221 replies to this topic

[NeatoMan]

60_percnt_wrks_everytime, on Jun 03 2019 - 09:56, said:

You are making uninformed and incorrect assumptions. I don't pre-determine anything, I try my best in every game I play. I determine if the game sucked or not AFTER the game not before. Once again, I personally don't enjoy steamrolls from either side, thus they both suck in my opinion and if an adjustment can be made to limit them, I'm all for it.

According to all this, skill balance will not solve that problem.

 

I am going to place my enjoyment on what happens DURING battle.  For me it's typically the ratio of aggressive players vs campers & wusses.  The more aggressive players on my team, the more enjoyable, the more campers and wusses, the less enjoyable.  I really don't care if they are tomatoes that pushed too far ahead and got obliterated.  I'd rather see players willing to attack than sitting on their butts.  That's all I need to see.

[NeatoMan]

finally got battle duration data to work.  Seems like average battle times aren't as bad as many have claimed. 

 

First table shows average battle time by battle tier

Second table (and graph) shows the distribution of battle times (grouped by minute)

 

 

and now by win chance.  On average games don't get much faster until the extreme win chances

Edited by NeatoMan, Jun 04 2019 - 14:50.

[Nixeldon]

How often did the lower-rated team win in a blowout?

[NeatoMan]

Nixeldon, on Jun 04 2019 - 09:09, said:

How often did the lower-rated team win in a blowout?

Here's the data filtered for only the blowout games.  If it's a blowout it seems that the favored team over performs the expected win chances

 

Edited by NeatoMan, Jun 04 2019 - 15:26.

[Copacetic]

grandthefttankV, on Jun 03 2019 - 06:29, said:

OP you need a hobby

 

he's got one...debunking tinfoilers

[Nixeldon]

NeatoMan, on Jun 04 2019 - 09:21, said:

Here's the data filtered for only the blowout games.  If it's a blowout it seems that the favored team over performs the expected win chances

 

 

Thanks again

[NeatoMan]

grandthefttankV, on Jun 03 2019 - 00:29, said:

OP you need a hobby

Actually, I think I got too many...   not enough time for all of them.

[grandthefttankV]

NeatoMan, on Jun 04 2019 - 15:09, said:

Actually, I think I got too many...   not enough time for all of them.

I bet these include:

 

- trolling in the forums

- trolling in game

- trolling on twitter

- trolling on facebook

- trolling on instagram

- trolling on youtube

[NeatoMan]

grandthefttankV, on Jun 04 2019 - 10:11, said:

I bet these include:

 

- trolling in the forums

- trolling in game

- trolling on twitter

- trolling on facebook

- trolling on instagram

- trolling on youtube

nah, that's your forte...  don't even have most of those

 

btw, I love it how posting facts is considered "trolling".   Sadly, it's the new normal.

[grandthefttankV]

NeatoMan, on Jun 04 2019 - 15:24, said:

nah, that's your forte...  don't even have most of those

 

btw, I love it how posting facts is considered "trolling".   Sadly, it's the new normal.

Yes... anyone who disagrees with anyone is now a bully or a troll. Sad times we live in.

[Jryder]

NeatoMan, on Jun 02 2019 - 09:50, said:

So I shouldn't report facts because some people are stupid?

 

Not stupid.

 

Ignorant or too willing to accept something at face value perhaps.

[Copacetic]

Jryder, on Jun 04 2019 - 19:35, said:

 

Not stupid.

 

Ignorant or too willing to accept something at face value perhaps.

 

no it's definitely stupid.

[SimplyPzB2]

NeatoMan, on Jun 04 2019 - 15:21, said:

Here's the data filtered for only the blowout games.  If it's a blowout it seems that the favored team over performs the expected win chances

 

 

WHAAAAAAAT?!?!?!??!  But, but, but, but, but, I thought it was IMPOSSIBLE to 'overperform' statistical predictions?!?!?!?  

-

So in the 10% bracket, there were 36 battles and they won (1) of them - dam that sounds really fun, not.

So in the 15% bracket, there were 20 battles and they won (2) of them - dam that sounds really fun, not.

So in the 20% bracket, there were 34 battles and they won (2) of them - dam that sounds really fun, not.

So in the 25% bracket, there were 49 battles and they won (2) of them - dam that sounds really fun, not.

So in the 30% bracket, there were 68 battles and they won (12) of them - dam that sounds really fun, not.

So the above listed battle count is 207 battles, and they won (19) of them - dam that sounds really fun, not - especially when you consider these represent 18% of all battles. 

