agrippastrilemma.8741 Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said: It doesn't devalue it's purpose...it would either refute or support the correlation. If your purpose is without flaws, then the correlation would be supported obviously by better data. It would support the conclusion of "they have made fewer PvP-relevant changes during the entire duration of PoF than they did during the entire duration of HoT or the entire duration of core, with respect to time" but not the conclusion of "they have made fewer PvP-relevant changes (specifically to the already-existing specializations) in the months leading up to EoD than they did in the months leading up to PoF or HoT", which is what the OP is about. Quote Of course, it's obvious here that the purpose of your study is an obvious skewing of data to show a correlation that is probably way less significant....which is probably why you are getting upset over someone fact checking you. Skewing data points to fit a purpose (like your time selection and i ignoring other factors)...is not how things are done in any evidence based thing you want to do It's like me being a detective and trying to find out how i can best pin the crime on you by generating false correlations with "coincidental" data like..."well you were at the store that day were you not, therefor you must be the criminal." or "Suspect is described with black hair... you have black hair therefor you must be the criminal." If you walked into my office and you gave me your conclusion from that set of data I would throw it in the trash and tell you to get better data, and so would anybody else with their wits about them. Incorrect, you are asking me to change data set in order to check a conclusion that you came up with. If you want to check that conclusion, go ahead and make your own thread. I am right and you are wrong. It really is as simple as that. Now please stop commenting on my thread and embarrassing yourself. Edited February 21, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 22 minutes ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said: It would support the conclusion of "they have made fewer PvP-relevant changes during the entire duration of PoF than they did during the entire duration of HoT or the entire duration of core, with respect to time" but not the conclusion of "they have made fewer PvP-relevant changes (specifically to the already-existing specializations) in the months leading up to EoD than they did in the months leading up to PoF or HoT", which is what the OP is about. And when your purpose runs contradictory to data is a red flag on the purpose. If your purpose was to state the obvious…Anet has said many times that there’s only 1 PvP Dev (CMC) and that dev has been creating the new specs for the expansion therefor less PvP balance changes, and a delayed balance patch. Your research says nothing we don’t already know, and in fact excludes those very relevant details and weighs all 5 months pre expansion as being the same. Anyway your responses just show a general lack of integrity. Again, you are upset you are getting fact checked and can’t cope with how the world functions. You’re not the first one I’ve bumped into that acts this way. If your conclusion is solid than I should draw that same conclusions using different data sets. does Anet not care about PvP…sure I actually think they don’t…but showing how many balance changes they did in 5 months is not how you prove that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippastrilemma.8741 Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said: And when your purpose runs contradictory to data is a red flag on the purpose. It does not. Quote If your purpose was to state the obvious…Anet has said many times that there’s only 1 PvP Dev (CMC) and that dev has been creating the new specs for the expansion therefor less PvP balance changes, and a delayed balance patch. Your research says nothing we don’t already know, and in fact excludes those very relevant details and weighs all 5 months pre expansion as being the same. Anyway your responses just show a general lack of integrity. Again, you are upset you are getting fact checked and can’t cope with how the world functions. You’re not the first one I’ve bumped into that acts this way. If your conclusion is solid than I should draw that same conclusions using different data sets. You have not "checked" any facts. You have not disproven anything I wrote in the OP, in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever. Also, this thread is about PvP-relevant changes. I am including skill/trait changes done by the PvE/general team (i.e. not the pvp/balance team aka CMC), which as it turns out, have also been very lacking in recent months as you can see. You say "that dev has been creating the new specs for the expansion", an excuse that I already mentioned in the OP - quote "People often excuse the lack of recent balance patches and general updates to PvP with 'they are working on an expansion. With this is mind...". Nothing is gained by you retreading tracks. Quote does Anet not care about PvP…sure I actually think they don’t…but showing how many balance changes they did in 5 months is not how you prove that. So in fact you do not disagree with the conclusion, and you do not even disagree with the data (as you haven't challenged it in any way), all you do is ask me to use a different data set to support a completely different conclusion that you made up. This is objectively true and anything you say to the contrary is objectively false. The