of the randoms keep searching. This is why Q syncs work so well and why solo searching yields incredibly long wait time.
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 658	Posted - 2014.12.04 21:09:00 - [103] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Why is it so difficult to understand that there is no matchmaking. The only thing that happens other than slapping everyone into a battle is squads get priority. 6 man squad searches 6 man squad searches 3 man squad searches 7 randoms search The squads and the first random that hit search go in while the rest of the randoms keep searching. This is why Q syncs work so well and why solo searching yields incredibly long wait time. I don't think you understand what the term "No matchmaking" means. What you just described is a matchmaking system that as you even state gives priority to squads. That's not random.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP 1207	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:38:00 - [104] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Why is it so difficult to understand that there is no matchmaking. The only thing that happens other than slapping everyone into a battle is squads get priority. 6 man squad searches 6 man squad searches 3 man squad searches 7 randoms search The squads and the first random that hit search go in while the rest of the randoms keep searching. This is why Q syncs work so well and why solo searching yields incredibly long wait time. I don't think you understand what the term "No matchmaking" means. What you just described is a matchmaking system that as you even state gives priority to squads. That's not random. Placing whoever hits search first into a battle while moving certain people ahead of the line does not constitute matchmaking. Also I never said it was random , I said there is no matchmaking.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 947	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:43:00 - [105] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Why is it so difficult to understand that there is no matchmaking. The only thing that happens other than slapping everyone into a battle is squads get priority. 6 man squad searches 6 man squad searches 3 man squad searches 7 randoms search The squads and the first random that hit search go in while the rest of the randoms keep searching. This is why Q syncs work so well and why solo searching yields incredibly long wait time. I don't think you understand what the term "No matchmaking" means. What you just described is a matchmaking system that as you even state gives priority to squads. That's not random. Placing whoever hits search first into a battle while moving certain people ahead of the line does not constitute matchmaking. Also I never said it was random , I said there is no matchmaking. Call it match making; call it team placement; semantics. What matters is that they have a process for assigning players to the teams and I want a detailed description of that process so that I can determine all of my options for improving my chances of being assigned to a team that has a clue. Yes, one option is queue synching. FW players already know that. I would like to know if there are any choices that I could make as a solo player to influence my chance of being assigned to a winning team. Thanks. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19848	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:44:00 - [106] - Quote Clone D wrote: Yes, one option is queue synching. FW players already know that. I would like to know if there are any choices that I could make as a solo player to influence my chance of being assigned to a winning team. Play well. If you want to be 'assigned to a winning team', then squad up. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 947	Posted - 2014.12.04 22:47:00 - [107] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: Yes, one option is queue synching. FW players already know that. I would like to know if there are any choices that I could make as a solo player to influence my chance of being assigned to a winning team. Play well. If you want to be 'assigned to a winning team', then squad up. You keep repeating obvious information. I am asking for additional detail from developers who could shed light on what is happening technically, not the common knowledge of the community. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Avinash Decker Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 157	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:02:00 - [108] - Quote Clone D wrote: deezy dabest wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Why is it so difficult to understand that there is no matchmaking. The only thing that happens other than slapping everyone into a battle is squads get priority. 6 man squad searches 6 man squad searches 3 man squad searches 7 randoms search The squads and the first random that hit search go in while the rest of the randoms keep searching. This is why Q syncs work so well and why solo searching yields incredibly long wait time. I don't think you understand what the term "No matchmaking" means. What you just described is a matchmaking system that as you even state gives priority to squads. That's not random. Placing whoever hits search first into a battle while moving certain people ahead of the line does not constitute matchmaking. Also I never said it was random , I said there is no matchmaking. Call it match making; call it team placement; semantics. What matters is that they have a process for assigning players to the teams and I want a detailed description of that process so that I can determine all of my options for improving my chances of being assigned to a team that has a clue. Yes, one option is queue synching. FW players already know that. I would like to know if there are any choices that I could make as a solo player to influence my chance of being assigned to a winning team. Thanks. No there isn't, besides playing on a faction that wins the most.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15469	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:19:00 - [109] - Quote FW doesn't have a match making process as far as I am aware. It's just the first 16 or so players who Q-Sync and the first opposing groups of players looking for a fight....which is why Q-Syncing is such a powerful strategy. Nor should FW imo really have anything more than player made match making in the form of specific planets and systems to be targeted..... if any player attempts to deploy to one of these FW zones where organised groups are engaging in region specific fighting they are asking to have their asses handed to them because there are literally 70 other systems they could be fighting in. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19850	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:31:00 - [110] - Quote Clone D wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: Yes, one option is queue synching. FW players already know that. I would like to know if there are any choices that I could make as a solo player to influence my chance of being assigned to a winning team. Play well. If you want to be 'assigned to a winning team', then squad up. You keep repeating obvious information. I am asking for additional detail from developers who could shed light on what is happening technically, not the common knowledge of the community. A dev posting in this thread is not going to magically make all sides ever equal. You asked if you could, as a solo player, increase your chance of being assigned to a winning team. Aside from that essentially being a request to be carried all the time, how exactly do you propose this be accomplished? You press X on the queue, and then get thrown into the first match available. How is this conducive to a dev comment helping you get on a team to carry you? The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.

