demens grimwulff
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
584
   |
Posted - 2015.07.04 15:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Arkena, do you, per chance, have a degree in math? You're using group theory for part of this...
Also, as a note, algebra is not what is necessarily contained here... abstract, albeit, so the "real" algebra, but you need more robust calculations than simple x + y to describe matchmaking mathematically.
I would say the calculations are correct, but I am not sure on your foundation here... sorry, I am just having a hard time reading through it all. Specifically, the proof section, I don't think, is needed, as it can be assumed that all sets in the group would fit under basic group theory logic. I would say you would need two things too argue the points successfully:
Statistical analysis on average squad size
Statistical analysis on average sync size vs racial factions
From the above, you can then do a group calculation looking for specific sizing parameters of group vs squads going in, and statistical probability of said groups making.
I think, as proposed in Adipem's linked conversation, this can be boiled down into easy "lego sized" blocks, with simple groups of 4, 8, 12, and 16 member deploy allowed for FW only... this will give the highest statistical probability of matchmaking as all outcomes lead to a full match, with each block pushing to the whole group.
I will spend more time looking over your math, as it just seems... clunky... to me, but it has been a little bit (say, 7 years), since I had to analyze something similar to this. Most of the math in my current field is rather straight forward, in comparison.
ETA: will also need coffee... lots of coffee for this. On a side note, if you are/were a math major, is it just my experience, or did everyone going for that degree with you, smoke heavily? After a while, I was able to identify what science field someone was going into merely by how they acted... or in the case of a math student, how much they smoked vs how much they actually wrote stuff.
CPM2 Candidate
Intent to run is found here: Intent
Allow me to help improve Dust
|
demens grimwulff
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
584
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 16:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:what are you smoking? o.O
and whats this about lego... i like lego....
??? As far as...?
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:That isn't my maths, that's Leither's.
He's a wizard.
Ahhh, ok; was not aware it was someone else's.
CPM2 Candidate
Intent to run is found here: Intent
Allow me to help improve Dust
|
demens grimwulff
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
584
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 16:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fristname Family name wrote:about the lego solution thingo.... I think I found a slight issue with the squads..... A 16man squad with 1 or 2 people who arent on meds and have adhd or just a 16man squad is pretty crazy..... it will go down kinda wacky...
Also scotty will cry seeing all this math...
Well, think of it like this, and this is why I describe it as "legos", as the base lego block is a 4 pip block...
In descending order:
4 + 4 + 4 + 4
4 + 4 + 8
4 + 12
16
All of the above can make a full 16 in this model... yielding a much more narrow, but mathematically easy way of getting into a match. Essentially, you will have 4 possible team configurations, with 16 possible outcomes... so you will have, theoretically, a 6.25% chance of landing vs a full qsync of 25%, assuming all possible outcomes are fulfilled. As well, qsyncs of 16 are extremely common right now, especially for Caldari and Gallente, so it isn't as bad as you're assuming.
CPM2 Candidate
Intent to run is found here: Intent
Allow me to help improve Dust
|