only thing I am upset about is you derailing yet another thread with your obstinate nonsense. Edited February 21, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said: It does not. You have not "checked" any facts. You have not disproven anything I wrote in the OP, in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever. So in fact you do not disagree with the conclusion, and you do not even disagree with the data (as you haven't challenged it in any way), all you do is ask me to use a different data set to support a completely different conclusion that you made up. This is objectively true and anything you say to the contrary is objectively false. The only thing I am upset about is you derailing yet another thread with your obstinate nonsense. Enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics There’s a number of things wrong with everything you did based on this data. The data itself is probably fine…I trust that you counted right…but, it means practically nothing without a statistically significant and appropriate sample and of all the other factors involved which you ignored. That link will at least put you in the right place, as to how you should approach datasets, avoid statistical fallacies and draw appropriate conclusions about things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippastrilemma.8741 Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said: Enough. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics There’s a number of things wrong with everything you did based on this data. The data itself is probably fine…I trust that you counted right…but, it means practically nothing without a statistically significant and appropriate sample and of all the other factors involved which you ignored. That link will at least put you in the right place, as to how you should approach datasets, avoid statistical fallacies and draw appropriate conclusions about things. A whole bunch of meaningless fluff. Nice attempt though. Now please shoo. Edited February 21, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 14 hours ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said: Do you disagree with its content? not necessarily, but all of you people are redundant and its tiring to see people still trying so hard. give in! let it all go. just enjoy gaem while you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippastrilemma.8741 Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 Just now, Stand The Wall.6987 said: not necessarily, but all of you people are redundant and its tiring to see people still trying so hard. give in! let it all go. just enjoy gaem while you can. Yes yes, "just give up the game is not going to improve". You are right of course, but this is the most trite thing you can say at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 19 minutes ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said: A whole bunch of meaningless fluff. Nice attempt though. Now please shoo. https://i.imgur.com/1pVTPIo.png Literally your OP : Compares 5 months of data (probably 2 to 3 pvp balance patches) and says "Comparing Pre-Expansion patches shows how anet are neglecting PVP" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippastrilemma.8741 Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share Posted February 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said: https://i.imgur.com/1pVTPIo.png Literally your OP : Compares 5 months of data (probably 2 to 3 pvp balance patches) and says "Comparing Pre-Expansion patches shows how anet are neglecting PVP" The dataset is for the 5 months before each expansion (and including the expansion date itself) and the conclusion is for the 5 months before each expansion (and including the expansion date itself). I have explained this several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phokus.8934 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 I'm less concerned about the total number of changes made per balance pass but rather the number of changes corresponding to the effectiveness of each update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 21, 2022 Share Posted February 21, 2022 7 hours ago, agrippastrilemma.8741 said: Yes yes, "just give up the game is not going to improve". You are right of course, but this is the most trite thing you can say at this point. about as trite as the topic of omg pvp so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazsi.2734 Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 On 2/21/2022 at 1:08 AM, Stand The Wall.6987 said: another look how bad pvp is thread. hope one of the mods merges em all that would be funny lol. Oh look another comment. People comment and react, it's getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippastrilemma.8741 Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share Posted February 22, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said: about as trite as the topic of omg pvp so bad. Interesting that your last comment before this thread was this "lol they can't even get the most basic things right". Hmmmmmmm... Also I don't think you have "given in" and "let it all go". If you really didn't care anymore, you wouldn't still comment on the forums and on this thread. Edited February 22, 2022 by agrippastrilemma.8741 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Ketsu.4569 Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 (edited) It's true that Anet is not paying much attention to PvP this expansion, but the methodology here is flawed. Shear raw number of changes is not a good