Clone D Grundstein Automation 948	Posted - 2014.12.04 23:56:00 - [111] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: A dev posting in this thread is not going to magically make all sides ever equal. You asked if you could, as a solo player, increase your chance of being assigned to a winning team. Aside from that essentially being a request to be carried all the time, how exactly do you propose this be accomplished? You press X on the queue, and then get thrown into the first match available. How is this conducive to a dev comment helping you get on a team to carry you? These are all your opinions. Why are you insisting that I want the team to carry me? Did you not read the original post? I am an exceptional player who has been assigned to poor teams in FW. Today, I squadded all day long and experienced the same results. I finished top 3 and the teams that I was assigned to lost every single match all day long. I would like to know what is going on behind the scenes, since the FW outcomes are significantly different from pub. What is wrong with asking how something works? What is wrong with asking for data to better understand a problem? ISK Trader channel: blitz
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15471	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:03:00 - [112] - Quote Clone D wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: A dev posting in this thread is not going to magically make all sides ever equal. You asked if you could, as a solo player, increase your chance of being assigned to a winning team. Aside from that essentially being a request to be carried all the time, how exactly do you propose this be accomplished? You press X on the queue, and then get thrown into the first match available. How is this conducive to a dev comment helping you get on a team to carry you? These are all your opinions. Why are you insisting that I want the team to carry me? Did you not read the original post? I am an exceptional player who has been assigned to poor teams in FW. Today, I squadded all day long and experienced the same results. I finished top 3 and the teams that I was assigned to lost every single match all day long. I would like to know what is going on behind the scenes, since the FW outcomes are significantly different from pub. What is wrong with asking how something works? What is wrong with asking for data to better understand a problem? Any player that actually says they are an exceptional player instantly inspires doubt in my mind. Likely than not you are just like me. An average, perhaps even sub average depending on who you ask (Arkena and Lorhak), and can roll newbies and players not putting up concerted resistance. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19854	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:07:00 - [113] - Quote Clone D wrote: I am an exceptional player who has been assigned to poor teams in FW. No, you're not. It takes a surprising lack of talent to have a KDR below 1 when you have over 28k kills. A rate of 160 WP/D does not indicate that you are a logi, either, although I suppose it's better than your miserable KDR. You are average at best. Perhaps you would be better if you displayed an ability to adapt, rather than insisting on going solo into FW and declaring that it's your team's fault. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 948	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:09:00 - [114] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Clone D wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: A dev posting in this thread is not going to magically make all sides ever equal. You asked if you could, as a solo player, increase your chance of being assigned to a winning team. Aside from that essentially being a request to be carried all the time, how exactly do you propose this be accomplished? You press X on the queue, and then get thrown into the first match available. How is this conducive to a dev comment helping you get on a team to carry you? These are all your opinions. Why are you insisting that I want the team to carry me? Did you not read the original post? I am an exceptional player who has been assigned to poor teams in FW. Today, I squadded all day long and experienced the same results. I finished top 3 and the teams that I was assigned to lost every single match all day long. I would like to know what is going on behind the scenes, since the FW outcomes are significantly different from pub. What is wrong with asking how something works? What is wrong with asking for data to better understand a problem? Any player that actually says they are an exceptional player instantly inspires doubt in my mind. Likely than not you are just like me. An average, perhaps even sub average depending on who you ask (Arkena and Lorhak), and can roll newbies and players not putting up concerted resistance. I can't argue with your opinions. But I will tell you this, after my FW experience, I cry sometimes when I'm lying in bed just to get it all out what's in my head. Today, I even screamed at the top of my lungs, "What's going on?" How can my team possibly be that bad? OMG I know sabotage and spying happens in FW, which I have witnessed, but come on, there is such a high rate of team-level failure, it inspires curiosity. The obvious answer is queue synching, but I don't want to spend 20 minutes waiting for squads to finally be ready and such, so I'm looking for an alternative. If there is none, then so be it. ISK Trader channel: blitz