That's pretty much every 5th battle is a crap battle.

-

Yeah, but "I can't really tell the difference when playing these losses".  Who gives a crap.  THEY ARE GUARANTEED LOSSES.  Whether a snowflake can tell the difference or not is irrelevant.  It's like living in a city without flouridated water.  You can't tell your not drinking flouridated water, but after enough time your teeth rot out.  Just because you can't 'tell the difference' doesn't mean you aren't playing in battles WHERE YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO LOSE.  You know I couldn't tell I was eating 'pink slime' at taco bell either, but once I found out it was in there, I sure as hell stopped eating it.  (google 'pink slime', images, and see if you ever eat there again...)  

-

I would break out the battles above 70% but I think you all can see it would be a mirror image.  Tons of battles, with almost no losses, sounds really boring, it is really boring.  And that's another 18-20% of all your battles.

-

Neato keeps posting all these data sets and they keep showing the same thing.  Ranom MM makes 20% of all your battles guaranteed losses.  Random MM makes 20% of all your battles guaranteed wins.  Guaranteed losses suck and should not be in the game.  Guaranteed wins are boring and shoud not be in the game.  Using skill Balanced mm would eliminate these outlier battles, thus eliminated both guaranteed losses/wins.  AND WOULDN'T CHANGE A DAM THING ABOUT THE MAJORITY OF BALANCED BATTLES YOU ARE ALREADY PLAYING, except it would make 100% of your battles balanced.

[Nixeldon]

SimplyPzB2, on Jun 04 2019 - 14:19, said:

WHAAAAAAAT?!?!?!??!  But, but, but, but, but, I thought it was IMPOSSIBLE to 'overperform' statistical predictions?!?!?!?  

You still have no idea what that was showing! It's numbers, right?

[spud_tuber]

NeatoMan, on Jun 04 2019 - 08:21, said:

Here's the data filtered for only the blowout games.  If it's a blowout it seems that the favored team over performs the expected win chances

 

For those tempted by BudhaMath, I have comvinietly bolded the part he seems to have ignored in his analysis of the above data.  He's acting like the above data is all games rather than just blowouts. 

[NeatoMan]

SimplyPzB2, on Jun 04 2019 - 14:19, said:

"watch me totally butcher some numbers again."

My first reaction if I saw that data would be "something is wrong with your formula".   But unlike you I know where it's coming from and the context. 

 

I refuse to discuss anything dealing with numbers or statistics with you any more.  You have absolutely no idea how to handle them.  You are completely incapable of having a logical discussion when it comes to math.  You are on a completely different world

 

From now on you will get the following response from me every single time you post your nonsense

Edited by NeatoMan, Jun 04 2019 - 21:05.

[SimplyPzB2]

spud_tuber, on Jun 04 2019 - 20:33, said:

For those tempted by BudhaMath, I have comvinietly bolded the part he seems to have ignored in his analysis of the above data.  He's acting like the above data is all games rather than just blowouts. 

 

Go back and insert the 'correct' data into my post - then tell me if it changes my point at all...

NeatoMan, on Jun 04 2019 - 20:58, said:

My first reaction if I saw that data would be "something is wrong with your formula".   But unlike you I know where it's coming from and the context. 

 

I refuse to discuss anything dealing with numbers or statistics with you any more.  You have absolutely no idea how to handle them.  You are completely incapable of having a logical discussion when it comes to math.  You are on a completely different world

 

From now on you will get the following response from me every single time you post your nonsense

 

I would like to point out to Neato that posting personl information is agaist the forum rules, this includes self portraits... 

-

Also "I refuse to discuss anything dealing with numbers or statistics with you any more."...  I accepct your concession, thanks for playing...

[NeatoMan]

SimplyPzB2, on Jun 04 2019 - 18:22, said:

Go back and insert the 'correct' data into my post - then tell me if it changes my point at all..

Yes it does... you are wrong 

[NeatoMan]

SimplyPzB2, on Jun 04 2019 - 14:19, said:

WHAAAAAAAT?!?!?!??!  But, but, but, but, but, I thought it was IMPOSSIBLE to 'overperform' statistical predictions?!?!?!? 

OK now that I had a chance to calm down after your total display of idiocy, here is what that particular set of data is telling us:

 

When the underdog team beats a heavily favored team it usually doesn't do it by blowing out the better team...     that's all

[SimplyPzB2]

NeatoMan, on Jun 05 2019 - 01:59, said:

Yes it does... you are wrong 

 

You say I'm wrong, yet didn't 'fix' the data.  Someone knows he's wrong...