objective measure of how much attention something is getting. What matters is the impact that each individual change has. For instance, if they did something drastic such as making downstate no longer grant bonus HP in competitive modes, that would technically only be "one change" -one that would have an immense effect on the meta. Also, making too many changes can actually have an adverse effect with unforeseen consequences. Remember the clusterkitten that was post HOT meta? Yeah. EoD probably won't have that big of an impact at launch, and that may in fact be a good thing. Edited February 24, 2022 by Master Ketsu.4569 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazsi.2734 Posted February 24, 2022 Share Posted February 24, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Master Ketsu.4569 said: It's true that Anet is not paying much attention to PvP this expansion, but the methodology here is flawed. Shear raw number of changes is not a good objective measure of how much attention something is getting. What matters is the impact that each individual change has. For instance, if they did something drastic such as making downstate no longer grant bonus HP in competitive modes, that would technically only be "one change" -one that would have an immense effect on the meta. Also, making too many changes can actually have an adverse effect with unforeseen consequences. Remember the clusterkitten that was post HOT meta? Yeah. EoD probably won't have that big of an impact at launch, and that may in fact be a good thing. Unless they radically powered up/reworked the new specs in these last 3 months, the amount of announced changes aren't enough. Most(if not all) new e-specs will get eaten alive by the old ones. Why would a-net want to disappoint the huge influx of players with this? People will pick up the new shinies, repeatedly fail with them, than quit or go back to the old ones. Going to opposite way with overtuned new e-specs which get toned down after the release at least makes some sense(money). Doing this instead doesn't. Edited February 24, 2022 by Bazsi.2734 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithilwen.1529 Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 It's true that the new specs are way underpowered. Not only that, Mesmer contains a wish-list of nerfs. Such as "shatters" only firing forward and having a delay. ANET actually has a unique chance here to come out of this shining by buffing rather than nerfing the new specs. Imagine the (pleasant) shock when ANET delivered a raft of much needed upgrades. This might actually be clever PR maneuvering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 On 2/22/2022 at 1:01 AM, agrippastrilemma.8741 said: Interesting that your last comment before this thread was this "lol they can't even get the most basic things right". Hmmmmmmm... Also I don't think you have "given in" and "let it all go". If you really didn't care anymore, you wouldn't still comment on the forums and on this thread. its a difference of effort. i used to be a tryhard at it like you, but i gave up and only come here out of habit. at the end of the day the state of the game is not gonna change cuz the people making decisions have made it clear that they don't want it to change. don't go down with a sinking ship out of some false sense of hope or duty. i don't know how much you put into it, i used to put a lot into it, so it kinda pains me to see so many passionate people rushing in blindly only to run into a wall that won't budge. not saying being crusty about it is any better, but it would be wise to temper yourself and not put in so much that you come out of the exchange bitter. posting good ideas or at least ideas you think are good is always a good idea no matter the response, so no worries there, but to repeatedly stir the pot cuz you feel the game is slipping away is only gonna make your outlook on the situation worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashford.8540 Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 On 2/20/2022 at 5:40 PM, FrownyClown.8402 said: I think the " bring the player, not the build" philosophy is driving their balance decisions. Nerf every outlier and you eventually have an environment where every profession has multiple builds that work. This is bad in the long run because it will make anet more hesistent to make changes and lead to another stale meta. If they rotated different runes and amulets this could be a good comprimise without needing to touch builds as often. Thing is that philosophy only works in competitive online games not an mmo. The weakest fighter in a fighting game could easily curb stomp any opponent if the player is good enough. In an mmo, what dictates a fight is the player but also all the big ol math numbers on your screen, cc, mobility,utility, and some exceptions, like if billy is in your group providing bubbles with blankeys. If your class doesn't have the most math numbers, or CCs, or utilities, or sometimes billy the player doesn't really have much impact in a fight. Hoever, that's not why ANet refuses to balance, they just don't care, this expansion is just out of desperation after a failed expansion of their studio projects and massive layoffs. That's why ANet is throwing pvp in the bin along with fractals, and dungeons in favor of LFR and fishing. To bring in casuals, cause focusing on casual content never backfires as hard as making content for hardcore players Just look at Wildstar or the long long list of dead mmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now