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15473	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:10:00 - [115] - Quote Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19854	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:11:00 - [116] - Quote It doesn't take much effort to get into a squad. It has often taken me under 5 minutes to put together a full squad from one of the established FW channels and then go on to win matches all night long, regardless of the side. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 948	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:13:00 - [117] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. That is fine for some. To me it is just a waste of time, so I avoid waiting around on people and listening to the blather. Don't forget, not everyone plays the game for the same reasons, or feels rewarded by the same aspects as you do. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19854	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:13:00 - [118] - Quote Clone D wrote: True Adamance wrote: Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. That is fine for some. To me it is just a waste of time, so I avoid waiting around on people and listening to the blather. Don't forget, not everyone plays the game for the same reasons, or feels rewarded by the same aspects as you do. Then it is quite simple - do not play a gamemode with a greater emphasis on organisation and teamwork if you want to just play solo. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 948	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:16:00 - [119] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: True Adamance wrote: Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. That is fine for some. To me it is just a waste of time, so I avoid waiting around on people and listening to the blather. Don't forget, not everyone plays the game for the same reasons, or feels rewarded by the same aspects as you do. Then it is quite simple - do not play a gamemode with a greater emphasis on organisation and teamwork if you want to just play solo. I agree, but I was trying out the mode because of the FW event. Is that okay with you? ISK Trader channel: blitz
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15473	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:17:00 - [120] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: True Adamance wrote: Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. That is fine for some. To me it is just a waste of time, so I avoid waiting around on people and listening to the blather. Don't forget, not everyone plays the game for the same reasons, or feels rewarded by the same aspects as you do. Then it is quite simple - do not play a gamemode with a greater emphasis on organisation and teamwork if you want to just play solo. Indeed. You are taking up a spot on a team that would be better suited for a squadded player. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19856	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:19:00 - [121] - Quote Clone D wrote: I agree, but I was trying out the mode because of the FW event. Is that okay with you? Of course. But it is unreasonable to try it, lose a few matches, and then declare that there must be a problem with the matchmaking and obstinately insist on it despite the reasons behind the uneven teams being repeatedly explained. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 949	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:20:00 - [122] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: True Adamance wrote: Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. That is fine for some. To me it is just a waste of time, so I avoid waiting around on people and listening to the blather. Don't forget, not everyone plays the game for the same reasons, or feels rewarded by the same aspects as you do. Then it is quite simple - do not play a gamemode with a greater emphasis on organisation and teamwork if you want to just play solo. Indeed. You are taking up a spot on a team that would be better suited for a squadded player. It's Dust guys. I can do anything I want to all day long. I can request things from Devs. I can sabotage teams. I can send you 500 million ISK. I can do anything I want to all day long. I could join the winning FW factions. I could wait to queue synch. I could run solo. I can do anything I want to all day long. ISK Trader channel: blitz
