DUST Search - Actual Data for OP weapon use and OPness

Buster Friently wrote:

Jathniel wrote:

You can't possible consider this scientific, accurate, or even logical to follow.
If anything, this is everything that is wrong with popular science today.

Numbers from one match is inconclusive data.
Numbers from one match, without some kind of way for us to verify whether your numbers are honest is VERY inconclusive data.
Even if you provided totals and/or averages, from YOUR matches, that data is not conclusive enough to determine whether something is OP or not. Or if a particular weapon is "dominating the game" as a whole.

Your logic is totally biased, and flawed. You take a fragment of (allegedly) unbiased data, and assume it somehow proves your own interpretation. Talk about confirmation bias!
Because someone likes apples, does that mean that hate oranges? Gimme a break...

This is all your "data" says:
"THESE are the kills done with THESE weapons, in THIS match, according to the viewpoint of THIS player."
Period.
From that data, you can draw conclusions about weapons and stats for THAT match.

If you want to raise questions about weapon balances and domination, as a serious player study, you need to get other players in on it. Arrange something much bigger. At least with a dozen or two people, and try for them to get the average of at least 100 matches.

12-24 people doing 100 matches each = 1200-2400 matches.
Dust averages what? About 3000-5000 people every day? 2400 matches times 32 players each match will have about 76000 players run through it. That means that every Dust player online at that point will participate in a match where someone from your study is involved, at LEAST once.

Tally up your data, then present it, and don't make broad, sweeping assumptions based on your data.
Just say, "This is the data that we gather across X many matches, using X many people, under X circumstances." or say, "The data says, weapon X has these many kills."
Data like THAT can be presented to the community and CCP, and they can run the needed formulae to make adjustments IF they say fit, and if the playerbase desires it.

If you're as scienfically-minded as you front yourself to be, why can't you resist the urge to interpret data too deeply?

True, this isn't very scientific. It is only more scientific than any argument put on these forums regarding OP weapons and niches than before. You're right though, it isn't very scientific.

Only CCP can truly bring scientific numbers to the argument. Again though, what I've done is more scientific that what has come before.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 598	Posted - 2013.07.07 22:38:00 - [1] - Quote You can't possible consider this scientific, accurate, or even logical to follow. If anything, this is everything that is wrong with popular science today. Numbers from one match is inconclusive data. Numbers from one match, without some kind of way for us to verify whether your numbers are honest is VERY inconclusive data. Even if you provided totals and/or averages, from YOUR matches, that data is not conclusive enough to determine whether something is OP or not. Or if a particular weapon is "dominating the game" as a whole. Your logic is totally biased, and flawed. You take a fragment of (allegedly) unbiased data, and assume it somehow proves your own interpretation. Talk about confirmation bias! Because someone likes apples, does that mean that hate oranges? Gimme a break... This is all your "data" says: "THESE are the kills done with THESE weapons, in THIS match, according to the viewpoint of THIS player." Period. From that data, you can draw conclusions about weapons and stats for THAT match. If you want to raise questions about weapon balances and domination, as a serious player study, you need to get other players in on it. Arrange something much bigger. At least with a dozen or two people, and try for them to get the average of at least 100 matches. 12-24 people doing 100 matches each = 1200-2400 matches. Dust averages what? About 3000-5000 people every day? 2400 matches times 32 players each match will have about 76000 players run through it. That means that every Dust player online at that point will participate in a match where someone from your study is involved, at LEAST once. Tally up your data, then present it, and don't make broad, sweeping assumptions based on your data. Just say, "This is the data that we gather across X many matches, using X many people, under X circumstances." or say, "The data says, weapon X has these many kills." Data like THAT can be presented to the community and CCP, and they can run the needed formulae to make adjustments IF they say fit, and if the playerbase desires it. If you're as scienfically-minded as you front yourself to be, why can't you resist the urge to interpret data too deeply?
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 598	Posted - 2013.07.07 22:43:00 - [2] - Quote Buster Friently wrote: Jathniel wrote: You can't possible consider this scientific, accurate, or even logical to follow. If anything, this is everything that is wrong with popular science today. Numbers from one match is inconclusive data. Numbers from one match, without some kind of way for us to verify whether your numbers are honest is VERY inconclusive data. Even if you provided totals and/or averages, from YOUR matches, that data is not conclusive enough to determine whether something is OP or not. Or if a particular weapon is "dominating the game" as a whole. Your logic is totally biased, and flawed. You take a fragment of (allegedly) unbiased data, and assume it somehow proves your own interpretation. Talk about confirmation bias! Because someone likes apples, does that mean that hate oranges? Gimme a break... This is all your "data" says: "THESE are the kills done with THESE weapons, in THIS match, according to the viewpoint of THIS player." Period. From that data, you can draw conclusions about weapons and stats for THAT match. If you want to raise questions about weapon balances and domination, as a serious player study, you need to get other players in on it. Arrange something much bigger. At least with a dozen or two people, and try for them to get the average of at least 100 matches. 12-24 people doing 100 matches each = 1200-2400 matches. Dust averages what? About 3000-5000 people every day? 2400 matches times 32 players each match will have about 76000 players run through it. That means that every Dust player online at that point will participate in a match where someone from your study is involved, at LEAST once. Tally up your data, then present it, and don't make broad, sweeping assumptions based on your data. Just say, "This is the data that we gather across X many matches, using X many people, under X circumstances." or say, "The data says, weapon X has these many kills." Data like THAT can be presented to the community and CCP, and they can run the needed formulae to make adjustments IF they say fit, and if the playerbase desires it. If you're as scienfically-minded as you front yourself to be, why can't you resist the urge to interpret data too deeply? True, this isn't very scientific. It is only more scientific than any argument put on these forums regarding OP weapons and niches than before. You're right though, it isn't very scientific. Only CCP can truly bring scientific numbers to the argument. Again though, what I've done is more scientific that what has come before. I understand. I'm not trying to be overly critical. But you can't argue against emotion using logic. You gotta get on the same page as people emotionally, before they even START trying to listen to reason. It's like, "idgaf what you're reasoning is. i hate your guts!" You know? lol
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 598	Posted - 2013.07.07 23:53:00 - [3] - Quote General purpose weapons will likely always have the most kills. Balance is lacking when a weapon, ANY weapon, can't fulfill it's role (plasma cannon, laser rifle). OR, supplants the role of another weapon of a particular niche(Uprising 1.0 Tactical AR). It's very delicate, guys. Don't hammer on the OP. His data may not be sound, but his point is still valid.