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19856	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:23:00 - [123] - Quote Clone D wrote: It's Dust guys. I can do anything I want to all day long. I can request things from Devs. I can sabotage teams. I can send you 500 million ISK. I can do anything I want to all day long. I could join the winning FW factions. I could wait to queue synch. I could run solo. I can do anything I want to all day long. Equally, we are free to tell you how bad you are when you complain that you are losing for it. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
Clone D Grundstein Automation 949	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:23:00 - [124] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: I agree, but I was trying out the mode because of the FW event. Is that okay with you? Of course. But it is unreasonable to try it, lose a few matches, and then declare that there must be a problem with the matchmaking and obstinately insist on it despite the reasons behind the uneven teams being repeatedly explained. You certainly have a way of exagerating things and adding emotional weight to everything you say. Try being objective. You might make a friend instead of sounding like a royal highness, princess. ISK Trader channel: blitz
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15474	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:26:00 - [125] - Quote Clone D wrote: True Adamance wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Clone D wrote: True Adamance wrote: Forming up is a natural part of organised gameplay and it doesn't nearly take 20 minutes in FW to do. PC groups nowadays, and even back when I did PC used to form up and hour before battles and just talk tactics, fits, and other junk. That is fine for some. To me it is just a waste of time, so I avoid waiting around on people and listening to the blather. Don't forget, not everyone plays the game for the same reasons, or feels rewarded by the same aspects as you do. Then it is quite simple - do not play a gamemode with a greater emphasis on organisation and teamwork if you want to just play solo. Indeed. You are taking up a spot on a team that would be better suited for a squadded player. It's Dust guys. I can do anything I want to all day long. I can request things from Devs. I can sabotage teams. I can send you 500 million ISK. I can do anything I want to all day long. I could join the winning FW factions. I could wait to queue synch. I could run solo. I can do anything I want to all day long. Yes you can...... and it wouldn't matter in Dust 514 if we used a more EVE side model which would suggest that it doesn't matter if you are there or not, or if you jeopardise militia ops, etc. Militia could self regulate. Again this wouldn't matter if organised groups were able to select there planets and regions ultimately taking them out of the standard solo rotations that way you could queue for your 50% Win/Loss Battles and I could go to the places Dusters are actually needed. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 19856	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:26:00 - [126] - Quote Princess? You insult me. I am much closer to the queen of the forums. Glory to my truly astounding amazingness, etc. The Federation is not a defined region of space, of planets, of mountains, rivers, or woods. It is a vision.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15474	Posted - 2014.12.05 00:28:00 - [127] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Princess? You insult me. I am much closer to the queen of the forums. Glory to my truly astounding amazingness, etc. With the authority of the Empress, and considering Arkena is an Amarrian spy, I declare her/him High Royal Princess of Wisecracks and Smart Arse Comments! *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Ice Royal Glantix Horizons' Edge Proficiency V. 35	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:10:00 - [128] - Quote Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are either fighting for the Caldari or the Amarr. Based of of this assumtion, I can explain why you are experiencing these results. At the moment, and for the past few months, highly skilled players have been, and still are, squading up and fighting for the Minmatar and/or the Gallente simply because they like the gear in those factions. Due to these squads of elite players playing on the Minmatar and Gallente sides, the Caldari and Amarr players have been stomped over and over again, which is incredibly demoralizing. Now that this has happened repeatedly, most people who play for Caldari or Amarr don't try to win, as they know it is most likely futile. They either afk or spawn in cheap gear to minimize losses; This allows the Minmatar and Gallente players to go all out as they probably will not die much. It doesn't matter how good you are, the people who play for Amarr and Caldari are almost always useless. There is nothing you can do to help this if you are going to play solo. FW is a game mode for organized squads, so you can't expect you to make a difference all by your self. If you want to win FW there are two options. Squad up and queue sync, and/or play for Minmatar/Gallente. "Don't be dead; be happy!"
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15479	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:18:00 - [129] - Quote Ice Royal Glantix wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are either fighting for the Caldari or the Amarr. Based of of this assumtion, I can explain why you are experiencing these results. At the moment, and for the past few months, highly skilled players have been, and still are, squading up and fighting for the Minmatar and/or the Gallente simply because they like the gear in those factions. Due to these squads of elite players playing on the Minmatar and Gallente sides, the Caldari and Amarr players have been stomped over and over again, which is incredibly demoralizing. Now that this has happened repeatedly, most people who play for Caldari or Amarr don't try to win, as they know it is most likely futile. They either afk or spawn in cheap gear to minimize losses; This allows the Minmatar and Gallente players to go all out as they probably will not die much. It doesn't matter how good you are, the people who play for Amarr and Caldari are almost always useless. There is nothing you can do to help this if you are going to play solo. FW is a game mode for organized squads, so you can't expect you to make a difference all by your self. If you want to win FW there are two options. Squad up and queue sync, and/or play for Minmatar/Gallente. Hmmmm that debatable. This is just the nature of FW. A couple of months ago The Amarr were comparatively walking all over the Minmatar. We had more Syncs running, more players active, more LP rolling in. Kaisar gets his channel organised, a couple more corps farming for the Minmatar and bobs your uncle you have a stronger Min FW force. Couple of weeks or months from now you might seen more corps queuing for the Amarr, PCLAS might deploy again and run more Syncs out of our channel, Deezy might open up Amarr 1 to the public again, and bam we have a more powerful force. Just the nature of the game. Tbh right not I am on FW hiatus from Dust and focusing on EVE where the Amarr are about the take the whole warzone. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 660	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:33:00 - [130] - Quote True Adamance wrote: FW doesn't have a match making process as far as I am aware. It's just the first 16 or so players who Q-Sync and the first opposing groups of players looking for a fight....which is why Q-Syncing is such a powerful strategy. Nor should FW imo really have anything more than player made match making in the form of specific planets and systems to be targeted..... if any player attempts to deploy to one of these FW zones where organised groups are engaging in region specific fighting they are asking to have their asses handed to them because there are literally 70 other systems they could be fighting in. I don't think that's how it works. I will select all factions and sync solo and still end up waiting 3-5 minutes at times. So either the game tries to hamfist squads together and then lets solo players in to fill the gaps (Which I think is what happens) or only 96 people play FW at any given time making me have to wait for a match to end. Which also may very well be the case I suppose... since FW really isn't all that beneficial to anyone Dust side although I'm not sure if it matters Eve side either? I don't know much about Eve other then its full of nerd lord douchebaggery that makes Forbes journalists cream their pants. (because it's easier then trying to regulate the game! errr.... I mean because CCP believes in free choice for players!)

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15480	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:38:00 - [131] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: True Adamance wrote: FW doesn't have a match making process as far as I am aware. It's just the first 16 or so players who Q-Sync and the first opposing groups of players looking for a fight....which is why Q-Syncing is such a powerful strategy. Nor should FW imo really have anything more than player made match making in the form of specific planets and systems to be targeted..... if any player attempts to deploy to one of these FW zones where organised groups are engaging in region specific fighting they are asking to have their asses handed to them because there are literally 70 other systems they could be fighting in. I don't think that's how it works. I will select all factions and sync solo and still end up waiting 3-5 minutes at times. So either the game tries to hamfist squads together and then lets solo players in to fill the gaps (Which I think is what happens) or only 96 people play FW at any given time making me have to wait for a match to end. Which also may very well be the case I suppose... All I want to be able to do is target specific planets and systems my alliance and militia want's plexing bonuses in. If anyone attempts to join us in that system enemy or otherwise they'd better be ******* ready to fight and not start whining later. They had their chance to choose one of 69 other systems to fight in. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 2193	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:41:00 - [132] - Quote Ice Royal Glantix wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that you are either fighting for the Caldari or the Amarr. Based of of this assumtion, I can explain why you are experiencing these results. At the moment, and for the past few months, highly skilled players have been, and still are, squading up and fighting for the Minmatar and/or the Gallente simply because they like the gear in those factions. Due to these squads of elite players playing on the Minmatar and Gallente sides, the Caldari and Amarr players have been stomped over and over again, which is incredibly demoralizing. Now that this has happened repeatedly, most people who play for Caldari or Amarr don't try to win, as they know it is most likely futile. They either afk or spawn in cheap gear to minimize losses; This allows the Minmatar and Gallente players to go all out as they probably will not die much. It doesn't matter how good you are, the people who play for Amarr and Caldari are almost always useless. There is nothing you can do to help this if you are going to play solo. FW is a game mode for organized squads, so you can't expect you to make a difference all by your self. If you want to win FW there are two options. Squad up and queue sync, and/or play for Minmatar/Gallente. Yeah... Armor is still hot (will always be hot; even if it lacks regen, that buffer just makes it sweet, both to old and new), and The Minny Combat Rifle is a very good All-Round gun, so I don't see anything changing, unless people suddenly migrate to shields or to ScRs. The RR is still considered UP (I do fine, but whatever...), Shields are a more complicated thing then Armor to play, and the Lasers are not liked as much as Projectiles or hybrids for infantry, as more people like Armor for its ease of play, and its increased buffer, making lasers even weaker against them. Those make it less appealing to play FacWar for those guys. If I play, and get crap for my burden, then why did I play? It leaves it to just FWers and those with a hard on for a certain race. Gal And Min FacWar has very fruitful and general Rewards, making them good for then one a single race. Plates are always a good thing. So more people then play for them, so they get better loot for their trouble. I Live for Tears
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1558	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:47:00 - [133] - 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. Whaaat, time for fact checks: Matchmaking does NOT use Mu, only team balancing does. Faction warfare does NOT use normal matchmaking nor team balancing as people select their sides and will queue for that and only that. The more skilled+organised side has a better chance of winning. People would enjoy Dust a lot more if they accepted the fact that EVERYTHING is subject to change
TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 660	Posted - 2014.12.05 01:50:00 - [134] - Quote True Adamance wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: True Adamance wrote: FW doesn't have a match making process as far as I am aware. It's just the first 16 or so players who Q-Sync and the first opposing groups of players looking for a fight....which is why Q-Syncing is such a powerful strategy. Nor should FW imo really have anything more than player made match making in the form of specific planets and systems to be targeted..... if any player attempts to deploy to one of these FW zones where organised groups are engaging in region specific fighting they are asking to have their asses handed to them because there are literally 70 other systems they could be fighting in. I don't think that's how it works. I will select all factions and sync solo and still end up waiting 3-5 minutes at times. So either the game tries to hamfist squads together and then lets solo players in to fill the gaps (Which I think is what happens) or only 96 people play FW at any given time making me have to wait for a match to end. Which also may very well be the case I suppose... All I want to be able to do is target specific planets and systems my alliance and militia want's plexing bonuses in. If anyone attempts to join us in that system enemy or otherwise they'd better be ******* ready to fight and not start whining later. They had their chance to choose one of 69 other systems to fight in. I'm all for expanded gameplay so hell yeah, they should get on that. That's one thing this game severly lacks. Context in which anything really matters. As it stands its mostly just a cross between Battlefield and Counter Strike where you get to keep all the money you earn to spend on better gear between matches. And of course the whole grindy rpg sp thing. As cool as it is to have some new maps for the only 3 game modes we have I'd love to see the Dust road map include more diversity. With the upcoming addition of dailies I'm hoping they will add contextual quest like additions to the dailies to make players feel more like mercenaries and less like temp workers bouncing around all these Eve NPC corps. And I get that the ps3 just absolutely will not support Dust with more than 32 players but how about some new game modes and smaller maps for lower player count matches? Like some of those Eve ships being the setting of some 8 player free for alls in the context of a mutiny on the ship or space stations being the location of 6 v 6 squad contract disputes.How about giving us custom matches where you can earn SP but can't earn isk unless its offered by the match creator. This would allow players to set up there own tournaments, corp tryouts, training missions, friendly or unfriendly competition between corporations/squads , 1v1 me bruh moments, and so on. Maybe then squadding won't be bitched about as much since solo players will have some game mode options that exclude squadding while squads will be able to play matches with each other without having to q-sync. Let us self regulate CCP it's not like the Dust economy matters with all the district locking and billions of clone isk that flooded from such things. They don't even have to re invent the wheel many other fps games have interesting game modes that would work in Dust and also diversify the monotony. Everyone bitches so much about q-syncing pub stomps and FW because that's all we can do besides walk around in our quarters.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

I Live for Tears

MY LIFE FOR AIUR!

"Don't be dead; be happy!"

I Live for Tears